Multiple births are no longer always random events - there has been a huge increase in multiple births since IVF has been available - surely this is a choice which comes with an accompanying risk of multiple birth whose affordability should be planned for?
So you'd like to push IVF even further out of the reach of many couples, by increasing the already substantial costs involved? So fertility treatments should be the preserve of the (even more) rich?
IVF is not a choice for anyone. It's a last resort.
micheller; Your language like twin parents should be 'targeted' in the opening line and calling me 'silly' twice now, I take as agressive. Won't be withdrawing my opinion on that thanks.micheller
micheller; Just interested as to why it seems so personal to you. Actually you know what, scrap that, I'm not micheller;
Not a tiny subgroup at all (so therefore very relevant). From a quick search for available data, I reckon 20% to 25% is a conservative estimate of the percentage of multiple births that are due to IVF treatment.So, you have a 1% chance of multiples randomly and 20-40% if using IVF?
So, yes the chances are higher IF you use IVF.
But of people with multiples, those having used IVF would be a tiny subgroup. I don't really see the relevance?
Of course it's a choice - plenty of people choose not to go down the IVF route. And I really don't believe that couples choosing IVF even look at post-birth costs or benefits when deciding whether to go for another cycle - if they have the money now and the desire to try again, they will.So you'd like to push IVF even further out of the reach of many couples, by increasing the already substantial costs involved? So fertility treatments should be the preserve of the (even more) rich?
IVF is not a choice for anyone. It's a last resort.
I have plenty for empathy for others, it's just that we, as a country, can't afford all the 'nice to have' benefits anymore - we are broke.It's sad that a lot of this thread seems to show such lack of empathy to others.
Just FYI, italics and underlines generally make text harder to read than plain text.Where exactly did I call you silly twice? Get your facts right! And what would you suggest I say rather than targeted? Softly approached perhaps?
I in fact wrote " the idea is silly, and IT is rather silly;though for some reason you seem to think I am speaking about you personally!!
The extra childcare is understandable as paying for two in a crèche may be hard to take on at the time,however those who have kids a year apart still end up paying the same amount...
I have plenty for empathy for others, it's just that we, as a country, can't afford all the 'nice to have' benefits anymore - we are broke.
Not a tiny subgroup at all (so therefore very relevant). From a quick search for available data, I reckon 20% to 25% is a conservative estimate of the percentage of multiple births that are due to IVF treatment.
Why should I when my post is extremely relevant to this thread? How can you not understand this?Em why don't you start a thread on those issues ?This is not about TDs salary's or bondholders,try stay on topic and eh,start a thread about what concerns you.
No they don't.
I understood that creches do not allow you to retain a place for free?For example- have your first child, and if you're working say you go back to work for a few months when pregnant and are then off again for a second child and take both out of childcare therefor paying 0 creche fees for the second leave. Then the older child hits the ECCE scheme and school a full year earlier thus reducing costs.Versus..
I would have thought most working parents in fact leave the child in the crèche,as they have to pay for it anyway?
So take two kids age 13 months and 3 months in a creche..is this not double the crèche fee?Logical then that any parent with more than one child should be subsidised by the tax payer.Have twins, and take a double hit on childcare costs all at once after returning to work from one maternity leave, and you may not be able to afford another child in close succession. As in my example there could be 16k in the difference of twin creche costs for one year.
Really, try to see the other side here. You may not agree but the arguements are quite clear!
Also there are a lot of parents of twins who are in fact not working,yet they still get the money..
Why should I when my post is extremely relevant to this thread? How can you not understand this?
If it wasn't for TDs Salaries and faceless bondholders etc, we wouldn't have to make any cuts.
Can you not see the connection there?
Just FYI, italics and underlines generally make text harder to read than plain text.
Calling someones arguements 'silly' is essentially calling them silly, that's not difficult to get. And now underlining your whole response- is again a little agressive. Calm down, please!
As I said, I've given my points and if you don't care to see the other side, that's your own perogative. Maybe they should remove Child Benefit and give tax credits like the UK instead?
this would save our government around €4 million a year, not very much when we are borrowing €20bn a year.
So, we just have to find 4999 similar things to also cut.but everything little helps. 4m saved here, another 4m saved from another scheme and suddenly you've now got 8m. remember the old saying "look after the pennies and the pounds look after themselves"... its still a true one.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?