OK, gavor.
I will gladly give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you happened to state that communist/nazi ideology
without realising what it was. If that is the case, I APPOLOGISE for the tone of my post.
I will try explain my points as logically as I can, no hard feelings.
Since when was this an American only board? I've seen people from of a lot of different countries posting here. My statements did not address your right to post here. Just that it was a stupid thing to suggest a totalitarian market-control* strategy in a country based on free market economy.
I may have a right to post beef-preparation recipee on a hindu website or a stock investment advice on a North Korean one - I would be an idiot to do so! Any call "let's discriminantely prevent someone from buying something" would sound like an oxymoron to american public. Markets, demand, customers - it's the best thing that can happen - opportunity for profit and progress, for new jobs and satisfied demand. Why would anyone refuse that? Even arguments to limit firearms, drugs and abortions are not based on discrimination or shortage.
* I love that expression - "market control". In USA "control" usually meants "extermination" or "reduction" - as in pest control, weight control, etc.
IVF treatment - while really quite simple - is a rather new development, quickly advancing. It is expencive and not assured. It often costs over $10,000 including few thousand worth of drugs per attempt - though small compared to the costs of raising a child. It is in great demand since many career women delay child bearing which increases chances of infertility. Also homosexuals use it to have children. In case of males it involves obtaining donor eggs and using a surrogate mother to carry the baby.
Doctors are attracted to that filed, colleges prepare more of them and the pharmaceuticals are only to happy to produce more of the required drugs. All that, combined with research (fueled by the profits), economies of scale and growing competition make the treatment more affordable and widely available every month.
That is the way it is working in US.
Other countries - Australia, Canada, etc. while more or less free market succumbed to the "feel good" temptation and introduced price controls on medical care and drugs. I would not say that your healthcare system is as nationalised as the one in former soviet union, but it is much closer in that direction.
With free capitalist market if you have a shortage/cost problem, all you have to do is wait or actually encourage the "culprits" - the extra money they make will attract competition that much faster and the problem get's resolved.
In a socialist economy when something seems too expencive, the restrictions are imposed - usually proce controls. Economical reasons for increase in production are eliminated and the bureaucrats in chrge of the system do not care to implement the increase - why would they care. They will get access if they need to or they can always go to US for treatment. It's the average Joe that experiences the shortage. Of course all those progress-crippling decisions were made with the best intentions at the time - to make something more available right away.
It was the same in Soviet Union. Allowing the people to open new business to satisfy demand would mean giving them freedom - out of the question.
Planning for the centralised introduction of the new stuff required work and competence - and they personally were not interested.
So the only solution remaining was to limit the demand - decide what the people should want! So with our "free" healthcare we did not have access to methods common in the west and what we had, we often had to pay bribes to get - some "free" healthcare!
As a little point of interest for your fact starved post, we have a conservative government. You can label it what you want - I had "democratically elected government" in Soviet Union myself
. But if what you say -
This is a real topic down here, a lesbian couple really is(or was) lobbying to get access to IVF - is true, then your country is more totalitarian then the Soviet Union in this respect. Not only having good money and being a tax-paying citizen is not enough to buy a product/service one wants, you regulate whether someone should live or not!
Besides the personal rights, a person who is barred from having a child is as good as dead. What obligation does such person have to society? What stake does he/she have in the future of the society? What can society demand from such person? You think that it is an accident that suicide terrorists come from cultures where the practice of polyginy drastically cuts chances of many males to have children?
Your country may still have 1.1% populatin growth. Most western societies are on the decline. In US's 0.9% growth rate is 1/2 due to the immigration - mostly from 3rd-world countries - and 1/4 due to birth in families of immigrants from 3rd world countries. The rest 1/4 is probably due to our own welfare mothers. Having more children in the families of educated working people is a huge benefit - whatever the sexual orientation.
In US the court considers the adoption applicants for an existing child in carge of the state, may try to regulate abortion which may or may not be murder, but imposing limitations on breeding based on discrimination!? Even chinese impose it equally due to overpopulation, not because some people are better. Nazi are the only ones who actually did that in modern history.
Even if the children of homosexuals were guaranteed to be homosexuals, would they be any less valuable members of society? Recall all geniuses who were gay! How about the Alan Turing who made huge advances in science and saved millions of lives in WWII by breaking german codes!
Of course if you pose a question that having a child by one person necessarily prevents another one from having a baby due to shortage - then you have a need for decision. But that is the fault of your society as there is no reason for supply not to equal demand. The government would love to have one more power over us - right to decide who lives and who doesn't!
Here is the "communism" of your remarks:
No. I was saying IVF was set up for couples... Do you own an IVF clinic? If so, you can set it up for anyone you want (if the laws allow you to discriminate between customers). Who decides what the other clinics were set up for? It is implied in your statement that
someone is entitled to decide who deserves treatment and who does not and that no extra clinics should be opened to accomodate the demand from the "wrong" customers.
You
do[/b] argue for reducing the number of paying custommers in order to reduce the demand - based on your cultural preferences that have nothing to do with the actual quality of children raised by homosexuals as compared by "normals". Even if that "quality" was somehow your concern which it obviously isn't.
Of course you may feel like you are entitled to make the decision because your taxes subcidise the healthcare in your country and your government regulates it - but that only makes you more responcible for the supply shortage. And actually constitutes communism. First nationalise something, then decide who gets access.
Lesbians have chosen a lifestyle that excludes them from having children...
Obviously it does not. Neither it does male homosexuals. It is you who want to exclude them from having children by barring their access to IVF. I bet you do not have a problem if a gay doctor performes the same IVF.
Is it so hard to mind your own business and let pople decide what to do - whether to buy, sell, produce, research, have kids, etc? It is to some.
In all the totalitarian societies the shortage was the fault of the government restrictions but the blame was cast on some group to divert the public anger.
In this respect your remarks are not so much communist as nazi. The communists blamed the political "class" enemies - capitalists, bourjeois and their "sympathisers", saboteurs, traitors, "leftists", "rightists", etc.
Nazis are the ones differentiating between people by their biology - mentally disabled, gays, gypsys, jews, subhuman, etc.
So you get my gist - wether intended or not you are not in good company - despite your likely good intentions. I respect you desire to have an intelligent discussion and hope this post clears my points in a non-offencive way.
If you are really concerned about your people getting access to this wonderfull treatment, you should work towards making it more available, not restrictive. You should have enough of it not only for any australian who wants it but available and cheap enough to serve people from other countries - it will bring you country a lot of money as well as good karma. Someone conceived in an australian clinic is less likely to wish a war with you.
This post is not as clear as it could be due to time restrictions, but I hope I was civil. 
miko
