Since you say that IVF is a decision that should be left up to “doctor and patient,” you too believe that IVF is a patient’s right. How are our opinions different, and why is the same opinion from me liberal while yours is libertarian?

In context, IVF used to be illegal. We both I gather believe that was wrong. Making it legal makes it a right when it didn’t used to be. The issue is overturning a prohibition, not minting a right.

And yes, as a practical matter, rights can be revoked. It happens all the time. People used to have the right to smoke indoors, now they don’t.

I understand your concern that once a restriction on a right is removed, there are often clowns who take it to the next step and demand that the taxpapers pay for others to exercise these rights. In fact, according to this article, that’s what is already happening with IVF. My opinion is that this second public payment step doesn’t automatically follow from the initial step, and this needs to be stopped in the case of IVF. My impression is that we agree about this.

If we want to go there, as a practical matter, yes, cost is a factor. It always is in the real world. If IVF could be performed free, I’d have no qualms about the Caja handling it. The more though it costs, the more qualms I have publicly financing it. The issue becomes balancing what’s nice to have against other things that are also nice to have with what’s affordable. Since the Caja currently doesn’t pay for Viagra or lots of less recreational medicines and procedures, I can’t see how it ought to pay for what I regard as the luxury and expensive procedure of IVF.

But before you get on your high horse and tell me that this makes me a wobbly ass liberal prostitute, note that libertarians are just as sensitive to costs. They favor government providing the infrastructure necessary for a good business climate, but the fact is that governments can’t afford to build all the roads, bridges, seaports, and airports that businesses would like to have (even if they all would enhance the business climate). Libertarians must therefore also prioritize government spending based upon some assessment of the bang gotten for the buck. That they do so doesn’t make then whores in my book, although it might make them wobbly ass.

My request is that you wait until I really do take a non-libertarian liberal position before you land into me. You will certainly have ample opportunities, since I have been know to take liberal positions. This though isn’t your opportunity. As much as I regret to say this, we actually agree that IVF ought to be a right that isn’t publicly funded.

Despite what you might think about my or anyone else’s “liberal” views, there is often a distinction between a right and the obligation for the state to pay for it.

I for example favor the right of (most) citizens to own a gun, but don’t favor the state buying the guns for them.

And as it happens, there are lots of medical things that the Caja won’t pay for, including for example Viagra. I favor the Caja restricting the services it provides on the taxpayer’s dime, even as I favor the right of people to buy those services.

I was unaware until I read this article that legalizing IVF included the provision that the Caja pays for it. Once I was made aware, I opposed the public payment, though still believe that IVF ought to be legal.

I fail to find the inconsistency you do.

Can’t IVF be made a right, sort of like plastic surgery, without the Caja having to pay for it (as it doesn’t generally pay for plastic surgery)?

This is after all a public health system that struggles with too few resources to attend adequately to sick people. Burdening it with the obligation of paying for IVF doesn’t seem right.