Skip to comments.IVF babies 'are a third more likely to develop childhood cancer'
Posted on 10/09/2013 7:21:31 AM PDT by Morgana
Children born as a result of IVF are a third more likely to get cancer, a major study found.
Scientists said those born after fertility treatments were 33 per cent more likely to have childhood cancer.
They were 65 per cent more likely to develop leukaemia and 88 per cent more likely to develop cancers of the brain and central nervous system.
The study suggests fertility treatment may change the way certain genes function when they are passed from parent to child in a process known as genomic imprinting.
These faults in genes are linked to childhood cancers, the Danish researchers said.
They warned these changes could be triggered by aspects of fertility treatment such as exposure to hormones, semen preparation, freezing embryos, growth conditions of embryos or delayed insemination.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Surprise, surprise. Bad things happen when you decide to buck nature.
I know someone who just had triplets, naturally. People r shocked at how healthy and big they r. They came home from the hospital within days with no machines. I just know it is b/c they were part of God’s plan. Triplets seem to run in this family.
I didn’t post the comment that sounds judgmental, but thought I’d chime in.
I do not blame people for using fertility treatments of any kind and I have no moral judgment about IVF. However, I have concluded from what I have read and seen that there is a strong link between IVF and birth defects, and I know that most people doing IVF are unaware of this.
There is a strong link, I do believe that most (not all) jump into IVF without really thinking about the morality of the issue. All IVF’s require selective abortion. Serious morality issue.
I wish them the best.....the babies afterall, have nothing to do with the way they were concieved...
You probably already know that people who DO find IVF morally objectionable, would also wish the children well. There’s no personal animus involved (or shouldn’t be) in a moral evaluation of the parents’ actions.
so humans playing G-d is not a good thing after all; who’d a thunk it was ever true /sarc
Maybe that, maybe that the desire to have a child is so strong.
IVF is relatively new. This could just be the tip of the iceberg. What are the later-in-life ailments going to be? Will it extend to future generations?
Personally, I feel that anything that messes with life just seems wrong. Gene splicing, DNA modifications, human (even other animal) transplants, IVF, genetically modified crops and so on. We're messing with life as it evolved. Intuitively, it just seems like a real bad idea, playing God and all of that.
Yes, you are.
Interesting! Are they identical triplets? Those parents are in for quite a time of it, but what a blessing!
The Catholic Church has definitively taught all artificial contraception and conception is morally wrong based on its theology and on principle. As always, eventually that two thousand year old Church is proven true and wise by even the consequences of doing that which she teaches is wrong. Can’t flim flam mother nature.
I would expect all kinds of problems to surface as a result of IVF.
To begin with, the natural way of conceiving weeds out defective ova and sperm. If a person cannot produce normal ova or sperm, they have a genetic flaw that, realistically speaking, should *not* be preserved in future children. Some IVF methods involve directly injecting sperm DNA into an ovum—directly bypassing a strong element of natural selection.
If the sperm or ova are so genetically flawed that they cannot fuse naturally to produce an embryo, I would also expect a high chance of other genetic flaws in these cells. Even with natural conception, the incidence of genetically flawed embryos is quite high—over 90% are incapable of further growth. I do not see how bypassing the natural selection mechanisms can possibly produce children who are as healthy as naturally conceived children.
Furthermore, by enabling people to reproduce despite genetic flaws that prevent them from naturally conceiving, these flaws are not selected out of the population; I would expect to see a higher proportion of people who are incapable of conceiving naturally with each subsequent generation. Taken to the extreme, we could see a world where the poor people who cannot afford assisted reproduction are healthier in all respects than the affluent people who can afford those interventions.
That old commercial comes to mind—it’s not nice to fool Mother Nature.
I agree and would never wish anything but the best for the precious babies! I hope I didn’t sound like I would want babies to suffer just because they were IVF. My point is people should know all the facts b4 making the decision. Like recognizing abortion and breat cancer link, something that is acknowledged in Europe but the left refuses to acknowledge it here. Or birth control linked to breast cancer.
Two r identical, all girls. They thought they would have one more, bringing the total to 2 kids! They r struggling financially but have great family support who r taking 8 hour shifts. So please keep them in your prayers.
“All IVFs require selective abortion. Serious morality issue.”
I admit it is the first time I heard of it.
What the hell does that mean? And I guess right back at ya.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.