Posted on 03/23/2009 1:00:26 PM PDT by GonzoII
Couples having IVF treatment are to be warned for the first time that their children have a higher risk of genetic flaws and health problems.
Official guidance will make clear that test-tube babies could be up to 30 per cent more likely to suffer from certain birth defects.
The alert has been ordered by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, the Government's watchdog on fertility issues.
It means that the one in six British couples estimated to be infertile will have to balance their desire for a child against concerns that IVF methods could lead to life-threatening defects or long-term disabilities.
A number of studies have already raised concerns over the growing use of the procedure, which accounts for more than 10,000 births in Britain every year.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
IVF should be illegal, IMHO.
NO!
Who’da thunk?
what people should be asking is WHY are the infertility rates so high?
until that question is answered, buying a distiller is a seriously good idea.
I bought one 4 years ago, and let’s just say I’m glad I did.
Well, there are the obvious problems - scar tissue from STDs, and bodies ravaged by years of chemical-abortifacient [birth control pill] use and surgical abortions. [Also there's this weird evidence which indicates that sperm counts might be declining.]
But I think that far and away the biggest problem here is that "professional" women buy into the myth that "you can have it all" and try to put off their childbearing into their mid-30s, which is when a woman's fertility tends to drop off a cliff as she heads towards menopause.
Best time for a woman to make babies is in her teens and twenties - in general, when looking at the population as a whole, fertility just plummets to more or less nothing at all after the age of about 35.
Women waiting to have children is the primary culprit.
Fertility just doesn't turn off like a clock swith at menopause. Fertility steadlity declines as a woman ages. I saw a study years ago (can't remember where) that showed that by the age of 30 a significant percentage (can't remember the exact number) of women were effectivly infertile. By 35 over 50% were.
I saw this in the early '80s and remember being shocked by what a huge number it was. I can remember thinking that I should have gone into medicine and become a fertility doctor, because in a few years all those career women that put off having kids till after they started a career (and after they turned 30) would create a huge demand for fertility doctors.
And it did.
Or is it when babies come by the bushel basket, they are more likely to have defects?
“...fertility just plummets to more or less nothing at all after the age of about 35.”
Can you guarantee that for me and my better half?
The problem with not waiting, though, is that most women (AND men) in their teens and twenties (at their most fertile) aren’t anywhere near financially stable enough (or often mentally/socially stable enough) to start a family.
And things cost so much now that unless you get REALLY lucky with your husband you will probably both have to work. The days of the one-income family are over for a lot of people, even those who would rather stay home.
These days, to get a decent job you usually need a college degree. You’ll get out at around age 21 or 22 LOADED with debt. Work 5-6 years to establish your career and try to pay off some of those student loads and now you’re suddenly 27 or 28.
You have a really small window at this point to have kids before your fertility starts to drop off.
A friend of mine once said that “we really need another decade of our twenties just to get the bills paid and the work life settled before having kids”.
Young fertility probably worked a lot better back when we lived in tribes, when the young had the kids and the oldsters brought them up.
LQ
Without knowing what this controls for, it doesn’t really tell you much about the cause. Does this take age into account? Does it take into account that women undergoing IVF and other fertility treatments also sometimes get other treatments to prevent miscarriages or might have genetic problems that contributed to their infertility? There are some practices, however, which I can see contributing to this. In particular, ICSI forces a sperm into an egg which could bypass natural protections against birth defects. Does this differentiate ICSI vs. normal IVF?
What bothers me is the whole thing is UNnatural.
The world is dying - we need every baby we can get our hands on.
Our Peter Pan adolescent-idolatrous culture is [at least in theory] just fine for boys [as long as they don't lose their sperm counts], but it's death for girls.
My advice for twenty-ish girls would be to marry up by ten or fifteen years: Look for a guy in his late 30s or early 40s who is emotionally mature and financially capable of supporting you.
Don't waste your fertile years on some pimply-faced twit who doesn't give a damn about you and who will drop you like a hot potato when the going gets tough.
Find a real man who is ready and willing to give you babies.
That’s really terrible; I thought IVF had a better track record than that, although those in the medical community that promote IVF likely do their best to suppress any negative news. Any time you mess with the Almighty’s design, there is the potential for disaster.
ping to #13
Some of the things they are doing are more unnatural than others.
You too,huh?
I meddle ‘cause I care.
Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner! Great post!
LOL!
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.