If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC)   Researchers warn that IVF drugs could bring you downs   (bbc.co.uk) divider line 102
    More: Scary, IVF, genetic disorders, gene duplication, ovaries, genetic material  
•       •       •

7595 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Jul 2011 at 1:19 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



102 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-07-04 01:14:37 PM
Maybe not being able to give birth naturally is a sign you shouldn't be reproducing.
 
2011-07-04 01:20:32 PM
BRUCE!
 
2011-07-04 01:23:16 PM
oh well, life goes on.
 
2011-07-04 01:23:27 PM
Shakes tiny fist at lordofcheese...

I'll tell you once more before I get off the floor...
news.bbcimg.co.uk
 
2011-07-04 01:25:11 PM

eddyatwork: Maybe not being able to give birth naturally is a sign you shouldn't be reproducing.


Maybe not being able to see without glasses is a sign that you shouldn't be allowed to drive.
 
2011-07-04 01:30:27 PM
But unlike "classic" Down's syndrome which is often seen in the babies of older women who conceive naturally, the pattern of genetic errors leading to Down's in the IVF eggs was different and more complex.

And this led the researchers to believe that wonder if it was the fertility treatment that was to blame, and to look further into the matter.


/FTFThem
 
jvl
2011-07-04 01:31:20 PM

natgod: eddyatwork: Maybe not being able to give birth naturally is a sign you shouldn't be reproducing.

Maybe not being able to see without glasses is a sign that you shouldn't be allowed to drive.


+1. Would read biatchslap again.
 
2011-07-04 01:31:31 PM

eddyatwork: Maybe not being able to give birth naturally is a sign you shouldn't be reproducing.


The fact that there's a whole industry based around the fact that people are unable/unwilling to love a child that didn't fall out of their crotch disturbs me. If you're that selfish, you shouldn't be having kids.
 
jvl
2011-07-04 01:33:58 PM

Crackers Are a Family Food: eddyatwork: Maybe not being able to give birth naturally is a sign you shouldn't be reproducing.

The fact that there's a whole industry based around the fact that people are unable/unwilling to love a child that didn't fall out of their crotch disturbs me. If you're that selfish, you shouldn't be having kids.


It is much harder to adopt a child than you imagine. I knew a couple who succeeded with IVF after many many years of trying; all the while failing to adopt despite being rich, well educated, and stable.
 
2011-07-04 01:33:59 PM

thelordofcheese: BRUCE!


Over in two!
 
2011-07-04 01:35:30 PM
All of the women in the group were older than 31 and had been given drugs to make their ovaries release eggs ready for their IVF treatment.

The researchers believe their work could also help identify which women might be better off using donor eggs for IVF instead.


Women who donate eggs are given drugs to stimulate their ovaries to release eggs. So the difference would be in the age of the bio mother. Which would negate this entire article.

This article is teh fail.
 
2011-07-04 01:38:35 PM
FTFA: All of the women in the group were older than 31

I think we've found the real answer.

The likelihood of using IVF goes up with age. The likelihood of having a child with Downs goes up with age. Therefore IVF gives you a child with Downs?

Hrm, no.

A lot of the eggs left in the ovaries when you get older are genetically flawed with no help from IVF. They're trying to blame the problems that happen naturally on the one thing that could help them overcome their infertility.

I'm sure many of you have stopped reading, since the level of ignorance surrounding infertility and IVF is monstrous.
 
2011-07-04 01:39:37 PM

namegoeshere: All of the women in the group were older than 31 and had been given drugs to make their ovaries release eggs ready for their IVF treatment.

The researchers believe their work could also help identify which women might be better off using donor eggs for IVF instead.

Women who donate eggs are given drugs to stimulate their ovaries to release eggs. So the difference would be in the age of the bio mother. Which would negate this entire article.

This article is teh fail.


Hey dumbass---the drug used to stimulate the ovaries to release more eggs IS the IVF drug.. It's real simple don't play God. It's selfish to wait to have a baby till your body does not want to then end up like Octomom..
 
2011-07-04 01:40:34 PM

Crackers Are a Family Food: eddyatwork: Maybe not being able to give birth naturally is a sign you shouldn't be reproducing.

The fact that there's a whole industry based around the fact that people are unable/unwilling to love a child that didn't fall out of their crotch disturbs me. If you're that selfish, you shouldn't be having kids.


You don't know many women, do you?

I'm shocked. I don't know why they wouldn't want to talk to you.
 
2011-07-04 01:42:46 PM

Cup_O_Jo: namegoeshere: All of the women in the group were older than 31 and had been given drugs to make their ovaries release eggs ready for their IVF treatment.

The researchers believe their work could also help identify which women might be better off using donor eggs for IVF instead.

Women who donate eggs are given drugs to stimulate their ovaries to release eggs. So the difference would be in the age of the bio mother. Which would negate this entire article.

This article is teh fail.

Hey dumbass---the drug used to stimulate the ovaries to release more eggs IS the IVF drug.. It's real simple don't play God. It's selfish to wait to have a baby till your body does not want to then end up like Octomom..


If you don't know what you're talking about, you probably shouldn't post.
 
2011-07-04 01:42:56 PM
Annnnd most of the IVF treatments are the result (according to TFA) of people waiting longer to have families. You know, waiting until they graduate college, get their first job (which pays jack for most/many careers), getting a better job, buying a house, getting married, *then* having a kid when they're in their mid-30's.

Waiting til your 30's to have your first kid when biology is not on your side, but thinking that is the best way to do things, is pretty messed up.

/but remember, if you have a kid at 18 or 19 you're part of the "teen pregnancy" problem!
//you know, the *adult* teen pregnancy problem. ::rolls eyes::
 
2011-07-04 01:43:20 PM

Cup_O_Jo: namegoeshere: All of the women in the group were older than 31 and had been given drugs to make their ovaries release eggs ready for their IVF treatment.

The researchers believe their work could also help identify which women might be better off using donor eggs for IVF instead.

Women who donate eggs are given drugs to stimulate their ovaries to release eggs. So the difference would be in the age of the bio mother. Which would negate this entire article.

This article is teh fail.

Hey dumbass---the drug used to stimulate the ovaries to release more eggs IS the IVF drug.. ..


Are you calling me a dumbass? Because if so, you just failed reading comprehension 101.
 
2011-07-04 01:44:12 PM

eddyatwork: Maybe not being able to give birth naturally is a sign you shouldn't be reproducing.


Came to say this. Glad someone got that out of the way right off the bat.
 
2011-07-04 01:47:21 PM

dave2198: Crackers Are a Family Food: eddyatwork: Maybe not being able to give birth naturally is a sign you shouldn't be reproducing.

The fact that there's a whole industry based around the fact that people are unable/unwilling to love a child that didn't fall out of their crotch disturbs me. If you're that selfish, you shouldn't be having kids.

You don't know many women, do you?

I'm shocked. I don't know why they wouldn't want to talk to you.


Seeing as I am one, I'm not sure what your point is.

I'm just always surprised by the number of people who are so opposed to adoption. I always wonder what would happen to their biological children if they were to become "defective" in some way. I think it's stupid to spend all this effort to create more human beings when we already have so many of them who need homes.
 
2011-07-04 01:51:02 PM

cuzsis: Annnnd most of the IVF treatments are the result (according to TFA) of people waiting longer to have families. You know, waiting until they graduate college, get their first job (which pays jack for most/many careers), getting a better job, buying a house, getting married, *then* having a kid when they're in their mid-30's.

Waiting til your 30's to have your first kid when biology is not on your side, but thinking that is the best way to do things, is pretty messed up.

/but remember, if you have a kid at 18 or 19 you're part of the "teen pregnancy" problem!
//you know, the *adult* teen pregnancy problem. ::rolls eyes::


The problem is, since we have piss-poor sex education in this country, most women don't know that they will run out of eggs by the age of 41. They don't know that your body starts losing eggs before you're even legally allowed to have sex. They don't know that a real decline starts around 31.

Our failure to educate people about sex is also a major cause of teen pregnancy. But when people say "teen pregnancy", we're generally talking 15-17.

In other words, you can thank conservatives for problems at both ends of the baby-making spectrum. What do they have against sex ed?
 
2011-07-04 01:51:54 PM

dave2198: FTFA: All of the women in the group were older than 31

I think we've found the real answer.

The likelihood of using IVF goes up with age. The likelihood of having a child with Downs goes up with age. Therefore IVF gives you a child with Downs?

Hrm, no.

A lot of the eggs left in the ovaries when you get older are genetically flawed with no help from IVF. They're trying to blame the problems that happen naturally on the one thing that could help them overcome their infertility.

I'm sure many of you have stopped reading, since the level of ignorance surrounding infertility and IVF is monstrous.


Go read the article. It has nothing to do with observed increase in occurance. They actually found more and different genetic defects in the eggs of women who had taken these drugs than in other eggs from women the same age who had not taken them.
 
2011-07-04 01:52:46 PM

Urinal Cake Mix: eddyatwork: Maybe not being able to give birth naturally is a sign you shouldn't be reproducing.

Came to say this. Glad someone got that out of the way right off the bat.


If you get lung cancer, it is a sign that God doesn't want you to breathe anymore.

You shouldn't fight it. Just lie back and accept it.
 
2011-07-04 01:53:20 PM

dave2198: FTFA: All of the women in the group were older than 31

I think we've found the real answer.

The likelihood of using IVF goes up with age. The likelihood of having a child with Downs goes up with age. Therefore IVF gives you a child with Downs?

Hrm, no.

A lot of the eggs left in the ovaries when you get older are genetically flawed with no help from IVF. They're trying to blame the problems that happen naturally on the one thing that could help them overcome their infertility.

I'm sure many of you have stopped reading, since the level of ignorance surrounding infertility and IVF is monstrous.


There is so much truth in this post that my laptop can barely handle it.
 
2011-07-04 01:54:04 PM

thelordofcheese: BRUCE!


LOL
 
2011-07-04 01:55:37 PM

eddyatwork: Maybe not being able to give birth naturally is a sign you shouldn't be reproducing.


That's retarded.
 
2011-07-04 01:57:09 PM

cuzsis: Annnnd most of the IVF treatments are the result (according to TFA) of people waiting longer to have families. You know, waiting until they graduate college, get their first job (which pays jack for most/many careers), getting a better job, buying a house, getting married, *then* having a kid when they're in their mid-30's.

Waiting til your 30's to have your first kid when biology is not on your side, but thinking that is the best way to do things, is pretty messed up.

/but remember, if you have a kid at 18 or 19 you're part of the "teen pregnancy" problem!
//you know, the *adult* teen pregnancy problem. ::rolls eyes::



There is a huge disconnect between what biology wants and society wants when it comes to having children, but with the cost of child rearing these days I can see why people wait. It is just really hard these days for a young family to have children when they are at the biologically optimum age and give them a good life and a college education. With costs rising and wages stagnating over the last few decades, I can see why so many couples wait until they are established in their careers and making a combined 100k before even trying to have a family. Part of this is the huge pressure to be the perfect parents, but a lot of it also comes down to the inability of the average family to make sure in a lot of areas without both parents working full-time white collar jobs.

Yes, biology says you should probably have that kid in your late teens or early twenties, but good luck trying to pull that off without having to use WIC or food stamps to get by, especially if having children gets in the way of college.
 
2011-07-04 01:58:22 PM
don't worry, scrote
 
2011-07-04 02:03:36 PM

Moonfisher: dave2198: FTFA: All of the women in the group were older than 31

I think we've found the real answer.

The likelihood of using IVF goes up with age. The likelihood of having a child with Downs goes up with age. Therefore IVF gives you a child with Downs?

Hrm, no.

A lot of the eggs left in the ovaries when you get older are genetically flawed with no help from IVF. They're trying to blame the problems that happen naturally on the one thing that could help them overcome their infertility.

I'm sure many of you have stopped reading, since the level of ignorance surrounding infertility and IVF is monstrous.

Go read the article. It has nothing to do with observed increase in occurance. They actually found more and different genetic defects in the eggs of women who had taken these drugs than in other eggs from women the same age who had not taken them.


If the difference in defects was recognizable, then why didn't they state the % difference? I see no numbers comparing the IVF to a control group. Come to think of it, there is no mention at all about a control group. They simply state that the occurance was higher (trust us!). This could be shoddy journalism, but I'm doubting it since the article includes other relevant numbers.

Also, the eggs came from a total of 34 women. You can't really count the large # of eggs as a good sample size if they all came from a total of 34 women. I have yet to hear of 34 being a good sample size for any study.

Not convinced. Isuues, this study has.
 
2011-07-04 02:07:09 PM

dave2198: Urinal Cake Mix: eddyatwork: Maybe not being able to give birth naturally is a sign you shouldn't be reproducing.

Came to say this. Glad someone got that out of the way right off the bat.

If you get lung cancer, it is a sign that God doesn't want you to breathe anymore.

You shouldn't fight it. Just lie back and accept it.


No, what I'm saying is that after a certain point, a woman's body just can't reproduce anymore. A lot of people are saying, "well adoption is hard." No, adoption of a WHITE baby is hard. I went to school with a lot of Koreans that were adopted by white families that love them as if they were their own flesh and blood. It's just that so many people are hellbent on passing their own DNA on in this world that they risk having "broken" children.

As a woman, if I couldn't have a child without someone shoving a turkey baster up my hoo-hah, I'd feel a little dejected and somewhat like a failure. However, I would never turn to IVF as an option because that just strikes me as one bodily function that science should just leave alone.

But if you want me to open a can of worms, I think that science tries a little to hard to prolong the elderly's lives. Not to go all The Giver on anyone, but I think society would be a little better off without so many goddamn old people.
 
2011-07-04 02:08:26 PM

eddyatwork: Maybe not being able to give birth naturally is a sign you shouldn't be reproducing.


Blatantly Machiavellian. Your jib Sir. I like it.
But who then shall count to our potatoes?
 
2011-07-04 02:13:09 PM

Urinal Cake Mix: As a woman, if I couldn't have a child without someone shoving a turkey baster up my hoo-hah, I'd feel a little dejected and somewhat like a failure. However, I would never turn to IVF as an option because that just strikes me as one bodily function that science should just leave alone.


We're all about coulda, not shoulda. (new window)
 
2011-07-04 02:14:47 PM
There's this couple I know that adopted an infant with a few issues, like slow to potty train, long time case of separation anxiety, uses more non-verbal cues later than other kids. Nothing major, except in the minds of perfection seekers.

So, a few years ago, they tapped into their home equity to go through IVF. They could have used the money to get their first one some speech therapy and maybe some socialization. Instead, now they have an infant with a lot of medical issues, and the kindergarten kid is spending a lot of time in waiting rooms, while Mommy and Daddy get more bad news about the infant.

Yeah, it's a stupid and sad outcome. They are always sending out prayer requests, so I just throw up a quick one for the oldest kid, and another one for me to be less judgemental.
 
2011-07-04 02:15:13 PM

Urinal Cake Mix: dave2198: Urinal Cake Mix: eddyatwork: Maybe not being able to give birth naturally is a sign you shouldn't be reproducing.

Came to say this. Glad someone got that out of the way right off the bat.

If you get lung cancer, it is a sign that God doesn't want you to breathe anymore.

You shouldn't fight it. Just lie back and accept it.

No, what I'm saying is that after a certain point, a woman's body just can't reproduce anymore. A lot of people are saying, "well adoption is hard." No, adoption of a WHITE baby is hard. I went to school with a lot of Koreans that were adopted by white families that love them as if they were their own flesh and blood. It's just that so many people are hellbent on passing their own DNA on in this world that they risk having "broken" children.

As a woman, if I couldn't have a child without someone shoving a turkey baster up my hoo-hah, I'd feel a little dejected and somewhat like a failure. However, I would never turn to IVF as an option because that just strikes me as one bodily function that science should just leave alone.

But if you want me to open a can of worms, I think that science tries a little to hard to prolong the elderly's lives. Not to go all The Giver on anyone, but I think society would be a little better off without so many goddamn old people.


Except for the fact that it is becoming harder and harder to adopt overseas. Many countries are restricting the practice, while some are considering banning all foreign adoptions.

Also, adoption can cost about the same as an IVF cycle (if not more), so when given the choice between dealing with passports, international flights, living in the host country for x # of weeks or months, international red tape, language barriers, lawyers, and the high likelihood that you're dealing with a shady adoption agency that could kill the process at any time (sorry, the better business bureau does not exist everywhere...)..... versus going to see a doctor within a day's drive and finding a way to get your ovaries to release eggs they may already have inside of them, and conceiving with your own partner..... IVF actually seems more natural.
 
2011-07-04 02:16:03 PM

Mad_Radhu: cuzsis: Annnnd most of the IVF treatments are the result (according to TFA) of people waiting longer to have families. You know, waiting until they graduate college, get their first job (which pays jack for most/many careers), getting a better job, buying a house, getting married, *then* having a kid when they're in their mid-30's.

Waiting til your 30's to have your first kid when biology is not on your side, but thinking that is the best way to do things, is pretty messed up.

/but remember, if you have a kid at 18 or 19 you're part of the "teen pregnancy" problem!
//you know, the *adult* teen pregnancy problem. ::rolls eyes::


There is a huge disconnect between what biology wants and society wants when it comes to having children, but with the cost of child rearing these days I can see why people wait. It is just really hard these days for a young family to have children when they are at the biologically optimum age and give them a good life and a college education. With costs rising and wages stagnating over the last few decades, I can see why so many couples wait until they are established in their careers and making a combined 100k before even trying to have a family. Part of this is the huge pressure to be the perfect parents, but a lot of it also comes down to the inability of the average family to make sure in a lot of areas without both parents working full-time white collar jobs.

Yes, biology says you should probably have that kid in your late teens or early twenties, but good luck trying to pull that off without having to use WIC or food stamps to get by, especially if having children gets in the way of college.


Someone who has a kid with down syndrome will use more social services than a teen mother. JUST SAYIN.. Were not talking about women in their 30's...
 
2011-07-04 02:17:00 PM
Raising an adopted kid is cookoo.
 
jvl
2011-07-04 02:18:14 PM

Urinal Cake Mix: No, what I'm saying is that after a certain point, a woman's body just can't reproduce anymore. A lot of people are saying, "well adoption is hard." No, adoption of a WHITE baby is hard. I went to school with a lot of Koreans that were adopted by white families that love them as if they were their own flesh and blood. It's just that so many people are hellbent on passing their own DNA on in this world that they risk having "broken" children.


Again wrong. Adoption, including overseas adoption, is very hard to accomplish and you don't know what you are talking about.
 
2011-07-04 02:22:22 PM

Cup_O_Jo: Mad_Radhu: cuzsis: Annnnd most of the IVF treatments are the result (according to TFA) of people waiting longer to have families. You know, waiting until they graduate college, get their first job (which pays jack for most/many careers), getting a better job, buying a house, getting married, *then* having a kid when they're in their mid-30's.

Waiting til your 30's to have your first kid when biology is not on your side, but thinking that is the best way to do things, is pretty messed up.

/but remember, if you have a kid at 18 or 19 you're part of the "teen pregnancy" problem!
//you know, the *adult* teen pregnancy problem. ::rolls eyes::


There is a huge disconnect between what biology wants and society wants when it comes to having children, but with the cost of child rearing these days I can see why people wait. It is just really hard these days for a young family to have children when they are at the biologically optimum age and give them a good life and a college education. With costs rising and wages stagnating over the last few decades, I can see why so many couples wait until they are established in their careers and making a combined 100k before even trying to have a family. Part of this is the huge pressure to be the perfect parents, but a lot of it also comes down to the inability of the average family to make sure in a lot of areas without both parents working full-time white collar jobs.

Yes, biology says you should probably have that kid in your late teens or early twenties, but good luck trying to pull that off without having to use WIC or food stamps to get by, especially if having children gets in the way of college.

Someone who has a kid with down syndrome will use more social services than a teen mother. JUST SAYIN.. Were not talking about women in their 30's...


How do you figure? If a couple can afford IVF, they can likely afford to take care of a child with Downs. Also, teen mothers are more likely to be on (or later end up on) WIC, food stamps, and welfare.
 
2011-07-04 02:23:52 PM

namegoeshere: Cup_O_Jo: namegoeshere: All of the women in the group were older than 31 and had been given drugs to make their ovaries release eggs ready for their IVF treatment.

The researchers believe their work could also help identify which women might be better off using donor eggs for IVF instead.

Women who donate eggs are given drugs to stimulate their ovaries to release eggs. So the difference would be in the age of the bio mother. Which would negate this entire article.

This article is teh fail.

Hey dumbass---the drug used to stimulate the ovaries to release more eggs IS the IVF drug.. ..

Are you calling me a dumbass? Because if so, you just failed reading comprehension 101.


Yes because you apparently missed the whole article:
The findings, presented at the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology's annual conference, come from a UK study of 34 couples undergoing fertility treatment.

NOT JUST RANDOM WOMEN--We are not talking about surrogates we are talking about actual couples and the findings. Next time you try to go off topic and get called out for it.
 
jvl
2011-07-04 02:24:08 PM

cuzsis: Waiting til your 30's to have your first kid when biology is not on your side, but thinking that is the best way to do things, is pretty messed up.


You're confused. Evolution on our species mainly occurred when we were very primitive and mostly died before 35. Evolution doesn't give a flaming fark if you are a good parent, only that you BE a parent. As a result, evolution did not optimize the process of 39 year olds giving birth.

While some are leaving the babymaking until a bit too late in life, a 19 year old having a baby is just plain stupid since nothing of value is lost by waiting until 30 when you are a better person, have a stable career, and are well entrenched with a spouse of the gender you prefer.
 
2011-07-04 02:26:42 PM

jvl: Urinal Cake Mix: No, what I'm saying is that after a certain point, a woman's body just can't reproduce anymore. A lot of people are saying, "well adoption is hard." No, adoption of a WHITE baby is hard. I went to school with a lot of Koreans that were adopted by white families that love them as if they were their own flesh and blood. It's just that so many people are hellbent on passing their own DNA on in this world that they risk having "broken" children.

Again wrong. Adoption, including overseas adoption, is very hard to accomplish and you don't know what you are talking about.


I'm not talking solely about overseas adoption. Both my father and my aunt were adopted from orphanages/agencies in Mexico. Which is funny, because my dad refuses to acknowledge it and I didn't know he was adopted until he was 12.

I also said simply "white" babies. Do you know how many unadopted non-white children there are in the United States? It's horrifying.

dave2198:
Except for the fact that it is becoming harder and harder to adopt overseas. Many countries are restricting the practice, while some are considering banning all foreign adoptions.

Also, adoption can cost about the same as an IVF cycle (if not more), so when given the choice between dealing with passports, international flights, living in the host country for x # of weeks or months, international red tape, language barriers, lawyers, and the high likelihood that you're dealing with a shady adoption agency that could kill the process at any time (sorry, the better business bureau does not exist everywhere...)..... versus going to see a doctor within a day's drive and finding a way to get your ovaries to release eggs they may already have inside of them, and conceiving with your own partner..... IVF actually seems more natural.

IVF is $10-15k per session, which doesn't always guarantee a baby. I'd rather run the risk of adoption than risk having a downs baby.
 
2011-07-04 02:27:49 PM
And goddamnit, I broke html.

/goes to the corner
 
2011-07-04 02:27:59 PM

Urinal Cake Mix: dave2198: Urinal Cake Mix: eddyatwork: Maybe not being able to give birth naturally is a sign you shouldn't be reproducing.

Came to say this. Glad someone got that out of the way right off the bat.

If you get lung cancer, it is a sign that God doesn't want you to breathe anymore.

You shouldn't fight it. Just lie back and accept it.

No, what I'm saying is that after a certain point, a woman's body just can't reproduce anymore. A lot of people are saying, "well adoption is hard." No, adoption of a WHITE baby is hard. I went to school with a lot of Koreans that were adopted by white families that love them as if they were their own flesh and blood. It's just that so many people are hellbent on passing their own DNA on in this world that they risk having "broken" children.

As a woman, if I couldn't have a child without someone shoving a turkey baster up my hoo-hah, I'd feel a little dejected and somewhat like a failure. However, I would never turn to IVF as an option because that just strikes me as one bodily function that science should just leave alone.

But if you want me to open a can of worms, I think that science tries a little to hard to prolong the elderly's lives. Not to go all The Giver on anyone, but I think society would be a little better off without so many goddamn old people.


No, adoption of A BABY is hard. Colour is irrelevant. My brother and his wife went through 10 years of IVF while trying to adopt a child of any colour, and they were not considered suitable to adopt - both university educated, both in good careers, non-smokers, non-drinkers, home-owners, not crazy, but white, so not allowed to adopt a child who wasn't white - it's apparently about the child not knowing what their culture is if their parents are a different colour. Thankfully they eventually got their own little IVF miracle (7 years old now), and are a happy, happy family. Would've been happy with a child in need of a home 18 years ago when all this started, but there's a brown or yellow person out there who could've had a stable loving home but weren't allowed to, to preserve their right to their own culture. So that makes it all OK.
 
2011-07-04 02:29:18 PM
Mr. B has a friend who spent a bundle of $$ on IVF in order to have 2 kids. Know what happened next?

3rd is due any day now ~ conceived the old fashioned way. This isn't so unusual, is it?
 
2011-07-04 02:32:54 PM

namegoeshere: Women who donate eggs are given drugs to stimulate their ovaries to release eggs. So the difference would be in the age of the bio mother. Which would negate this entire article.


Yes and no. We've known that older mothers are more likely to have Down's children for at least 30 years now.
 
2011-07-04 02:38:25 PM

IronHorse: Raising an adopted kid is cookoo.


It depends on the rationale. Obviously passing on genetics was a failed option.
But they can selfishly choose to pass on memetics. Kinda like blogging but with a captive audience. Teach the imperative of supply side baby Jesus because the world needs more of that perpetuated in their own likeness. On the other hand perhaps they have room and funds and just want to express caring and compassion in this world for someone who needs it. There are plenty who do. But if it is truly just a non-selfish act of altruism they could avoid a lot of legal hassle if they chose to get a Nam Vet out from behind a shopping cart instead.
 
2011-07-04 02:39:08 PM

ShirleySerious: thelordofcheese: BRUCE!

Over in two potato!


ftfy
 
2011-07-04 02:40:31 PM

Cup_O_Jo: namegoeshere: Cup_O_Jo: namegoeshere: All of the women in the group were older than 31 and had been given drugs to make their ovaries release eggs ready for their IVF treatment.

The researchers believe their work could also help identify which women might be better off using donor eggs for IVF instead.

Women who donate eggs are given drugs to stimulate their ovaries to release eggs. So the difference would be in the age of the bio mother. Which would negate this entire article.

This article is teh fail.

Hey dumbass---the drug used to stimulate the ovaries to release more eggs IS the IVF drug.. ..

Are you calling me a dumbass? Because if so, you just failed reading comprehension 101.

Yes because you apparently missed the whole article:
The findings, presented at the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology's annual conference, come from a UK study of 34 couples undergoing fertility treatment.

NOT JUST RANDOM WOMEN--We are not talking about surrogates we are talking about actual couples and the findings. Next time you try to go off topic and get called out for it.


Wow, you need a remedial reading tutor. Here, I'll go slow: This is a line from TFA:

The researchers believe their work could also help identify which women might be better off using donor eggs for IVF instead.

Donor eggs come from surrogates, so yes, we are talking about them. The TFA is talking about them.

The third paragraph in TFA is

Now UK researchers, who looked at 34 couples, think drugs used to kick-start ovaries for IVF in older women disturb the genetic material of the eggs.

Now let's jump to your post:

Cuo_O_Joe the drug used to stimulate the ovaries to release more eggs IS the IVF drug

Which agrees completely with my post:

namegoeshere Women who donate eggs are given drugs to stimulate their ovaries to release eggs.

Bringing us back to my post, since both surrogates and non-surrogates (IVF recipients, using their own eggs) receive the same drugs to stimulate the release of eggs:

So the difference would be in the age of the bio mother.

Which we have known. For many, many years.

I did indeed read the entire article. If you did also, it apparently was above your reading level.
 
2011-07-04 02:45:22 PM

Dwight_Yeast: namegoeshere: Women who donate eggs are given drugs to stimulate their ovaries to release eggs. So the difference would be in the age of the bio mother. Which would negate this entire article.

Yes and no. We've known that older mothers are more likely to have Down's children for at least 30 years now.


Here's the very last paragraph in TFearmongeringA:

"It's a little unclear as to whether it's the medication itself that is affecting the egg quality or whether it's the medication that is just forcing the issue and allowing eggs that nature's quality control system would have otherwise excluded, to arise."

So is IVF damaging eggs? Or simply allowing naturally nonviable eggs to become viable?
I suspect the latter, which as you said brings us right back to maternal age.

In any case, this article sucks so badly that I went back to check if it wasn't the Daily Fail, and much more study is needed before we go anywhere near causation.
 
2011-07-04 02:45:31 PM
I saw a good looking woman with downs the other day.. I felt bad for my thoughts. Had to correct myself.
 
2011-07-04 02:48:13 PM

Cup_O_Jo: Hey dumbass---the drug used to stimulate the ovaries to release more eggs IS the IVF drug.. It's real simple don't play God. It's selfish to wait to have a baby till your body does not want to then end up like Octomom..


are you running for president? of the FDA?
 
Displayed 50 of 102 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report