ProWomanProLife

You are here: Home / Archives for IVF

On social taboos

by 1 Comment

A woman has a baby at age 70. Bravo?

IVF has revolutionised the way we look at infertility,” said Bishnoi. “Infertility is no longer a social taboo or a divine curse. It can be treated scientifically.”

I disagree. Clearly infertility is still a huge social taboo when you have a woman toughing out IVF at 70–out of sheer desperation for a child she won’t be able to pick up or care for because she is too old. This ain’t no success story, that’s for sure. (And while I’m ranting, neither are the 45-year-old Hollywood types doing the same thing.)

Nothing better to nag on

by 1 Comment

Triplets were born this past weekend to a 59-year-old woman who conceived through IVF (In Vitro Fertilization). Some say medical milestone. Others raise concerns.

…a child born to an older woman can become confused about the role of grandmother and mother.

Great; yet another loopy theory doctors will borrow when consulting 40+ women on abortion.

I’ll spare everyone the long version of Sarah and Abraham who had a child so old it made them LOL, but raise your hand if you were reared by your grandmother and turned out just fine. And am I the only one who can think of about a hundred worse things a child could grow up being confused about these days?

(For the record, I’m not advocating for no-holds barred IVF.)

Cold feet

by Leave a Comment

In the UK, there’s big debate over a new fertility bill. Here’s some recent news.

Among other things, the bill raises IVF issues like “savior siblings” (couples having a subsequent child as an organ or tissue donor for a sick older sibling) and animal-human hybrids.

Even Sir Liam Donaldson, the chief medical officer, seems to have reservations. He has spoken of the human-animal hybrids on which Shipley is placing her hopes as a “step too far”, warning that even scientists feel a “degree of repugnance” at the idea.

It is too late for ministers to back down: the legislation was in the Queen’s speech and is strongly supported by Gordon Brown.

Too late for ministers to back down? These sound like the sentiments of an uncertain bride on her big day. Sure the guests have arrived and the caterer has been paid, but call the wedding off before making a big mistake!

Button, Button, Where is the Button

by Leave a Comment

Wonderful science, always hard at work, trying to create a superior race! But here we find a couple who are fighting for the right to have a deaf child.

It is a cornerstone of modern society and law that deaf and hearing people have equal rights. If hearing people were to have the right to throw away a deaf embryo, then we as deaf people should also have the right to throw away a hearing embryo.

I find, as people, we’re awfully good at validating arguments when it’s all too convenient for our case. How many time has one said, on abortion, “Who knows if that aborted baby could have found a cure for cancer or AIDS,” only to hear back, “or it could have been the next Hitler.”

It’s true; to an extent, the point is moot. But the couple pulls at our heart strings, saying:

Some will be artists, some will be accountants, some may go to Oxbridge, following the path that several of my deaf friends have already beaten. If they had been conceived via IVF, and detected as deaf at that stage, then all would have been aborted before birth.

Suddenly this is only true for deaf embryos? A moment ago, they were requesting the right to discard hearing embryos.

I’m well aware that this is a case of discrimination but, in the end, every discarded embryo and every aborted fetus deserves such passionate advocacy. If they all can be recognized to have innate rights, it stands to reason that the deaf will not be left out.

Meta