# Daily Mail Article About IVF Babies and Birth Defects



## MissyMinx (Jan 3, 2010)

The Daily Mail Strikes Again.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1286420/Test-tube-babies-twice-likely-birth-defects.html

I just shouldn't read it, it's TOO irritating, and as for some of the anti-IVF comments underneath - words simply fail me!

Em.x


----------



## Shell30 (Jun 8, 2009)

I don't know why I even read it, especially the comments underneath make me so mad!


----------



## Blu (Jul 28, 2005)

I've only seen the title and not going to get myself worked up by reading it! Typical Daily Hate Mail


----------



## katie c (Jun 15, 2009)

not read any of the comments yet, but is there any about 'why don't they [infertile couples] just adopt?' 

or that the money would be better spent on ickle children with cancer or war veterans with heart problems (or similar  )


----------



## MissyMinx (Jan 3, 2010)

I'm not looking again for fear of riling myself to the point of ruining my evening, but yep - I'm fairly certain there were numerous 'they should just adopt' comments, along with a smattering of 'you shouldn't mess with mother nature' remarks, and plenty of 'why should the NHS provide IVF for anyone' complaints.

If the people who make those comments ever went through the hell that is IF - I'm sure they'd change their tunes pretty quickly.  And as for mother nature/natural selection (my blood's literally boiling!), well - I assume if they are unlucky enough to be struck down with an illness, they won't be turning to science, and specifically the NHS, for treatment!

Right, I'm going to try my best to forget about it because it just makes me seethe...

Sorry ladies, I'm thinking I shouldn't have even posted it.  It really is the Daily 'Hate' Mail.

Please don't think I'm wishing IF on anyone, as I'd absolutely hate to think of anyone having to go through this horrible experience, but should a journalist or editor who works at the Daily Mail experience IF, I would really like to hear their slant on their experience - it might be written with a different approach than their normal disapproving tone.  Why can they not give a balanced view?!  

Harumph!  

Em.x


----------



## katie c (Jun 15, 2009)

there aren't a huge amount of replies yet, but there are all those and more on the 'abortion after IVF' article

forgot the other old chesnut...these woman who gave up their child bearing years to have a fantastic career. i wish!   i just couldn't find a nice bloke!

what annoys me about the 'adoption' quoters, is the way they say 'why don't they just adopt one of the millions of orphans out there.' again i wish. nothing would make me happier than nipping down to the orphanage right now and just picking a baby


----------



## katie c (Jun 15, 2009)

ah. i didn't click on the disaply all button before posting the above...

some of those replies   so it goes to reason a 'sterile man will produce sterile sons' is it?

can you explain then why my H has severe MF, yet his dad fathered four children?


----------



## MissyMinx (Jan 3, 2010)

You're exactly right Katie - from the way some of the people remark, it's as though they think we can simply pop down to the local corner orphanage with a list -  'oh, I'll take two - one boy, one girl, both 4-6 weeks, curly brown hair and hazel eyes please, and be quick about it!'  

How can they imagine that we wouldn't love to merely put an order in for a child to love and nuture, and become part of our family, and have that dream become reality?!  Nothing would make me happier than to be able to offer a loving home, but even applying could take years.  I wish it was as simple as they infer it is.

They should count their blessings every day of the week that they don't have to walk a while in our shoes.

Em.x


----------



## HazelW (Mar 6, 2009)

They conveniently gloss over how small the risk actually is as well.  So 2% of "normal" babies have a birth defect - that means that 4% of IVF babies will have one.  Still 96% won't, which seems pretty high to me and a chance I'd be more than happy to take.  Grrrrr.


----------



## Caz (Jul 21, 2002)

The Daily Misogynist Mail's weekly quota of negative IVF stories has been met this week I see.  I'll just go chain myself back in the kitchen then. 

I'm not even going to bother to read it. Don't. You'll just wind yourself up.

C~x


----------



## katie c (Jun 15, 2009)

i vote we just laugh at the stoooopids. misogynist bunch of twunts

shall we hold a poll for the most outrageous comment?

i submit this one

_when you are creating a child through this method, with a fairly high chance of birth defects, because YOU want a child, It is a 100% selfish and self-centered act. __ People who decide to proceed with IVF with medical facts like we have in this article, *clearly do not posses the selflessness any good parent has instinctively

*  
_​


----------



## Shell30 (Jun 8, 2009)

I submit this one as one of the stupid comments.

'Having children through IVF is no different than ordering something online. When I meet people who have had children through IVF I know they are very insecure and 99% of the time it is done to save a relationship that will die a death in time.'

Although we could probably submit 99% of the comments as unfounded, thoughtless and down right stupid!


----------



## Mish3434 (Dec 14, 2004)

Here is another outrageous comment supplied by a Daily Wail reader

_Having children through IVF is no different than ordering something online. When I meet people who have had children through IVF I know they are very insecure and 99% of the time it is done to save a relationship that will die a death in time._
_- Elleni, London, 15/6/2010 01:02_

WTF!! who on earth are these people with these stupid arguments against IVF. I did not have IVF to save my relationship I had IVF because DH and I wanted a child! I also wouldn't class either myself or my DH as insecure and having met quite a few FF's I can confidently say the the same for them.

As for the article about the Birth defects I personally think its a load of twaddle to scare people. Yes some babies are born with Birth defects this has been happening since the beginning of time, a long long time before IVF was used. There is a risk with every pregnancy and always a risk of defects, not matter which way a child is conceived either natural or IVF the amazing science to how the cells divide and become a baby is totally awesome and unfortunately sometimes things go a little wrong. I believe these stories come about just because IVF babies are more documented than a naturally conceived baby.

Shelley x


----------



## Mish3434 (Dec 14, 2004)

Shell, snap on the comment, great minds think alike


----------



## Jumanji (Feb 13, 2008)

"The thing about IVF is that you are not messing with your own life, you are messing with someone else's. Someone who nature says is NOT supposed to be in existence due to some kind of problem with the mother (or father.) And we find throughout history and biology that mother nature is VERY good at her job.
- Ruru, Pompey, 14/6/2010 13:43"

Oh yes - Mother Nature is superb at deciding who should reproduce.  Karen Matthews, Josef Fritzl, Baby P's parents, Fred & Rose West - all fine examples of Mother Nature's brilliance in this area of her job.

One thing which is typically alarmist is that they don't distinguish between "birth defects" but just use the generic term.  Some birth defects are, according to earlier studies (although contradicted by others so who knows the truth?), slightly more common in IVF babies BUT they are very minor and correctable.  One of these is hypospadias (where a baby boy's wee hole isn't quite at the end of his front tail).  My nephew has this and will have a little operation to correct it later this year and then all will be fine.  I would hate to think that some people considering IVF read this and think that IVF risks horrific birth defects.  Even if (and this is debatable) there is a slightly increased risk, it is generally in the areas of very minor problems which are technically termed "birth defects".  

I am so glad that my sister and brother-in-law chose to "interfere with nature" so that I have my nephew and niece.  Just as I am glad my parents chose to "interfere with nature" when my dad had cancer last year so that I still have my dad.  And I think my baby son is glad that I chose to "interfere with nature" yesterday by cutting his fingernails so he wouldn't scratch himself.  And I expect everyone in my office is glad that I chose to "interfere with nature" this morning by putting clothes on.  These people need to face the fact that we all flout Mother Nature all the time cos she's actually pretty lousy at her job!


----------



## katie c (Jun 15, 2009)

LittleJenny said:


> "The thing about IVF is that you are not messing with your own life, you are messing with someone else's. Someone who nature says is NOT supposed to be in existence due to some kind of problem with the mother (or father.) And we find throughout history and biology that mother nature is VERY good at her job.
> - Ruru, Pompey, 14/6/2010 13:43"
> 
> Oh yes - Mother Nature is superb at deciding who should reproduce. Karen Matthews, Josef Fritzl, Baby P's parents, Fred & Rose West - all fine examples of Mother Nature's brilliance in this area of her job.


  wss

how about

_IVF babies are not natural and not actually meant to be, so it's obvious there are going to be problems! People shouldn't try to beat nature! If you can't have children, get a dog!

_  
​


----------



## cosmicgirl (Oct 2, 2009)

Shell30 said:


> I submit this one as one of the stupid comments.
> 
> 'Having children through IVF is no different than ordering something online. When I meet people who have had children through IVF I know they are very insecure and 99% of the time it is done to save a relationship that will die a death in time.'


Words fail me, this comment doesn't even make me angry I'm just astounded that someone with so little intelligence can actually read or write!


----------



## Mish3434 (Dec 14, 2004)

They posted my reply to the ingorant woman from London, now that a first they don't normally post my replies


----------



## kitten1 (Jan 1, 2007)

I've posted a reply.....

Let's see if they publish it. Don't normally.....


----------



## Mish3434 (Dec 14, 2004)

Kitten maybe they will, they did mine and they don't normally with mine either xx


----------



## ~Sapphire~ (Apr 14, 2008)

What a load of tosh!

Just been through and appropriately rated all the comments.  Good to see that the stupid comments have all the worst ratings.  Must therefore be majority of people with sense.  They just seem to love publishing these ridiculous comments.

Sx


----------



## Caz (Jul 21, 2002)

cosmicgirl said:


> Words fail me, this comment doesn't even make me angry I'm just astounded that someone with so little intelligence can actually read or write!


Well they are Daily Mail readers, you have to make allowances. 

You know this thread is so good... and bad. It's great because I am so beyond getting angry at this kind of thing and needing to explain away my life choices to others that I can laugh my socks of at those comments and the image those people are giving of themselves (and I think you might be on a winning formula - perhaps we should have a daily "Spot The Daily Mail reader's ill informed dig at IVF" thread as a permanent fixture). But I am also saddened for the same reason - becuase if anyone not British read those comments and took that as an example of what British opinions/attitudes and intelligence was like, I'd feel completely ashamed to call myself a Brit. Yes, that's what the Daily Mail does; it makes me feel dirty from being from the same country that produced that complete balls!

Well done to those who have responded and been published. 

C~x


----------



## Skybreeze (Apr 25, 2007)

katie c said:


> wss
> 
> how about
> 
> ...


You did make me giggle Katie!!!    hehehe!!! Got a dog even got 2, still want a baby! 

Some people really dont have a clue, if things were left to 'nature' people would died of silly things, let alone cancer and failure of kidneys ect....

IVF is natural, natural to us to have children! 

Natalie xxxx


----------



## kitten1 (Jan 1, 2007)

Wow! They published my response!! I am 'honoured'!! Lol


----------



## Essex Girl (Apr 3, 2005)

They ran the 'IVF causes birth defects' story some time ago and did not deign to publish my reply then.  

Even by DM comments standards, some of these are off the scale of bonkers.  So bad you have to laugh.  Mother Nature hasn't prevented the birth defect of being born completely ignorant.....

EG x


----------



## Mish3434 (Dec 14, 2004)

The comments have been well and truly FF'd now      go girlies, go girlies


----------



## PB (Aug 9, 2007)

comment submitted - i hope i get printed!


----------



## sallywags (Jun 27, 2005)

Lol ladies - i was going to read the article, but reading your comments has been more than entertainment enough!!

and katie c - i would just like to congratulate you on an astoundingly brilliant term for these idiots.... 

Twunt.

i love it and will now use it daily.


----------



## tholeon (Jun 25, 2007)

gosh i haven't even read it and I'm cross already!

I have an ivf baby and he was born with a serious birth defect. He had an operation to correct it and he is very well now. Gosh I'm pleased and lucky to have him! Oh how hideous a paper it is. xx


----------



## tholeon (Jun 25, 2007)

have commented too! xx


----------

