IVF Nobel prize rant

Anasara

https://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/nobel_medicine

Of course they had to mention this, because the general public isn't ignorant enough about ART:

"In 2006, a 67-year-old Spanish woman made headlines around the world when she became a mother after using IVF technology to conceive twins. The uproar continued when she herself died only two years later."

We're not all 67 year olds.  99.99% of us are in our 20s, 30s & 40s, aka normal child bearing age.  We're your neighbors, co-workers, friends, etc.  We live in regular neighborhoods & have regular jobs, most of which do not give us IVF coverage through medical insurance.  So why do we need to mention this lady, or Octomom, who are NOT us?

And don't even get me started on the comments.

/end rant

pmarie33

regular people don't make headlines or high ratings.

 

 

Jenny829

That is beyond frustrating.  Because of all those idiots, people have the most misguided idea of what IVF is all about...

susanc07

i love that people have such strong opinions on a subject they likely know absolutely nothing about.

LTF525

People are idiots.

Dr.Loretta

Because it's part of the history of IVF

ETA: I read the entire article, and found it to be incredibly balanced. IVF is controversial to some people on a variety of levels, and has opened avenues for some people that the legal community hasn't caught up with to deal with some of the consequences. Having a few statements in there addressing the controversy IVF has brought up, while discussing the scientific breakthrough (both in the reproductive arena and other areas of science) and the reproductive options it presents isn't really that big a deal to me.

Serendipitie

susanc07:

i love that people have such strong opinions on a subject they likely know absolutely nothing about.

This.

Oh and FUUCK the fertiles.

susanc07

"The Vatican is opposed to IVF because it... ...often results in the destruction of eggs that are taken from a woman but not used."

The Vatican should ban periods too..."

 

tee hee...

roselln2

I'm a glutton for punishment so I read the comments. It didn't make me angry as much as it made me sad that there are so many uneducated people in this world.

katt3233

Serendipitie:

susanc07:

i love that people have such strong opinions on a subject they likely know absolutely nothing about.

This.

Oh and FUUCK the fertiles.

Word.

Mainer-in-Texas

Dr.Loretta:

Because it's part of the history of IVF

ETA: I read the entire article, and found it to be incredibly balanced. IVF is controversial to some people on a variety of levels, and has opened avenues for some people that the legal community hasn't caught up with to deal with some of the consequences. Having a few statements in there addressing the controversy IVF has brought up, while discussing the scientific breakthrough (both in the reproductive arena and other areas of science) and the reproductive options it presents isn't really that big a deal to me.

I thought that as well. In the context of the article, I don't think it was bad.

I stayed away from the comments because I knew they would piss me off!

yogisunam

I read the comments to the NYTimes article, and it wasn't nearly as bad as I've seen. They'll always be idiots, but people seem to be getting it.