Posted on 12/26/2005 11:04:49 AM PST by Coleus
FINLAND, December 23, 2005, (LifeSiteNews.com) – 43 babies out of every thousand conceived using in vitro fertilization techniques are born with a serious deformity, according to yet another study indicating the dangers of IVF.
A report by Stakes, Finland’s National Research and Development Centre for Welfare and Health, found a significant increase in the rate of birth deformity among IVF infants. Normal rates would be 29 per thousand. In particular, the study found a higher rate of genital malformation among IVF boy babies.
There have been increasing numbers of studies linking infant health problems with IVF techniques over the past few years. Studies from a variety of sources have indicated significantly higher rates of birth defects, including genetic abnormalities, brain disorders, and developmental delays.
There is no conclusive research yet as to why the two are linked.
In vitro fertilization techniques cause the death of hundreds of thousands of babies in the earliest stages of development, discarded as “unsuitable” for a variety of reasons during the embryo selection process.
See related LifeSiteNews coverage:
IVF Babies up to 40% More Likely to Suffer Severe Birth Defects
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jan/05013107.html
Researchers Admit IVF Carries Higher Birth Defect Risk
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2003/sep/03092206.html
Study Finds Brain Problems in IVF Children
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2002/feb/02020802.html
IVF Babies at Greater Risk for Genetic Disorder
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/aug/04081707.html
IVF "scientists" often use abortion as a safety net to eliminate "mistakes".
We have to realize these people regard IVF children as mere commodities. There is much money to be made in this technology, and children that aren't 'perfect' are a threat to their industry. Best to kill them and protect their earnings.
I suppose it's logical: if they dispose of a new life a few days after fertilisation, why not dispose of a new life a few months later?
It's a vital part of the Culture of Death.
Later pingout.
Fiscal conservatives who are not social conservatives eventually become social conservatives or cease being fiscal conservatives. Or they just toke up and play pretend.
I'm working off the assumption that post was a slap at me. Of course, it reads like you are the one doing the toking. I have stated one, and only one social viewpoint. Chiefly, that I support abortion only when it applies to rape, incest or the Mother's health.
I say this realizing the arrows that will be coming my way, fired from the likes of Coleus.........ie Mr. "More may be found here". Whatever happened to my party being one with a big tent?
I did not even read your comment, I was commenting on Jeff's comment about social/fiscal conservatives.
If the shoe fits, wear it.
:-)
Moral Absolutes Ping.
Lotta information about IVF - In Vitro Fertilization - and why it is not a Good Thing. Why it is cruel, it is glorified abortion, viewing living beings - living human beings - as commodities, to be bought and sold, carved up in "embryonic stem cell research" (and considering the lies just revealed about that...), discarded - children are just objects.
It is not a good thing. If people cannot conceive, there would be numbers of babies available for adoption if there were fewer abortions. And this should always be remembered - We Can't Always Get What We Want.
Freepmail me if you want on/off this pinglist.
Note: Getting what we "want" is not the route to happiness. The purpose of life is not to make an "I want" list and then check all items off. The purpose of life is to prepare for transcendence.
I am making sense. You have some of your facts dead wrong about IVF.
My facts are right on the money. Are you reformed, conservative or Orthodox?
I am not very knowledgeable about politicians other than in my own state (and even then...) or the suits in DC. As far as I can tell, the vast majority of them - well, I don't want to get into a big diatribe this late at night.
But when they call slightly reducing the rate of growth "cutting", it's all over. IMO people use the words "fiscal conservative" just to make points. None of them really are, that have any power. If anyone was really fiscally conservative (I really am), fedgov spending would be cut by 50%.
They say "fiscal conservative" because it appeals to people, not because they are. And to be a fiscal conservative and social liberal is nothing but a lie. I don't know, Coleus, most people are insane. At least that's what it looks like this late at night. I just read some of your profile page and liked the quotes from (was he a cardinal?) who stated that happiness does not come from material goods or pleasures of the flesh, it only comes from what he termed religious conviction. I might describe it as one's relationship with God and serving Him. All else is shadow, phantasmagoria, dissolving like mist, and all mixed with pain and fear. Shallow. Doesn't touch the soul, which is who we are.
Thanks for your advice on my happiness, Dr. Phil. How many babies have you adopted? My old buddy Cardinal Coleus hasn't done that either. Of course, he "mentors" yuts or some such thing, which of course is a great thing. However, one to two hours a week isn't the same as 24/7 is it?
Once again, ALL of our embryos were placed in my wife. The purpose of my life is raising my children to be God fearing, well versed, considerate and conservative (LOL) young men.
It has nothing to do with me.
In summation, Dr. Phil thanks so much for you telling me how to be happy as well as the purpose of life. Where can I find your book?
I just realized the "LOL" in my post could be mis-construed. It was placed there with the realization that some yuts automatically go against there parents convictions until coming around, much as myself.
Wow, big outburst and I never addressed you personally. Okay, so your world view differs from mine. I say preparing for transcendence is the goal of like, not a list of "gimmee - I wants".
That would be "goal of LIFE".
Your view on IVF differs from mine. Your tangent about IVF being "cruel", "commodities" and "glorified abortion" are what I was responding to. That, and of course your part about what is the "path to happiness" and the "purpose of life"......stated not with an IMO, but as fact acccording to you.
When you say IVF is all those things, I DO take it personally. Your sweeping assumptions about it are worth responding to, IMO.
Once again, how many babies have you adopted?
If IVF produces embryos which are not used for creating an actual born child, but are either frozen indefinitely, thrown away, or used for research, then it is callous, cruel and inhumane in the extreme.
Regarding my statements on the purpose of life, you're free to post your viewpoint. Go right ahead. My stated purpose of life is the same in every monotheist religion in the world, and even some that aren't like Buddhism.
Living solely for whatever we can acquire while living on this planet and disregarding life afterwards, is like going on a three minute shopping spree (like TV shows I saw as a kid), but you don't get to keep the loot. You have to leave it in the store.
No one is demanding that you agree; state your viewpoint. Why not?
(And as far as your demands to know whether I have adopted any children; no. I raised my own kids, and have cared for others; but ill health prevents me from taking on any more full time, although we've given it a lot of thought.)
And I am rasing mine.........that were conceived via IVF. To call the procedure that gave me my children what you and Caleus have is callous to say the least. What am I supposed to do? Just as you are (presumably) proud of your children, so am I of mine. I am a Christian, nontheless everyone probably has a different take on the meaning of life. Isn't that the age old question?
You castigate me and my family for the utilization of IVF, and that is your right. However, I hear the phrase "adoption" thrown around interestingly enough by folks that don't have adopted children. Walk the walk is all I am saying. In the meantime do not insult me by saying my children are the product of a vile procedure. You may think it and say it but I reserve the right to fire back.
You stated that your IVF procedure did not create embryos that were thrown away, frozen indefinitely, or used for research. Great. The above cruel destruction of small human embryos are what I call callous, cruel and inhumane. If no IVF ever committed those I listed, then my objections would be small indeed.
You do realize that most IVF do kill embryos, right?
Not everyone can do everything they think is good. Should I not say that adoption is good just because I cannot personally adopt? That's not logical.
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.