Em & Lo's RSS Feed Em & Lo's Daily Email Feed Be Our Facebook Friend! Follow Us on Twitter!

Good Vibes Summer Lubes

Buy on Amazon Kindle!

Amazon's Sexy Spring Dresses


Will Teary-Eyed, Face-Holding, Baby-Making Sex Become Obsolete?

Thu, May 27, 2010

News, Research

photo by Blyzz

According to a new report in the journal Reproductive BioMedicine (what, you’re not a subscriber?), IVF conception could become routine for thirty-somethings within a decade. Buh-bye, baby-making sex, hello doctor! The report claims that IVF technology is advancing so quickly that soon it will be possible to produce embryos with almost a 100% success rate — and even horny 16-year-olds who are being stupid about birth control don’t have that kind of outcome. “Natural human reproduction is at best a fairly inefficient process,” says John Yovich, a co-author of the report. “Within the next five to ten years, couples approaching forty will access the IVF industry first when they want to have a baby.”

Hmm… well, unless the technology somehow becomes a lot cheaper, we don’t quite see why that would happen. Sure, we’re thrilled to hear that assisted reproduction is making leaps and bounds — this is excellent news for women who’d like to postpone motherhood until they’ve made some headway in their career, or women who don’t want to be treated like crazy baby-hungry fiends just because they’re over thirty and still on the dating scene. But still, wouldn’t you at least give it the ol’ college try before checking out IVF?

Read the rest of this post on SUNfiltered

, , , ,

 

2 Responses to “Will Teary-Eyed, Face-Holding, Baby-Making Sex Become Obsolete?”

  1. doubletee Says:

    Hmmmm. I’ve this nagging feeling somewhere in the pit of my stomach, or back of my head, that there’s some higher order reason why the tried and true method isn’t 100% successful, and that humans probably shouldn’t toy with it. I’m sure there are very good reasons to go the IVF route. Maybe it just shouldn’t be the routine route. None of my business, though, and I certainly don’t advocate removing the option for anyone.

  2. Jenn Says:

    I’m not a fatalist, and I don’t believe in the grand divine plan, or destiny really, But some part of me always felt that infertility was a counterbalance to all of the people who have children they don’t want. This person has a baby they don’t want? Hey that couple wants a kid and can’t have one biologically! Catastrophe diverted. And as the article suggests, just because pregnancy is less likely over 35 doesn’t mean it’s so unlikely that you should just shell out the equivalent of your house (before it’s value collapsed) before giving it a full year (tracking ovulation and all- not just the stick it in and pray method).


Leave a Reply