The success rate for pregnancies conceived by IVF is quite low, compared to that for those conceived naturally. Some deformations, e. g.: of the genito/urinary tract, are far more common with IVF. Chromosomal aberrations, for example, are 7.7 times more common for IVF babies carried to term than they are with babies conceived naturally.
Motherless babies — Do we need or want them?
The IVF procedure outlined in the Telegraph article even lauds the possibility of self-cloning without eggs, which, in view of the costs of IVF procedures that will eventually be developed to that end, will without a doubt create much good will with potential gay couples who have sufficient means to be able to pay for them.
Nature puts logical constraints on unnatural means of conception. It does not necessarily forbid them, but it makes them impossible or at least less viable. In other words, they are — either immediately or in the longer term — evolutionary dead-ends. Not so with medical research that makes the unnatural natural, normal or even desirable — usually in the pursuit of perhaps knowledge but most certainly profit.
What is the success rate for creating a viable baby without a human egg? It must be less than the IVF success rate for producing viable babies. In 2008, the success rate seemed to have leveled off at around 27 percent. Did it improve at all since then, and will the success rate for egg-less, same-sex conception be better? Common sense suggests otherwise.
The research has not yet progressed to make an estimate possible, not even for the mouse stage of the experimentation, even though the Telegraph article states, “In the study, 30 mouse pups were born with a success rate of 24 per cent,” and then continues to assert that, “This compares with a 1 per cent to 2 per cent success rate for offspring created by the Dolly the Sheep method of cloning by transferring DNA to donated eggs,” which is a bad comparison. The proper conclusion should have been that same-sex-cloning in mice, starting without an egg, is three percent less successful at the embryo stage than heterosexual IVF in humans when using egg and sperm.
It appears that, at least officially, no attempts were made yet to establish the viability of human embryos created without human eggs. That may be a good thing, as the tests that have so far produced 30 viable mouse pubs permit absolutely no conclusions as to the success rate with viable human babies. It appears that none of the mouse pubs were examined for all of the deficiencies that may occur when hoping that IVF will produce normal humans. IVF is not as proficient with that as is conception by natural means. It stands to reason that considerably more deficiencies will occur when cloning of the same-sex sort is used instead of normal, heterosexual conception.
Naturally, those issues and many others are usually not addressed in articles such as that in the Telegraph, as they might then trigger some reservations instead of amazement, praise, and the willingness to fork over vast sums of money for research in the field of IVF, the aim of which is, of course, ultimately, to create work and profit for the sector of the medical industry involved with performing IVF procedures. Those are a lucrative business with enormous earning potential, not to mention the higher rate of birth defects that will ultimately need to be treated, if corrections prove to be impossible and need further medical research, skills and procedures.
Ostensibly, the principle that guides all of that is, “First do no harm.” Sorry, but it is not apparent how the objective of doing no harm prevents profit motives that drive the harm being done. How can anyone claim that, for example, the tendency of producing vastly more chromosomal aberrations and other abnormalities, when bringing about conception using IVF procedures (let alone that the same-sex cloning has not even examined that in any depth), is doing no harm? Creating a vastly greater amount of business for the health industry, deliberately, not only causes harm, is driven by the harm-causing search for profit.
Still, it makes one wonder. At what success rate will anyone draw the line and decide: “No more of this!” With IVF babies, there is a more personal human factor:
»…If you are a woman wanting to become a mother after natural methods did not make you pregnant, will you be willing to run the risk of becoming pregnant several times before you are finally able to give birth to a child whose chances of having a moderate to severe chromosomal abnormality are one in ten?« More
Injury to motherly feelings will allegedly be alleviated or avoided, as ostensibly no emotional harm will be done to a human incubator for rent (a.k.a. surrogate mothers), but, even if that were always true (we know that it isn’t), there are some other considerations. More at the preceding link.
