Neat summary of the EDF fave topics - The Times today (Lounged)

[Spangles30]

LOL Maurice!!! :)

[ClaireinSE22]

Surely Janice Turner is in danger of alienating her readers? Can't imagine many regular Times readers would be too horrified to discover that their own manor was under going gentrification. Personally, I've more or less ditched traditional media as I get much more out of online and user-generated content, plus I don't have to carry home all those pointless supplements full of advertising (including the ubiquitous Property pull-outs). Maybe what's really got JT's goat is that forum's like this will eventually put her out of a job?

[ChavWivaLawDegree]

You lot have to admit the article was pretty spot on though.

I'm a newcomer in a council house, not a house or flat I had to buy, I'm not a material person and don't feel the need for the 'benefits' of gentrification.

I find watching this older mother/silly shops/self-concious bars & cafe's phenomenon amusing. I'm not criticising it, but it is there and I find people's (trendy) herd mentality funny.

Just like my strong accent and chavvy way of behaving is there and probably amusing to others.

I did choose to move here, rather than somewhere else owned by Southwark Council, because I'd had enough of living on a rough, high crime housing estate, but it was the good schools and open spaces and hight above sea level (climate change!) that attracted me.

It wasn't until I got here that I became aware of all the other stuff, and like I said, as a newcomer and outsider, I think what Turner has identified is real, and it is funny but there is no need for anyone to get defensive about it. Each to their own.

[mattham]

Spangles, my query was an open one to anyone viewing this thread, but from your last post you seem to assume it was directed at you. Apologies if I've got the wrong end of the stick, but as you highlight IVF mothers three times in this thread, it does seem to be something of a sticking point.

[Spangles30]

Well said Chavvy, my sentiments>:D< exactly!!

[*Bob*]

I wonder if I could be a journalist for The Times?

It seems that all I need to do is lazily thumb-through some online pages of my local internet talking-shop, grab the bleeding obvious bits and hope that, in conclusion, my piece seems to be making a wider point about society in general.

[Maurice]

Chavy.

A quick clarification. Your Council house may be technically owned by Southwark Council, but I would suggest it is actually owned by all of us.

Do take good care of our collective asset. Personally, I'm happy to fund it for the truly vunerable, though I think very few should require such a hand out for a lifetime.

[Spangles30]

Mattham, since you ask, I don't agree with IVF to conceive due to older age - but that is my opinion and I am entitled to it. I mention it '3 times' in response to Sean's points.

[*Bob*]

Spangles30 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Mattham, since you ask, I don't agree with IVF to

> conceive due to older age - but that is my opinion

> and I am entitled to it.

A woman's fertility peak is in her early twenties. So at what age do you think IVF should be withdrawn as an option?

[Ganapati]

Mattham--I'm going to wade in as this is hanging in the air. There's a disturbing trend in the media (as I read it) to portray/assume that IVF and even older non-IVF mothers are selfish b*tches who put off having children in their fertile twenties because they were either too busy frittering them away "having fun" (or as the Economist's leader page put it buying the latest it bag and going clubbing) or scrabbling onto the career ladder. Either way, there's an undercurrent of blame attached to the woman. Before IVF, I suppose these women would have been "punished" because they wouldn't have been able to have a baby. But now, they can turn to IVF and it seems to me it is this "extra chance" that people seem to resent, as if these women have gotten away with being punished. Add to the mix that it's the wealthy that appear to be having "all these IVF twins" and you get the attitude that these women had to resort to paying for their babies. Cue more resentment, because a poor mother wouldn't have been able to do so.

This attitude is absurd on so many levels, not the least of all, because it assumes that women and only women are totally in control of having children whenever they please. (How many dad's in their 20's do you see these days???) And, given that Western populations are in decline rather short-sighted. And lest I get this thread lounged for going off=piste, I for the record want to say I have not seen vey many IVF twins in ED.

[*Bob*]

Well said, Ganapati.

To that, I would add: anyone who seriously believes that some women consider IVF to be some sort of 'lifestyle choice'.. is seriously misinformed.

[Spangles30]

Bob, why do you ask? I don't have to agree with IVF, do I? Personally, I think it should just be for women who have undergone illnesses like cancer making it hard for them to conceive naturally. I do not agree that it should be for women in their 40s, 50s and 60s just because they are 'desperate for a baby'. Lambast me as much as you like, I don't care. This is what I think. I am also a Catholic and IVF is against my religion. In fact it is viewed as heinously as abortion.

I apologise if we are going off topic somewhat but you DID ask. Sorry if I did not give you the answer you were looking for.

[Ganapati]

Spangles--What do you think of this case. I know a woman who desperately wanted (wants) children, who was married to the wrong man all through her 20's and early 30's. He did not want children, and she wisely, was not going to have "an accident" to have one. Now she is in her mid 30's, married to a new, nice man, and after nearly 3 years cannot conceive. Should she give up? What should she do?

[Spangles30]

Ganapati, having a child is a privilege not a right. We cannot always have everything we want in this world, and that includes having a child. Not everyone CAN have children, and perhaps they need to accept that. Apart from the fact that IVF doesn't even boost your chances that much, research suggests that IVF children could be a timebomb waiting to happen i.e. illnesses they may have in the future due to how they were conceived. It doesn't surprise me.

[*Bob*]

Spangles, they may be desperate for a baby, but (occasional headline-grabbing case aside) the majority of women who have IVF are not in their 40s, 50s or 60s.

I think the religion point can be discounted (if it's against your religion, then it's against your religion, terminally ill or not) so all we have left is 'you waited too long to deserve to have a baby'. So, if women are most fertile in their early twenties, at what point have they waited too late and therefore do not deserve IVF? 27? 32? 36?

[*Bob*]

And having a child is neither a privilege nor a right. It is a biological occurrence.

I find it odd that almost everyone who decries IVF seems perfectly happy to accept every other kind of death-defying, life-preserving, natural selection-evading medical treatment on offer. But when it comes to conceiving - well, you've either got it or you aint - and you've just got to live with it.

[Vik]

Janice Turner lives in SE5 on the SE22 boarder, so is deffo on about ED.

[Spangles30]

Bob, I don't agree with it at any age.

Of course it is an option largely more open to wealthier women because you only get one try on the NHS - and even then it is a lottery depending on where you live.

Since you are so keen to grill me on my opinion, I object to IVF primarily because in IVF the child-to-be is treated as a product of manufacture?as an operational objective to be achieved by the application of technical means.

No child should be manufactured, even if his parents want the product.

Having a child is a privilege not a right. The answer to infertility is not to transform procreation into manufacture. The answer is certainly not to treat children as objects, however highly desired or prized, and however much we are willing to love them once they have been produced.

Research also suggests IVF children are twice as likely to suffer ill health than children conceived naturally.

A study of hundreds of seven-year-olds has revealed that they are admitted to hospital much more frequently than other youngsters of the same age.

While many of their illnesses were common to all children, those born through fertility treatment suffered more fits and more conditions connected to the brain and immune system.

The British study also showed that IVF twins tend to require more hospital treatment than youngsters from single births.

The figures, published in Human Reproduction, a respected medical journal, will fuel fears over fertility treatments. Previous studies have shown that young men conceived this way are more likely to be infertile.

IVF babies are also more likely to suffer from birth defects, including heart problems, and are thought to be at higher risk of autism and cerebral palsy.

Of course, people who have had IVF are going to have a completely different opinion. As Mandy Rice -Davies said "They(sic) would, wouldn't they?"

[Ganapati]

Seriously Bob--and should we do away with cesearean section too because that's not natural.

[Spangles30]

Ganapati, nice one. But I do not believe that a caesarean section (not that I have had one) could be the cause of any of these illness, nor is it mucking about with hormones and the like.

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/wwwART.php

[*Bob*]

I wouldn't say 'grilling'.. just interested.

Does a bone marrow transplant patient not undergo (as you put it) "as an operational objective to be achieved by the application of technical means?"

I think your position is muddled. Perhaps the religion aspect has done the muddling (it usually does). If you had said, no IVF under no circumstances then it would have been easier to understand. But by saying that you think it "should just be for women who have undergone illnesses like cancer making it hard for them to conceive naturally" - you are already adding an element of 'deserving case' to the mix. ie if you're unlucky enough to get cancer, you should be lucky enough to receive IVF. However, if you're unlucky enough just to find it hard to conceive.. tough luck!

[planlondon]

I too think all of this is higly amusing. I was born in East Dulwich hospital, went to school at Heber and roam the streets of ED until my family moved to Forest Hill in 1981. I have view the current trend(iness) with a mixture of joy & dread.

Am i glad that the run down pubs and retails units have had facelifts - Yes.

Am i glad that family of my friends have sold they're properties to newbies for a small fortune? - Yes.

I am sad that as i trip over trendy labelled 3 wheeled buggys parked in the doorway of Cafe Nero, wearing my weekend decorating clothes i get scornful looks from ladys wot lunch, looking at me as if the tradesmens entrance round the back.

Dont give it love! - some of us 'ave been round these sides for donkeys!

If we cant keep a mix of the new, the quirky and the old (just like London as a whole) then we better all pack up and get the hell out of Dodge!

[Spangles30]

well said planlondon. Couldn't agree more.

[Red_Cat]

Spaangles30 whilst I respect that fact that you are entitled to your personal view that ivf is wrong, an easy viewpoint for someone who has been fortunate enough to have children to take, I do take issue with your scaremongering over what 'research suggests' You have manipulated the facts to suit your own viewpoint e.g 'The British study also showed that IVF twins tend to require more hospital treatment than youngsters from single births' it is the fact that they are twins that requires them to have more hospital treatment, not that they were created through IVF.

Children are created in all kinds of circumstances, many naturally conceived children are not planned and some are not wanted and, sadly, treated accordingly. It is not the circumstances of their creation that is important but what happens after they are born and how they are loved and nurtured that counts

[Ganapati]

Spangles--I find it very interesting that you choose to tell us parenthetically that you didn't have a caesarean. Why let us know this--is it because we might have got the "wrong" impression of you?

IVF is a medical procedure, not a moral one.

As for IVF twins tending to require more hospital treatment than youngsters from single births--that's true of ALL twins. The human body wasn't built for multiple births, it puts a strain on the mother and on the babies. The unlucky ones end up in the NICU.

As for "Of course, people who have had IVF are going to have a completely different opinion. As Mandy Rice -Davies said "They(sic) would, wouldn't they?" I haven't had IVF, but if people want to go for it, they should be allowed to it. There are worse "crimes" in this world than wanting a child.

Anyway, we're going to see a lot more of it. I read an interesting article where Denmark was actively promoting it to stave off their shrinking population. Britian's IVF rate is around 1.5% of all babies born, and Denmark's was just under 4 percent. Interestingly, this article also noted that Danish women's fertility was falling, even for the younger women. Also, promoting IVF is apparently cheaper than trying to "bribe" families to have more children by giving them bigger child benefit payments.