Sometimes we love our scientists, like when they tell us that it’s okay to hate our exes or that wine is good for us. And sometimes we can barely constrain ourselves from punching them in the face … which was the case today when we read in the Daily News that two of them are saying in-vitro fertilization will make sex “unnecessary within a decade” for procreative purposes.
Don’t get us wrong, this is not because we are all gung-ho about having sex “the natural way” to make babies, necessarily, nor do we hate in-vitro implicitly.
It’s because this diagnosis, if you want to call it that, completely ignores the fact that IVF actually costs a lot of money — $12,000 to $15,000 for one cycle, meaning it’s cost-prohibitive for a lot of people — and involves a huge amount of work, including regular hormone injections and doctor visits and the physical and emotional trauma that ensues, not to mention the feeling of abysmal failure when it doesn’t succeed and you’ve spent all this time and money … but up and at ’em, on to the next round!
And then there are the statistics: Currently only about 15% to 20% of women ages 38 to 40 conceive with IVF. After 40, the chance is 6% to 10%. Which to us doesn’t sound “foolproof.”
Given all that, are people really going to jump to IVF before hanky-pankying around on their own a little? It’s just not realistic.
The scientists — who are actually Aussie veterinarians who based their research on cattle — OH MY GOD — say that in-virto fertilization will advance to the point of having “a near 100% success rate” and couples in their 40s will turn to that method first before trying to get pregnant through sex.
Knowing what we know about people and candlelit nights and foot massages, we highly doubt that, but go right ahead with your cow-poking, fellas.