Doubt it! Less dangerous than sex reassignment surgery, which we let both men and women elect.
There are risks of IVF, but the counterfactual for the children is not existing, which should be weighted.
I originally wrote the article for an audience already convinced of IVF and embryo selection. Typically that crowd is good at communicating the risks of IVF (it's one of the first things I learned when I started reading about embryo selection), and usually treats embryo selection as a modestly useful add-on. My guess is that in many cases the reduction of disease burden via embryo selection is larger than increase in cancer rates caused by IVF. Would vary by couple.
The comparison to sex reassignment surgery is quite apt, actually. Its risks also fall more heavily on women as it becomes more widespread: few men pretending to be women actually choose it.
Both of these fields of medicine are generally irresponsible and particularly cavalier about the wellbeing of women.
The argument that women's health and well-being should be discounted by giving "weight" to the bringing forth of babies: it's funny how the most au courant transhumanist arguments sound exactly like the hoariest pronouncements of patriarchal religions.
If the health risks of IVF fell on men rather than on women it would not be legal.
Doubt it! Less dangerous than sex reassignment surgery, which we let both men and women elect.
There are risks of IVF, but the counterfactual for the children is not existing, which should be weighted.
I originally wrote the article for an audience already convinced of IVF and embryo selection. Typically that crowd is good at communicating the risks of IVF (it's one of the first things I learned when I started reading about embryo selection), and usually treats embryo selection as a modestly useful add-on. My guess is that in many cases the reduction of disease burden via embryo selection is larger than increase in cancer rates caused by IVF. Would vary by couple.
The comparison to sex reassignment surgery is quite apt, actually. Its risks also fall more heavily on women as it becomes more widespread: few men pretending to be women actually choose it.
Both of these fields of medicine are generally irresponsible and particularly cavalier about the wellbeing of women.
The argument that women's health and well-being should be discounted by giving "weight" to the bringing forth of babies: it's funny how the most au courant transhumanist arguments sound exactly like the hoariest pronouncements of patriarchal religions.
& then there are the still-understudied risks to IVF conceived children. What we do know ain't reassuring:
"The overall cancer rate (per 1,000,000 children) of IVF children was about 17 percent higher than for non-IVF children;
The rate of hepatic tumors was over 2.5 times higher among IVF children than non-IVF children"
https://med.umn.edu/news/research-brief-largest-study-childhood-cancer-after-ivf