Are you worried about the end of reproductive rights?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I worry about how they will interpret the abortion restrictions as applied to embryos. If we end up with multiple embryos, will we be considered aborting them if we don’t decide to use them? Will IF docs stop working in the states where the laws are threatening to them?

Absolutely. They are going to take the millions and millions of embryos frozen in the US and force them into women. The government will pay for the transfers. See how much sense this makes??

Right, it doesn’t make sense because what you made up is absurd.

DP. The government doesn’t have to force you to transfer every embryo, they can just make you criminally culpable if any of your embryos die from parental neglect by not implanting them or placing them for adoption. Will you be willing to face a 10-year prison sentence if something goes wrong with your frozen embryos?

Consistency in making up scenarios is what you do best.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm definitely nervous. I'm hoping any embryos created before a new law are grandfathered in.

Grandfathered into what? Once those embryos are declared people, you will have to either implant all of them or put your unused embryos up for adoption, because any other choice that results in their destruction will be chargeable as homicide.

Of maybe they could be frozen in perpetuity?

What facility is going to provide those storage services when any error or mechanical failure that leads to the destruction of embryos could be changed with negligent homicide?

True but IVF is a major industry. SG and CCRM won't go down without a fight (lobbying, etc.)? Right?

States will have a greater interest in finding adoptive parents for surrendered infants so that the state doesn’t have to be financially responsible for their care. The states will be quite happy to see fertility procedures banned so they can tell couples dealing with infertility their choice is to die childless and alone, or adopt this baby that may be drug addicted, or may have fetal alcohol syndrome, or has a birth defect that will cause cognitive impairment. The state will bank on your desperation to have a parent to get all of those kids off their hands.

What a way to reduce adopted and orphaned children to being worthless.

Are you really trying to deny that children with those issues are hard to place in permanent homes and more commonly bounce around in the foster system until they age out? How many have you personally adopted?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm definitely nervous. I'm hoping any embryos created before a new law are grandfathered in.

Grandfathered into what? Once those embryos are declared people, you will have to either implant all of them or put your unused embryos up for adoption, because any other choice that results in their destruction will be chargeable as homicide.

Of maybe they could be frozen in perpetuity?

What facility is going to provide those storage services when any error or mechanical failure that leads to the destruction of embryos could be changed with negligent homicide?

True but IVF is a major industry. SG and CCRM won't go down without a fight (lobbying, etc.)? Right?

States will have a greater interest in finding adoptive parents for surrendered infants so that the state doesn’t have to be financially responsible for their care. The states will be quite happy to see fertility procedures banned so they can tell couples dealing with infertility their choice is to die childless and alone, or adopt this baby that may be drug addicted, or may have fetal alcohol syndrome, or has a birth defect that will cause cognitive impairment. The state will bank on your desperation to have a parent to get all of those kids off their hands.

My adopted child is neither drug addicted, has fetal alcohol syndrome, or any birth defects. To top it off, he is a monumentally better human bring than you are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I worry about how they will interpret the abortion restrictions as applied to embryos. If we end up with multiple embryos, will we be considered aborting them if we don’t decide to use them? Will IF docs stop working in the states where the laws are threatening to them?

Absolutely. They are going to take the millions and millions of embryos frozen in the US and force them into women. The government will pay for the transfers. See how much sense this makes??

Right, it doesn’t make sense because what you made up is absurd.

DP. The government doesn’t have to force you to transfer every embryo, they can just make you criminally culpable if any of your embryos die from parental neglect by not implanting them or placing them for adoption. Will you be willing to face a 10-year prison sentence if something goes wrong with your frozen embryos?

Consistency in making up scenarios is what you do best.

It is very transparent that you are an anti-abortion advocate who does not care about access to fertility treatments and are just trying to convince women to stick their heads in the sand on this so they won’t realize what your side is planning to do until it’s already done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm definitely nervous. I'm hoping any embryos created before a new law are grandfathered in.

Grandfathered into what? Once those embryos are declared people, you will have to either implant all of them or put your unused embryos up for adoption, because any other choice that results in their destruction will be chargeable as homicide.

Of maybe they could be frozen in perpetuity?

What facility is going to provide those storage services when any error or mechanical failure that leads to the destruction of embryos could be changed with negligent homicide?

True but IVF is a major industry. SG and CCRM won't go down without a fight (lobbying, etc.)? Right?

States will have a greater interest in finding adoptive parents for surrendered infants so that the state doesn’t have to be financially responsible for their care. The states will be quite happy to see fertility procedures banned so they can tell couples dealing with infertility their choice is to die childless and alone, or adopt this baby that may be drug addicted, or may have fetal alcohol syndrome, or has a birth defect that will cause cognitive impairment. The state will bank on your desperation to have a parent to get all of those kids off their hands.

What a way to reduce adopted and orphaned children to being worthless.

Are you really trying to deny that children with those issues are hard to place in permanent homes and more commonly bounce around in the foster system until they age out? How many have you personally adopted?

Sister and husband have one. How many have you adopted?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I worry about how they will interpret the abortion restrictions as applied to embryos. If we end up with multiple embryos, will we be considered aborting them if we don’t decide to use them? Will IF docs stop working in the states where the laws are threatening to them?

Absolutely. They are going to take the millions and millions of embryos frozen in the US and force them into women. The government will pay for the transfers. See how much sense this makes??

Right, it doesn’t make sense because what you made up is absurd.

DP. The government doesn’t have to force you to transfer every embryo, they can just make you criminally culpable if any of your embryos die from parental neglect by not implanting them or placing them for adoption. Will you be willing to face a 10-year prison sentence if something goes wrong with your frozen embryos?

Consistency in making up scenarios is what you do best.

It is very transparent that you are an anti-abortion advocate who does not care about access to fertility treatments and are just trying to convince women to stick their heads in the sand on this so they won’t realize what your side is planning to do until it’s already done.

It is very transparent that you are pro-nothing who makes up bizarre situations that have no merit and serve only to provoke fear. Stick with facts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm definitely nervous. I'm hoping any embryos created before a new law are grandfathered in.

Grandfathered into what? Once those embryos are declared people, you will have to either implant all of them or put your unused embryos up for adoption, because any other choice that results in their destruction will be chargeable as homicide.

Of maybe they could be frozen in perpetuity?

What facility is going to provide those storage services when any error or mechanical failure that leads to the destruction of embryos could be changed with negligent homicide?

True but IVF is a major industry. SG and CCRM won't go down without a fight (lobbying, etc.)? Right?

States will have a greater interest in finding adoptive parents for surrendered infants so that the state doesn’t have to be financially responsible for their care. The states will be quite happy to see fertility procedures banned so they can tell couples dealing with infertility their choice is to die childless and alone, or adopt this baby that may be drug addicted, or may have fetal alcohol syndrome, or has a birth defect that will cause cognitive impairment. The state will bank on your desperation to have a parent to get all of those kids off their hands.

My adopted child is neither drug addicted, has fetal alcohol syndrome, or any birth defects. To top it off, he is a monumentally better human bring than you are.

I didn’t say what the states will do is right. None of what they’re trying to do with overturning Roe, banning abortion and banning contraception is right. But there’s no use in pretending that people struggling with infertility won’t be pawns in this also.

I mean, you’re not honestly trying to pretend every children placed for adoption is 100% healthy at birth, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I worry about how they will interpret the abortion restrictions as applied to embryos. If we end up with multiple embryos, will we be considered aborting them if we don’t decide to use them? Will IF docs stop working in the states where the laws are threatening to them?

Absolutely. They are going to take the millions and millions of embryos frozen in the US and force them into women. The government will pay for the transfers. See how much sense this makes??

Right, it doesn’t make sense because what you made up is absurd.

DP. The government doesn’t have to force you to transfer every embryo, they can just make you criminally culpable if any of your embryos die from parental neglect by not implanting them or placing them for adoption. Will you be willing to face a 10-year prison sentence if something goes wrong with your frozen embryos?

If you're not going to transfer the embryo, you surrender rights to the embryo. It remains frozen forever, but you can't ever use them. This is I. Italy which is a lot smaller and obviously Europe is different, but the Vatican approves. Hopefully these nutjobs will be appeased by this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm definitely nervous. I'm hoping any embryos created before a new law are grandfathered in.

Grandfathered into what? Once those embryos are declared people, you will have to either implant all of them or put your unused embryos up for adoption, because any other choice that results in their destruction will be chargeable as homicide.

Of maybe they could be frozen in perpetuity?

What facility is going to provide those storage services when any error or mechanical failure that leads to the destruction of embryos could be changed with negligent homicide?

True but IVF is a major industry. SG and CCRM won't go down without a fight (lobbying, etc.)? Right?

States will have a greater interest in finding adoptive parents for surrendered infants so that the state doesn’t have to be financially responsible for their care. The states will be quite happy to see fertility procedures banned so they can tell couples dealing with infertility their choice is to die childless and alone, or adopt this baby that may be drug addicted, or may have fetal alcohol syndrome, or has a birth defect that will cause cognitive impairment. The state will bank on your desperation to have a parent to get all of those kids off their hands.

What a way to reduce adopted and orphaned children to being worthless.

Are you really trying to deny that children with those issues are hard to place in permanent homes and more commonly bounce around in the foster system until they age out? How many have you personally adopted?

Nice attempt at backtracking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is anyone worried about the bans on Plan B? This seems more pertinent to IVF because it considers life to begin at fertilization. I'm hoping the distinction will be made between a fertilized egg in the body versus one that is outside.

Why would that distinction matter? An embryo that is in the body but hasn't implanted in the uterus is no more a viable pregnancy than an embryo in a petri dish.

Do you know how many embryos were placed in my uterus that never implanted? Am I supposed to have had ceremonies for the fetal remains from all of those failed IVF cycles I went through?

I think the reality is that the legislators rushing to pass anti-abortion regulations haven't thought this true. So IVF will become illegal unintentionally long before someone drafts an anti-IVF bill. It already would be illegal, most likely, under several of the bills already floating around that define life as starting at conception. I mean, some of these draft bills outlaw D&Cs for ectopic pregnancies, so we can be pretty sure no one has done their homework.

PP here. I'm not arguing with you because like you I understand science. I'm trying to get into the minds of the people passing these laws and our Supreme Court. Maybe they are more likely based on theology to consider fertilized eggs outside the womb to not be a life?

My point is, they aren't thinking at all. And to the extent they are, they are taking absolute stances on the personhood of an embryo regardless of how it would impact mothers. TBH, I don't think that they truly have such extreme views, but nuance in this area has become politically unviable.

PP here. Fair enough point. So what do we do as infertility patients? Try and get pregnant as quickly as possible with the desired number of children before we lose all control of our embryos even if that's not what's best for our health? Make sure are embryos are stored in a liberal state that would try to protect our rights? What is everyone's game plan?

You should be fighting like hell for reproductive rights for everyone. Even if you rush ahead now and have a baby before this is all banned, as you really going to say eff you, I got mine to every person facing infertility after you?

No, I wouldn't. My heart goes out to everyone in this situation. I vote blue up and down the ticket because this is the consequence of a Republican president stacking the court with fundamentalists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I worry about how they will interpret the abortion restrictions as applied to embryos. If we end up with multiple embryos, will we be considered aborting them if we don’t decide to use them? Will IF docs stop working in the states where the laws are threatening to them?

Absolutely. They are going to take the millions and millions of embryos frozen in the US and force them into women. The government will pay for the transfers. See how much sense this makes??

Right, it doesn’t make sense because what you made up is absurd.

DP. The government doesn’t have to force you to transfer every embryo, they can just make you criminally culpable if any of your embryos die from parental neglect by not implanting them or placing them for adoption. Will you be willing to face a 10-year prison sentence if something goes wrong with your frozen embryos?

Consistency in making up scenarios is what you do best.

It is very transparent that you are an anti-abortion advocate who does not care about access to fertility treatments and are just trying to convince women to stick their heads in the sand on this so they won’t realize what your side is planning to do until it’s already done.

It is very transparent that you are pro-nothing who makes up bizarre situations that have no merit and serve only to provoke fear. Stick with facts.

I am sticking with facts. You are trying to convince women to give up their rights by convincing them their privilege will protect them from the obvious consequences of this ruling. Do you really think the women in this forum are that stupid and gullible.

But if I’m wrong about you, show me. Tell all of us that you oppose overturning Roe and you support abortion rights. Go for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm definitely nervous. I'm hoping any embryos created before a new law are grandfathered in.

Grandfathered into what? Once those embryos are declared people, you will have to either implant all of them or put your unused embryos up for adoption, because any other choice that results in their destruction will be chargeable as homicide.

Of maybe they could be frozen in perpetuity?

What facility is going to provide those storage services when any error or mechanical failure that leads to the destruction of embryos could be changed with negligent homicide?

True but IVF is a major industry. SG and CCRM won't go down without a fight (lobbying, etc.)? Right?

States will have a greater interest in finding adoptive parents for surrendered infants so that the state doesn’t have to be financially responsible for their care. The states will be quite happy to see fertility procedures banned so they can tell couples dealing with infertility their choice is to die childless and alone, or adopt this baby that may be drug addicted, or may have fetal alcohol syndrome, or has a birth defect that will cause cognitive impairment. The state will bank on your desperation to have a parent to get all of those kids off their hands.

I don't get why freezing indefinitely would suffice as a workaround. All of these embryos eventually die if not implanted, even if they are frozen. In fact, a pretty predictable percentage die each year of freezing.

All it would take -- and I am completely serious about this -- is for that workaround to be turned around and used for abortion. The provider isn't "killing" the fetus, just removing it to remain frozen until eventually reimplanted or something. And then you just wait, and it dies. Same as the non-implanted IVF embryos.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is anyone worried about the bans on Plan B? This seems more pertinent to IVF because it considers life to begin at fertilization. I'm hoping the distinction will be made between a fertilized egg in the body versus one that is outside.

Why would that distinction matter? An embryo that is in the body but hasn't implanted in the uterus is no more a viable pregnancy than an embryo in a petri dish.

Do you know how many embryos were placed in my uterus that never implanted? Am I supposed to have had ceremonies for the fetal remains from all of those failed IVF cycles I went through?

I think the reality is that the legislators rushing to pass anti-abortion regulations haven't thought this true. So IVF will become illegal unintentionally long before someone drafts an anti-IVF bill. It already would be illegal, most likely, under several of the bills already floating around that define life as starting at conception. I mean, some of these draft bills outlaw D&Cs for ectopic pregnancies, so we can be pretty sure no one has done their homework.

PP here. I'm not arguing with you because like you I understand science. I'm trying to get into the minds of the people passing these laws and our Supreme Court. Maybe they are more likely based on theology to consider fertilized eggs outside the womb to not be a life?

My point is, they aren't thinking at all. And to the extent they are, they are taking absolute stances on the personhood of an embryo regardless of how it would impact mothers. TBH, I don't think that they truly have such extreme views, but nuance in this area has become politically unviable.

PP here. Fair enough point. So what do we do as infertility patients? Try and get pregnant as quickly as possible with the desired number of children before we lose all control of our embryos even if that's not what's best for our health? Make sure are embryos are stored in a liberal state that would try to protect our rights? What is everyone's game plan?

You should be fighting like hell for reproductive rights for everyone. Even if you rush ahead now and have a baby before this is all banned, as you really going to say eff you, I got mine to every person facing infertility after you?

No, I wouldn't. My heart goes out to everyone in this situation. I vote blue up and down the ticket because this is the consequence of a Republican president stacking the court with fundamentalists.

I also have a much younger sister and I worry about what reproductive options if any that she will have. It's so unfortunate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm definitely nervous. I'm hoping any embryos created before a new law are grandfathered in.

Grandfathered into what? Once those embryos are declared people, you will have to either implant all of them or put your unused embryos up for adoption, because any other choice that results in their destruction will be chargeable as homicide.

Of maybe they could be frozen in perpetuity?

What facility is going to provide those storage services when any error or mechanical failure that leads to the destruction of embryos could be changed with negligent homicide?

True but IVF is a major industry. SG and CCRM won't go down without a fight (lobbying, etc.)? Right?

States will have a greater interest in finding adoptive parents for surrendered infants so that the state doesn’t have to be financially responsible for their care. The states will be quite happy to see fertility procedures banned so they can tell couples dealing with infertility their choice is to die childless and alone, or adopt this baby that may be drug addicted, or may have fetal alcohol syndrome, or has a birth defect that will cause cognitive impairment. The state will bank on your desperation to have a parent to get all of those kids off their hands.

My adopted child is neither drug addicted, has fetal alcohol syndrome, or any birth defects. To top it off, he is a monumentally better human bring than you are.

I didn’t say what the states will do is right. None of what they’re trying to do with overturning Roe, banning abortion and banning contraception is right. But there’s no use in pretending that people struggling with infertility won’t be pawns in this also.

I mean, you’re not honestly trying to pretend every children placed for adoption is 100% healthy at birth, right?

You’re not honestly trying to pretend that every child placed for adoption is drug addicted, has fetal alcohol syndrome, or has birth defects that cause cognitive impairments? You did and f you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm definitely nervous. I'm hoping any embryos created before a new law are grandfathered in.

Grandfathered into what? Once those embryos are declared people, you will have to either implant all of them or put your unused embryos up for adoption, because any other choice that results in their destruction will be chargeable as homicide.

Of maybe they could be frozen in perpetuity?

What facility is going to provide those storage services when any error or mechanical failure that leads to the destruction of embryos could be changed with negligent homicide?

True but IVF is a major industry. SG and CCRM won't go down without a fight (lobbying, etc.)? Right?

States will have a greater interest in finding adoptive parents for surrendered infants so that the state doesn’t have to be financially responsible for their care. The states will be quite happy to see fertility procedures banned so they can tell couples dealing with infertility their choice is to die childless and alone, or adopt this baby that may be drug addicted, or may have fetal alcohol syndrome, or has a birth defect that will cause cognitive impairment. The state will bank on your desperation to have a parent to get all of those kids off their hands.

What a way to reduce adopted and orphaned children to being worthless.

Are you really trying to deny that children with those issues are hard to place in permanent homes and more commonly bounce around in the foster system until they age out? How many have you personally adopted?

Sister and husband have one. How many have you adopted?

I have not adopted because I was able to have two children on my own. I still care about women having access to fertility treatments even though I don’t personally need them.

And you don’t get to claim credit for what your sister did. How gross.