Are you worried about the end of reproductive rights?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

That’s not what was said at all. You are just trying to deflect from the real threat to access to reproductive technology.

Yes you did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's an uncomfortable fact but women who vote red allowed this to happen. Particularly white married women with children. They're all good so why should they worry about the women growing up under these new policies?

So you are allowed to vote but white married women are not. Misogynist much?

And racist.

They can vote. It's their right. I just wish they could open their eyes to the consequences of their actions. I believe you're a troll so I'm going to stop engaging. I was hoping to connect with other women with infertility, but it seems this thread is drawing attention from other boards.

You damn right it is their right. You would to stop their right if it doesn’t go your way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

That’s not what was said at all. You are just trying to deflect from the real threat to access to reproductive technology.

NP. Actually, that is what you said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Please cite your sources. Embryos once frozen do not die because they do not grow. They are literally suspended in time. The loss that happens rarely is when you thaw to implant, but how would the embryo have a chance to implant at all I'd you don't thaw?

Sure, I will cite. The info isn't hard to find -- it will take me a couple of minutes

This post of yours, however, is a testament that you are clueless about the basic facts on which you base your political and moral arguments about reproductive rights and freedoms. Think about that.

Because you say something is a testament that someone is clueless doesn’t mean it is. Nothing of what you say means anything.

I mean, if you want to make a distinction between "become no longer a viable" and "die," then we can change the language. But you can't come up with a reason why it's wrong to freeze a fetus indefinitely but somehow perfectly fine to do it with an IVF embryo, can you?

Can you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh, so you are a communist.

No, I support the government keeping it's hands off of people's right to their own bodies and to marriage with someone of their choosing. I'm a fiscal conservative, but I can't bring myself to vote R because the part is run by fringe lunatics.

And you also believe that the Supreme Court should only represent one side.

And there we go. This poster just implicitly admitted their goal is to see roe overturned and they don’t care is it comes at the expense of access to fertility treatments.

[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.

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.

Please cite your sources. Embryos once frozen do not die because they do not grow. They are literally suspended in time. The loss that happens rarely is when you thaw to implant, but how would the embryo have a chance to implant at all I'd you don't thaw?

Sure, I will cite. The info isn't hard to find -- it will take me a couple of minutes

This post of yours, however, is a testament that you are clueless about the basic facts on which you base your political and moral arguments about reproductive rights and freedoms. Think about that.

PS:
Lower Pregnancy Rates with Prolonged Storage of Frozen Embryos

https://www.yourfertilitypharmacist.com/episodes/storage-time-frozen-embryos?msclkid=b7307c6bcf9811ecb30624132c2c81d3

There were four embryo groups. Group 1 were embryos with a storage time of 0–3 months; Group 2 was embryos with a storage time 3–6 months; Group 3 had a storage time 6–12 months and Group 4 had a storage time 12–24 months. This study excluded transfers of embryos stored longer than 24 months.

Pregnancy: This study found that the rate of clinical pregnancy dropped from 56% in Group 1 (which had the embryos frozen less than three months) to 26% pregnancy rates in Group 4 (the group that had storage times of 12-24 months). The live birth rates decreased as well, with Group 1 having 47% of women give birth vs. 26% in Group 4. Rates of miscarriage and ectopic pregnancy increased with prolonged storage time, but these numbers were not statistically significant, which means that these differences could have occurred due to random chance.

You'll find IVF corporate sites emphasizing how long the longest stretch is for viability of outliers. They don't emphasize -- or even discuss, usually -- what happens more commonly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe we will stop punishing ourselves with so much work and school and have kids earlier. College degrees have found to be a waste, people are making millions without them and in their 20a

There you go, ladies. The party line from anti-abortion advocates, your fertility issues are your own fault.

[Anonymous]

^^So don't abort fetuses. Don't kill them. Just store them indefinitely, same as we do for IVF embryos.

What's the argument against it, if it isn't really relevant how likely they are to stay viable?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh, so you are a communist.

No, I support the government keeping it's hands off of people's right to their own bodies and to marriage with someone of their choosing. I'm a fiscal conservative, but I can't bring myself to vote R because the part is run by fringe lunatics.

And you also believe that the Supreme Court should only represent one side.

And there we go. This poster just implicitly admitted their goal is to see roe overturned and they don’t care is it comes at the expense of access to fertility treatments.

Trying to deflect from your communist ideals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Please cite your sources. Embryos once frozen do not die because they do not grow. They are literally suspended in time. The loss that happens rarely is when you thaw to implant, but how would the embryo have a chance to implant at all I'd you don't thaw?

Sure, I will cite. The info isn't hard to find -- it will take me a couple of minutes

This post of yours, however, is a testament that you are clueless about the basic facts on which you base your political and moral arguments about reproductive rights and freedoms. Think about that.

Because you say something is a testament that someone is clueless doesn’t mean it is. Nothing of what you say means anything.

I mean, if you want to make a distinction between "become no longer a viable" and "die," then we can change the language. But you can't come up with a reason why it's wrong to freeze a fetus indefinitely but somehow perfectly fine to do it with an IVF embryo, can you?

Can you?

Still waiting for you to cite all your claims.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe we will stop punishing ourselves with so much work and school and have kids earlier. College degrees have found to be a waste, people are making millions without them and in their 20a

There you go, ladies. The party line from anti-abortion advocates, your fertility issues are your own fault.

You are naive to think some aren’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Please cite your sources. Embryos once frozen do not die because they do not grow. They are literally suspended in time. The loss that happens rarely is when you thaw to implant, but how would the embryo have a chance to implant at all I'd you don't thaw?

Sure, I will cite. The info isn't hard to find -- it will take me a couple of minutes

This post of yours, however, is a testament that you are clueless about the basic facts on which you base your political and moral arguments about reproductive rights and freedoms. Think about that.

Because you say something is a testament that someone is clueless doesn’t mean it is. Nothing of what you say means anything.

I mean, if you want to make a distinction between "become no longer a viable" and "die," then we can change the language. But you can't come up with a reason why it's wrong to freeze a fetus indefinitely but somehow perfectly fine to do it with an IVF embryo, can you?

Can you?

Still waiting for you to cite all your claims.

You missed the viability study above? Do you need me to screenshot this page and circle it for you in read?

So, now -- can you give the justification that makes freezing fetuses indefinitely wrong, given it's okay to do for IVF embryos and rate of viability doesn't really matter?

[Anonymous]

^^ "in red," so that you can read it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How gross if you to reduce adopted children to being worthless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Please cite your sources. Embryos once frozen do not die because they do not grow. They are literally suspended in time. The loss that happens rarely is when you thaw to implant, but how would the embryo have a chance to implant at all I'd you don't thaw?

Sure, I will cite. The info isn't hard to find -- it will take me a couple of minutes

This post of yours, however, is a testament that you are clueless about the basic facts on which you base your political and moral arguments about reproductive rights and freedoms. Think about that.

Because you say something is a testament that someone is clueless doesn’t mean it is. Nothing of what you say means anything.

I mean, if you want to make a distinction between "become no longer a viable" and "die," then we can change the language. But you can't come up with a reason why it's wrong to freeze a fetus indefinitely but somehow perfectly fine to do it with an IVF embryo, can you?

Can you?

Still waiting for you to cite all your claims.

You missed the viability study above? Do you need me to screenshot this page and circle it for you in read?

So, now -- can you give the justification that makes freezing fetuses indefinitely wrong, given it's okay to do for IVF embryos and rate of viability doesn't really matter?

No, no, no. You need to cite all your wacky claims, cherry picker.