Amy Coney Barrett and IVF

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IVF doesn’t HAVE to result in the destruction of embryos, right?

Sure, everyone can be Octomom

Or just retrieve and fertilize many fewer eggs during the process. I am an IVF mom and I can't tell you how pained I am by the thought of the destroyed embryos. I actually have no idea what happened to them, I just left them frozen and I assume the lab eventually destroyed them or used for research. It's hard for me to think about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IVF doesn’t HAVE to result in the destruction of embryos, right?

Sure, everyone can be Octomom

Or just retrieve and fertilize many fewer eggs during the process. I am an IVF mom and I can't tell you how pained I am by the thought of the destroyed embryos. I actually have no idea what happened to them, I just left them frozen and I assume the lab eventually destroyed them or used for research. It's hard for me to think about.

Harder than having multiples would have been, because that’s the alternative. Or maybe pay poor women to have and raise them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IVF doesn’t HAVE to result in the destruction of embryos, right?

Sure, everyone can be Octomom

Or just retrieve and fertilize many fewer eggs during the process. I am an IVF mom and I can't tell you how pained I am by the thought of the destroyed embryos. I actually have no idea what happened to them, I just left them frozen and I assume the lab eventually destroyed them or used for research. It's hard for me to think about.

Harder than having multiples would have been, because that’s the alternative. Or maybe pay poor women to have and raise them?

With IVF you’re already paying poor women to sell you their eggs, so this isn’t too far fetched...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IVF doesn’t HAVE to result in the destruction of embryos, right?

Sure, everyone can be Octomom

She had multiple embryos implanted. Most people don’t.

It is certainly possible to create one and implant one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IVF doesn’t HAVE to result in the destruction of embryos, right?

Sure, everyone can be Octomom

Or just retrieve and fertilize many fewer eggs during the process. I am an IVF mom and I can't tell you how pained I am by the thought of the destroyed embryos. I actually have no idea what happened to them, I just left them frozen and I assume the lab eventually destroyed them or used for research. It's hard for me to think about.

Harder than having multiples would have been, because that’s the alternative. Or maybe pay poor women to have and raise them?

There are lower income women struggling with infertility who can’t afford IVF or any ART when they have the greatest likelihood of it benefitting. Maybe in addition to creating fewer embryos, some could be donated to working class women?

[Anonymous]

Maybe in addition to creating fewer embryos, some could be donated to working class women?

So you are okay with your biological offspring involuntarily being given to and raised by other people? I'm sorry, no, this falls squarely into my/my husband's choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IVF doesn’t HAVE to result in the destruction of embryos, right?

Sure, everyone can be Octomom

She had multiple embryos implanted. Most people don’t.

It is certainly possible to create one and implant one.

Except that each harvest is 25K.

Most people can’t afford to pay that much for each try. There’s also the time and physical toll that each harvest takes on the woman’s body. Most people want to extract as many eggs as possible during each try so they have the best shot of a viable embryo. Sometimes only one or two embryos are normal sometimes it’s eight or ten.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone else read about the supreme court nominee’s opinions on IVF? This NPR article describes Tammy Duckworth stating that she likely would not support embryo banking or any IVF treatment that could result in discarded embryos. Would politicians be able to end embryo banking? Or PGS testing?
https://www.npr.org/2020/10/06/920823849/duckworth-block-supreme-court-pick-who-thinks-my-daughters-shouldn-t-even-exist

If roe is over turned, there is no ‘right’ to discard embryos. States could choose to ban certain practices

Its not getting overturned. Turn off NPR and calm down.

This

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Maybe in addition to creating fewer embryos, some could be donated to working class women?

So you are okay with your biological offspring involuntarily being given to and raised by other people? I'm sorry, no, this falls squarely into my/my husband's choice.

This is so hypocritical. Conservatives are anti-choice when it comes to women choosing to abort their embryos—except when it involves IVF—then aborting embryos is just fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IVF doesn’t HAVE to result in the destruction of embryos, right?

Sure, everyone can be Octomom

She had multiple embryos implanted. Most people don’t.

It is certainly possible to create one and implant one.

Except that each harvest is 25K.

Most people can’t afford to pay that much for each try. There’s also the time and physical toll that each harvest takes on the woman’s body. Most people want to extract as many eggs as possible during each try so they have the best shot of a viable embryo. Sometimes only one or two embryos are normal sometimes it’s eight or ten.

But you can extract 25 and only fertilize 1.

I can’t buy just one egg. I have to buy a dozen. But if I am going to eat just 1 or 2 eggs, I don’t cook all 12 and throw 10-11 away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IVF doesn’t HAVE to result in the destruction of embryos, right?

Sure, everyone can be Octomom

She had multiple embryos implanted. Most people don’t.

It is certainly possible to create one and implant one.

Except that each harvest is 25K.

Most people can’t afford to pay that much for each try. There’s also the time and physical toll that each harvest takes on the woman’s body. Most people want to extract as many eggs as possible during each try so they have the best shot of a viable embryo. Sometimes only one or two embryos are normal sometimes it’s eight or ten.

But you can extract 25 and only fertilize 1.

I can’t buy just one egg. I have to buy a dozen. But if I am going to eat just 1 or 2 eggs, I don’t cook all 12 and throw 10-11 away.

Spoken as someone who has absolutely no idea how this actually works. I find that the people with the strongest opinions on the stuff don’t actually understand the facts.

If you have a dozen eggs, depending on the woman’s age anywhere between 20-80% of them are even capable of being fertilized. Say 8 fertilize. Then they still need to develop. You might end up with two that look great, three that arrest entirely, and three that are kind of mediocre. You’re now down to five. It makes sense to try a single embryo transfer if you are young and have high-quality embryos, but that’s not the case for most. Most women transfer multiple embryos, and most women give birth to singletons. You do the math.

The “problem” is that nature throws away the vast majority of eggs AND embryos. Most eggs don’t fertilize, and most fertilized eggs don’t implant. The rates of natural conception are at most 25% per cycle, and for some women the rate is much much lower. Waste is just part of how the system works.

And when you’re doing IVF you have one shot to get this right, so unless you have a staggering amount of money and a staggering tolerance for pain, fertilizing one at a time is foolish.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IVF doesn’t HAVE to result in the destruction of embryos, right?

Sure, everyone can be Octomom

She had multiple embryos implanted. Most people don’t.

It is certainly possible to create one and implant one.

Except that each harvest is 25K.

Most people can’t afford to pay that much for each try. There’s also the time and physical toll that each harvest takes on the woman’s body. Most people want to extract as many eggs as possible during each try so they have the best shot of a viable embryo. Sometimes only one or two embryos are normal sometimes it’s eight or ten.

But you can extract 25 and only fertilize 1.

I can’t buy just one egg. I have to buy a dozen. But if I am going to eat just 1 or 2 eggs, I don’t cook all 12 and throw 10-11 away.

Spoken as someone who has absolutely no idea how this actually works. I find that the people with the strongest opinions on the stuff don’t actually understand the facts.

If you have a dozen eggs, depending on the woman’s age anywhere between 20-80% of them are even capable of being fertilized. Say 8 fertilize. Then they still need to develop. You might end up with two that look great, three that arrest entirely, and three that are kind of mediocre. You’re now down to five. It makes sense to try a single embryo transfer if you are young and have high-quality embryos, but that’s not the case for most. Most women transfer multiple embryos, and most women give birth to singletons. You do the math.

The “problem” is that nature throws away the vast majority of eggs AND embryos. Most eggs don’t fertilize, and most fertilized eggs don’t implant. The rates of natural conception are at most 25% per cycle, and for some women the rate is much much lower. Waste is just part of how the system works.

And when you’re doing IVF you have one shot to get this right, so unless you have a staggering amount of money and a staggering tolerance for pain, fertilizing one at a time is foolish.

Thank you previous poster. People who want to regulate this and don't understand how it works for most people drive me nuts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone else read about the supreme court nominee’s opinions on IVF? This NPR article describes Tammy Duckworth stating that she likely would not support embryo banking or any IVF treatment that could result in discarded embryos. Would politicians be able to end embryo banking? Or PGS testing?
https://www.npr.org/2020/10/06/920823849/duckworth-block-supreme-court-pick-who-thinks-my-daughters-shouldn-t-even-exist

If roe is over turned, there is no ‘right’ to discard embryos. States could choose to ban certain practices

Its not getting overturned. Turn off NPR and calm down.

It’s already effectively overturned in many states. The restrictions on abortion clinics are so onerous that they shut down each and every one until there aren’t any left. There are dozens of states where women do not have access to abortion. With ACB we’re now facing the prospect of states with no IVF. Maybe even the entire country.

Wake up.

Lol more left wing fearmongering at its finest. It’s all you have, isn’t it? ACB has nothing to do with IVF and by forcing a non-issue you’re revealing yourself as anti-women. Go troll somewhere else, Chuck.

You are the worst troll. OP is correct.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IVF doesn’t HAVE to result in the destruction of embryos, right?

Sure, everyone can be Octomom

Or just retrieve and fertilize many fewer eggs during the process. I am an IVF mom and I can't tell you how pained I am by the thought of the destroyed embryos. I actually have no idea what happened to them, I just left them frozen and I assume the lab eventually destroyed them or used for research. It's hard for me to think about.

If you had any embryos left, you would have had an annual bill to keep them frozen. When you decide to donate or thaw them, you need a notarized letter of intent. They cannot just thaw or take and use your embryos. Either you didn’t have any left or you made a decision and don’t remember.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IVF doesn’t HAVE to result in the destruction of embryos, right?

Sure, everyone can be Octomom

Or just retrieve and fertilize many fewer eggs during the process. I am an IVF mom and I can't tell you how pained I am by the thought of the destroyed embryos. I actually have no idea what happened to them, I just left them frozen and I assume the lab eventually destroyed them or used for research. It's hard for me to think about.

Harder than having multiples would have been, because that’s the alternative. Or maybe pay poor women to have and raise them?

There are lower income women struggling with infertility who can’t afford IVF or any ART when they have the greatest likelihood of it benefitting. Maybe in addition to creating fewer embryos, some could be donated to working class women?

Hey, sorry you can’t afford IVF poor lady. Why don’t you implant a donor egg/donor sperm with rich people genes!
How weird. I think it’s insulting when people assume poor people want used clothes and the crap food donated to food drives. Why should poor people have to get used embryos too. Maybe if our country had a living wage and universal healthcare, less well off people could have a chance at having genetically related babies.