Are you worried about the end of reproductive rights?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To the poster claiming that freezing fetuses would be wrong, I just want to point out that it is technologically impossible to freeze a fetus and then thaw it for implantation. You can only do that with an embryo that has been created in the lab.
Just like it is impossible to cyrogenically freeze a person and then revive them.
Another reason why I don't consider embryos to be human beings.

No, you can freeze it. It's just not viable at reimplantation.

Are you saying we should take viability at the point of unfreezing into account in deciding whether it's moral? I'm interested. Please go on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where state laws define life as beginning at conception, how would those laws view embryos created via IVF? They would say those are babies, yes? Where state laws ban abortion, possibly with exceptions in cases of rape/incest/health of the pregnant woman, how would those laws be applied to embryos not implanted - either disposed of or placed in long-term cryopreservation?

Believing overturning Roe will have no effect on IVF treatments is naive.

It’s also a deliberate misinformation campaign to keep women complacent until after their rights have already been stripped away.

It’s a deliberate fear mongering campaign from you and other libs.

That's what they said about a possible RvW overturn. It's "settled law".

You cannot ban the murder of humans because life begins at conception, and then make ANY exceptions. There cannot be selective reduction if you ban abortion. There cannot be expections for rape and incest. It is not the fault of the embryo as to how it was conceived. You cannot flush embyros by the thousands down the drain. You cannot allow IUDs to cause fertilized embryos to be flushed out of the womb.

If you ban abortion and still allow all of the above.... then it would almost be like fetal life is not the point. Which would be really weird.

So how do you view the many European countries that ban abortion after 12 weeks?

DP. This thread isn’t about European abortion laws, it’s about the implications for access to fertility treatments of Toe is overturned and abortions are banned.

Seems relevant to me. You’re acting as though limiting abortion will mean contraceptives, IVF etc will be illegal or regulated. Has this happened in Europe?

As you noted, most European countries allow abortion at least up to 12 weeks, which means their experiences are irrelevant to the question of how access to fertility treatments would be affected by an abortion ban in the US.

If you have examples of countries than ban abortion from conception but allow ready access to fertility treatments, feel free to share them.

This is the problem. Then end game is not ending abortion in certain states, it's ending all access to abortion country wide (Mitch McConnell) and ending most access to contraception.

If you can't have any abortion, you essentially can't do most fertility treatments. Please list the countries banning all abortions under any circumstances, which also have fertility treatment center.

Waiting for you all to list lol the countries that completely ban abortion and allow IVF.

[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:

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.

Ah. So you won't respond to the published study cited, and you won't answer questions.

Fair enough. Let it play out, and let's see what happens.

Still waiting on you to cite that you said would only take a few minutes about an hour ago.

I can requote, if you don't know how to scroll.

[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:

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.

Ah. So you won't respond to the published study cited, and you won't answer questions.

Fair enough. Let it play out, and let's see what happens.

You didn’t cite your claims. None of them. Because you made them all up, just as I said. Now you’re trying to weasel out of it.

I'm guessing are confused and think you aren't talking to multiple people. You are.

I made one claim and cited it. In just 9 months, viability of frozen embryos dropped by about 50%. But you don't want to talk about that, and that's fine. We'lle just have to see what happens.

No, you did not make just 1 claim.

[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.

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.

Here you go.

[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:

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.

Ah. So you won't respond to the published study cited, and you won't answer questions.

Fair enough. Let it play out, and let's see what happens.

Still waiting on you to cite that you said would only take a few minutes about an hour ago.

I can requote, if you don't know how to scroll.

I can scroll to deflector.

[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:

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.

Ah. So you won't respond to the published study cited, and you won't answer questions.

Fair enough. Let it play out, and let's see what happens.

You didn’t cite your claims. None of them. Because you made them all up, just as I said. Now you’re trying to weasel out of it.

I'm guessing are confused and think you aren't talking to multiple people. You are.

I made one claim and cited it. In just 9 months, viability of frozen embryos dropped by about 50%. But you don't want to talk about that, and that's fine. We'lle just have to see what happens.

No, you did not make just 1 claim.

Let's back up. Do you know what "Anonymous" means?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where state laws define life as beginning at conception, how would those laws view embryos created via IVF? They would say those are babies, yes? Where state laws ban abortion, possibly with exceptions in cases of rape/incest/health of the pregnant woman, how would those laws be applied to embryos not implanted - either disposed of or placed in long-term cryopreservation?

Believing overturning Roe will have no effect on IVF treatments is naive.

It’s also a deliberate misinformation campaign to keep women complacent until after their rights have already been stripped away.

It’s a deliberate fear mongering campaign from you and other libs.

That's what they said about a possible RvW overturn. It's "settled law".

You cannot ban the murder of humans because life begins at conception, and then make ANY exceptions. There cannot be selective reduction if you ban abortion. There cannot be expections for rape and incest. It is not the fault of the embryo as to how it was conceived. You cannot flush embyros by the thousands down the drain. You cannot allow IUDs to cause fertilized embryos to be flushed out of the womb.

If you ban abortion and still allow all of the above.... then it would almost be like fetal life is not the point. Which would be really weird.

So how do you view the many European countries that ban abortion after 12 weeks?

DP. This thread isn’t about European abortion laws, it’s about the implications for access to fertility treatments of Toe is overturned and abortions are banned.

Seems relevant to me. You’re acting as though limiting abortion will mean contraceptives, IVF etc will be illegal or regulated. Has this happened in Europe?

As you noted, most European countries allow abortion at least up to 12 weeks, which means their experiences are irrelevant to the question of how access to fertility treatments would be affected by an abortion ban in the US.

If you have examples of countries than ban abortion from conception but allow ready access to fertility treatments, feel free to share them.

This is the problem. Then end game is not ending abortion in certain states, it's ending all access to abortion country wide (Mitch McConnell) and ending most access to contraception.

If you can't have any abortion, you essentially can't do most fertility treatments. Please list the countries banning all abortions under any circumstances, which also have fertility treatment center.

Waiting for you all to list lol the countries that completely ban abortion and allow IVF.

I’m unaware of any, including the United States.

[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:

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.

Ah. So you won't respond to the published study cited, and you won't answer questions.

Fair enough. Let it play out, and let's see what happens.

Still waiting on you to cite that you said would only take a few minutes about an hour ago.

I can requote, if you don't know how to scroll.

I can scroll to deflector.

It's literally now in the post right above this one of yours. I can't make it easier for you than that

[Anonymous]

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??

Cite it fool like you’ve been avoiding.

[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?

Cite this too.

[Anonymous]

Reminder to readers, it's obvious, but in case you need help, there is more than one person responding on each side.

Carry on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where state laws define life as beginning at conception, how would those laws view embryos created via IVF? They would say those are babies, yes? Where state laws ban abortion, possibly with exceptions in cases of rape/incest/health of the pregnant woman, how would those laws be applied to embryos not implanted - either disposed of or placed in long-term cryopreservation?

Believing overturning Roe will have no effect on IVF treatments is naive.

It’s also a deliberate misinformation campaign to keep women complacent until after their rights have already been stripped away.

It’s a deliberate fear mongering campaign from you and other libs.

That's what they said about a possible RvW overturn. It's "settled law".

You cannot ban the murder of humans because life begins at conception, and then make ANY exceptions. There cannot be selective reduction if you ban abortion. There cannot be expections for rape and incest. It is not the fault of the embryo as to how it was conceived. You cannot flush embyros by the thousands down the drain. You cannot allow IUDs to cause fertilized embryos to be flushed out of the womb.

If you ban abortion and still allow all of the above.... then it would almost be like fetal life is not the point. Which would be really weird.

So how do you view the many European countries that ban abortion after 12 weeks?

DP. This thread isn’t about European abortion laws, it’s about the implications for access to fertility treatments of Toe is overturned and abortions are banned.

Seems relevant to me. You’re acting as though limiting abortion will mean contraceptives, IVF etc will be illegal or regulated. Has this happened in Europe?

As you noted, most European countries allow abortion at least up to 12 weeks, which means their experiences are irrelevant to the question of how access to fertility treatments would be affected by an abortion ban in the US.

If you have examples of countries than ban abortion from conception but allow ready access to fertility treatments, feel free to share them.

This is the problem. Then end game is not ending abortion in certain states, it's ending all access to abortion country wide (Mitch McConnell) and ending most access to contraception.

If you can't have any abortion, you essentially can't do most fertility treatments. Please list the countries banning all abortions under any circumstances, which also have fertility treatment center.

Waiting for you all to list lol the countries that completely ban abortion and allow IVF.

I’m unaware of any, including the United States.

Then that’s that. You cannot point to a single country where abortion is banned but IVF and other reproductive technologies are allowed. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that if abortion is banned in the US, this may also result in a ban (outright or effective) on reproductive technologies.

[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:Where state laws define life as beginning at conception, how would those laws view embryos created via IVF? They would say those are babies, yes? Where state laws ban abortion, possibly with exceptions in cases of rape/incest/health of the pregnant woman, how would those laws be applied to embryos not implanted - either disposed of or placed in long-term cryopreservation?

Believing overturning Roe will have no effect on IVF treatments is naive.

It’s also a deliberate misinformation campaign to keep women complacent until after their rights have already been stripped away.

It’s a deliberate fear mongering campaign from you and other libs.

That's what they said about a possible RvW overturn. It's "settled law".

You cannot ban the murder of humans because life begins at conception, and then make ANY exceptions. There cannot be selective reduction if you ban abortion. There cannot be expections for rape and incest. It is not the fault of the embryo as to how it was conceived. You cannot flush embyros by the thousands down the drain. You cannot allow IUDs to cause fertilized embryos to be flushed out of the womb.

If you ban abortion and still allow all of the above.... then it would almost be like fetal life is not the point. Which would be really weird.

So how do you view the many European countries that ban abortion after 12 weeks?

DP. This thread isn’t about European abortion laws, it’s about the implications for access to fertility treatments of Toe is overturned and abortions are banned.

Seems relevant to me. You’re acting as though limiting abortion will mean contraceptives, IVF etc will be illegal or regulated. Has this happened in Europe?

As you noted, most European countries allow abortion at least up to 12 weeks, which means their experiences are irrelevant to the question of how access to fertility treatments would be affected by an abortion ban in the US.

If you have examples of countries than ban abortion from conception but allow ready access to fertility treatments, feel free to share them.

This is the problem. Then end game is not ending abortion in certain states, it's ending all access to abortion country wide (Mitch McConnell) and ending most access to contraception.

If you can't have any abortion, you essentially can't do most fertility treatments. Please list the countries banning all abortions under any circumstances, which also have fertility treatment center.

Waiting for you all to list lol the countries that completely ban abortion and allow IVF.

I’m unaware of any, including the United States.

Then that’s that. You cannot point to a single country where abortion is banned but IVF and other reproductive technologies are allowed. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that if abortion is banned in the US, this may also result in a ban (outright or effective) on reproductive technologies.

Why would abortion be banned in the US? That’s not what happens if roe is overturned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Reminder to readers, it's obvious, but in case you need help, there is more than one person responding on each side.

Carry on.

m
Nope, you answered along in the thread. That’s how you pulled into being asked to cite. You either posted the 10 year prison sentence or you went along with it. Cite it.