What will happen with IVF if abortion rights are restricted?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nah, nothing will happen with IVF. Outlawing abortion is about shaming women for having sex or trying to prevent them from having sex or trying to return to a society where young single moms were vilified. Anti-abortion people do not care about rich professional couples creating zillions of embryos and destroying them.

Ill push for it personally if abortion is restricted. Goose gander.

+1 - totally agree.

We will need IVF and surrogacy to be illegal so that all these children up for adoption can be adopted.

[Anonymous]

It is very unlikely that abortion will be outlawed on a federal level. What will happen is that certain STATES will restrict or outlaw abortion in different ways. So, some states will carry on exact as it is now (presumably including DC and MD). Some will restrict to 12 weeks (lots, I would guess, and my money is on VA doing this or at least coming close). Some will restrict to 6 weeks, but this will be uncommon. Several will go with complete bans. Whether IVF is included will vary depending on the wording of the bill in question. Most will outlaw the procedure of abortion, which will not affect IVF. But I would guess that at least one deeply red state will pass more of a "personhood" bill, giving embryos the same rights as people. In that case, yes, IVF will essentially be banned in that state, or severely limited.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is very unlikely that abortion will be outlawed on a federal level. What will happen is that certain STATES will restrict or outlaw abortion in different ways. So, some states will carry on exact as it is now (presumably including DC and MD). Some will restrict to 12 weeks (lots, I would guess, and my money is on VA doing this or at least coming close). Some will restrict to 6 weeks, but this will be uncommon. Several will go with complete bans. Whether IVF is included will vary depending on the wording of the bill in question. Most will outlaw the procedure of abortion, which will not affect IVF. But I would guess that at least one deeply red state will pass more of a "personhood" bill, giving embryos the same rights as people. In that case, yes, IVF will essentially be banned in that state, or severely limited.

And another case will head to SCOTUS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nah, nothing will happen with IVF. Outlawing abortion is about shaming women for having sex or trying to prevent them from having sex or trying to return to a society where young single moms were vilified. Anti-abortion people do not care about rich professional couples creating zillions of embryos and destroying them.

Ill push for it personally if abortion is restricted. Goose gander.

+1 - totally agree.

We will need IVF and surrogacy to be illegal so that all these children up for adoption can be adopted.

It's a myth that there are a ton of children needing adoption. And there's been a push in evangelical circles in the last decade to adopt (and therefore convert) children. So there's a huge demand and not enough babies to fill that demand. Hence another reason to ban abortion. Feeding the adoption pipeline.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Op here - I don’t have a dog in this fight. I had 3 kids without using IVF but would be curious to hear what pro-lifers say about the use of science and technology to conceive and when a “life” starts.

Also men participate in natural conception too but that hasn’t seemed to stop them from putting restrictions on pro-choice rights.

No one is trying to restrict rights to natural conception. They’re only trying to restrict a woman’s right to decide not to gestate — something men can’t do.

But the argument for pro-lifers is literally that life begins at conception. Therefore an embryo made during IVF is a person and cannot just be discarded. I.E you must implant no matter what. Or face consequences.

Exactly.

So I'm pro-life based on the "life begins at conception" argument. I also had 3 early miscarriages and hung out in miscarriage support groups where IVF was common. Seeing it up close plus understanding how many pregnancies never implant naturally left me very, very conflicted on this. I know that I personally would have not done IVF no matter what, but I feel very uncomfortable with regulations. I have a hard time imagining taking that option away from a couple or family. Embryo adoption is a cool idea as an answer, but just like adoption instead of abortion it's not a one-size-fits-all, easy solution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nah, nothing will happen with IVF. Outlawing abortion is about shaming women for having sex or trying to prevent them from having sex or trying to return to a society where young single moms were vilified. Anti-abortion people do not care about rich professional couples creating zillions of embryos and destroying them.

Ugh, take your straw man somewhere else.

That’s where RBG and I are nearly in agreement. Abortion is the price women are asked to pay to “catch up” to men, who don’t bear the same risks from sex. The ability to “stop” a growing child is treated as equivalent to a man’s ability to walk away from a child he has fathered.

It’s a double burden, where both halves fall more heavily on women. We run the greater risk from sex, and we are expected to “solve” that problem with a more violent solution than the one available to men.

We deserve better. Women deserve a society that has room for women as women. And a society that fears children will always wind up hating women.

(https://otherfeminisms.substack.com/p/abortion-as-womens-entrance-fee-to)

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/28/opinion/feminism-abortion-pro-life.html
https://www.democratsforlife.org/index.php/about-us/mission

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No one will come after IVF because it is mostly used by rich, white women.

Pro-life is not about saving embryos and fetuses - if it was, pro-lifers would support comprehensive sex-Ed, affordable birth control, and a strong social safety net for single mothers.

Pro-life and abortion access are about controlling the bodies and choices of mostly poor and non-white women. We wouldn’t want to many of them to get educated, break the cycle of poverty, and G-d forbid vote. Who would clean our houses or watch our kids for $10/hr?

I disagree a smidge - I think it's about controlling all women regardless of color. The same conservative base doesn't care about colored people or abortions. They care about white abortions. Let's be real.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Op here - I don’t have a dog in this fight. I had 3 kids without using IVF but would be curious to hear what pro-lifers say about the use of science and technology to conceive and when a “life” starts.

Also men participate in natural conception too but that hasn’t seemed to stop them from putting restrictions on pro-choice rights.

No one is trying to restrict rights to natural conception. They’re only trying to restrict a woman’s right to decide not to gestate — something men can’t do.

But the argument for pro-lifers is literally that life begins at conception. Therefore an embryo made during IVF is a person and cannot just be discarded. I.E you must implant no matter what. Or face consequences.

Exactly.

So I'm pro-life based on the "life begins at conception" argument. I also had 3 early miscarriages and hung out in miscarriage support groups where IVF was common. Seeing it up close plus understanding how many pregnancies never implant naturally left me very, very conflicted on this. I know that I personally would have not done IVF no matter what, but I feel very uncomfortable with regulations. I have a hard time imagining taking that option away from a couple or family. Embryo adoption is a cool idea as an answer, but just like adoption instead of abortion it's not a one-size-fits-all, easy solution.

You are a hypocrite. You only see gray when it benefits your personal experiences. Your personal experience being infertility. If life begins at conception- which is a faith based argument- then people who need reproductive assistance or IVF should not have help because God made that that way. Its quite simple really if you remove people and their desires and failings.

[Anonymous]

I did a paper about this in law school, and the hypocrisy of those who are comfortable with IVF, but not with abortion, has always bugged me.

As I recall (it’s been a long time) Italy (i.e., a very Catholic country) has dealt with this by requiring implantation of all the embryos, since that arguably means no embryos were expressly discarded.

If they make any changes, that’s where I see it going. Again, from what I remember about researching this, the Catholic Church is (was?) against any sort of reproductive assistance (and I give them points for consistency) so it makes sense that ACB would be opposed to it, but I don’t think the majority of those pushing for legal restrictions to abortion would want to ban/limit IVF.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Op here - I don’t have a dog in this fight. I had 3 kids without using IVF but would be curious to hear what pro-lifers say about the use of science and technology to conceive and when a “life” starts.

Also men participate in natural conception too but that hasn’t seemed to stop them from putting restrictions on pro-choice rights.

No one is trying to restrict rights to natural conception. They’re only trying to restrict a woman’s right to decide not to gestate — something men can’t do.

But the argument for pro-lifers is literally that life begins at conception. Therefore an embryo made during IVF is a person and cannot just be discarded. I.E you must implant no matter what. Or face consequences.

Exactly.

I also had 3 early miscarriages and hung out in miscarriage support groups where IVF was common. Seeing it up close plus understanding how many pregnancies never implant naturally left me very, very conflicted on this. I know that I personally would have not done IVF no matter what, but I feel very uncomfortable with regulations. I have a hard time imagining taking that option away from a couple or family. Embryo adoption is a cool idea as an answer, but just like adoption instead of abortion it's not a one-size-fits-all, easy solution.

So I'm pro-life based on the "life begins at conception" argument - not really from a religious point of view, but from the fact that "viability" seems really arbitrary and changing - a 25 week baby born at Hopkins is a lot more viable than a 25 week baby born in rural Mississippi. Does their human-ness change? Of course not. So since viability is a stupid line in the sand, the only two logical options for when "life" begins is at birth or at conception. I can actually understand the belief that life begins at birth (I believe it's a Jewish concept that the spirit/sanctity/humanity of a person begins with their first breath. In that case, abortion should be legal at any point. I can't get behind that, and it seems clear to me that an 8.5 month old fetus is both alive, and human. So the only thing left logically is that life begins at conception.

I also did IUI and then IVF. Much to my endocronologists dismay, I told him that I would refuse to do selective reductions if I had multiples We mutually agreed to skip a round of IUI when I produced 5 eggs, because it was just too much of a risk of multiples. We also minimized the number of eggs that were fertilized each round, with the intention of freezing any viable embryos with a commitment to implant all of them eventually. As it turned out I only ever had two embryos per time during IVF, so we didn't need to freeze any. I also never carried a viable pregnancy, so it was all for naught anyway.

The Catholic Church (clearly one of the biggest drivers of the pro-life movement) is against IVF (and virtually all other reproductive technology) I would not be surprised at all if they attempt to implement restrictions on IVF in the future.

[Anonymous]

10:55 poster —FYI, I’m staunchly pro-choice, and think it’s nobodies business about the decisions a woman makes.

The idea of pre-implantation election of embryos for reasons other than catastrophic medical issues does concern me (i.e., gender selection/preference for certain traits, although I don’t think the science is there yet). BUT, again, restricting this would be very hard without also interfering with the penumbra of privacy, since it’s the opposite side of the issue of limiting abortions to cases of medical necessity/health of the mother.

[Anonymous]

I've thought of this in the past when parents like "octomom" or whoever refuse to selectively reduce one of their multiples because it was "God's plan". No, actually, God did not want you and your husband to procreate at all. People who turn to science when it suits them and then turned back to religion to finish the story should have no role in determining the paths of others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Op here - I don’t have a dog in this fight. I had 3 kids without using IVF but would be curious to hear what pro-lifers say about the use of science and technology to conceive and when a “life” starts.

Also men participate in natural conception too but that hasn’t seemed to stop them from putting restrictions on pro-choice rights.

No one is trying to restrict rights to natural conception. They’re only trying to restrict a woman’s right to decide not to gestate — something men can’t do.

But the argument for pro-lifers is literally that life begins at conception. Therefore an embryo made during IVF is a person and cannot just be discarded. I.E you must implant no matter what. Or face consequences.

Exactly.

I also had 3 early miscarriages and hung out in miscarriage support groups where IVF was common. Seeing it up close plus understanding how many pregnancies never implant naturally left me very, very conflicted on this. I know that I personally would have not done IVF no matter what, but I feel very uncomfortable with regulations. I have a hard time imagining taking that option away from a couple or family. Embryo adoption is a cool idea as an answer, but just like adoption instead of abortion it's not a one-size-fits-all, easy solution.

So I'm pro-life based on the "life begins at conception" argument - not really from a religious point of view, but from the fact that "viability" seems really arbitrary and changing - a 25 week baby born at Hopkins is a lot more viable than a 25 week baby born in rural Mississippi. Does their human-ness change? Of course not. So since viability is a stupid line in the sand, the only two logical options for when "life" begins is at birth or at conception. I can actually understand the belief that life begins at birth (I believe it's a Jewish concept that the spirit/sanctity/humanity of a person begins with their first breath. In that case, abortion should be legal at any point. I can't get behind that, and it seems clear to me that an 8.5 month old fetus is both alive, and human. So the only thing left logically is that life begins at conception.

I also did IUI and then IVF. Much to my endocronologists dismay, I told him that I would refuse to do selective reductions if I had multiples We mutually agreed to skip a round of IUI when I produced 5 eggs, because it was just too much of a risk of multiples. We also minimized the number of eggs that were fertilized each round, with the intention of freezing any viable embryos with a commitment to implant all of them eventually. As it turned out I only ever had two embryos per time during IVF, so we didn't need to freeze any. I also never carried a viable pregnancy, so it was all for naught anyway.

The Catholic Church (clearly one of the biggest drivers of the pro-life movement) is against IVF (and virtually all other reproductive technology) I would not be surprised at all if they attempt to implement restrictions on IVF in the future.

Viability is not an arbitrary line. This issue is not black and white. You've decided since this is complicated, you're going to come down on the side that women have zero rights at all. How nice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Viability is not an arbitrary line. This issue is not black and white. You've decided since this is complicated, you're going to come down on the side that women have zero rights at all. How nice.

So how do you define viability consistently. I am genuinely asking. Help me understand why viability isn't arbitrary. As I said, I'm not really pro-life from a religious perspective and have thought and agonized over my position a lot. I'd love to hear your perspective on how to make viability well defined and consistent across the span of human experience

[Anonymous]

What happens to the women keep getting pregnant over and over again only to have miscarriage after miscarriage knowing medically they likely wont ever be able to take a fetus to term? Is there a certain amount of miscarriages that would be "acceptable" before they are thrown into the same category as women who electively get an abortion?