What will happen with IVF if abortion rights are restricted?

[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.

This isnt because of viability its because of healthcare access. There also isnt a guarantee that a 24 week old will survive no matter the location or interventions. There also isnt a guarantee that full term fetuses are born- stillbirths for example.

So let me get this straight. You had eggs fertilized. You had them implanted. They did not equal a viable pregnancy and you dont see the dissonance of saying the life begins at conception.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

You're hyper focused on something that I don't understand. What health outcome is consistent across the span of human experience? A woman who gives birth in Mississippi, as well as her child, has a much higher chance of a worse health outcome than one who gives birth in Connecticut.

Science is constantly evolving. Right now viability is around 23 weeks. And yet a lot of babies born then will not survive. You can set viability for slightly earlier than that, say 22 weeks, and if science evolves, then the standard can evolve. You still need an exception for health of the mother and for fetuses which are discovered to be not viable at the 20 week scan. But just because something is complicated and not easy to solve is not the reason to throw hands up in the air and strip women of their rights.

[Anonymous]

Sure, let's go all in. If God wants you to have a baby, then you get one. If God doesn't, then too bad.

[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.

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.

God didn't give me the ability to have children, He gave me the desire for children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not PP, but I was born two weeks early. My due date was Valentine's Day, I was born on January 30th. Does that make me any less human than someone who was born on time?

[Anonymous]

Nah, this is about the conservative agenda to control women and put them back in the home. IVF helps with that bc it results in more kids. IVF is safe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nah, this is about the conservative agenda to control women and put them back in the home. IVF helps with that bc it results in more kids. IVF is safe.

Blessed be the fruit

[Anonymous]

No one ever on the entire planet aborted fetus in the 8 month that they have committed to growing and having up until that point, just because. Stop being dumb.

[Anonymous]

I’m fertile but my husband isn’t. Does this mean God wants me to have another man’s baby? Could those of you who know God’s plan let me know?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

God didn't give me the ability to have children, He gave me the desire for children.

Im just not going to engage in responding in a cruel way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not PP, but I was born two weeks early. My due date was Valentine's Day, I was born on January 30th. Does that make me any less human than someone who was born on time?

Due dates are not actually that scientific. https://www.vox.com/2018/6/9/17435322/pregnancy-due-date-test-premature-birth It doesnt which is why dating is archaic and also not a good indicator of how developed a fetus is, which actually makes the argument for these cutoffs even more dumb. U/S actually becomes less accruate as the pregnancy progresses. Thats why there is a month long delivery window.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

God didn't give me the ability to have children, He gave me the desire for children.

And God gave others the desire to NOT be pregnant when they are. Do we follow our desires and manipulate nature against God's will, or not?

[Anonymous]

I hope all of the “life begins at conception” folks are handling the remains of any miscarriages they may have with proper dignity and respect, and not just flushing their few-weeks-old unborn babies down the toilet.

[Anonymous]

I’m old and I remember Georgetown hospital would not do IVF because of religious reasons. Mid 90s. Then they figured out how profitable it was. And is.

[Anonymous]

I am pro choice because I believe that a women has a right to bodily autonomy. However I also believe that life begins at conception. That’s basic biology that we all learnt at 11. My pro choice position was a result of my consideration of the greater good.

IVF however doesn't infringe on bodily autonomy so the same conflict of interest isn’t there. I consider it a privilege not a right.

Therefore I wouldn’t be against the banning of destruction of unused embryos. Technology innovation would find a solution if the practice was banned so IVF should eventually continue to be available. There might just be a delay and or be more experience but I believe that the protection of life usurps those disadvantages.