What will happen with IVF if abortion rights are restricted?

[Anonymous]

I have a very hard time with “viable at 22 weeks” Maybe if you are lucky and near an excellent hospital and have millions to spend in the NICU; ie excellent insurance. Maybe. Certainly not a guarantee.

[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.

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.

Soooo...because you can't comprehend another religion's understanding of life all Americans should follow your religious definition of life?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

I know many people who have had ceremonies (privately) for their miscarried children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have a very hard time with “viable at 22 weeks” Maybe if you are lucky and near an excellent hospital and have millions to spend in the NICU; ie excellent insurance. Maybe. Certainly not a guarantee.

Right. So why that standard? Why is 24 weeks an OK line to draw, but 15 isn't.

[Anonymous]

Fetal sentience is another place you could draw a line.
Could you abort a fetus who can feel pain, can memorise their parents voices or a song played to them ? There is ample research on third trimester foetuses that can validate that they possess those “ human” attributes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Well now thanks for that horrific flashback to my missed miscarriage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Are you serious? Maybe you went through Catholic school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Fetal sentience is another place you could draw a line.
Could you abort a fetus who can feel pain, can memorise their parents voices or a song played to them ? There is ample research on third trimester foetuses that can validate that they possess those “ human” attributes.

And yet lack of pain is part of the rationalization of circumcision of newborn males. Makes you go huh?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is why conservatives are always bringing up the fact that abortions disproportionately end non-white embryos, right?

Because they do say that. All the time.

[Anonymous]

Nothing will happen. They are not going to ban abortion.

[Anonymous]

People on this thread need to get their terminology straight. Embryos aren't implanted during IVF, they are transferred in a solution via catheter through the cervix and into the uterus Whether or not they then implant I to the lining of the uterus, implant in a Fallopian tube (yes, ectopic happens with IVF...ask me how I know), or don't implant at all is up to God or luck or whatever you believe.
IVF vet here. We had 10 embryos. Only 6 developed to blastocyst stage (where transfer generally occurs) and, of those 6, only 1 resulted in a live birth. 3 were lost to the process of freezing/unfreezing for transfer. Do pro-lifers expect me to feel guilty for this loss of life?
Oh, and we aren't rich. Fortunately, I had excellent insurance coverage at the time that paid for one round of egg retrieval and associated transfers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a very hard time with “viable at 22 weeks” Maybe if you are lucky and near an excellent hospital and have millions to spend in the NICU; ie excellent insurance. Maybe. Certainly not a guarantee.

Right. So why that standard? Why is 24 weeks an OK line to draw, but 15 isn't.

DP here and one way to look at this is that at a 20 week anatomy scan parents can be notified about possible fatal defects in the fetus (which might not be visible earlier). Therefore it's important to let parents decide at that point. However I think termination after 20 weeks should be allowed only if there's a medical complication for the mom or baby.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a very hard time with “viable at 22 weeks” Maybe if you are lucky and near an excellent hospital and have millions to spend in the NICU; ie excellent insurance. Maybe. Certainly not a guarantee.

Right. So why that standard? Why is 24 weeks an OK line to draw, but 15 isn't.

DP here and one way to look at this is that at a 20 week anatomy scan parents can be notified about possible fatal defects in the fetus (which might not be visible earlier). Therefore it's important to let parents decide at that point. However I think termination after 20 weeks should be allowed only if there's a medical complication for the mom or baby.

DP. How many women actually terminate after 20 weeks for reasons other than health concerns? For the people who rail against "late-term" abortion, I always wonder exactly what is in it for them to essentially punish women who are already likely devastated by the diagnosis of potentially fatal or life-altering medical conditions.
I know several women who have been in this position, and it was heartbreaking.

[Anonymous]

A line in the sand has to be drawn somewhere.

Why don’t we let 14 year olds drive cars ? What’s the difference between 14 and 16?

[Anonymous]

For poor women who live far from the nearest abortion clinic, first they have to know they’re pregnant (some women have erratic menstrual cycles, so there’s no easy way to tell early on), then they may need more than a day to figure out what they are going to do. If they decide an abortion is the right choice for them, then they need to coordinate the logistics (find out where they can go, how much it will cost, save up/borrow the money/sell belongings for a quick infusion of cash, get permission for time off work, line up childcare for any children they already have, see if a friend or relative can accompany them in case of any complications). It can be hard to get all the stars to align with just a few weeks’ notice. If the nearest abortion clinic is in a state with a waiting period, that’s more travel or more nights in a hotel.

Let’s not pretend that everyone who would choose an abortion can make it happen in the first trimester.