What will happen with IVF if abortion rights are restricted?

[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.

20 WEEKS is based off of due date calculator and those are notoriously inaccurate. Development in the uterus doesnt happen like a Ford motor production assembly line. Sometimes they need to do multiple scans. And why does it need to be fatal? I dont get a choice in having to raise a child with significant disabilities?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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?

No one has to share the road with me and my reproductive issues. How about you just leave the laws as is and stay out of any reproductive decisions that are not your concern?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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?

There is a difference but the guideline is arbitrary and not based in science. It would be best if you couldnt drive until your frontal lobe was developed but that doesnt take into account rural communities, social and work obligations, etc. Graduated licensing equals less teenage death/accidents. 16 was decided as early as 1920s and became accepted nationally around the 40s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Surprise, surprise... hypocrisy found in a catholic hospital.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

To have even a small chance of having a child, IVF patients have to go through many steps before transfer, during and after, just for the mere hope of a child at the end. How is merely sticking them in the uterus without support giving them a chance? It's not...no different than discarding them. And I've known women that were ok with this since they wouldn't be discarded and make God mad. But from personal experience, it's no different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's all going to be on the table, and ACB already is on record for being against IVF for the reason of discarded embryos. The current talk of 15 weeks, 6, 9 or heartbeat isn't the point. They want to control everything including certain types of birth control.

OP here - Since the court is packed they should go for the gold! Make IVF illegal/abortion illegal/birth control illegal and see what happens. That is what conservative GOPers want right?

Agree, and mandated dna testing for every boy that goes into puberty to make sure everyone involved is held responsible!!

[Anonymous]

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.

You are assuming waaaaay too much intellectual coherence

[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.

You are assuming waaaaay too much intellectual coherence

There's plenty of intellectual coherence in plenty of pro-life arguments. Try reading just the first few paragraphs of John Paul II's document on life - it's pro-life from a social justice standpoint.

https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae.html

The pro-life position should not be defined entirely by many idiotic comments over the years by old white men who have no idea what they are talking about, even if said people tend to be politicians.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

If they have, the matter is private.

[Anonymous]

Cannot believe people who don't know the difference between transfer and implantation think their opinions about reproduction should count.

And I don't care that you don't know. If you've never had reason to care, I'm happy for you. But STFU and stay in your lane.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Cannot believe people who don't know the difference between transfer and implantation think their opinions about reproduction should count.

And I don't care that you don't know. If you've never had reason to care, I'm happy for you. But STFU and stay in your lane.

Any lane that leads to my uterus is under my own jurisdiction. As is your own. And that’s why this law needs to not be changed. The whole argument is appalling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cannot believe people who don't know the difference between transfer and implantation think their opinions about reproduction should count.

And I don't care that you don't know. If you've never had reason to care, I'm happy for you. But STFU and stay in your lane.

Any lane that leads to my uterus is under my own jurisdiction. As is your own. And that’s why this law needs to not be changed. The whole argument is appalling.

Pretty sure you and PP are saying the same thing.
Anyone referring to embryo transfer as “implantation” has never dealt with infertility/IVF. How fortunate for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cannot believe people who don't know the difference between transfer and implantation think their opinions about reproduction should count.

And I don't care that you don't know. If you've never had reason to care, I'm happy for you. But STFU and stay in your lane.

Any lane that leads to my uterus is under my own jurisdiction. As is your own. And that’s why this law needs to not be changed. The whole argument is appalling.

Pretty sure you and PP are saying the same thing.
Anyone referring to embryo transfer as “implantation” has never dealt with infertility/IVF. How fortunate for them.

+1

[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.

A 15 week old fetus will never survive even with the best medical intervention in the world. Why, because it is not formed enough to sustain life even when supported with machines. that's why there is a Viable age minimum.

It was always heart wrenching to see these pro lifers kids in the hospital that have so many health/mental/physical abnormalities that they abandon them to institutions to take care of because they didn't want to or cant take care of them. So with taxpayer money we keep alive a bedridden motionless body that has only brainstem because life is life.

They stop caring about life when it comes to making it easier to obtain birth control, affordable medical care, daycare services and enforcing child support.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cannot believe people who don't know the difference between transfer and implantation think their opinions about reproduction should count.

And I don't care that you don't know. If you've never had reason to care, I'm happy for you. But STFU and stay in your lane.

Any lane that leads to my uterus is under my own jurisdiction. As is your own. And that’s why this law needs to not be changed. The whole argument is appalling.

Pretty sure you and PP are saying the same thing.
Anyone referring to embryo transfer as “implantation” has never dealt with infertility/IVF. How fortunate for them.

We are saying the same thing. And I haven’t had IVF. I can’t even imagine how much self-awareness it takes to stay mentally whole through that process. Anti-choice is not the way to go with anything about reproduction, at all.