Are you worried about the end of reproductive rights?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, because the burden of raising a child is mainly on women. Many men get women pregnant and then skip out on raising and providing for the child. This is really a disadvantage for women. Also, the government is not doing a good job with the foster system now, how is that going to work in the future?

I think with the increase of genealogical DNA men aren't going to be able to get off the hook much longer.

We couldn't get rape kits tested but if the taxpayers are burdened with destitute, unwanted children, the fathers will be sought out.

Yep, I don't think republicans are thinking about this, but I sure am. Might be worthwhile to hire a genetic genealogist or a private investigator. Heck, I'm thinking about doing this as a hobby to help other women if this all goes through, I love genealogy and helping people!

I do think it will also have effects on the ability bod women in the red states to go through IVF.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, because the burden of raising a child is mainly on women. Many men get women pregnant and then skip out on raising and providing for the child. This is really a disadvantage for women. Also, the government is not doing a good job with the foster system now, how is that going to work in the future?

I think with the increase of genealogical DNA men aren't going to be able to get off the hook much longer.

We couldn't get rape kits tested but if the taxpayers are burdened with destitute, unwanted children, the fathers will be sought out.

Yep, I don't think republicans are thinking about this, but I sure am. Might be worthwhile to hire a genetic genealogist or a private investigator. Heck, I'm thinking about doing this as a hobby to help other women if this all goes through, I love genealogy and helping people!

I do think it will also have effects on the ability bod women in the red states to go through IVF.

So you are suggesting this is one reason why liberals don’t abortion banned. They don’t want to be sought out if they become fathers. Too bad for you that you inadvertently admitted this.

Oh look it’s a man posting on the infertility forum about something he has no clue about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, because the burden of raising a child is mainly on women. Many men get women pregnant and then skip out on raising and providing for the child. This is really a disadvantage for women. Also, the government is not doing a good job with the foster system now, how is that going to work in the future?

I think with the increase of genealogical DNA men aren't going to be able to get off the hook much longer.

We couldn't get rape kits tested but if the taxpayers are burdened with destitute, unwanted children, the fathers will be sought out.

Yep, I don't think republicans are thinking about this, but I sure am. Might be worthwhile to hire a genetic genealogist or a private investigator. Heck, I'm thinking about doing this as a hobby to help other women if this all goes through, I love genealogy and helping people!

I do think it will also have effects on the ability bod women in the red states to go through IVF.

So you are suggesting this is one reason why liberals don’t abortion banned. They don’t want to be sought out if they become fathers. Too bad for you that you inadvertently admitted this.

Oh look it’s a man posting on the infertility forum about something he has no clue about.

Birth certificate says female and I identify as one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why would they do that? I thought the whole point of this is to force people to have more babies. Why would they want to make it harder for a large number of people to get pregnant?

Adoption customers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. Not at all because of State rights and I live in a fairly liberal state and near other relatively liberal states. I also have zero interest in abortions. So personally, I am not worried but I understand why others would be.

Until the GOP takes the house and senate and wins the next presidency and writes that federal ban.

This is precisely why getting rid of the filibuster isn’t a great idea.

[Anonymous]

"So you are suggesting this is one reason why liberals don’t abortion banned. They don’t want to be sought out if they become fathers. Too bad for you that you inadvertently admitted this."

PP you sure are some kind of debate genius, you caught me!

So I am suggesting that one reason why MEN might want to be concerned about this is that there may also be times when they don't want to become parents just yet. If abortion is banned they are going to have to start being much more careful than perhaps they have been historically with where they deposit DNA. And they are going to be on the hook, at least financially, for a child they did not want with a co parent that perhaps they did not want.

Not "inadvertently" admitting anything. I'm saying it outright. They might not want to become fathers, and if they accidentally become fathers, they might not want to be found. That seems obvious to me but, I'm not a man. So I don't speak for all liberals or all men, Plato.

[Anonymous]

Is anyone worried about the bans on Plan B? This seems more pertinent to IVF because it considers life to begin at fertilization. I'm hoping the distinction will be made between a fertilized egg in the body versus one that is outside.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I recommend to plan to have kids no later than early 30s

You know that there are a huge number of us who are/have been on this forum who have IF issues unrelated to age? And that number is growing, as male fertility continues to decline for reasons that aren't well understood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is like one big baby boomer FU to those of us who are still young enough to have babies. They got their sexual revolution, but we can't have ours!

Sorry, you can’t make this about the boomers. Barrett and Kavanaugh are not boomers and directly responsible.

Kavanaugh is the end of boomer generation, so yes, he is a boomer.

No, he is not. Boomer generation ended in 64. He was born year after.

DP. He’s a Boomer in spirit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is anyone worried about the bans on Plan B? This seems more pertinent to IVF because it considers life to begin at fertilization. I'm hoping the distinction will be made between a fertilized egg in the body versus one that is outside.

Why would that distinction matter? An embryo that is in the body but hasn't implanted in the uterus is no more a viable pregnancy than an embryo in a petri dish.

Do you know how many embryos were placed in my uterus that never implanted? Am I supposed to have had ceremonies for the fetal remains from all of those failed IVF cycles I went through?

I think the reality is that the legislators rushing to pass anti-abortion regulations haven't thought this true. So IVF will become illegal unintentionally long before someone drafts an anti-IVF bill. It already would be illegal, most likely, under several of the bills already floating around that define life as starting at conception. I mean, some of these draft bills outlaw D&Cs for ectopic pregnancies, so we can be pretty sure no one has done their homework.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is anyone worried about the bans on Plan B? This seems more pertinent to IVF because it considers life to begin at fertilization. I'm hoping the distinction will be made between a fertilized egg in the body versus one that is outside.

Why would that distinction matter? An embryo that is in the body but hasn't implanted in the uterus is no more a viable pregnancy than an embryo in a petri dish.

Do you know how many embryos were placed in my uterus that never implanted? Am I supposed to have had ceremonies for the fetal remains from all of those failed IVF cycles I went through?

I think the reality is that the legislators rushing to pass anti-abortion regulations haven't thought this true. So IVF will become illegal unintentionally long before someone drafts an anti-IVF bill. It already would be illegal, most likely, under several of the bills already floating around that define life as starting at conception. I mean, some of these draft bills outlaw D&Cs for ectopic pregnancies, so we can be pretty sure no one has done their homework.

PP here. I'm not arguing with you because like you I understand science. I'm trying to get into the minds of the people passing these laws and our Supreme Court. Maybe they are more likely based on theology to consider fertilized eggs outside the womb to not be a life?

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is anyone worried about the bans on Plan B? This seems more pertinent to IVF because it considers life to begin at fertilization. I'm hoping the distinction will be made between a fertilized egg in the body versus one that is outside.

Why would that distinction matter? An embryo that is in the body but hasn't implanted in the uterus is no more a viable pregnancy than an embryo in a petri dish.

Do you know how many embryos were placed in my uterus that never implanted? Am I supposed to have had ceremonies for the fetal remains from all of those failed IVF cycles I went through?

I think the reality is that the legislators rushing to pass anti-abortion regulations haven't thought this true. So IVF will become illegal unintentionally long before someone drafts an anti-IVF bill. It already would be illegal, most likely, under several of the bills already floating around that define life as starting at conception. I mean, some of these draft bills outlaw D&Cs for ectopic pregnancies, so we can be pretty sure no one has done their homework.

PP here. I'm not arguing with you because like you I understand science. I'm trying to get into the minds of the people passing these laws and our Supreme Court. Maybe they are more likely based on theology to consider fertilized eggs outside the womb to not be a life?

My point is, they aren't thinking at all. And to the extent they are, they are taking absolute stances on the personhood of an embryo regardless of how it would impact mothers. TBH, I don't think that they truly have such extreme views, but nuance in this area has become politically unviable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is anyone worried about the bans on Plan B? This seems more pertinent to IVF because it considers life to begin at fertilization. I'm hoping the distinction will be made between a fertilized egg in the body versus one that is outside.

Why would that distinction matter? An embryo that is in the body but hasn't implanted in the uterus is no more a viable pregnancy than an embryo in a petri dish.

Do you know how many embryos were placed in my uterus that never implanted? Am I supposed to have had ceremonies for the fetal remains from all of those failed IVF cycles I went through?

I think the reality is that the legislators rushing to pass anti-abortion regulations haven't thought this true. So IVF will become illegal unintentionally long before someone drafts an anti-IVF bill. It already would be illegal, most likely, under several of the bills already floating around that define life as starting at conception. I mean, some of these draft bills outlaw D&Cs for ectopic pregnancies, so we can be pretty sure no one has done their homework.

PP here. I'm not arguing with you because like you I understand science. I'm trying to get into the minds of the people passing these laws and our Supreme Court. Maybe they are more likely based on theology to consider fertilized eggs outside the womb to not be a life?

My point is, they aren't thinking at all. And to the extent they are, they are taking absolute stances on the personhood of an embryo regardless of how it would impact mothers. TBH, I don't think that they truly have such extreme views, but nuance in this area has become politically unviable.

PP here. Fair enough point. So what do we do as infertility patients? Try and get pregnant as quickly as possible with the desired number of children before we lose all control of our embryos even if that's not what's best for our health? Make sure are embryos are stored in a liberal state that would try to protect our rights? What is everyone's game plan?