I recently saw an opinion article from USA Today, with the headline: " IVF made me a mom. Abortion ban bills could take that option from others. " I celebrate Mother's Day thanks to IVF. Abortion bills could change that (usatoday.com), Kristin Dillensnyder, May 14, 2023 In it, the writer claims that abortion bans will -- and this is highly ironic -- prevent women who want to have babies from being able to have them. "How would it do that?!?" my first thought was. This has to do with in vitro fertilisation (IVF). Some women have trouble being able to have a baby. So these women seek assistance from a fertility clinic, where an embryo is implanted into their uterus. (the so-called "test tube baby") The issue is, however, that there's a high chance an embryo will not take. And it's kind of an expensive procedure to go in there. And I also suspect a woman does not want to be waiting around for two months in case it didn't work the first time. So very often what they will do is implant TWO or THREE embryos. Even though the woman was really only desiring one baby. Now, what they expect will happen is that probably not all of those embryos will take. So the woman might end up with one baby growing in there, or sometimes twins. But it is a possibility that all the embryos might take. And in that case, the woman could wind up with more babies in there than she wanted or was expecting. So you know what they usually do? They ABORT one of them. Except by that time it's not just an embryo any longer but has grown into a fetus, with arms and legs. (They don't know how many have actually taken until they are big enough to be seen on ultrasound) It's a very common practice in IVF. So what this is, it's a woman killing one of her babies in order to have another. Highly ironic and paradoxical. Now it's true, usually if a woman just has twins, she'll end up choosing to keep them. She might have preferred just a single baby, but most of these women are so desperate to have a baby that they view being able to have two as a blessing. But with this reproductive technology seen as just "a choice", there are an increasing number of women these days who choose to terminate one of the twins because they only wanted one. (related thread: Elective twin reduction ) More common, however, are women who were implanted with three embryos, all of them took and started growing, and she doesn't want to end up with triplets. Which is kind of understandable. That's going to be a bit of a strain on her body with three babies growing inside there at once, and then it's going to be a lot of work to care for three babies at the same time. And a lot of women these days only want families with two children. So very commonly in this situation she will decide to have a selective termination. And if they're going to knock off one of the fetuses while they're in there, why not two? Making the pregnancy go back down to one baby. I found it amazing that this opinion article, appearing in a major U.S. magazine, had the audacity to publicly cite this as a REASON women "need" abortion. Women are willing to kill one of their developing children in the womb to be able to have another child. They are CHOOSING this, knowing this could be a likely outcome. Normally in the case of abortion a woman is choosing to kill because she DOES NOT want a baby and does not want a pregnancy. She never wanted to get pregnant in the first place. But this in many ways is like the opposite of that. It seems these days, a lot of women are about "ME, ME, ME". They think motherhood and having a baby is all about THEM and what they want. They only choose it because they think they will enjoy having a baby and being a mother. A woman who actually cared about her offspring would not choose to terminate one of her developing children to follow her dream of being a mother and bringing another child into existence. They decide to terminate the fetus even though there is no indication there is anything wrong with it, and usually the fetus singled out for destruction is chosen completely randomly. It could easily have been one or the other.
LOL, stumped on your other threads so start another silly one... YOU: ""It seems these days, a lot of women are about "ME, ME, ME". They think motherhood and having a baby is all about THEM and what they want.""" HYSTERICAL !!! LOLOLL....YES, women can do what they want!!!! Just like men !!! Motherhood and having a baby IS all about THEM....and NOT YOU OR WHAT OTHER PEOPLE WANT...HAHAHAHAHAHHA!!!!
Clearly the people who go ahead with IVF, having been fully informed of what could be involved, don't feel the same way about it that you apparently do. Do you think something should be criminalised just because you feel it is "highly ironic and paradoxical"?
Her: "I'm having a baby, don't care if mama says Inain't ready!" You: "You go, girl! Don't listen to your dEmOrAt mother! #owninglibswithfactsnlogic" Her: "Imma sleep with three guys!" You: "You harlet! Listen to your mom!"
Perhaps women who plan pregnancy should not do so. It’s very selfish of them to think about killing their child in advance. 1 out of 5 pregnancies, or between 750,000 and 1 million pregnancies yearly in the United States, end in miscarriage. That’s 750,000 to 1 million murders of innocent little children due to women being selfish enough to even think about having children. Total sarcasm. Embryos are not children. Reduction is not killing a child. This is a ridiculous post. Reeks of mysogyny. Not to even mention the sheer illogical …
Embryos get implanted, fetuses get aborted. The embryo grows into a fetus. That is the time point when they determine how many embryos were successfully implanted. But that is a natural death. You understand the difference between natural death and an unnatural death, with someone choosing it, don't you? Those statistics could also be a little bit misleading because I suspect the majority of those miscarriages happen extremely early, before 4 to 6 weeks gestation. It might be something more like 1 out of 15 pregnancies (rough guess) spontaneously abort at or after 6 weeks, which I suspect is about the time where a termination would be performed in conjunction with prior IVF treatment. I suppose you could make a comparison IF only 1 out of 15 multiple-implant IVF treatments ended in termination.
The other issue is you would have to argue that multiple embryo implant IVF is absolutely necessary to have a baby. I think that could a somewhat tricky and contentious argument to try to make. Don't implant if you're not willing to have that baby. If you have two implanted into your uterus, be prepared for the possibility of having twins. Maybe if a woman wants to have three implanted, she should have to sign a legally binding contract stating that in the event of triplets, she will not and does not have the right to terminate any of them.
That is an extreme level of interference in her right to bodily autonomy. While we're at it, lets force her to wear a mask, get a covid shot, and take her guns!
Is it??? If a woman decides to waltz on down to a sperm bank and have herself inseminated, would you (or anyone) feel sorry for her if she then were not permitted to abort that pregnancy?
A single embryo transfer during IVF is the standard of care for the majority of people trying to conceive. The CDC, American Society for Reproductive Medicine, and the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology all recommend one embryo transfers for most IVF patients. https://fertilityinstitute.com/blog/many-embryos-transfer-ivf/index.html#:~:text=A single embryo transfer during,Why is that?
But that is only "recommended practice"; there do not appear to be any laws, regulations, or medical standards to require that. This is from a UK Fertility clinic, page published in 2017 : "In most instances, your fertility care provider will consider transferring more than one embryo if you are over the age of 36 or have had previous implantation failure. This is to increase the chances of successful implantation and pregnancy." "if you have two embryos transferred the chances of implantation are higher, not lower, with more embryos." https://www.conceptfertility.co.uk/2017/06/19/transferring-one-embryo-or-more-weighing-the-risks/ In the UK, the median age of women who are undergoing IVF is 35.7 , which means around half of them are going to be implanted with multiple embryos.
"In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) is used to treat infertility in couples. It involves extracting a woman's eggs, fertilizing the eggs in the laboratory with sperm, and then transferring the resulting embryo(s) into the woman's uterus through the cervix (embryo transfer) where it can develop. Most couples transfer two embryos; however, more may be transferred in certain cases." "According to the ASRM, the average cost of one IVF cycle in the United States is $12,400. More than one IVF cycle, however, is usually needed." IVF (In Vitro Fertilization) | ColumbiaDoctors - New York So apparently, at least in New York City, they usually implant two embryos, sometimes more. I wonder how many of those very progressive New York women choose to terminate one of the fetuses when they find out they have twins...
Slate has an article about it: IVF: In defense of multiple embryo transfers (slate.com) However, there's growing enthusiasm among reproductive specialists for an even more extreme approach: limiting that number to just one embryo. ... in rare circumstances, it also prevents these parents of IVF twins from having to wrestle with the ethical dilemma of terminating one of their fetuses -- like the couples described in a recent New York Times Magazine article. ... there are still good reasons to keep the old method of throwing a bunch of embryos into a uterus and seeing what sticks, particularly for women who want to get pregnant as quickly and cheaply as possible. The most obvious is that despite recent reports of promising pregnancy rates, an IVF patient’s chances of conceiving when only one embryo is transferred are simply not as high as when more embryos are transferred ..." "The clinical pregnancy rate was 32 percent for the single transfer group compared with 42 percent for the other method. That's a significant difference in a field in which doctors covet every percentage point and patients have thousands of dollars on the line -- and, in many cases, little time to waste. IVF is largely a numbers games. The more embryos doctors put back in you, the better chance you have of one implanting and growing into a baby." "The main problem, however, is that for each new frozen transfer, she must wait three to eight more weeks, take more estrogen and progesterone (to help embryos implant) and pay $2,500 to $4,500 in addition to the cost of the first cycle. ... That's not to mention the angst factor. If a woman has been trying for years to get pregnant, the last thing she wants to hear is another, 'You have a negative pregnancy result' any more times than she has to."
Seriously it’s none of your business what women choose to do related to their reproductive choices. Do you ever wonder how many decided to keep both fetuses when the find out they are pregnant with twins? By the way I have noticed that you have disingenuously misrepresented what this woman actually was talking about and perversely turned it into one of your obsessive abortion threads. This women has a family due to IVF, without it she would not have a family. What she was writing about was protecting IVF and reproductive healthcare which is at risk due to morons like … !
Don't forget that IVF creates numerous embryos. A small number are implanted. ALL the rest are medical waste. Your comments in this rather puzzling thread have you drawing various lines that are not supported by anything scientific OR religious.
Please tell me how I have misrepresented the message. I have only rephrased it into different terms, so people can more obviously see what the problem with the issue is. Maybe you only think I am misrepresenting the message, because the way I have rephrased it makes you feel a different way, even though it is logically the same thing.
