Brought to you by multiple moms in my facebook feed hashtagging about "prolife" when I know they've undergone IVF:
If abortion became illegal, would IVF become illegal too? Because you would be knowingly bringing "life" (zygote) into the world, knowing some would die, right? And many die after the woman is pregnant.
Would the science of IVF be possible without donated fetal tissue?
Interesting question. I have never had IVF and I'm pro-choice so I've never thought about it. I do have friends who wouldn't do IVF for religious reasons, and I wonder if this is why.
Interesting question. I have never had IVF and I'm pro-choice so I've never thought about it. I do have friends who wouldn't do IVF for religious reasons, and I wonder if this is why.
If they are Catholic, it's not really that I don't think, though I do think that Catholics wouldn't want embryos destroyed. With Catholics, it's tied to the teachings about sex and marriage.
As to the OP, I know Catholics care about embryos being destroyed or being used for research but as far as I know there's no issue with creating the embryos and life. I mean you could create them and store them forever and not run into issues but the creation for Catholics runs against teachings about sex and marriage and who should be involved. As far as I know though, Catholic pro life stuff only campaigns against stuff like embryonic stem cell research and the destruction not IVF and the creation itself even though IVF is against Catholic teachings.
This is a different question than what Catholics think of IVF. I understand that Catholics have a lot of conflicting feelings on IVF.
My first question is entirely about the legality of IVF of abortion becomes illegal.
Pregnancy is achieved in only about 29% of IVF cycles. A live birth is achieved in only about 22% of cycles. That is a lot of zygotes that we know are not going to make it to a live birth. Will that be treated the same or similar to abortion?
Post by tacosforlife on Aug 14, 2015 7:35:20 GMT -5
I know that non-Catholic pro-lifers may undergo IVF but limit the number of eggs fertilized and embryos transferred. So someone who is ok with the idea of selective reduction may transfer 5 embryos in the hopes that 1 or 2 stick. But someone who is opposed to that may only transfer 2 embryos. I can think of at least one person off the top of my head who did this.
So to answer your question, if abortion were illegal, I don't think it necessarily means IVF would be illegal. But I do think you'd see restrictions placed on it and potentially less research in ART generally.
I know that non-Catholic pro-lifers may undergo IVF but limit the number of eggs fertilized and embryos transferred. So someone who is ok with the idea of selective reduction may transfer 5 embryos in the hopes that 1 or 2 stick. But someone who is opposed to that may only transfer 2 embryos. I can think of at least one person off the top of my head who did this.
So to answer your question, if abortion were illegal, I don't think it necessarily means IVF would be illegal. But I do think you'd see restrictions placed on it and potentially less research in ART generally.
I know that non-Catholic pro-lifers may undergo IVF but limit the number of eggs fertilized and embryos transferred. So someone who is ok with the idea of selective reduction may transfer 5 embryos in the hopes that 1 or 2 stick. But someone who is opposed to that may only transfer 2 embryos. I can think of at least one person off the top of my head who did this.
So to answer your question, if abortion were illegal, I don't think it necessarily means IVF would be illegal. But I do think you'd see restrictions placed on it and potentially less research in ART generally.
I don't know if I trust you, tacosforLIFE.
LOL.
Maybe I should change my name to tacos4lyfe so people realize that I am committed to tacos rather than thinking I am a plate of tacos that are opposed to abortion.
I know that non-Catholic pro-lifers may undergo IVF but limit the number of eggs fertilized and embryos transferred. So someone who is ok with the idea of selective reduction may transfer 5 embryos in the hopes that 1 or 2 stick. But someone who is opposed to that may only transfer 2 embryos. I can think of at least one person off the top of my head who did this.
So to answer your question, if abortion were illegal, I don't think it necessarily means IVF would be illegal. But I do think you'd see restrictions placed on it and potentially less research in ART generally.
But in all seriousness, if abortion was outlawed in all cases, knowing that IVF only has a 22% success rate...why would it be OK to transfer at all if you know only 22% are going to stick?
I know that non-Catholic pro-lifers may undergo IVF but limit the number of eggs fertilized and embryos transferred. So someone who is ok with the idea of selective reduction may transfer 5 embryos in the hopes that 1 or 2 stick. But someone who is opposed to that may only transfer 2 embryos. I can think of at least one person off the top of my head who did this.
So to answer your question, if abortion were illegal, I don't think it necessarily means IVF would be illegal. But I do think you'd see restrictions placed on it and potentially less research in ART generally.
But in all seriousness, if abortion was outlawed in all cases, knowing that IVF only has a 22% success rate...why would it be OK to transfer at all if you know only 22% are going to stick?
Presumably the issue would be with intentionally destroying embryos. If you transfer them and they don't implant or the pregnancy isn't otherwise viable, you still gave that life a chance and did not intentionally end it. That's what I assume the argument would be.
This is probably a big divide in the pro-life community, though. Catholics are much more likely to be opposed to IVF because of the theology of the body and Catholic teachings about sex and procreation. Non-Catholics are more likely (though not guaranteed) to be ok with IVF because they are opposed to the intentional ending of the life rather than being so concerned with how it is created.
I suppose it would depend on the language, but I do not believe IVF would be illegal. The rate of failure after they are transferred is not something I've heard come up are morally objectionable. My understanding is the the destruction of embryos is just one aspect of assisted reproduction that the Catholic Church disagrees with.
There are couples who use all the embryos regardless of quality because they want to give each embryo a chance. In some cases couples will transfer embryos at a time in the cycle when the embryo is unlikely to implant if a couple already has reached their desired family size. I don't think this is the norm though. I think it is more common for couples to donate embryos, but even then i believe it is typical for just the best quality embryos to be transferred.
I think the Catholic conflict goes deeper than that. There's the whole not created in the marital bed thing (it's supposedly not respectful) and even the method of getting the sperm is technically not allowed. I was on an infertility board with a converted Catholic where the only way they could even get sperm for testing was to have the husband and wife have sex with a condom with holes in it so that they were "open" to conception the old fashioned way and then they took the condom to the lab for testing within a certain period of time. I will speculate that donor sperm and donor eggs are probably out.
But in all seriousness, if abortion was outlawed in all cases, knowing that IVF only has a 22% success rate...why would it be OK to transfer at all if you know only 22% are going to stick?
Presumably the issue would be with intentionally destroying embryos. If you transfer them and they don't implant or the pregnancy isn't otherwise viable, you still gave that life a chance and did not intentionally end it. That's what I assume the argument would be.
This is probably a big divide in the pro-life community, though. Catholics are much more likely to be opposed to IVF because of the theology of the body and Catholic teachings about sex and procreation. Non-Catholics are more likely (though not guaranteed) to be ok with IVF because they are opposed to the intentional ending of the life rather than being so concerned with how it is created.
I understand the intent matters for Catholics, but does it matter in the law? And is it not intentional if you KNOW it's going to happen to 78% of the embryos?
My first question is entirely about the legality of IVF of abortion becomes illegal.
Pregnancy is achieved in only about 29% of IVF cycles. A live birth is achieved in only about 22% of cycles. That is a lot of zygotes that we know are not going to make it to a live birth. Will that be treated the same or similar to abortion?
Most of the loss associated with IVF (other than destroying embryos, which is optional) is much more akin to miscarriage than abortion. Most of those zygotes stop developing because they were not developing right, not because a human chooses for them not to continue. I wouldn't rule anything out when it comes to certain politician's desire to reduce women's reproductive autonomy so I guess it's possible that IVF could be attacked, but it wouldn't just automatically fall under an abortion ban.
I agree that it depends on the wording. There's also a measurable failure rate when trying to conceive the old fashioned way. Then again, some bills proposed would open a woman up to investigation in the case of a miscarriage.
I know that non-Catholic pro-lifers may undergo IVF but limit the number of eggs fertilized and embryos transferred. So someone who is ok with the idea of selective reduction may transfer 5 embryos in the hopes that 1 or 2 stick. But someone who is opposed to that may only transfer 2 embryos. I can think of at least one person off the top of my head who did this.
So to answer your question, if abortion were illegal, I don't think it necessarily means IVF would be illegal. But I do think you'd see restrictions placed on it and potentially less research in ART generally.
But in all seriousness, if abortion was outlawed in all cases, knowing that IVF only has a 22% success rate...why would it be OK to transfer at all if you know only 22% are going to stick?
That is kind of the nature of reproduction though whether assisted or unassisted. Not all embryos implant. I think that's where God's will comes into play.
Presumably the issue would be with intentionally destroying embryos. If you transfer them and they don't implant or the pregnancy isn't otherwise viable, you still gave that life a chance and did not intentionally end it. That's what I assume the argument would be.
This is probably a big divide in the pro-life community, though. Catholics are much more likely to be opposed to IVF because of the theology of the body and Catholic teachings about sex and procreation. Non-Catholics are more likely (though not guaranteed) to be ok with IVF because they are opposed to the intentional ending of the life rather than being so concerned with how it is created.
I understand the intent matters for Catholics, but does it matter in the law? And is it not intentional if you KNOW it's going to happen to 78% of the embryos?
I mean, it happens in straight unprotected sex too. Zygotes and embryos are created that don't survive.
I think I am having trouble with separating whether it's intentional or not. I don't see it as unintentional when you know going in that only 22% is going to result in a baby. And it's a little different than just sexing for a baby, because in the case of IVF, the embryo already exists in all cases. So I guess it centers around how, exactly, abortion would be illegal. Which is why the personhood bills are what is so problematic.
I understand the intent matters for Catholics, but does it matter in the law? And is it not intentional if you KNOW it's going to happen to 78% of the embryos?
I mean, it happens in straight unprotected sex too. Zygotes and embryos are created that don't survive.
Right but you never know about it. With IVF that is the starting point. You CREATE them only to know that the vast majority won't survive.
And I know that there was worry that people that have miscarriages could be prosecuted when the personhood bills were coming up often. (Well, did you drink too much? Smoke too much? Not walk carefully and fall down stairs?) I'm sure there was discussion about how those laws would impact IVF too, I just can't remember them.
Thinking about it a bit more if the law required all embryos to be used I don't know how that could really be enforced. They wouldn't transfer all at one time and I'm not sure what you would do if a woman refused to undergo another cycle or if they could no longer afford to store embryos indefinitely.
This is a different question than what Catholics think of IVF. I understand that Catholics have a lot of conflicting feelings on IVF.
My first question is entirely about the legality of IVF of abortion becomes illegal.
Pregnancy is achieved in only about 29% of IVF cycles. A live birth is achieved in only about 22% of cycles. That is a lot of zygotes that we know are not going to make it to a live birth. Will that be treated the same or similar to abortion?
To answer your question, yes. RESOLVE (the national infertility advocacy organization) strongly opposes all abortion related bills for this very reason. Many of them, including proposals recently in South Dakota, would have such far reaching impacts as criminalizing reproductive endocrinologists and their patients for disposing of embryos.
I don't think that abortion being banned would affect IVF. However, those fucking personhood amendments would, and many candidates support those.
On a personal level, those I've known who are pro-life, Catholic or not, who've thought about or pursued IVF approach it in a few ways. One is to "adopt" embryos from other couples. Another is to commit to implanting any and all embryos regardless or risk or how many children they may end up with. But, even then, the lines are gray, as they may make a decision to only implant 5 day rather than 3 day embryos (IIRC).
I don't think that abortion being banned would affect IVF. However, those fucking personhood amendments would, and many candidates support those.
On a personal level, those I've known who are pro-life, Catholic or not, who've thought about or pursued IVF approach it in a few ways. One is to "adopt" embryos from other couples. Another is to commit to implanting any and all embryos regardless or risk or how many children they may end up with. But, even then, the lines are gray, as they may make a decision to only implant 5 day rather than 3 day embryos (IIRC).
Just as a point of clarification, it's transferring embryos, not implanting them.
And no RE worth a hill of beans would transfer more than ~3-4 low quality 3-day embryos in the most extreme of patient cases. SART and ASRM have well-established transfer guidelines based on age of patient, diagnosis, number of previously attempted cycles and quality of the embryos created. The only times they suggest even transferring more than 2 is if the patient is over 35, has poor quality embryos and has had failed cycles in the past, and those guidelines are even considered a bit overkill these days and more conservative organizations suggest never transferring more than 2. This is a pretty simple summary:
There are, however, other options such as using low stimulation cycles or working with the embryologist ahead of time to agree to only fertilize a certain number of eggs, like 2-3 so you could transfer all of the embryos, but those are very expensive gambles that most people won't have the funds for (and, arguably, many women would have an infertility diagnosis which would preclude a low stim cycle in the first place).