Random Questions re:IVF/abortion

[4speedy]

My Catholic SIL had IVF. it was SUPER expensive for her because she stipulated that only 3 eggs could be retrieved each time. It took 5 rounds of retrievals. Some rounds, none were successfully fertilized, some rounds only 1-2 were fertilized and implanted but none "took." On the last round, all three were successfully implanted and she now has 11 year old triplets. this is how she got around the "catholic thing" in her mind. She never stored or destroyed any of the eggs/embryos. Any eggs/zygotes that were not successful was "god's will" in her mind and not "man's destruction of life."

[debatethis]

There is more here on how far-reaching the personhood legislation has become in many states. www.resolve.org/get-involved/the-center-for-infertility-justice/state-legislation/

I could talk about this for hours (and have) because both sides of our families are staunchly in the "life begins at conception" camp and have no answers when I ask them if they believe I belong in prison for embryo murder under various proposed laws.

Full disclosure: Four IUIs, two miscarriages, one IVF cycle which resulted in 25 eggs, 24 were mature. All 24 fertilized, 1 5day embryo transferred, 13 arrested prior to freeze, 10 are now frozen. So, in theory, sign me up for 13 counts of murder.

[FloFTW]

Aug 14, 2015 8:45:25 GMT -5 debatethis said:

There is more here on how far-reaching the personhood legislation has become in many states. www.resolve.org/get-involved/the-center-for-infertility-justice/state-legislation/

I could talk about this for hours (and have) because both sides of our families are staunchly in the "life begins at conception" camp and have no answers when I ask them if they believe I belong in prison for embryo murder under various proposed laws.

Full disclosure: Four IUIs, two miscarriages, one IVF cycle which resulted in 25 eggs, 24 were mature. All 24 fertilized, 1 5day embryo transferred, 13 arrested prior to freeze, 10 are now frozen. So, in theory, sign me up for 13 counts of murder.

Thank you for this! I've always known about RESOLVE but didn't realize how deeply they've been involved in the legislation discussions.

And I'm sorry to hear about your losses. You know I don't think you are a murderer.

[debatethis]

Aug 14, 2015 8:47:53 GMT -5 FloFTW said:

Aug 14, 2015 8:45:25 GMT -5 debatethis said:

There is more here on how far-reaching the personhood legislation has become in many states. www.resolve.org/get-involved/the-center-for-infertility-justice/state-legislation/

I could talk about this for hours (and have) because both sides of our families are staunchly in the "life begins at conception" camp and have no answers when I ask them if they believe I belong in prison for embryo murder under various proposed laws.

Full disclosure: Four IUIs, two miscarriages, one IVF cycle which resulted in 25 eggs, 24 were mature. All 24 fertilized, 1 5day embryo transferred, 13 arrested prior to freeze, 10 are now frozen. So, in theory, sign me up for 13 counts of murder.

Thank you for this! I've always known about RESOLVE but didn't realize how deeply they've been involved in the legislation discussions.

And I'm sorry to hear about your losses. You know I don't think you are a murderer.

Haha sure. I know you don't think that. It's just a very good illustration of exactly how many people would be affected beyond the intended scope of "saving babies" in those pieces of legislation.

We were very lucky, too. We got this cute little dude.

[hopecounts]

Yes essentially any anti-abortion legislation would make IVF illegal because if life begins at conception then those embryos are lives and so on.
It's a big deal.
There are quite a few Catholics in my Embryo Donation group who are doing that as a work around. If you adopt already existing embryos then essentially you are adopting a child and therefor not going against the Church stand on IVF is the typical view.

[aurora]

Aug 14, 2015 8:04:51 GMT -5 FloFTW said:

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.

But a 22% success rate doesn't mean that approx. 4/5 of embryos are guaranteed to die. It just means that it's likely that only 1 will make it. There are always exceptions in statistics. I think that's why some pro-life people are fine with IVF; they figure they are not guaranteeing some embryos will die, but giving them a chance and God will make the final decision.

[aurora]

debatethis: great pic of you and your little one!

[StrawberryBlondie]

I would think it would depend on the language of the statute or cour ruling that made abortion illegal. My guess is that if it was all about "life!!!" then it would probably at least by implication make ivf also illegal.

[msmerymac]

Aug 14, 2015 8:42:33 GMT -5 4speedy said:

My Catholic SIL had IVF. it was SUPER expensive for her because she stipulated that only 3 eggs could be retrieved each time. It took 5 rounds of retrievals. Some rounds, none were successfully fertilized, some rounds only 1-2 were fertilized and implanted but none "took." On the last round, all three were successfully implanted and she now has 11 year old triplets. this is how she got around the "catholic thing" in her mind. She never stored or destroyed any of the eggs/embryos. Any eggs/zygotes that were not successful was "god's will" in her mind and not "man's destruction of life."

Well, there are 2 issues in the Catholic Church's stance. One is the life/destruction of embryos. One is that sex in marriage should be used in a way that is open for reproduction. They think that a man and woman should be active, I guess, in the act of creating life. So sucks for infertiles! No babies for you! Except for adoption. It's a bit more theological, I guess, than just the life vs. destruction debate.

[boiler717]

I think it would also create opportunities for restrictions to be placed on preimplantation genetic screening and diagnosis of embryos. Right now, we can use PGS to diagnose aneuploidy (trisomies, sex chromosome disorders) and PGD to identity specific genetic conditions (CF, etc). If restrictions are added that require couples to transfer all embryos before an additional retrieval is done, what happens to these genetically abnormal embryos? Would women be forced into carrying embryos with conditions incomparable with life just to give them a chance?

[debatethis]

Aug 14, 2015 12:32:19 GMT -5 boiler717 said:

I think it would also create opportunities for restrictions to be placed on preimplantation genetic screening and diagnosis of embryos. Right now, we can use PGS to diagnose aneuploidy (trisomies, sex chromosome disorders) and PGD to identity specific genetic conditions (CF, etc). If restrictions are added that require couples to transfer all embryos before an additional retrieval is done, what happens to these genetically abnormal embryos? Would women be forced into carrying embryos with conditions incomparable with life just to give them a chance?

I have seen a lot of discussion from extreme pro-lifers comparing PGS and PGD to eugenics. I suspect they would try to* legislate it as you suggest, where no embryos could be discarded for genetic diseases.

*I don't think those pieces of legislation could actually go anywhere except to make a lot more work for state and district courts, but I know there are at least small factions of the anti-choice crowd who would try just the same.

[anastasia517]

Aug 14, 2015 9:59:25 GMT -5 msmerymac said:

Aug 14, 2015 8:42:33 GMT -5 4speedy said:

My Catholic SIL had IVF. it was SUPER expensive for her because she stipulated that only 3 eggs could be retrieved each time. It took 5 rounds of retrievals. Some rounds, none were successfully fertilized, some rounds only 1-2 were fertilized and implanted but none "took." On the last round, all three were successfully implanted and she now has 11 year old triplets. this is how she got around the "catholic thing" in her mind. She never stored or destroyed any of the eggs/embryos. Any eggs/zygotes that were not successful was "god's will" in her mind and not "man's destruction of life."

Well, there are 2 issues in the Catholic Church's stance. One is the life/destruction of embryos. One is that sex in marriage should be used in a way that is open for reproduction. They think that a man and woman should be active, I guess, in the act of creating life. So sucks for infertiles! No babies for you! Except for adoption. It's a bit more theological, I guess, than just the life vs. destruction debate.

Basically, no sex without [the possibility of] babies and no babies without sex.  Things like IUI and IVF actually go against Catholic teachings for those reasons as much as the destruction of embryos.  There's also the issue of masturbation to retrieve semen for IUI & IVF.  Treatment causing production of more follicles and timed intercourse is okay, provided there is no selective reduction down the road as a consequence of too many mature eggs and higher order multiples.

In general, I think if there was a law saying personhood begins at conception it could get very sticky.  Something like extremely limited egg retrieval may be okay, but I can't see it working if people didn't agree to transfer all the embryos.  (Didn't the first IVF baby come about as the result of this - no hyper-stimulation of the ovaries, so there was only one or two eggs taken, fertilized, and transferred?)

[KB]

Aug 14, 2015 8:07:23 GMT -5 FloFTW said:

Aug 14, 2015 8:02:13 GMT -5 kershnic said:

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.

How is this any different than a pregnancy achieved the traditional way? You have no idea whether or not that will be a healthy, viable embryo. 

I also don't know a single physician that will implant more than 2 embryos into a patient. I am old as balls (40) and our doc would only do 2. No one is going to stick 5 in there knowing that several won't take. The bigger issue is going to be the frozen embryos that people do not intend to use. 

FTR: I'm 12 weeks pregnant via IVF, I'm catholic and pro-choice. 

[bronxgirl]

Aug 14, 2015 16:40:45 GMT -5 KB said:

Aug 14, 2015 8:07:23 GMT -5 FloFTW said:

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.

How is this any different than a pregnancy achieved the traditional way? You have no idea whether or not that will be a healthy, viable embryo. 

I also don't know a single physician that will implant more than 2 embryos into a patient. I am old as balls (40) and our doc would only do 2. No one is going to stick 5 in there knowing that several won't take. The bigger issue is going to be the frozen embryos that people do not intend to use. 

FTR: I'm 12 weeks pregnant via IVF, I'm catholic and pro-choice. 

My doctor said the recommended protocol for my age at the time (39/40) was to transfer 3-4 embryos.  Obviously not all REs follow that, but there are many doctors that will transfer more than 2.  Both of my IVFs we transferred three embryos.

[LadySusan]

Aug 14, 2015 9:59:25 GMT -5 msmerymac said:

Aug 14, 2015 8:42:33 GMT -5 4speedy said:

My Catholic SIL had IVF. it was SUPER expensive for her because she stipulated that only 3 eggs could be retrieved each time. It took 5 rounds of retrievals. Some rounds, none were successfully fertilized, some rounds only 1-2 were fertilized and implanted but none "took." On the last round, all three were successfully implanted and she now has 11 year old triplets. this is how she got around the "catholic thing" in her mind. She never stored or destroyed any of the eggs/embryos. Any eggs/zygotes that were not successful was "god's will" in her mind and not "man's destruction of life."

Well, there are 2 issues in the Catholic Church's stance. One is the life/destruction of embryos. One is that sex in marriage should be used in a way that is open for reproduction. They think that a man and woman should be active, I guess, in the act of creating life. So sucks for infertiles! No babies for you! Except for adoption. It's a bit more theological, I guess, than just the life vs. destruction debate.

This is a threadjacking:

I do not get the Catholic Church's stance on birth control in light of detailed information about effectiveness rates.  No form of birth control has a 100% success rate.  Abstinence, when used correctly, has a 100% success rate.  Therefore, any married couple using birth control is 0.1 -20% open to reproduction while any married couple not having sex is 0% open to reproduction.

Based on the admittedly little I know about Catholic doctrine, the current Catholic stance against birth control seems to be in opposition to Catholic theology.

Do you suppose the scientist Pope would listen if I sent him a postcard?

[sushi]

"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."

I know this. I've told my friend this. She thinks because they set it at 5 day blasts only they won't be in a situation to be refused. And if they re they plan on transfering the rest later

[scout8]

Aug 14, 2015 19:19:04 GMT -5 bronxgirl said:

Aug 14, 2015 16:40:45 GMT -5 KB said:

How is this any different than a pregnancy achieved the traditional way? You have no idea whether or not that will be a healthy, viable embryo. 

I also don't know a single physician that will implant more than 2 embryos into a patient. I am old as balls (40) and our doc would only do 2. No one is going to stick 5 in there knowing that several won't take. The bigger issue is going to be the frozen embryos that people do not intend to use. 

FTR: I'm 12 weeks pregnant via IVF, I'm catholic and pro-choice. 

My doctor said the recommended protocol for my age at the time (39/40) was to transfer 3-4 embryos.  Obviously not all REs follow that, but there are many doctors that will transfer more than 2.  Both of my IVFs we transferred three embryos.

This, but transferred four both times. They were poor quality so my RE thought it was safe to transfer that many. 

[saz]

Aug 14, 2015 7:44:54 GMT -5 FloFTW said:

Aug 14, 2015 7:35:20 GMT -5 tacosforlife said:

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?

My extremely pro-life in every single scenario, no exceptions, friend is undergoing IVF the way that tacos described. She thinks that God is going to use her to amaze the medical professionals.

I think she was very against IVF until it became her only option to have another child. I don't want to give a lot of personal details but I will leave it with that - there is NO other way she would be able to have another child.

[saz]

Aug 14, 2015 9:29:21 GMT -5 pt716 said:

It seems like it would depend on if the law was giving personhood rights to fertilized eggs or just banning abortion. Since abortion is terminating a pregnancy and pregnancy doesn't start until implantation, preventing implantation/destroying embryos in a lab isn't abortion.

The issue though is that they are trying to give personhood rights to fertilized eggs in order to make abortion illegal. They aren't just making a law against abortion, they are doing it by personhood/when life starts, so also banning IVF could end up as an unintended (or totally intended in some cases) consequence.

[boiler717]

A friend posted an article on this topic over the weekend:
www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/fertility-clinics-destroy-embryos-all-the-time-why-arent-conservatives-after-them/2015/08/13/be06e852-4128-11e5-8e7d-9c033e6745d8_story.html
Here is an excerpt:
The disparity between how the law treats abortion patients and IVF patients reveals an ugly truth about abortion restrictions: that they are often less about protecting life than about controlling women’s bodies. Both IVF and abortion involve the destruction of fertilized eggs that could potentially develop into people. But only abortion concerns women who have had sex that they don’t want to lead to childbirth. Abortion restrictions use unwanted pregnancy as a punishment for “irresponsible sex” and remind women of the consequences of being unchaste: If you didn’t want to endure a mandatory vaginal ultrasound , you shouldn’t have had sex in the first place .

If anti-choice lawmakers cared as much about protecting life as they did about women having sex, they could promote laws that prevent unwanted pregnancy. Yet the same conservatives who restrict abortion also oppose insurance coverage for contraception and comprehensive sexuality education. They view contraception, like abortion, as a “license” to have non-procreative sex. Women, GOP presidential candidate Mike Huckabee assures us, don’t need contraception — they just need to “control their libido.”

IVF patients make less-attractive targets because we don’t challenge the expectation that women want to be mothers. Abortion, on the other hand, thwarts conservative ideals about a woman’s proper role as a wife and mother. This may be why, counterintuitively, I have greater freedom to decide what to do with an embryo in a petri dish than a pregnancy in my own body.

This disparity also reveals a great deal about whose bodies our laws restrict. Unlike IVF patients, who are primarily wealthy and white, women who have abortions are disproportionately poor and women of color, groups it has always been popular to condemn and regulate. These women also bear the brunt of abortion restrictions far more than wealthy whites; for example, low-income women and women of color are more likely to use Medicaid for health expenses, and federal law prohibits that program from covering abortion. Mandatory wait periods increase their travel expenses and time away from jobs that often don’t give sick or personal days. It’s more than just patronizing for states to require women to take mandatory “think it over” time — it’s downright cruel to low-income women who must take more unpaid time off and, if the clinic isn’t close to home, either either find accommodations nearby or make the trip twice. Women must save money to pay for the procedure; the longer it takes to save, the more the pregnancy progresses, the more expensive the procedure becomes and the farther they must travel to find a clinic.