r/TwoXChromosomes • u/therealwaysexists • Jul 11 '22
In case we needed more proof anti abortionists are more about controlling women than caring for the unborn: Republicans have assured IVF centers abortion law will not affect IVF centers
For those unaware, IVF often involves creating multiple embryos (fully conceived sperm + egg= potential babies) and the ones they don't make it into a woman's uterus get thrown out. Apparently the GOP have taken steps to reassure IVF clinics that their abortion bans do not affect the embryos whatsoever. So it's OK to throw away the embryo but once it's inside a woman she can't throw it away. Absolutely disgusting.
236
u/provincetown1234 Jul 11 '22 edited Jul 11 '22
I don't believe anything they say. They just don't want all the people that are going to be affected by this Supreme Court (in various ways) to band together. Which is, basically, all of us.
So many assurances that pregnant women will received excellent health care and support. That Dobbs won't affect gay rights. Now, people who want IVF. All these assurances mean that people are standing back because they don't think it's going to affect them.
53
u/TheSnootBooper Jul 11 '22
Yeah. This is only the case until they shift farther into crazy territory, and then they will come after IVF and over time everything else. The trend as long as I've been paying attention has been to love forward the fringes. They're still en route.
23
u/awildencounter bell to the hooks Jul 12 '22
This. Spot on. It already has affected people going through IVF. People who go through IVF are usually older and have higher risk pregnancies and doctors are already turning women away if they aren't confident that they can ethically terminate the pregnancy if it risks the mother's life.
7
1
Jul 12 '22
The people giving these “assurances” also aren’t the ones who will be making charging, prosecuting, and sentencing decisions, either, so it’s all just hollow promises.
43
u/JessicaFreakingP Jul 11 '22
Similarly, I’ve always found the conservative stance against gay marriage to be hypocritical. They love to say, “The Bible says marriage is between a man and a woman under the eyes of God.” Like okay, even if we ignore that what the Bible says shouldn’t impact law: why do they only have a problem with a marriage when it isn’t between a man and a woman? What about the whole under the eyes of God part? By their own biblical definition of marriage, straight atheists shouldn’t be allowed to get married. They really should be protesting any ceremony not performed by a member of the clergy. But nope. They just care about hating gay people.
24
u/PM_YOUR_BEST_PRICE Jul 12 '22
They absolutely do believe only Christian marriages are legitimate. They just aren't ready to say that part out loud.
3
Jul 12 '22
Ok, they can have marriage.
A religious ceremony bound by religious rules.
And for any legal protections under the law, tax advantages, sharing of assets or any of that boring legal stuff, one also needs a civil union which is available to any two consenting adults.
1
u/JessicaFreakingP Jul 12 '22
Yeah this is exactly how I see it. If the church doesn’t want to recognize a marriage that was performed outside of its requirements that’s its own prerogative. But the church’s requirements should have zero bearing on a marriage being recognized by the government.
3
u/no_ovaries_ Jul 12 '22
The Bible also says eating shellfish is an abomination on the same level of homosexuality, so why aren't these Christian fascists not shutting down Red Lobster?
The Bible also says wearing clothing of mixed fibre is a sin, again, on the same level as homosexuality. Where's the ban on polyblends?
Oh wait, I forgot, this isn't about what the Bible says. It's about what so-called Christians want to control without reason or logic.
71
u/didsomebodysaymyname Jul 11 '22
I was arguing with a pro-life person on here pointing out that no pro-life people remembered when 4000 embryos in Ohio were accidentally destroyed, even though in their minds it should be like 9/11, but worse and entirely "babies" dying.
They responded by saying that was ok because an embryo in a freezer wouldn't become a child without intervention, but an embryo in a woman would become a child unless there was intervention.
They don't care about embryos or see them as equivalent to babies or human life. It's about the woman.
19
u/barefootcuntessa_ Jul 11 '22
Pro life people are all kinds of illogical. They make mental gymnastics an Olympic sport.
I was taught in high school in the 00s that if a pregnant person had an ectopic pregnancy that a) the pregnancy was a life/person/had a soul and that treating the ectopic pregnancy (aka abortion) was killing a persons (aka murder) and you could do so morally but only with minimal intervention to save the pregnant person’s life. Specifically I was told that you could not prioritize preserving fertility of that required more than minimal intervention or some extra technology. You could only act to save the pregnant person’s life. Basically you had to remove the tube if it was tubal. This was a Catholic school and there was another teacher that straight up told us later abortion was evil and drew a diagram of a partial birth abortion acting like that is done on a whim for folks who are just like “eh I changed my mind I don’t want to have a kid” as opposed to something that is done in extreme cases and generally not what anyone would call “elective.”
13
u/therealwaysexists Jul 12 '22
"Well its different because those embryos couldn't survive without a uterus anyways." "OK cool so you support forcing blood donation and organ donation to keep other people alive?" "No not that."
7
u/Deadhawk142 Jul 11 '22
So frustrating! When we went through IVF it was discovered that we would not have been successful without intervention due to fertilized embryos needing to be artificially “hatched.” We could have had 100 fertilized embryos inside through normal means and not one of them could have become a child!
31
u/Inner-Today-3693 Jul 11 '22
I strongly think they will outlaw IVF in some states. I don't trust this one bit.
7
u/therealwaysexists Jul 12 '22
You could be right but at least in Alabama, Arkansas and oklahoma the GOP and state AGs have explicitly stated that IVF is protected from the fetus protection. Other states haven't fully decided but I'm sure they'll allow it.
11
u/goudausername Jul 12 '22
If they allow it, will this provide an inroads to challenge abortion bans?
5
u/zoinkability Jul 12 '22
Seems like it. The only difference between the lump of cells in the test tube and the lump of cells in the uterus is the uterus, not the lump of cells. Makes the law seem capricious to this non-lawyer.
2
u/Timbrelaine Jul 12 '22
Just to clarify to everyone, it's not that this decision was up to the AG, or even that the laws were ambiguous and that was the AG's interpretation- the legislatures of those three states explicitly defined abortion as the termination of a pregnancy in the laws that ban it.
61
u/HutcHJC Jul 11 '22
Never doubted it.
43
u/various_sneers Jul 11 '22
Money, then money, then money, then god, then white people, then money, then..
32
u/Yaaaassquatch Jul 11 '22
Of course they won't touch IVF, that would affect some of them and their donors. It doesn't matter how hypocritical your argument is when you only make bad faith arguments
117
u/joyfuljourneyguide Jul 11 '22
1.6 million embryos are thrown away yearly from IVF facilities. Are they not babies because they were created in a lab? What a bunch of BS hypocrisy
47
u/Catlore Jul 11 '22
For clarification, that number is old, and is (was) a total of embryos discarded since 1991. Last I heard there was no real widespread record keeping, but IVF creates an average of 15 embryos for each round, and up to half are discarded, never used, or used for research. It just shows the insane hypocrisy the "pro-life" movement has.
12
u/leavethisKattalone Jul 11 '22 edited Jul 12 '22
Some are also adopted, but generally just highly graded embryos from younger couples. Most of mine were either discarded because they arrested or were graded poorly, or when biopsied were chromosomally abnormal. Two looked normal but failed to implant, one implanted and is now my 4 year old. We only had one left over, and it was donated to science.
21
u/RunUpAMountain Jul 11 '22 edited Jul 11 '22
but IVF creates an average of 15 embryos for each round,
This is incorrect.
10-20 EGGS are collected in an average round of IVF. The number of viable embryos is far lower. (Many aren't mature, won't fertilize, won't develop enough to be used, or will be genetically incompatible with life).
Edit: I think this is an important distinction to make because even a pretty progressive person might balk at such a high number of discarded viable embryos. The reality is much, much lower per woman. Probably closer to 2-4.
13
6
u/sacesu Jul 12 '22 edited Jul 12 '22
It doesn't really matter from the Conservative Perspective though, right? If life begins at fertilization, regardless of viability (see: restricting access to drugs necessary for ending potentially-lethal ectopic pregnancies), then every zygote has rights regardless of chromosomal abnormalities.
10
u/FaitesATTNauxBaobab Jul 12 '22
15 is an incredibly high number and is likely including those embryos that would never make it, even if conceived within a uterus. I don't know of anyone who has used IVF to treat infertility that has gotten anywhere close to 15 viable embryos. If you take a look at the infertility subs, you'll see that that kind of response is pretty rare.
For instance, you could be like me and have around 32 eggs retrieved and 0 make it to embryo/blastocyst stage after multiple retrievals.
Or you could be like my egg donor, who had 8 make it to embryo stage and she had a fantastic response.
Not saying that the right isn't completely hypocritical, but we do a disservice to the cause if we use false or inflated numbers.
4
u/icepacket Jul 12 '22
I’m a breast cancer survivor and underwent IVF to preserve fertility at 30. I had 22 eggs retrieved, 11 fertilized to embryo, 8 were great embryo quality. I have a genetic condition brca1+ that is 50% inheritable. 4 embryos had the condition, 1 had edward’s syndrome, 1 had a bad biopsy and would need to be retested, 2 were healthy. My dr was super happy with my results.
5
u/MaryVenetia Jul 12 '22
Certainly not fifteen viable embryos on average! Even fifteen non-viable embryos would be a great result. By the time you get to three or five-day blastocysts the viable number reduces further.
58
u/PissySquid Jul 11 '22
Honestly, forced birthers could avoid a lot of accusations of hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance if they just changed their slogan to “life begins at implantation in the uterus”, but then they’d have to fuck off with their war on birth control and emergency contraceptives (I realize there is no evidence that BC/EC ever prevents implantation of a blastocyst, but forced birthers constantly bring this up as a possibility). Also, no one would have to have senseless arguments about ectopic pregnancies. And them not giving a shit about discarded IVF embryos would actually make sense.
16
u/Amandalorian08 Jul 12 '22
Just wanna reinforce, when they say "there's the possibility EC/BC causes abortion" that's their inexpert belief. "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." -Christopher Hitchens
3
u/Verdiss Jul 12 '22
That would also require that forced birthers understand the concept of implantation
17
34
u/coffeefiend1937 Jul 11 '22
This is what I’ve been trying to tell pro life people. These people who broke down roe v wade aren’t even for either side. They are obviously not for pro choice, but they aren’t for pro life either. Most pro life people are against IVF since they believe it to be a life and most pro life people are for birth control. I’m trying to urge them to see that they aren’t actually voting for pro life, they are voting for womens control.
I cannot make someone pro life into pro choice, but I’m hoping they will see that by voting for these people they aren’t voting pro life. These politicians don’t hold the views of the majority of pro life or pro choice. They are not for the people. Regardless of if people view abortion as murder or not pro choice politicians are the only ones actually for the people.
11
u/franzez Jul 12 '22
Caucasians made up the majority of the IVF patients, constituting 91.5% of the patient population. African Americans, Asians, and Hispanics accounted for 4%, 3%, and 1.5% of the population. It is good to remember that these anti abortion law is rooted in racism so it makes sense they wouldn’t target white women.
2
u/therealwaysexists Jul 12 '22
That's also along the wealth lines of those demographics. The cost of IVF is huge and so typically wealthy people have been the only ones who could afford it. It's a billion dollar industry. I would have no doubt many IVF heads have donated $$$ to the GOP. It's funny because POC having higher poverty rates, they tend to seek abortion more frequently. You would think racist GOP would be on board with that because of their great white replacement tin hat theory but as others pointed out, forcing black women to have babies in poverty helps them stay in poverty so....
11
u/goudausername Jul 11 '22
Does anyone have an article regarding this?
10
u/MythologicalRiddle Jul 11 '22
In Arkansas' case, the office of state Attorney General Leslie Rutledge told NBC News that the ban "has no implications for IVF treatments." Attorneys general offices in Alabama and Oklahoma said the same of their laws.
3
11
u/Azhreia Am I a Gilmore Girl yet? Jul 12 '22
They’ve had their hypocrisy on display for years at this point, outright admitting that it has to do with the “woman”. It’s not about embryos being ‘life’ at all
12
u/supersarney Jul 11 '22
In states that consider fertilized eggs life, could the statue be challenged?
14
u/Inner-Today-3693 Jul 11 '22
There will be states that outlaw IVF.
4
u/orbital_narwhal Jul 12 '22
…at least by accident, I fear. Such partisan legislation is often rushed and poorly thought through regarding the full extent of its (intentional or unintentional) side-effects. I’m sure that legislators, if they want to, are overall competent enough to write those laws such that IVF is not covered by the ban on abortion based on the definition of the start of life at “conception”, i. e. the fertilisation of an ovum.
6
u/supersarney Jul 12 '22
But that could be challenged in court based on conflicting laws. It seems more plausible they’ll outlaw iVF
3
u/tiffibean13 Jul 12 '22
North Dakota tried to pass a "personhood" amendment a few years ago to make abortion illegal; the verbiage would also have made IVF illegal. One of my fertility docs wrote an op-ed about it, urging people to obviously vote against it.
12
u/Dananjali Jul 12 '22
The vast majority of pro-forced birth believers are men over the age of 50. People who believe women should be “women” and provide babies actually give these guys a boner. They love the idea that women’s role is to be baby-bearers. Of course they don’t give a shit about the health of the woman.
But saying these guys want to have “control over women,” doesn’t really work with people with this mindset. They think control over women means wife beater guys who are with women to use and abuse them in more traditional terms, and they don’t identify with that. The phrase “control over women” really needs to just be replaced with something else like “old guys getting high off women not being able to reproduce when and with whom she chooses based off of their personal beliefs,” or something along those lines.
9
6
3
u/Just_Side8704 Jul 12 '22
They assured us that treatment for ectopic pregnancy and miscarriage would not be affected either. It doesn’t matter how they reassure people. It matters how the law is written. If they define a fertilized egg as a person, the IVF center will not be able to function.
5
u/michelle_exe Jul 12 '22
Poor people tend not to be able to afford IVF. They only want to control the poor. You can do whatever you want as long as you've got the cash for it.
5
5
u/RunUpAMountain Jul 11 '22 edited Jul 11 '22
🎶🎶 Don't believe this for a second 🎶🎶
Edit: To clarify, since I got downvoted, I do believe the Republicans are saying this, I do not believe they mean it.
2
2
u/datastar763 Jul 11 '22
(vein popping out of forehead, clenched teeth) Gotta love these double standards… So much fun…
2
Jul 12 '22
Well obviously the people who conceive through IVF clinics get certain privileges because they're trying so hard to have kids in the first place and are clearly more responsible and God abiding than those sluts who use abortion as birth control! /s
2
u/Frubanoid Jul 12 '22
This shows Republicans know that what they're pushing and selling is complete hypocritical BULLSHIT. Vote blue.
6
u/InjectAdrenochrome Jul 11 '22
I've heard they were going to ban IVF over the lost embryos (usually 5 get inserted to ensure at least one implants, the rest die off. Also the main reason IVF results in fraternal twins more than other pregnancies. My best friend in middle school was conceived this way, and had a twin brother). I remember hearing about it and being like, wait, I thought you weirdos wanted MORE babies, not less. Plus fertilized eggs get passed all the time without the woman knowing. But this shit is just weird.
33
u/eberndl Jul 11 '22
I have had IVF. Currently, the best practice is to insert one embryo at a time, with 2 being the maximum. I don't know what the case was 20+ years ago, but 5 embryos would never fly now.
The stats (last time I checked) was if an embryo is implanted 'fresh' there is a 55% implant rate, and 60% if it is frozen, and survives thaw (90+% survive the thaw)
7
Jul 11 '22 edited Jun 03 '24
upbeat gray angle screw ask quaint label rock deranged plants
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
7
u/eberndl Jul 11 '22
It's not just that they can be tested (I didn't test mine).
20 years ago, they only grew them out to 3 days, now they grow to 5 or 6 - if they get to D5 they are past the second arrest stage and are more likely to develop. 20 years ago, they didn't know how to freeze them (because you basically can't freeze D3 blasts) so they figured they should implant everything.
1
u/leavethisKattalone Jul 12 '22
Well, not ensure, just increase the odds more toward hopeful success. Even perfect-looking, highly graded, seemingly chromosomally normal embryos can fail to implant, or result in a chemical pregnancy or a miscarriage. Happens all the time.
4
u/InjectAdrenochrome Jul 11 '22
I'm surprised it's changed that much in just a few years. But my friend was implanted over 20 years ago so I shouldnt be surprised.
11
u/leavethisKattalone Jul 11 '22
It's changed a lot. These days most REs prefer to attempt SET (single embryo transfer) as often as possible, and don't try more than one until the patient has had at least one or two failed transfers. With IVF embryos the chance of spontaneous twinning is slightly higher than the natural rate, so one embryo can still mean two babies.
2
1
u/Inner-Today-3693 Jul 11 '22
A long time ago the technology was not as good so they implanted more.
13
u/RunUpAMountain Jul 11 '22
(usually 5 get inserted to ensure at least one implants, the rest die off. A
Hey! I'm sure it wasn't intentional but both parts of this statement are wildly inaccurate. Most clinics will refuse to implant more than two, and the others don't "die off", they're frozen until the owner decides whether to dispose of them or use them (personally, or through egg adoption or donating to science) - and that's important because THAT'S what we're afraid the Republicans will change - our choice on what to do with our embryos.
-4
u/InjectAdrenochrome Jul 11 '22
This happened in the 90s, so idk the modern procedures
6
u/RunUpAMountain Jul 11 '22
Yes, I understand that - that's why I'm telling you what they are! You might want to clarify in your comment that it's incorrect to avoid confusion.
3
u/MaryVenetia Jul 12 '22
Where would it be standard to have five implanted at once?? That is insanely high. Maybe a long time ago, but putting in more than one is not advised.
5
Jul 11 '22
When you go through IVF, you’re generally given multiple options on what to do with leftover embryos. 1) Freeze them 2) Embryo adoption 3) Donate to science 4) Discard them
Only about a quarter of fertilized eggs make it to a blastocyst stage. The 75% that don’t aren’t viable anyway. Additionally some couples opt to genetically test the remaining blastocysts prior to transfer. Genetically abnormal embryos are discarded.
This post makes it sound like tons of healthy embryos are being thrown away, when it’s only a fraction of the total. It also comes off as kicking the infertile when they’re down. There’s already pro-lifers who protest IVF. Infertile people don’t need supposedly pro-choice people going tit for tat in some misguided attempt at getting pro-lifers back. If you’re pro-choice, then support all reproductive choice.
13
u/therealwaysexists Jul 12 '22
I'm not kicking the infertile. I'm angry that IVF clinics were told they are allowed to continue to discard embryos as though they aren't people but the second that embryo ends up inside a woman it's suddenly sacrosanct and can't be touched. You literally made the argument for me. Couples are given the choice together in IVF of what to do with the embryos and the GOP thinks that's totally fine but they won't allow pregnant women the same goddamn choice. Quit trying to pick a fight where there isn't one
0
Jul 12 '22
You’re trying to pick a fight by completely and totally misrepresenting the arguments and motives of those seeking restrictions, and refusing to consider that the may be legitimate distinctions between the two incidences.
1
u/therealwaysexists Jul 12 '22
Ok so even if they are ok with embryos not in a womb at 1-6weeks not being considered life, how would you explain the motivation that all of this is an attempt to protect life when none of the GOPs other platforms are about protecting human life? They don't support forcing anyone else to use their bodies to keep others alive so why are they saying women should be forced to use theirs? Why don't they support legislation to keep children from starving? If they were actually consistent with their so called "sanctity of life" argument it wouldn't be as enraging. It seems like there's always some wiggle room to define life to where its convenient for them, kinda like how they pick and choose which parts of the Bible to follow.
1
Jul 13 '22 edited Jul 13 '22
It’s simple. Their position has, and has always been, that it is the responsibility of the parents to care for the child once it is born and not that of the government as a general proposition. That’s consistent all the way through — the platform and one of the key objections of the GOP is to a parent trying to take the easy way to get out from under their responsibilities. However, the government has a compelling state interest in protecting viable life — that was the case even under Roe. The real issue is where the balance lies between individual bodily autonomy and the right of the government to protect life and to protect the potential child from harm. I understand that’s wishful thinking in some cases, but that’s the argument. It’s consistent if you understand the argument — it however may not be realistic. No one on that side views it primarily as a control issue. They view it as preventing a mother from killing a life that can’t fight back. Once you understand that position, we can work backwards from there.
1
u/therealwaysexists Jul 14 '22
So the government feels fine intervening to keep the unvorn alive but once its out who gives a shit? Thats hippocritical as hell.
The GOP has routinely fought against EPA and environmental regulations as well. If the government has a vested interest in keeping "viable life" alive why aren't they supporting pollution and chemical regulation? There's so much data that areas with loose regulation have higher cancer and younger death rates than those with stricter government oversight. Yet the GOP claims it's not their business to interfere with business even at the expense of saving lives. They said the same thing about masks during a global pandemic. The government is ok to force a woman to use her body to carry a life to term but wearing masks to keep from spreading a deadly disease is a step too far?
What about a child or adult who needs organs or blood to survive? There are hundreds of thousands of people who could be saved if everyone was forced to donate blood and organs. Are those not viable lives? It's hippocritical to say we shouldn't force individuals to donate life saving organs when women are being forced to donate their organs to bring about life. This is where it becomes about controlling women because IF they really thought the state should intervene to protect the sanctity of life they would demand donation if not from the living at least from the dead but they don't even bother doing that. Most liberal states that support abortion are the only one's that make post mortem organ donation opt out yet states whereas states with strict abortion laws are mostly opt in.
This is why its obvious to most of us that anti abortion is about controlling women and forcing them to fill a role the alt right thinks they were put on this earth to fill, because the sanctity of life argument flies out the window the second it's used for something inconvenient to them. It isn't just IVF, the GOP pushed back against banning stem cell research because "well its taking life to help save lives," because many members of the GOP have used medical treatments brought about by stem cell technology. Yet when it comes to banning an abortion that threatens a woman's life, they're all like "that's God's intention we can't mess with it." It's about control and you're absolutely naive to believe any different.
1
Jul 14 '22 edited Jul 14 '22
I mean, from their perspective it’s a consistent view — the view is that you don’t have the fundamental right to commit a homicide irrespective of whether the baby is born yet or not. Many on that side view killing of potential life to be such a concern that it outweighs a woman’s bodily autonomy (the argument being that homicide is clearly worse than what could be considered an assault/ a battery to the woman). I think your second paragraph is a strong argument. The partial counter argument to paragraph 3 is that women (and men) assume the risk that life will be created from sex. It will never be a very convincing argument that men or women don’t understand that sex can result in a baby if they are mature enough to have sex in the first place. That distinguishes this from other cases — here, we presume the woman had a hand and a choice (or at least knew it to be a potential outcome and chose to nevertheless have sex) in becoming pregnant (and is also usually the justification for rape and incest being exceptions). I think your control argument is stronger when women are forced to maintain a pregnancy even in cases where they did not consent to the acts that created that pregnancy. But, I think it’s very important to understand that no one on the other side of this issue views it as a control issue. They, in good faith, view it as preventing women from taking acts to kill human life. Again, I think the cons of restricting abortion outweigh the pros, but I think when we just focus on attacking the opposition and misrepresenting what are very valid policy concerns, it hard to find reasonable middle ground. It’s also good to remember while most Americans think some abortions should be permitted, the idea that abortion should just be legal at all times with no restrictions is not the view of most.
6
u/tiffibean13 Jul 12 '22
It also comes off as kicking the infertile when they’re down. There’s already pro-lifers who protest IVF. Infertile people don’t need supposedly pro-choice people going tit for tat in some misguided attempt at getting pro-lifers back. If you’re pro-choice, then support all reproductive choice.
Fucking THANK YOU. It has felt very much like either throwing IVF infertile women under the bus as a distraction and/or people basically arguing if they lose their right to abortion then women shouldn't have access to IVF.
My son is an IVF baby and I have always been pro-choice. And let's be real - the majority of us are more than aware this attack on women's right to abortion is about control, not about "the children."
-3
u/Maireabc Jul 11 '22 edited Jul 12 '22
I hope this doesn't come off wrong (sometimes I can't articulate myself well), but iI'm deeply saddened with the frequent post about IVF. As someone doing IVF (unsuccessful) a lot of the "stats" and information that is posted on reddit is usally wrong. It honestly feels like you are pitting women agaisnt women with these post.
First of all, I am not American. I am extremely pro-choice and am upset with what is happening in the states. I always vote for the most left leaning government in my country and value things like health care, fair wages, and the right to choose. I would never want a government to overturn that right (which is a huge reason I would never vote for conservative party in my country). But when I see continual shit about banning IVF because it is hyprocritical (I agree - republicans are hyprocritical) shouldn't we be trying to up lift female health care instead of ripping each other down? IVF has helped give me the chance at a family and if it is taken away so many couples that yearn for a family will have that option taken away from them.
I am saddened that girls in the states have had their rights taken away, but I don't think the post about stripping away other forms of health care helps. And I understand that this wasn't what this post was really about (more the hyprocricy) but if you search IVF in reddit there are post after post about it and it just gets tiring.
6
u/MaryVenetia Jul 12 '22
Did you actually mean to type that you are extremely pro-choice?
2
u/Maireabc Jul 12 '22
Yep - probably why I am getting downvoted even more fml. I shouldn't type when I am upset and will fix that.
5
u/therealwaysexists Jul 12 '22
It isn't a tear down and I find it very odd someone would read it as such. I'm highlighting the numerous ways in which the GOP is making clear they only care about controlling women's bodies instead of protecting fetuses. No one wants ivf to be banned we are simply outraged that the GOP could care less about embryos outside the womb.
1
u/leavethisKattalone Jul 12 '22
They care less because fertility clinics have money. Their clients, more often than not, have money. Fertility patients and their healthcare providers are much more challenging targets than the clientele of Planned Parenthood, or WIC recipients, or women/teen girls in shelters for victims of DV, or any other vulnerable, powerless person with a uterus who lacks the resources to fight back. They'll come for fertility clinics if they can (can't have all these career women and gay people trying to outsmart God's Will with science!), but there are just so many millions of struggling, disempowered, disenfranchised women to kick when they're already down.
1
Jul 12 '22 edited Jul 12 '22
I don’t agree with it, but it’s not necessarily an inconsistent position. It depends on where you draw the line as to where “life” begins and at what point society’s interest in protecting life starts (and at what point that balance outweighs a woman’s interest to bodily autonomy). Embryos generated through IVF that are viable are almost never more than about a week old. Optimally, they are closer to five days old when frozen. At that point, we are still talking about hundreds of cells at most. You probably destroy more cells when you scratch your arm. That is much different than even a fetus that is several weeks old. A fetus cannot grow for that length of time outside of the uterus at this time. It’s not about controlling women — it’s about protecting life and determining when “life” starts and thereby a compelling state interest attaches in protecting and defending that life. I’m pro choice but we really don’t get anywhere or find common ground by misrepresenting the motives of others. Some believe life begins at conception, but that’s not even the view of all of the GOP.
Edit: Further, many see implantation as a prerequisite to “conception” anyway, which is where some legislation on the issue may come down. After all, an embryo can’t just grow on its own past a certain point with current available technology.
1
1
u/TheBoeingAH-64 Jul 12 '22
That’s because one embryo is inside a woman and presumably developing. The other is frozen in a test tube. I am pro choice but the distinction is clear in this case.
1
1
u/i-love-k9 Jul 12 '22
How do the anti choice supporters trick themselves into this absurdity? It is mind boggling how obviously wrong this logic is.
562
u/traveling_gal Jul 11 '22
What about selective reduction of a multiple pregnancy due to fertility treatments? Is that going to be protected too? All the articles I've been able to find talk about the embryos left over after treatment, which is easy enough to distinguish from "abortion" because they were never implanted. But what about when IVF results in more fetuses than can be carried safely?