People who are anti abortion from conception, how do you feel about IVF?

[KennDodd]

Watching Newsnight and the anti abortion debate in America. Person saying life begins at conception and deserves protection. Well what does that mean for IVF? If life begins at conception and deserves protection, then does that include protection for life before implantation in the womb? If not, why not?

Interested to hear pro lifers view on this.

I was definitely given a hfea leaflet regarding single embryo transfer which gave a percentage of embryos making it to blast and it was low. The same as I was given a leaflet on pregnancy rates from ivf which were also low. These numbers don't mean a great deal as each round of ivf even on the same person will have a different outcome.

@endofthedays obviously doesn't understand how many variables there are during the whole ivf process.

Sensationalist headlines about 1.7m embryos discarded yet it doesn't really give any accurate information on what stage of the process they were discarded or why. Plenty of embryos don't survive the thawing process or are found to be degraded, plenty of embryos don't make it to blast stage. Are these counted in that figure?

Myself and plenty of others who have actually been through ivf have all said the same thing about fertilisation rates and embryos dropping off through the process but that's not enough so as a pp mentioned maybe a freedom of information request would be a good idea for those of you who want facts.

What about the other forms of assisted conception is that ok? Clonid etc?

It would really depend on the details of what happens with the treatment, and the particular reason the individual was pro-life.
From the Catholic position, there are a few main points that they would consider. If t will potential involve discarding an embryo, if it involves a technical interruption in the sexual act, and whether their are donated or bough gametes. Those are the ones I can think of, anyway.

Yes I did read it. I came to assumption it was over the whole period ivf has been available but it wasn't clear

I saw the figures about frozen and discard, research etc, they were clear

The 1.7m figure. That lacked context

The ideas that embryos would deteriorate during freezing wouldn't necessarily make it less objectionable to a pro-life position, it might well make it more so.

I think to be sure about the period, you would have to look at the original freedom of information request.

It's only marginally relevant to the OP question though, so I'm not that committed to tracking it down. If it happens at all, life at conception believers will object to it. If it doesn't happen often, that is probably why you do't see so many concerned with it compared to abortion.

I think it is worth noting that ivf has developed significantly since it started.
There are stricter rules on embryo numbers for example and the ability to influence the outcome has also developed.
The risks are better understood and how to mitigate them.
I suspect this could lead to reduced excess embryos as well. It would be worth looking at.

Norms, I have not claimed to know how it works in terms of numbers, nor have I claimed to.

I have simply asked for factual information, not anecdote.

I think the problem is there is no factual information. Perhaps it is not recorded.

Then maybe it would be useful to agree that some viable embryos are in storage indefinitely/discarded/used for research but we don’t know how many.

Then we can maybe hear how IVF and abortion views relate to each other.

Yes I think we can all agree on that @endofthedays.

I know whilst I was going through treatment the hfea were toughening up on clinics with tighter regulation on storing embryos.

There's also a movement toward a lower number of eggs, quality over quantity. Mainly to reduce multiple pregnancy and the associated risks.

I think we had to sign something with regards to embryo storage. For us we didn't have any to store so it wasn't relevant but I probably would have donated them to another couple.

I'm still quite conflicted about the issue of frozen embryos. I went through IVF 2 years ago and my cycle produced a large quantity of freezable blastocysts (11). I was thrilled at the time as I knew my chances weren't great with each transfer so was relieved i would never have to go through the egg collection process again. We were really fortunate that our first transfer was successful and I'm so grateful to have my son.. we are thinking about #2 now and TTC but conscious we will likely have to go through a frozen transfer. But I don't have the mental strength to do that 10 times, so am facing the decision about what to do with leftover embryos once we are ready to call our family complete. I can't donate them sadly, I would do that in a heartbeat if I could. I didn't really think about this side of it when I was desperate for a baby (not that I would have done it differently tbh, it just never occurred to me that things would go so well!)

I'm a pro-lifer (with some exceptions) and had IVF. Nothing hypocritical about it - I had a medical problem and that's how it could b treated

I think that position is illogical.

Well it wouldn't be if you only tried to fertilize the number of eggs you would use each time.
The desire to reproduce is very strong, probably stronger in this case than the desire to tell others how to live their lives so I can see how you would end up in this situation.

I'm pro-choice, very much in favour of abortions. I don't have much of an opinion on IVF. I'm glad people have benefitted from it.

What I would find interesting in prolifers thoughts on people creating embryos when there are so many children in care waiting to be adopted. Since they love to harass women into continuing a pregnancy and placing their child for adoption instead of aborting it, shouldn't they be lobbying for those who have struggled with having children to adopt some of those kids instead of creating new ones?

I don't personally agree, I just wonder how prolifers can justify IVF when they are constantly banging on about adoption.

Of course miscarriage is a moral issue, if a man punches or kicks a woman in the stomach and she then goes on to miscarry the man has not only assaulted the woman but he has also killed the fetus. This happens a lot in dv situations.

Not that dv isn’t horrific by itself but that kind of outcome somehow feels extra worse. If that makes any sense? I wouldn’t dream of consoling the victim of such an attack with the pro-life lines like don’t worry it philosophically doesn’t have personhood” or “it was just a bunch of cells” etc etc.

I am pro-choice but the fact that I couldn’t say those things tells me the moral/ethical status of a fetus is not as clear cut as many pro-choicers
make out.

Since they love to harass women into continuing a pregnancy and placing their child for adoption instead of aborting it, shouldn't they be lobbying for those who have struggled with having children to adopt some of those kids instead of creating new ones?

Why the negativity? I've never harassed anyone. I also think that having biological children and adopting are two different things. Having or not having biological children has very little to do with wanting or not wanting to adopt.

I get that the debate has been going on for time indeterminate whether conception is at the point of fertilization or implantation.

I posit this:

If conception is at fertilization then every fertilized egg (zygote) traveling in a fallopian tube or floating around a uterus = pregnancy; and we know that isn't the case. Pregnancy begins when an embryo implants. We don't say we had a miscarriage when we have our menses - a fertilized or (more likely) unfertilized egg is discarded by our bodies every month. I don't mourn my discarded eggs (fertilized or not) due to menses - do you?

The idea that our bodies discard/abort a 'possible pregnancy/child' (i.e. zygote/fertilized egg) via menses is contrived and stinks of patriarchy IMO. I was taught fertilized egg = conception as a Roman Catholic girl. It casts us as people with inherently evil bodies and minds - bodies that kill innocents without our control, and minds that manipulate men into sin. Women whose bodies achieve giving birth are raised for giving life in light of their sinful existence yet are still merely vessels for the next manchild (double entendre yes).

I rejected the fertilization = conception concept when my mom explained (with medical diagrams) the female reproductive organs and their functions. This discussion was a pre-menses talk to proactively comfort me with my soon-to-be changing body.

Placenta is required for embryo growth and development. We don't produce high levels of HCG at fertilization as this spike in production comes from the placenta (which is formed beginning with implantation by the embryo burrowing into the uterus wall). Women normally have a level of5mIU/mL or less of HCG in their system when not pregnant and a level exceeding 25 mIU/mL of HCG when pregnant. HCG spike is what pregnancy tests look for to determine if a woman is pregnant. If an embryo does not implant and produce placenta it is no longer viable. If implantation happens in the wrong place (ectopic pregnancy) the embryo is not viable. Ectopic pregnancies are used in the abortion debate as removal is considered abortion.

Menses and ectopic pregnancy are not miscarriage or abortion, can we agree on that?

How can conception begin at fertilization if the above is true?

If you hold fertilization = conception due to religious beliefs, do you believe your deity(-ies) would breathe unique life/soul/spirit into zygotes (single cell organisms upon fertilization) for most of them to die before birth?

My questions are not meant to be ugly, sarcastic, or pointed.

I would describe myself as a 'choose lifer'. So I personally would not have an abortion. I mainly believe in working to create a society where continuing with an unexpected pregnancy carries no stigma whatever your circumstances. DH and I also agreed that we would adopt rather than go for IVF if we were unable to conceive.

@JoJoSM2 apols, not RTFT fully so may have missed this if it's already been mentioned, but some people opt for compassionate transfer for leftover embryos as an alternative to embryo adoption, donating them to scientific research or discarding them

Compassionate transfer is the process of transferring remaining embryos into the uterus of a woman when it is highly unlikely to result in pregnancy. The general rationale for such a procedure is that a woman is “open” to the potentiality that these embryos could implant and therefore it is less morally problematic than intentionally destroying these embryos or leaving them frozen indefinitely. Moreover, proponents argue that the embryo’s passing is more akin to a miscarriage compared to an intentional destruction of the embryo

http://www.voicesinbioethics.net/newswire/2017/2/17/sw388nseb7x0o0e0odngdp5q3m0yg1

Human fertility and embryology legislation around the world is very much influenced by the religious context in different countries

Poland, for example, as a Catholic country, "restricts the number of oocytes that can be fertilised at six, unless there is a well-documented condition that affects success, or a couple has had two or more unsuccessful attempts."

Their law around frozen embryos is highly proscriptive - it "does not allow embryo destruction to take place, and surplus embryos cannot be used in research. All unused embryos should be used in treatment – if not for the original couple, then via anonymous donation. Embryos can be donated to other couples voluntarily, or can be cryopreserved for up to 20 years. If the legal maximum of 20 years in cryopreservation is reached, then the embryos will be donated to another couple mandatorily. Destruction of an embryo is an offence punishable with imprisonment, for a period ranging from six months to five years."

www.bionews.org.uk/page_140839

In Switzerland embryo cryopreservation was banned until "a revised law came into effect in September 2017, and this now allows patients to have up to 12 embryos frozen. These can remain in storage for up to ten years, whereupon they are destroyed."

I'm not anti abortion for anyone else, but am very strongly for myself and if I did need IVF to have children I would only do it if there was no egg fertilised that wouldn't be given an attempt.

Germany's Embryo Protection Act is fiendishly complicated - but has huge grey areas (and loopholes). The Act itself is highly restrictive but whilst the guidelines try to avoid the creation of surplus embryos, there are no specific rules on how to manage surplus embryos that are created

If any fertility nerds are interested these will get you banged up in Germany:

The Embryo Protection Act (Embryonenschutzgesetz) of 13 December 1990, section 1, provides that certain acts of improper use of reproductive technology are punishable with up to three years' imprisonment or a fine, namely:

Transferring to a woman an unfertilized egg cell produced by another woman (subsection 1, no. 1)

The attempt to artificially inseminate an egg cell for any purpose other than achieving pregnancy in the woman from whom the egg cell originated (subsection 1, no. 2)

The attempt to transfer within one treatment cycle more than three embryos to a woman (subsection 1, no. 3)

The attempt to fertilize by gamete intrafallopian transfer more than three egg cells within one treatment cycle (subsection 1, no. 4)

The attempt to fertilize more egg cells from a woman than may be transferred to her within one treatment cycle (subsection 1, no. 5)

The removal of an embryo from a woman before completion of implantation in the uterus in order to transfer it to another woman or to use it for another purpose not serving its preservation (subsection 1, no. 6)

The attempt to carry out the artificial insemination of a woman who is prepared to give up her child permanently after birth (surrogate mother) or to transfer a human embryo to her (subsection 1, no. 7)

The artificial penetration of a human egg cell by a human sperm cell or the transfer of a human sperm cell into a human egg cell artificially without the intention to achieve pregnancy in a woman from whom the egg cell originated (subsection 2)

https://biopolicywiki.org/index.php?title=Germany

Everything in your post is irrelevant to my objection to IVF.

I thought IVF at the time of the first "test tube" baby was the start of a slippery slope of unnecessary and unjustified procedures.

We now have surrogacy where the egg can be taken from a woman who will never be legally or socially "the mother". The woman carrying the foetus is, in the UK, anyway at least temporarily, legally the mother. She might or might not be the permanent social mother. The majority opinion on here is that surrogacy is wrong- but surrogacy led directly from IVF. The latest "progress" in novel ways to create babies is womb transplants- what next? Artificial wombs? And why? It's not as if we are running short of people.

I have no religious beliefs at all but IVF has always had a Frankenstein element to it - an "I want, therefore I must have" no matter what ethical or unforeseen consequences might result. "I want, therefore I must have" is an attitude which infects society in all manner of ways and I don't think it is good. Just because something can be done, doesn't mean it should be done.

I think there is hypocrisy by those who are anti-abortion but who support IVF. Clearly from the US perspective it's all about money- IVF is a very expensive process involving expensive drugs so exceptions will be made.

As I've said before my view is the other way round from what the OP probably expected. I support the right to have an abortion. My view is abortion is the lesser of 2 bad situations and the woman's rights trumps the foetus. IVF on the other hand, as far as I'm concerned, is turning embryos into commodities.

I was unaware that conception was a contested term. Does it not really have any particular medical meaning?