Fertility clinics in some red states
-
wrote on 4 May 2022, 12:41 last edited by jon-nyc 5 Apr 2022, 12:53
A few states have trigger laws that come into effect when Roe is overturned.
In some states, MO is an example, life will be defined as beginning at conception.
Does this effectively criminalize IVF clinics? I think it would, at least as currently practiced.
What about frozen fertilized eggs in storage? I suppose they should be trying to get them out of state fast.
-
wrote on 4 May 2022, 13:28 last edited by
From what I understand, yes. My wife and I went through IVF for our first, btw.
-
wrote on 4 May 2022, 13:35 last edited by
It sucks when the law is not informed by science.
Still, fertilization ≠ conception.
Frozen “fertilized” eggs have not cross the “conception” threshold. -
It sucks when the law is not informed by science.
Still, fertilization ≠ conception.
Frozen “fertilized” eggs have not cross the “conception” threshold.wrote on 4 May 2022, 13:54 last edited by@Axtremus said in Fertility clinics in some red states:
It sucks when the law is not informed by science.
Still, fertilization ≠ conception.
Frozen “fertilized” eggs have not cross the “conception” threshold.I guess it depends on your definition of conception. To me, fertilization is basically the same as conception, as the embryos (aka a zygote that becomes a blastocyst after about 4 days of mitosis [cells dividing]) are only then frozen after such growth has been observed.
-
It sucks when the law is not informed by science.
Still, fertilization ≠ conception.
Frozen “fertilized” eggs have not cross the “conception” threshold.wrote on 4 May 2022, 14:05 last edited by@Axtremus said in Fertility clinics in some red states:
It sucks when the law is not informed by science.
Still, fertilization ≠ conception.
Frozen “fertilized” eggs have not cross the “conception” threshold.Invented and agreed upon definitions != science.
-
@Axtremus said in Fertility clinics in some red states:
It sucks when the law is not informed by science.
Still, fertilization ≠ conception.
Frozen “fertilized” eggs have not cross the “conception” threshold.I guess it depends on your definition of conception. To me, fertilization is basically the same as conception, as the embryos (aka a zygote that becomes a blastocyst after about 4 days of mitosis [cells dividing]) are only then frozen after such growth has been observed.
wrote on 4 May 2022, 14:19 last edited by@89th said in Fertility clinics in some red states:
I guess it depends on your definition of conception.
Indeed. For mammals, I have long thought of “conception” to begin at implantation rather than fertilization. Nonetheless, I also see that many equate fertilization with “conception”.
TNCR has probably debated this before (probably many times). @Ivorythumper, does the Catholic Church provide any specific definition on when “conception” means in medical terms?
-
It sucks when the law is not informed by science.
Still, fertilization ≠ conception.
Frozen “fertilized” eggs have not cross the “conception” threshold.wrote on 4 May 2022, 14:49 last edited by@Axtremus said in Fertility clinics in some red states:
It sucks when the law is not informed by science.
Still, fertilization ≠ conception.
Frozen “fertilized” eggs have not cross the “conception” threshold.Yes, they have
Relax, the law is informed by science
-
A few states have trigger laws that come into effect when Roe is overturned.
In some states, MO is an example, life will be defined as beginning at conception.
Does this effectively criminalize IVF clinics? I think it would, at least as currently practiced.
What about frozen fertilized eggs in storage? I suppose they should be trying to get them out of state fast.
wrote on 4 May 2022, 17:06 last edited by@jon-nyc said in Fertility clinics in some red states:
A few states have trigger laws that come into effect when Roe is overturned.
In some states, MO is an example, life will be defined as beginning at conception.
Does this effectively criminalize IVF clinics? I think it would, at least as currently practiced.
What about frozen fertilized eggs in storage? I suppose they should be trying to get them out of state fast.
Why would it criminalize IVF clinics? Don't kill the conceptus, and there is no problem.
I think it does certainly show the problem of IVF, that human beings can be frozen in an early stage of development and later reanimated, and that there are moral implications to this practice. But there is nothing obviously criminal (except morally criminal) about the practice.
-
wrote on 4 May 2022, 17:16 last edited by
They make many more embryos than they need and there are usually some left over that are eventually disposed of.
Maybe they could get by on a technicality by keeping them frozen forever.
-
They make many more embryos than they need and there are usually some left over that are eventually disposed of.
Maybe they could get by on a technicality by keeping them frozen forever.
wrote on 4 May 2022, 17:23 last edited by 89th 5 Apr 2022, 17:23@jon-nyc said in Fertility clinics in some red states:
They make many more embryos than they need and there are usually some left over that are eventually disposed of.
Maybe they could get by on a technicality by keeping them frozen forever.
We started with like 14 embryos of which 7 were viable candidates for IVF... we had 5 failed IVFs, 1 successful, so we have 1 remaining right now. We pay like $600 a year to keep it on ice. TBD if we will attempt an IVF transfer, I'd imagine we will since it's the last one, but it would be a harder question if we had a few left.
-
@89th said in Fertility clinics in some red states:
I guess it depends on your definition of conception.
Indeed. For mammals, I have long thought of “conception” to begin at implantation rather than fertilization. Nonetheless, I also see that many equate fertilization with “conception”.
TNCR has probably debated this before (probably many times). @Ivorythumper, does the Catholic Church provide any specific definition on when “conception” means in medical terms?
wrote on 4 May 2022, 17:31 last edited by@Axtremus said in Fertility clinics in some red states:
@89th said in Fertility clinics in some red states:
I guess it depends on your definition of conception.
Indeed. For mammals, I have long thought of “conception” to begin at implantation rather than fertilization. Nonetheless, I also see that many equate fertilization with “conception”.
TNCR has probably debated this before (probably many times). @Ivorythumper, does the Catholic Church provide any specific definition on when “conception” means in medical terms?
Conception is always the fertilization. That is when a unique human being (or other mammal in the case of other mammals) comes into being (unless twinning occurs, but this does not negate the humanity of the conceptus). Conception typically occurs in the fallopian tube, and the zygote is forming into a blastocyst which travels down the tube to implant in the uterine lining. At plantation, the embryonic process starts as the hormonal processes in the uterus begin, for about 9 weeks as the eyes, ears, nose, mouth, and limbs form which is then called a fetus.
At each stage -- fertilization (zygote)/ blastocyst/ embryo / fetus / born baby -- the newly conceived human being is in continuous development and the woman is pregnant with a new life.
To your point about implantation rather than fertilization (respecting that these are symbols used to define something of reality as we know it), "contra-ception" is anything that prevents fertilization or implantation or the continued natural development of the human being in the womb. The Catholic Church follows the science of embryology in defining "conception" as fertilization, as that is when a new human being is "conceived" which is "to take hold" or "become pregnant" as a reality (concipere).
-
They make many more embryos than they need and there are usually some left over that are eventually disposed of.
Maybe they could get by on a technicality by keeping them frozen forever.
wrote on 4 May 2022, 17:32 last edited by@jon-nyc said in Fertility clinics in some red states:
They make many more embryos than they need and there are usually some left over that are eventually disposed of.
Maybe they could get by on a technicality by keeping them frozen forever.
There are always technicalities to appeal to if one wants to avoid moral obligations.
-
@jon-nyc said in Fertility clinics in some red states:
A few states have trigger laws that come into effect when Roe is overturned.
In some states, MO is an example, life will be defined as beginning at conception.
Does this effectively criminalize IVF clinics? I think it would, at least as currently practiced.
What about frozen fertilized eggs in storage? I suppose they should be trying to get them out of state fast.
Why would it criminalize IVF clinics? Don't kill the conceptus, and there is no problem.
I think it does certainly show the problem of IVF, that human beings can be frozen in an early stage of development and later reanimated, and that there are moral implications to this practice. But there is nothing obviously criminal (except morally criminal) about the practice.
wrote on 4 May 2022, 17:33 last edited by@Ivorythumper said in Fertility clinics in some red states:
I think it does certainly show the problem of IVF, that human beings can be frozen in an early stage of development and later reanimated, and that there are moral implications to this practice.
How so? Does the Church have a problem with children who are conceived via IVF?
-
@Ivorythumper said in Fertility clinics in some red states:
I think it does certainly show the problem of IVF, that human beings can be frozen in an early stage of development and later reanimated, and that there are moral implications to this practice.
How so? Does the Church have a problem with children who are conceived via IVF?
wrote on 4 May 2022, 17:37 last edited by Ivorythumper 5 Apr 2022, 17:37@Aqua-Letifer said in Fertility clinics in some red states:
@Ivorythumper said in Fertility clinics in some red states:
I think it does certainly show the problem of IVF, that human beings can be frozen in an early stage of development and later reanimated, and that there are moral implications to this practice.
How so? Does the Church have a problem with children who are conceived via IVF?
The Church reprobates IVF as a practice, but does not have any problem with the children who are conceived by IVF.
The moral problem is the indignity to the human person who is held in suspension for the preference of the parents.
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in Fertility clinics in some red states:
@Ivorythumper said in Fertility clinics in some red states:
I think it does certainly show the problem of IVF, that human beings can be frozen in an early stage of development and later reanimated, and that there are moral implications to this practice.
How so? Does the Church have a problem with children who are conceived via IVF?
The Church reprobates IVF as a practice, but does not have any problem with the children who are conceived by IVF.
The moral problem is the indignity to the human person who is held in suspension for the preference of the parents.
wrote on 4 May 2022, 17:38 last edited by@Ivorythumper said in Fertility clinics in some red states:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Fertility clinics in some red states:
@Ivorythumper said in Fertility clinics in some red states:
I think it does certainly show the problem of IVF, that human beings can be frozen in an early stage of development and later reanimated, and that there are moral implications to this practice.
How so? Does the Church have a problem with children who are conceived via IVF?
The Church reprobates IVF as a practice, but does not have any problem with the children who are conceived by IVF.
The moral problem is the indignity to the human person who is held in suspension for the preference of the parents.
What does "preference" mean in this context?
-
@jon-nyc said in Fertility clinics in some red states:
They make many more embryos than they need and there are usually some left over that are eventually disposed of.
Maybe they could get by on a technicality by keeping them frozen forever.
We started with like 14 embryos of which 7 were viable candidates for IVF... we had 5 failed IVFs, 1 successful, so we have 1 remaining right now. We pay like $600 a year to keep it on ice. TBD if we will attempt an IVF transfer, I'd imagine we will since it's the last one, but it would be a harder question if we had a few left.
-
wrote on 4 May 2022, 17:40 last edited by
Or maybe they could still give hormones to the woman to induce multiple eggs and freeze them unfertilized, then thaw them one by one for fertilization and implant.
-
wrote on 4 May 2022, 17:53 last edited by
Interesting stats from a 2019 paper. About 1.6% of births are IVF births. Some 600,000 embryos are currently frozen and about 25% of them get abandoned when the parents stop paying the bill.
-
wrote on 4 May 2022, 17:55 last edited by jon-nyc 5 Apr 2022, 17:56
It will be interesting to see how MO and other states handle the frozen ones.
Do they have a right to a womb? In the case of a donated egg, whose womb do they hold the claim on?
Will the state seek volunteers, essentially put them up for adoption?
-
@Ivorythumper said in Fertility clinics in some red states:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Fertility clinics in some red states:
@Ivorythumper said in Fertility clinics in some red states:
I think it does certainly show the problem of IVF, that human beings can be frozen in an early stage of development and later reanimated, and that there are moral implications to this practice.
How so? Does the Church have a problem with children who are conceived via IVF?
The Church reprobates IVF as a practice, but does not have any problem with the children who are conceived by IVF.
The moral problem is the indignity to the human person who is held in suspension for the preference of the parents.
What does "preference" mean in this context?
wrote on 4 May 2022, 18:04 last edited by@Aqua-Letifer said in Fertility clinics in some red states:
@Ivorythumper said in Fertility clinics in some red states:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Fertility clinics in some red states:
@Ivorythumper said in Fertility clinics in some red states:
I think it does certainly show the problem of IVF, that human beings can be frozen in an early stage of development and later reanimated, and that there are moral implications to this practice.
How so? Does the Church have a problem with children who are conceived via IVF?
The Church reprobates IVF as a practice, but does not have any problem with the children who are conceived by IVF.
The moral problem is the indignity to the human person who is held in suspension for the preference of the parents.
What does "preference" mean in this context?
Well, preference is my term.
First, I want to tread carefully here, respectful of those who are or have been involved in IVF or have experienced the frustration, disappointment, heartbreak, and suffering of not being able to conceive naturally. I speak from personal experience, and have grappled morally with the Church's teaching.
Preference is deciding when and if that conceived offspring is to be allowed to join the family and enter into the mutual love relationship of family with his or her parents.