Ok I'm not the most knowledgeable on this, why are extreme pro lifers against IVF? Is it due to scientific intervention in creating a child or because of the process itself?
The actual biological process of fertilizing an egg fails to produce a viable zygote a lot of the time. Fertilization happens but it immediately dies after. You just don't hear about it because there is no external way for a woman to know, but this is what is happening when you have anyone who has been trying to get pregnant for more than a couple months and the man isn't shooting blanks.
At the same time, successfully capturing an oocyte (egg) is difficult and harsh on the woman's body. So to ensure success, they usually harvest multiple eggs at the same time. The eggs get fertilized and they get screened for issues, and implantation involves a couple of the "best" eggs that are most likely to survive, and even then it's common for all but one to fail (even though it's still more common than in nature for multiple to survive, hence why IVF pregnancies have a relatively high rate of twins or more).
So you often end up with extras that are never going to be implanted in a uterus. There are a few choices to deal with them. 1. With parental consent, the fertilized eggs can be harvested as a source for stem cells. 2. The eggs are destroyed. 3. The eggs are permanently frozen.
It depends on the condition. Like, a guy might have sperm that don't swim but the DNA is fine. Or there could be a lack of chemotaxis due to something going with the sperm or the woman's body, so the sperm will be unable to hone in on the egg's location. There are a variety of ways a couple can have difficulty conceiving that IUI won't be able to help, but IUI is less invasive and less expensive than IVF so it's a good idea for people know their options before resorting to IVF.
Either way I'm sure there are ideological obstacles to R&D that aims to make the process less wasteful. It really is death cult, so killing shit is an objective independent of helping whores evade accountability.
Every republican should be campaigning exclusively on immigration. It’s the only issue that actually matters right now, and it is also a path to guaranteed victory.
My friends wife could only get pregnant from ivf so I'm for it. As for life starting from conception, for me conception includes the egg being implanted in something that can grow it as well
I don't know much about the process of IVF so I don't have an opinion about the process itself. That said I do know that's a technique that's mostly used by aging sluts who spent their most fertile years on the cock carousel, so I wouldn't be shed any tears if it was banned. If Trump or anyone else wants more "precious babies" they should tell women to stop spending their prime whoring around.
IVF is a last resort, not to mention often people have to save up to afford the tens of thousands it can cost, so the demographic is going to naturally swing older. A quick checks say a bit less than half of women are under 35, and about half are 35-40, and rarely are there women past that giving birth.
IVF is dysgenic, so it is good to get rid of it, but it is the sort of policy you enact when you are firmly in power and don't have to care about retarded opinions of women
Ok I'm not the most knowledgeable on this, why are extreme pro lifers against IVF? Is it due to scientific intervention in creating a child or because of the process itself?
Many unused embryos are discarded after successful IVF.
If you believe that life starts at conception, any embryo being discarded is seen as a murder of an unborn life.
I personally believe that life starts at the existence of a heartbeat (6 weeks) so banning IVF seems ludicrous to me.
If I believed that life starts at conception, I can see why IVF can be seen as an evil thing.
Ah so the process itself is wasteful, wonder if that's a tech level issue or by design.
It is a cost issue.
Embryos need to be frozen properly to remain viable.
It costs a lot of money to keep unused embryos frozen indefinitely.
They just discard unused embryos instead of keeping them.
The actual biological process of fertilizing an egg fails to produce a viable zygote a lot of the time. Fertilization happens but it immediately dies after. You just don't hear about it because there is no external way for a woman to know, but this is what is happening when you have anyone who has been trying to get pregnant for more than a couple months and the man isn't shooting blanks.
At the same time, successfully capturing an oocyte (egg) is difficult and harsh on the woman's body. So to ensure success, they usually harvest multiple eggs at the same time. The eggs get fertilized and they get screened for issues, and implantation involves a couple of the "best" eggs that are most likely to survive, and even then it's common for all but one to fail (even though it's still more common than in nature for multiple to survive, hence why IVF pregnancies have a relatively high rate of twins or more).
So you often end up with extras that are never going to be implanted in a uterus. There are a few choices to deal with them. 1. With parental consent, the fertilized eggs can be harvested as a source for stem cells. 2. The eggs are destroyed. 3. The eggs are permanently frozen.
This is why iui is the superior process but not as many ppl take it cause they think ivf is much more successful than it really is
It depends on the condition. Like, a guy might have sperm that don't swim but the DNA is fine. Or there could be a lack of chemotaxis due to something going with the sperm or the woman's body, so the sperm will be unable to hone in on the egg's location. There are a variety of ways a couple can have difficulty conceiving that IUI won't be able to help, but IUI is less invasive and less expensive than IVF so it's a good idea for people know their options before resorting to IVF.
Either way I'm sure there are ideological obstacles to R&D that aims to make the process less wasteful. It really is death cult, so killing shit is an objective independent of helping whores evade accountability.
It's likely because of the fickle nature of implantation. A fertilized egg might not stay in the uterus.
Every republican should be campaigning exclusively on immigration. It’s the only issue that actually matters right now, and it is also a path to guaranteed victory.
I expect the GOP will focus on abortion again.
No, keep the fed out of it. Leave it to the states where it belongs.
I am very much a states rights proponent.
Still if a red state like Alabama bans IVF completely it will be a terrible millstone around all of our necks.
IVF is universally popular. Only people who oppose it are hardcore pro-lifers who are tradcaths.
I agree with Trump on this that Alabama needs to back off and not ban IVF.
So you believe in states rights if it's a position you want, but if if you don't agree it's fuck it let the fed force people?
Trump is not asking for federal government involvement.
He is asking the Alabama legislature to back off on IVF.
This is consistent with state's rights.
Last I checked Trump didn't live in Alabama. It's none of his concern.
Trump's instincts are pretty fucking good here.
I personally am pro-life but I realize that trying to ban IVF is just a completely suicidal move.
Trump is clearly going to get some backlash from the most hardcore pro-lifers on this IVF position.
These pro-lifers need to understand that we fucking lost abortion referendums in even blood red states like KY, KS and MT.
Banning IVF is just not feasible.
My friends wife could only get pregnant from ivf so I'm for it. As for life starting from conception, for me conception includes the egg being implanted in something that can grow it as well
I don't know much about the process of IVF so I don't have an opinion about the process itself. That said I do know that's a technique that's mostly used by aging sluts who spent their most fertile years on the cock carousel, so I wouldn't be shed any tears if it was banned. If Trump or anyone else wants more "precious babies" they should tell women to stop spending their prime whoring around.
IVF is actually being used mainly by couples who suffer infertility issues.
So far this is generally not a feminists whoring around situation.
But how many of them have fertility issues because of the woman's age? Maybe it would be better if there was an age limit for the woman.
IVF is a last resort, not to mention often people have to save up to afford the tens of thousands it can cost, so the demographic is going to naturally swing older. A quick checks say a bit less than half of women are under 35, and about half are 35-40, and rarely are there women past that giving birth.
IVF is dysgenic, so it is good to get rid of it, but it is the sort of policy you enact when you are firmly in power and don't have to care about retarded opinions of women