Roe v. Wade is history

Post Reply New Topic

Well if abortion is not allowed in some states, what if the women just say they are wanting to freeze their eggs instead, which is still legal? That way, they are not aborting the egg, but removing it and freezing it, not knowing that it's already fertilized. Would this be a loophole women can use and just go in wanting your eggs frozen rather than asking for an abortion? Loophole in the system, legally?

Do you mean frozen embryos (fertilised) or frozen eggs (unfertilised)?

There's an issue with frozen embryos.
If a woman is doing IVF / IUI and the doctors harvest a lot of eggs, they don't know how many will fertilise in the dish.
They can't just take one egg at a time because it costs tens of thousands of dollars.
They usually take a few eggs.
Maybe one will fertilise.
Maybe they will all fertilise.
Then they have to see how many are viable and they implant the most viable in the mother.
This is why mothers who use assistive reproduction often have twins or multiples.

Most people won't risk implanting more than two since it's considered a high risk pregnancy.

The left-over embryos remain frozen.
There are legal challenges pertaining to which US state holds those frozen embryos.
Also, what will happen to them if the couple doesn't need them?
Will they be preserved forever, or destroyed?
Destroying them is akin to an abortion.

These were issues even before RvW was overturned.
Now it will be illegal to dispose of unused embryos.

Some couples donate them to other families but I can see how that's emotionally difficult.
You would be giving away your biological children.

It's expensive to keep them in proper facilities, even if you know you won't use them.
I recently saw a video about a couple that moved between states and had to transfer them.
It was extremely expensive to ensure they were legally / properly transported.

I guess now, if they perished in transit someone could be legally responsible for murder?

I don't understand the emotional difference though? Why would women who would want an abortion but would get the eggs removed and frozen as a legal aternative, care what happened to the egg?

The egg would have died if it was an abortion, so why care if the child lives if the egg is frozen? What's the difference? If you don't care about the egg living from an abortion, why would you care if it lived from having the eggs removed and frozen, if you are using the procedure as an alternative to abortion?

Oh sorry for the confusion. What I mean is, let's say a woman gets pregant and doesn't want to go through with the pregnancy, because abortion is illegal. Why not just say you want to get your eggs frozen instead, so they then remove the egg from you, even though the egg is already fertlized from sex before. Just don't tell them it's fertilized. They remove the egg, and you have now terminated your pregnancy using the egg freezing legal method, rather than the illegal abortion method.

That's what I meant.

So what I mean is the first group of women. If they want to terminate a pregancy, why not just lie to doctors and say you want to get your eggs frozen. Don't tell them you are pregnant and don't tell them the eggs you have inside are fertilized. So they remove the eggs, not knowing they are fertlized and you have no terminated your pregancy.

Why don't women use this egg freezing route and defraud the system, as an alternative to abortion?

Well I was trying to suggest another way to get the eggs out, but if the doctors are going can test to see if the eggs are already fertilized beforehand and will do that, then I guess my idea won't work. I was just spitballing, I tried