« Coal, goal, and a swab in the hole | Main | Truing up »
10/12/2009
New rule: Don't read comments, ever
New rule!
Every time someone declares that infertile people should accept their lot in life and adopt, they should be required by law to adopt a child themselves. To put their money where their mouth is. Shouldn't be a problem, right? I hear it's a piece of cake.
And every time someone says that infertile people should not-just-plain-adopt, but special-needs-kids-from-foster-care-extra-special-bonus-just-adopt, they should have such a child deposited on their doorstep within, oh, let's say an hour. Sign here, and here, initial here, fingerprint here, notary seal here, aaaaand done. Congratulations! You're a parent! Hey, let us know how it goes. I'm sure you'll do a bang-up job. Really, how hard could it be?
And every time someone who's had no fertility problems of their own says it, someone with as many children as they'd like, conceived and delivered without difficulty, they get the full package. The adoption, the special needs and the adjustment issues, and a stiff electric shock where it'll do the most good. What? Oh, you don't like those repeated high-voltage jolts? Sounds like a lifestyle issue to me. I know you'd like for them to stop, but it's not a matter of life or death, sooooooo...
This morning I read the comments on the articles about ART that ran in Sunday's New York Times, then spent the afternoon wanting to set things on fire. I should know by now never to do that; every time the Times publishes such a piece, the comments run 89% in favor of consigning infertile people to a crumbling ice floe inhabited by leprous armadillos in the shark-infested waters just off the coast of Monster Island; 10% in favor of forbidding insurance coverage of any kind for pregnancies and babies resulting from ART because we chose to take the risk, like, thanks for that, Mayor Marlboro Bacon McGoddamnCheese, oh, and by the way, congratulations on your triple bypass, happy to pay for your "lifestyle disease"; and a bare 1% in favor of everyone who's never faced the situation shutting the fucking fuck up. My stomach sinks as I see "482 people recommend this post" under every one of the 89%ers. And there I am avenging myself, repeatedly clicking RECOMMEND for the shut-the-fuck-uppers, my finger stuttering on the mouse button as if it made a difference. As if my anger and despair and urge to shout down the ugliness made any difference at all.
The articles themselves, if you haven't read them, are worth a look. They're part of a package called 21st Century Babies — I presume because creating designer technosupermechabionic cyberbabies is what we'll all be doing in the fyuuuuuchurrrrrrr — and they raise some interesting issues. A quick rundown, because it's late:
The Gift of Life, and Its Price focuses on the risks of carrying twins after IVF, bookending some discussion of the financial costs of prematurity with two scary anecdotes about twins born early. The writer manages to ignore almost entirely the notion that insurance coverage for IVF, and the single-embryo transfers that would consequently become much more prevalent, could dramatically reduce the incidence of preterm birth after ART.
Grievous Choice on Risky Path to Parenthood deals with the problems of high-order multiples, profiling Thomas and Amanda Stansel, a Texas couple who conceived after IUI. On an earlier cycle, Amanda had conceived and lost twins due to incompetent cervix; on this cycle, having refused selective reduction earlier in the pregnancy, she delivered sextuplets at 23 weeks' gestation. Four of the six babies have died.
The Trouble with Twin Births is a roundup of educated opinions — hear that, commenters? — on whether the U.S. should regulate the fertility industry and whether IVF transfers should be limited to one embryo at a time. Opinions break down pretty much along the lines you'd expect, with a rueful-looking Zev Rosenwaks — I love that picture — pointing out that a single rule applied indiscriminately across a varied population of patients would make him weep tears of bitterest regret. Silent, manly ones. (I admit I take certain interpretational liberties. But doesn't he look so sad?)
I have more to say about these pieces, and I'm guessing you will, too. Check them out and let me know what you think. But don't read the comments, okay? They may well move you to your own wanton spree of arson. I have to go to bed, and I don't want you having all the fun without me.
Comments (141)
Verify your Comment
Previewing your Comment
This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.
i have plenty to say but first i have to pick up the million pieces of brain, skin, skull and other misc facial features strewn about our apartment after my head exploded after about page 3 in the comments. of course by the time I got to the article comments were closed.
i need to just record bullet points but i know that it's a waste of time. I am unheard and invisible as a queer infertile.
-TRANSFER not IMPLANT
-I can't adopt because (choose all that apply) I am queer, have a mental health/addiciton history, live in a one bedroom, obese, my partner is in her 50's, and it's expensive!
-I nearly cried when they finally spoke about medicated IUIs being the cause of many HOMs. Of course no one listened but at least it was said
-I never had more than one embryo to transfer.
Gah, I started reading the comments! I commend your restraint in NOT burning things after that. I, unfortunately, do not HAVE that restraint and must now go and burn things. Preferably the gonads of those who made those comments.
Well, it was at least a wee bit cathartic to read your response to the comments - so thanks for posting! The twins article itself was so alarmist that I was already feeling mighty touchy by the time I got to the righteous indignation of all those who clearly hadn't thought through the myriad reasons for infertility treatment. Sigh.
Ahh yes. I blogged about this on Sunday, while steam poured from my ears. Upon reflection, the whole thing annoyed me, but the comments REALLY annoyed me. I am, after all, pregnant with multiples after IVF, so must be evil, resource-draining citizen.
http://tubelessinseattle.blogspot.com/2009/10/small-rant-about-nyt-article-on-twins.html
I have never had so many lurkers come out to comment and was surprised by the debate that waged for a day or two.
Then I saw the IUI article today and decided instead of giving myself a headache, I'd skip the comments section.
I won't read the articles or the comments because they will both make me mad (even if the articles are decently written, I will get mad thinking of the comments people are probably making to them) and I have to go to bed. This post made me want to say two things: (1) though I rarely comment, Julie I adore this blog and look forward to each new post, and (2) one of the things I am most grateful about from reading this blog is the awareness and sensitivity I've gained about infertility and the couples that struggle with it (and by "struggle" I mean some form of emotional and physical mortal combat). I am now extraordinarily cautious about asking anyone about family plans (like that couple that's been married a while but doesn't have children) or spacing between children (the mysterious 8 year gap) or anything else - all I can picture is your stories and the stories of some of your readers and I can imagine (or try to imagine) how hurtful a question like "so when are you two going to start a family?" would be to someone who has been trying.
I don't want to make it sound like your struggles are worth it because they keep people like me from sticking their foot in their mouth, it's just that because infertility is frequently kept a secret and only talked about among family or very close friends (understandably so), having access to a blog like yours makes every one of your readers one less person asking the insensitive question to someone who doesn't need to hear it. So even if you haven't yet made insurance companies treat infertility as they should and despite this last post there will still be idiots leaving idiotic comments on the internet, your blog as done quite a bit of good.
I read the articles, and I've been composing my own vitriolic screeds in opposition to the commenters. I like your plan better, though.
One recent study I've seen, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db12.pdf, gives some very illuminating data about the changes in adoption patterns over the past 30 years (p. 5 is especially interesting).
thank you for stringing together some coherent thoughts on this, while I was out burning shit down and throwing stuff at my computer.
I only read pg 1 of the comments on the price of multiples and started convulsing in my chair so had to stop. infuckingfuriating.
what asshats! Self satisfied people that want to make decisions for other people rarely have any clue to the realities of life! Like the people that want to flat out make abortions illegal... don't they know that they are trying to set woman's rights back by 100 years? OUR bodies, OUR choice. When it comes to rape, NO means NO. But somehow the government should regulate our reproductive organs? people on drugs can have as many babies as they want, and get government AID!!! Generally the people that choose to have fertility treatments are the people that are secure enough to raise children, not including octomom of course. Sorry, I start ranting and can rarely bring myself to stop... Good post
I saw those articles and was just waiting for you to post about them... haha. I literally thought to myself, "omg Julie will be so pissed." And yes, I do think in chat speak. so shoot me.
I want to do a retrospective study looking at healthcare topics and the balance of opinion (extent and type of media coverage, tone, negative/positive language, etc.). It feels like infertility is always being used as a catch-all healthcare punching bag, but I'd like to know for sure. I have a couple of other healthcare issues that not only do not get any media coverage at all, but are also usually the butt of jokes in sitcoms and medudramedies. I am trying hard not to turn completely numb to it all.
At least, and I say this with all sincerity, we are in great enough numbers to have a lot of support amongst ourselves. And we have some of the kick-assedest doctors on the planet. And technology and innovation (although profit-driven) for infertility is just exploding in a truly mind-boggling mess of acronyms and success rates and embryos. (That is, if you can remember where you put those darned little eggs and sperm while you stepped out for Starbucks.)
I need to take off my infertility hat for tomorrow's appointment: A new medical device has been recommended to me. I have to drop the rest of my life so I can race across town and pay out of pocket to have a psychological screening to see whether I should be graced by this new medical blessing.
Well, as long as our REs don't start screening us to see whether ART is a good fit for us ... (oh, wait, they can: according to the ASRM's Ethics Statement, they can choose to screen us psychologically, so we can prove that we would be "fit" parents. But wait, there's more. They don't have to screen us if they don't wanna. http://dotivf.com/info/showentry.php?e=37&catid=3)
Hat's off to anyone who had the bile preservation capability to keep from spewing all over the screen while reading the comments.
Of course I read the comments and now I'm just thoroughly pissed off. It reinforces why I internally cringe every time someone asks how my twins were conceived- and they do, by pretty much anyone I tell I'm having twins(35 weeks and counting from an FET). It's because you never know which ones are thinking the same things as what some of those rat bastards had to say in their comments.
I didn't make it past the one about "perpetuating their substandard genes." You're right, the fact that I'm infertile signifies that my line SHOULD die off! I mean, it clearly can't compete with the intelligence of these commenters.
Actually, as I was reading, the perpetuations of my substandard genes were chasing each other merrily around the living room and collapsing in a pile of giggles, which made it a whole lot easier to hit "close tab."
I thought that the twins article was thoughtful, EXCEPT for the glaring omission about the lack of insurance coverage of single embryo transfers (or any IVF, for that matter). The point is, no one goes into fertility treatment WANTING to have premature twins. They WANT a baby, and along the way have to make sacrifices and compromises to get there. Like most parents. :) So lets help families avoid the heartache, pain, and expense of prematurity by requiring insurance to fund fertility treatments that work, and that are most likely to NOT result in premature births.
I never read comments on articles. Even if I don't much care about the subject, having to witness so much general ignorance and illiteracy is just asking for an apoplexy.
What Michelle just said. Word for word. I'm a fertile woman with lots of infertile friends, BTW.
I didn't even try to read the comments to the article(s). I already threw boiling oil on my finger on Sunday while cooking, so I suffered enough for the whole week.
It drives me nuts that insurance will pay for things like viagra, but not IVF. I have twins who were born at 36w4d. I spent my entire pregnancy, terrified that they would be born early and with severe problems, but my girls didn't need the NICU. I even spent 2 weeks in the hospital on bedrest at 32 weeks. However, my insurance didn't want to pay for the high risk doctors who monitored my pregnancy.
Those that are outraged with IVF resulting in multiple births have obviously never experienced a muliples pregnancy, let alone caring for multiple babies at once. It's the hardest thing I've ever done and ever expect to do.
"Factory seconds"? What, was your white hood at the cleaners that day, princess? You aren't even fit to parent.
It's a good thing, I think, that these articles are out there. I think too many people have the idea that, oh, if they get to 35 and haven't had a baby, it's no problem. They'll just trip along to the doctor, get a shot, and voila, a baby! I think it's worth reiterating that it's a long, potentially painful process, and there are a lot of factors to consider.
I don't read the comments on the Philadelphia Inquirer site at all anymore. I had no idea there were so many racist assholes in one city with access to a computer. People even write in complaining about letters in Dear Abby. Like's Abby's reading them herself!
What really pisses me off, about those comments, as a special education teacher, is the still lingering attitude that having a child with special needs is a punishment to be inflicted upon someone.
There's really nothing more I can say. But the people in this world who are least able to defend themselves are the most frequently insulted.
"Really, how hard could it be?"
Well, speaking as someone who did adopt a child out of foster care (internationally, but she still spent 3.5 years in foster care) - really, really [insert explective here] hard. Extremely hard. Hardest thing I've ever done. (I love her with every fiber of my being, but it was hard to get to this point and it's not something that a person should jump into just because they can't get pregnant on their own. My daughter (and other children similarly situated) is not a consulation prize.
Ivy, I think you miss my point, which was a subtle one. On the one hand, commenters are telling infertile people that they weren't meant to be parents — found unfit by God or Nature or whoever to raise children. On the other hand, we're told that we should adopt, and not just average children, but society's most vulnerable children, kids in great need of exceptionally fit parents. Is that because we would be such fabulous mothers and fathers? Or is it because those kids — the ones some people, not I seem to see as "factory seconds" or a consolation prize — aren't worthy of the absolute best? Do you see the problem with the juxtaposition?
I'm so glad you posted this. I really felt like I should leave tons of comments on this article, just to represent "our side of the story" but started crying and raging and generally being incoherent instead.
Which wasn't all that productive, and made me feel like shit, as well.
Seconding LL, loudly. Julie, you and the rest of the infertile blogosphere have really helped educate and inform, and I'm one of many who are grateful.
Dear Everyone: I hereby demand that you make the choices I make. Doing so will inevitably result in your getting the results I got. Those results are the only thing you should want. Should you find yourself in a situation in which I have never been, you must make the choice I imagine I would make were I ever to be in that situation.
Anything else is selfish folly.
982 people recommend Slim's comment.
One good thing about reading a newspaper instead of reading online is that I can focus on the article and not the comments (except on this blog). I do have to disagree slightly with some of what is said above, however, as I thought that it came through loud and clear in the articles that part of the reason for the high number of multiple births is that insurance often covers IUI and not IVF, leading to high-order multiples from IUI and the transferring of more embryos because of the expense of IVF.
Yep, the insurance coverage aspect is SO important. I think most women or couples would gladly transfer just one if they knew it wasn't their only shot at having a baby after spending $25,000 out of pocket. I would have, anyway.
So I was glad to see that addressed by Josephine Johnston in the "Trouble with Twins" article. I just seriously doubt that the conservatives who will soon be calling for IVF regulation are listening.
I heart you, ALP.
When I got the NY Times Sunday morning, my husband and I knew it wasn't going to be all sunshine and rose about our choices. We were right!!
I wrote a letter to the editor, which being reasonable and well-written, will not be published. (HA! I crack myself up)
And as someone who studies and researches online communication as a living: dude, do not read the comments to those sorts of things. The trolls are out in force and feeling self-righteous.
The articles seemed to be very one-sided to me, and the comments were just awful! There are a lot of ignorant @ssholes out there. It baffles me that people think they have a right to decide how someone else has a family. Also, contrary to popular belief, you can't just adopt a child like you can adopt a puppy (unless you're a celebrity, such as new mommy Katherine Heigl).
Sorry, everyone. I saw the article in my Sunday NYT and knew what would be the result. It sucks you've all had to go through extraordinary measures to become, or try to become, parents, and I'm sure all the assholes in the world commenting on it doesn't really make you feel particularly cheery. Rock on, friends, and I hope everything works out for you all.
(BTW - the one about single transfers kills me - my friend had 2 transferred - and lo and behold, one split and became identical twins with a fraternal triplet. so regulating transfers won't neccessarily help the high-risk multiple thing all of the time.)
My insurance didn't cover IVF, but even if it had, I wouldn't have done a single embryo transfer unless my doctor thought that was the best shot at achieving pregnancy (as it was, I transferred 3 and wound up pregnant with a singleton).
I think there's a host of reasons to want to limit the number of times one goes through an ART cycle beyond finances: the enormous disruption to one's life, for instance. I don't think the articles adequately captured how grueling IVF is: it's not a quick fix for people who are too selfish to "just" adopt.
Okay.
I only read a couple of comments, but I am beyond pissed off. How dare they????
I can completely understand your fury. Those ignorant, self-righteous, self-satisfied people should be banned from commenting on anything EVER.
As someone who has never struggled with IF, I am nevertheless acutely aware of how fortunate I am and feel very much for those who go through so much hardship - physical, mental, emotional, financial. I don't know where these half-wits come from, but I can assure you, my fingers/mind/heart will never produce such tripe. I wish they'd go back to the circle of hell from which they dragged themselves.
I think the solution to the insurance/IVF problem is that insurance should cover "unsuccessful" IVFs that do not actually result in a birth. "Successful" IVFs should be paid by the now radiantly happy parents.
I don't think you can disallow us fertiles from having some say in health insurance policy just because we haven't experienced it. After all, we're paying premiums too, so increases (or decreases) get passed along to us as well.
However.
That doesn't mean I'm against some (I'm not sure how much, I have a line, I just haven't decided where to draw it yet) coverage for ART. I'm also for limits: maximum age, transfers, considerations on the health of the mother. Benefits with strings, if you will.
I would also be ok with some strings for health issues not related to fertility. Those are difficult to choose, though, since cheeseburgers affect arteries differently.
I'm glad you brought the articles up, because I'm struggling with whether to forward them to my husband and his girlfriend, who (unbeknownst to me) spent over a year doing IUIs while I was putting him through school. Finding the emails about it was quite a surprise, although not nearly as much of a surprise as it would have been if they'd been successful. We have two small children, you see, and were going through marriage counseling before I found all this out. I keep reading about how difficult infertility can be on a couple, but what about when only half the couple knows about the infertility? He does not seem to understand why I hate his guts for the risk he took, and I wonder if this would clear it up for him.
Oddly, I am bitter about RE at the moment.
I'm sure those who believe it is God's will that infertiles not have children feel the same way when their children (their adopted, special needs children no doubt) come down with a life threatening illness that requires medical intervention. "No thank you. This is God's will, plus there are already too many people on the planet anyway"
Absolutely, Becky: I think everyone should have a voice in serious conversations about public health. But you'll have to do a lot of fancy stepping to convince me that "In virtro fertilization is not a moral option," or "Squander[ing resources] on IVF and its incredibly resource-intensive consequences is simply an outrage," or "[Pursuing ART shows] the same mentality with getting a dog from a puppy mill when 5 million healthy cats and dog are put to death each year because there are no homes" constitutes an actual good-faith conversation about policy, and not sanctimonious finger-wagging.
Also, was that our own Alexicographer there in the comments being all sane among the crazy?
My husband reads news article comments and then always gets really aerated about their idiocy. I try not to read them, because quite frankly - the average joe is pretty stupid. Think of the most average person you know, and realize that half the world's population is stupider than that person. It makes you feel better when you read that kind of drivel.
As far as I know, I'm not infertile. But it took my mother eight years just to have me, and I'm an only child, so I don't feel SECURE in my own expected fertility. And quite frankly - yes, I suppose I would adopt if it were my only option, but...
I want a child with my genes. With my husband's genes. I want to see how they mesh and interact to make a whole new person. I think that is a very natural and not at all shameful desire, and I say shame on anyone who makes you feel ashamed of feeling it too.
I know a girl who has a horror of going through pregnancy and childbirth. She plans to adopt some day. She says having her own baby feels like getting a dog from a breeder when there are so many unwanteds at the SPCA.
Maybe that's true.
But I got my dog from a breeder, too.
I always thought that when people said that, they were referring to the biological aspect of it. When my cousin went through fertility treatments, her doctor pointed out to her that because she was infertile, she was passing on a genetic tendency to her children. They could be fertile, and likely would be, but they had a higher likelihood of being infertile than a child conceived naturally by fertile parents did. I understand that argument, the concept that using fertility treatments could feasibly become an endless cycle of creating babies who one day need fertility treatments of their own to create babies who will one day need fertility treatments too, etc, even if I don't really agree with it (after all, aren't there, like, a billion things that affect fertility? and not all of those are hereditary, right? and some that are hereditary are totally recessive genes, aren't they?) and I always assumed that people who made the adoption comment were building on that argument.
I guess that's giving people too much credit, though, isn't it? I think those articles just go to show that some people are dumbasses, period, end of story.
Hear Hear! I agree completely. That comment section ruined my day, demoralized me completely, and made me want to kill someone. I will NEVER read them again (until the next time). BTW, love the new rule.
Mo
I give up. I could only read the first article and seven pages of comments. I laughed, I cried, and I was ticked off by the usual "why don't they just grow up and deal with it" crowd. My favorite comment was #158 from Ann in Houston. She wondered why all those with unhealthy and costly lifestyle habits don't "just adopt an apple"...good one.
Thank God for Julie. I stomped around all Sunday after that stupid article. The only thing that saved me from breaking windows was knowing that women would come here and say, "Uh. NO," with panache in response to Julie's panachiosity. (Julie's Twitter feed alone yesterday helped my head not explode, following along as hers did.)
And I do think it's worth looking at the article itself, which is complicit in engendering the kind of comments that come. Let's break it down, shall we? Start with writing about a couple, quote them talking about their babies looking like "aliens" but also about how they were so DESPERATE/OBSESSED for a baby they'd have done ANYTHING. Refuse to mention the glaring insurance and financial realities until buried far into the article. Don't even begin to consider the lack of medical options even available--not to mention the fallibility of medical science and the whole indeterminancy of the term "infertile"(as an "unexplained infertile" who suddenly got deemed "fertile" because of the number of pregnancies I had over a series of years after not getting pregnant at all for a few years, even if some of those pg ended in miscarriage and baby loss, I'm really suspicious of anyone who wants to claim fertile status as a badge of honor). Oh, and anything you can do to make infertile people seem selfish and unable to make decisions for themselves, and downright D.U.M. (too dumb to spell dumb, in other words) throw that in there, too. Off soapbox, with tip of hat to all you smart women here. Head firmly reattached to body, unexploded.
Read the article but not the comments (yet). I think I need a good stiff drink first...
I read the articles, but not the comments, because I knew I'd get pissed off. Most normally fertile people have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to infertility, so their ignorant opinions are not worth listening to.
Im lucky--I live in MA, and my insurance DID cover IVF. However, they wanted us to do 3 complete rounds of injects/IUI first. This wasn't a great idea because after one complete round (no pregnancy) and one cancelled cycle, it became apparent that that would be a huge waste of time and money. Plus, neither the RE nor my husband and I were comfortable with the risk of HOMs.
The RE managed to engineer a conversion cycle, and he HIGHLY recommended a single embryo transfer so we could avoid multiples. Wouldn't you know it, the damned thing split, so we have identical twin boys.
Regardless of that rare scenario, we must have saved the insurance company thousands of dollars---not wasted on repeated, failed or cancelled IUIs, or god forbid, HOMs. (the twins were born at 36wk, no NICU, so they didn't spend any extra money on them).
All of that said, single embryo transfer is not the ideal situation for everyone. However, if more insurance companies would provide even for that, I believe more couples would skip the IUI, etc.
Oh, it did occur to my husband and I, that should we have daughters, they could suffer from PCOS, like me. But, we also wear glasses, have asthma, needed a lot of orthodonture work, and are short. The odds of our sons having those qualities are high, but we wouldn't have thought twice about it if we'd been able to conceive the usual way.
If everyone who wasn't 100% biologically sound chose not to breed (or was forced not to), then we'd have eugenics, which is just not cool. Based on that, I can't ever be ok with the idea that "infertiles should never try to have children, because those children might be infertile too." On those grounds, stupid people, poor people, obese people, people with heart problems in their family, people with breast cancer in their family....you get the picture.
i was with ya till there. you of all peeps should be wary of passing along the hatey-hate bias and uneducated suppositions about other people's lives. and never fear, if the republicans have their way, mayor mcpudge IS going to pay for his "lifestyle disease," since there's a proposal in play to make people with high BMIs pay more for insurance. is being overweight (tho not obese) actually correlated with BETTER health than being underweight or even "normal" weight? why yes. (not that i'm saying this means we should discriminate against the REAL fatties.) i love you in your hatey spews, julie, but this one was too glib, ill-informed and off-base. go read yourself some kate harding or gina kolata, stat.
hm, i tried to quote the "mayor mcfatwad" bit and it got mysteriously disappeared. my post is incoherent without it, alas.
Julie! I am swooning! Yes, that was me. Thanks for noticing. No doubt it was my sensible shoes that tipped you off.
All ... honestly I think the only answer is to do what Julie did (and I did for awhile until my head exploded). Go in and recommend the good comments. Very costly, because you do have to read, or at least scan them, I know. But honestly ... we are infertile, hear us roar? I'm not kidding; I think we should alert each other and descend in force. It's not too late even on this batch of articles. Once I get all the parts of my head reassembled, maybe I'll go back in and resume ...
I said it on Carrie's blog and I'll say it here: I'm glad, actually, that the NYT is covering this issue. Not so glad, though that they are allowing comments, much less about who's commenting.
Joining you in STFU land, especially when it comes to telling me, a person with embryo quality issues who is willing to selectively reduce, just how many I can transfer.
IVF#1: 2 transferred, BFN
IVF#2: 3 transferred, chemical
IVF#3: nothing to transfer
IVF#4: 3 transferred, twins at 5 weeks, singlton at 7 weeks, now a healthy girl.
IVF#5: 2 transferred (all we had), singleton pregnancy, but there was a second sac.
If you say 'there can only be one' I'm going to have to send my toddler after you. Be sure to ask her what happened to her twin.
So many people are idiots. It really does bring me to despair. And it so frequently comes down to: "I have given this careful thought, with ample consideration of my own life experience, my religious beliefs, and my personal morality, and now, having decided on my choice even in the purely hypothetical, it should now be made Federal law."