You're failing to take into account the 60-80% of fertilised eggs which fail to attach to the uterine lining and progressing to a viable pregnancy. It's actually harder than you think to get pregnant even when you want to. You're also not allowing for the number of women who may have been incapable of becoming pregnant at the time of their rape due to other reasons, such as already being pregnant, being infertile or being on some form of contraceptive.
If you can be bothered reading up thread, there were a number of studies cited that discussed the frequency of orgasm during rape and how it added to the sense of violation the women felt (they questioned themselves as to whether they did deserve to be raped because if they orgasmed maybe they had wanted it).
I have been reading this thread on and off for a day now, so can't be stuffed finding the links for you, but several people have mentioned it.
"she deserved it because she dressed like a slut and forced the weak spined guy to rape her."
And this is the point where I find the treatment of women in many places around the world particularly offensive.
But you guys should be offended too. When Islam make women wear the veil, what they are say is that men are no better than a tomcat near a queen on heat and have no self control. Have you guys got no sense of self-worth or self-respect that you let these (usually) guys talk about you in this way?
Maybe these guys in power have no sense of self control and they feel the need to assert themselves over others to make up for it. But generally I expect better of the people around me.
It wouldn't surprise me if evolutionary pressures meant that stranger rape had a better chance of producing offspring as a means of increasing genetic diversity. Furthermore, it would hold that on some level this might be hardcoded into women to accept this on some level - hence all the rape fantasies you see in bodice ripper romance novels (even the genre title gives it away)
This doesn't mean that a 'civilised' [1] woman wouldn't feel violated by experiencing non-consensual sex, whether it be forceful or under any other form of duress. If nothing else it's an assault on a sovereign sense of self as an individual.
By civilised, I am not seeking to distinguish between 1st and 3rd world individuals, but rather homosapiens vs. an earlier evolutionary ancestor who may not have had the same self-awareness and sense of individualism as we currently do.
The 'sensible' resolution of this would be that yes, it's statutory rape in the case of both participants (neither are deemed capable of making informed consent or accurately assessing the risks of either pregnancy or STIs), however it's on a sealed juvenile record that doesn't follow them into adulthood.
That way you could track predators (there are juveniles capable of evil acts just as abhorrent as adults), but youthful indiscretions don't ruin an otherwise spotless life.
This is still practiced today in countries where female children as valued significantly less than male children. It may not be legal, but it still happens.
Unless raped, the mother engaged in sexual intercourse of her own free will.
And this is where you get into the really fuzzy definitions of rape. Take the Julian Assange case for example - was initiating sex with a sleeping woman (who had only the night before consented to sex) rape? Had she given consent on this occasion? Had she weighted up the possibility of getting pregnant and all that potentially entails. Part of the case against him is the failure to use a condom, plenty of geeks are saying that's not rape, but if it was a condition of consent he could have 'condemned' those women to raise an unwanted child that you are saying she would have deserved.
How about the girl who thinks she'll be socially ostracised if she doesn't put out. Or if the birth control fails (I have a friend who conceived while on the pill for example). Was it free will or socially acceptable duress to give consent. Was it free will to have sex with the intent (acted upon) not to get pregnant.
How about the concept of informed consent. Those of us outside of the US here a lot of terrible things about sex education in US schools where I would be less than surprised if the girls and guys involved had no idea that what they were doing may result in a pregnancy. There would be a whole lot less teenage pregnancy in the world if the teenagers in question had to explicitly state they understood that what they were about to do could result in the birth of a child EACH and EVERY time they had sex.
In the grand scheme of things, sex very rarely results in pregnancy. It can take only once, it can also be impossible due to the particular combination of male and female fertility involved. STIs are more likely than pregnancy from indiscriminate sex. Black and white statements like "she made a choice" doesn't take into account all the small ways the ability to choose may have been compromised.
Would this analogy be more accurate if rather than using the emotionally charge supposition that the 'victim' was a would renowned violinist and said that the 'victim' is a unknown John/Jane Doe of unknown resources/capability/inspiration/motivation who may achieve greatness or nothing at all.
Not to mention that adoption only "helps out" after the woman was forced to remain pregnant by her rapist for an entire pregnancy (10 months, give or take a few weeks) and then give birth to the rapist's baby. And even after her rapist's baby is whisked off to be adopted and other people declare "Problem Solved!", she might very well have to deal with postpartum depression, changes in her physique, problems in her marriage due to stress over carrying a rape pregnancy to term, etc. Adoption addresses none of these issues, but is frequently cited as if it is a magic cure-all for women who find themselves pregnant after being raped.
If fact, it's seen as the cure all for any unwanted pregnancy, rape just adds some bonus trauma.
Bizarrely adoption is also see to be the answer to the flip side of the equation - my husband and I have spent years and tens of thousands of dollars trying to get pregnant and conceive a child. The automatic response form everyone seems to be "have you considered adoption" like it's as simple as ordering something from amazon.com.
Mixed in with this is the fact that about a third of the "individuals" ever fertilized have been lost to miscarriages, often without even the mother's knowledge, and it's routine for us to kill many, many "individuals" in the process of in vitro fertilization.
I think you are vastly under-estimating the number of fertilised eggs which are spontaneously miscarried. I recently tried to conceive via IVF and our specialist told us the over 70% of fertilised eggs fail to result in a viable pregnancy from any source, whether it be natural fertilisation (sex) or artificial fertilisation (IVF).
Another aspect to this debate is the way people seem to conflate choosing to have an abortion as being a decision as simple or trivial as the decision to use an condom or not (both being a means to prevent a live birth).
Exceptionally few women choose to have an abortion lightly. Most choose to abort because they are emotionally, mentally, physically or financially unable to support a child in such a way that will be of most benefit to the child. In some cases, the addition of another child to the family unit will negatively impact on existing children. Often these women believe themselves to be in a situation where they will have little or no support.
The choice to seek an abortion is generally a rational decision made with much soul searching. Forcing a woman to carry to term, where she will potentially bond with a child she KNOWS she is incapable of raising ad then telling her to just adopt it out isn't a great answer either. Many of these women would love to have children if they were in a better situation to care for it.
Up thread there was the posit that we are not far from genuine test-tube-children who could be grown from mitosis to birth in an entirely artificial environment. If that comes about, then all pro-lifers should be taxed to support all the resulting children they force to be born of reluctant parents. Fathers who want the child but the mothers don't would have an opportunity to claim responsibility to raise the child.
But until that day comes, if the only viable incubator is a woman's womb - do you really have the right to force that on someone who is unwilling?
Furthermore, you are putting the woman's life at risk by continuing a pregnancy she doesn't want. While advances in medicine have greatly reduced the risk for maternal death, it hasn't entirely eliminated it, even where births take place in maternity hospitals.
So not only are you saying that this hypothetical woman has to go through the expense and discomfort of pregnancy, she has to accept the risk of death or disability.
When you are actively seeking to get pregnant, you accept that risk. When you aren't trying to get pregnant you may not have even considered it.
Harry Blackitt: Look at them, bloody Catholics, filling the bloody world up with bloody people they can't afford to bloody feed.
Mrs. Blackitt: What are we dear?
Harry Blackitt: Protestant, and fiercely proud of it.
Mrs. Blackitt: Hmm. Well, why do they have so many children?
Harry Blackitt: Because... every time they have sexual intercourse, they have to have a baby.
Mrs. Blackitt: But it's the same with us, Harry.
Harry Blackitt: What do you mean?
Mrs. Blackitt: Well, I mean, we've got two children, and we've had sexual intercourse twice.
Harry Blackitt: That's not the point. We could have it any time we wanted.
Mrs. Blackitt: Really?
Harry Blackitt: Oh, yes, and, what's more, because we don't believe in all that Papist claptrap, we can take precautions.
Mrs. Blackitt: What, you mean... lock the door?
Harry Blackitt: No, no. I mean, because we are members of the Protestant Reformed Church, which successfully challenged the autocratic power of the Papacy in the mid-sixteenth century, we can wear little rubber devices to prevent issue.
Mrs. Blackitt: What d'you mean?
Harry Blackitt: I could, if I wanted, have sexual intercourse with you...
Mrs. Blackitt: Oh, yes, Harry.
Harry Blackitt:...and, by wearing a rubber sheath over my old feller, I could insure... that, when I came off, you would not be impregnated.
Mrs. Blackitt: Ooh.
Harry Blackitt: That's what being a Protestant's all about. That's why it's the church for me. That's why it's the church for anyone who respects the individual and the individual's right to decide for him or herself. When Martin Luther nailed his protest up to the church door in fifteen-seventeen, he may not have realised the full significance of what he was doing, but four hundred years later, thanks to him, my dear, I can wear whatever I want on my John Thomas...
Harry Blackitt:... and, Protestantism doesn't stop at the simple condom. Oh, no. I can wear French Ticklers if I want.
Mrs. Blackitt: You what?
Harry Blackitt: French Ticklers. Black Mambos. Crocodile Ribs. Sheaths that are designed not only to protect, but also to enhance the stimulation of sexual congress.
Mrs. Blackitt: Have you got one?
Harry Blackitt: Have I got one? Uh, well, no, but I can go down the road any time I want and walk into Harry's and hold my head up high and say in a loud, steady voice, 'Harry, I want you to sell me a condom. In fact, today, I think I'll have a French Tickler, for I am a Protestant.'
Mrs. Blackitt: Well, why don't you?
Harry Blackitt: But they - Well, they cannot, 'cause their church never made the great leap out of the Middle Ages and the domination of alien Episcopal supremacy.
As a non-American, the bit I find utterly absurd is that generally the same people (politically) who are staunchly anti-abortion seem to be the same people who are pro-execution.
They are the same people (politically) who are pro-guns - which only have one intended use - to kill things.
They seem to be the same people (politically) who are against socialised medicine. So it's ok for you to die of neglect if you are poor, but abortion and euthanasia are right out.
I have an extremely difficult time believing them when they say it's about protecting life when they seem to go out of their way to enable lives being destroyed in so many other ways.
The thing about how communities work is that they group together to share responsibility for various tasks and resource requirements because the larger society as a whole benefits more than everyone being individually responsible for every aspect of their lives.
It allows for specialisation, e.g. not everyone needs to be a doctor AND an engineer AND a chef AND an farmer.
It allows us to care for people who are vulnerable as certain points in their lives, such as children and the elderly.
The 'cost' of this is that sometimes we will 'pay' for goods and services that we don't directly benefit from. The 'value' is that someone we care about (including ourselves) may benefit from something out of the ordinary at some point.
Reminds me of a quote from one of my technical repairs service trainers [1] -...none of the screws are optional.
[1] I think it was an Epson guy, it may have been NEC. I've certainly worked with plenty of techs who thought a number of screws were optional, and it led to devices being returned multiple times for repairs.
And yet we have societies in the present day who routinely practice infanticide against female infants because it is culturally more appealing to have a male child.
Morality is a cultural construct. Rational discussion about why something may or may not be moral is not in and of itself a bad thing, if only to reinforce why a particular decision should be considered good or bad.
Absolutes is how the US has got itself into the position where you have pro-life advocates looking to make hormonal birth control illegal as a form of abortion.
$deity forbid your parents are hipsters or whatever the equivalent is, and make choices on the edge of normal. They might be trendy a few years later - but for you, life would be hellish.
we could have given you a better life but we decided to gamble instead
The whole point is it wouldn't be the 'you' mentioned in your 'quote', it would be an entirely different person, because the screened child would never have been born.
All the people you mentioned have more power than I do. They exercise this power in the pursuit of more money on a regular basis through the negotiation of sponsorship contract (using their power with the general public to sway purchasing decisions) or through the sponsorship of politicians (Hollywood is seen as an attractive target for lobbyists as well).
While they may not have the power of a Rothschild or a Bill Gates, it's naive to imply they don't have greater power than most.
Not all people with power abuse it. But some do.
Do you really think that a someone who changes their body with extreme cosmetic surgery (which often requires a minimum of wealth to achieve) wouldn't manipulate their child genetically to better fit their vision of what the child should be like beyond simply removing life-threatening traits?
Yes, embryo adoption. Many couples have none of their IVF embryos destroyed.
As someone who has done IVF I find this very hard to believe. The attrition rate of fertillised embryos to ones that were viable for implant was close to 50%. From talking to other couples who have tried IVF, my experience was better than many, even though we didn't manage to conceive.
It would be exceptional to have a cycle where all embryos were of a grade for implant. Or are you conveniently ignoring those embryos?
Slashdot Mirror
You're failing to take into account the 60-80% of fertilised eggs which fail to attach to the uterine lining and progressing to a viable pregnancy. It's actually harder than you think to get pregnant even when you want to. You're also not allowing for the number of women who may have been incapable of becoming pregnant at the time of their rape due to other reasons, such as already being pregnant, being infertile or being on some form of contraceptive.
If you can be bothered reading up thread, there were a number of studies cited that discussed the frequency of orgasm during rape and how it added to the sense of violation the women felt (they questioned themselves as to whether they did deserve to be raped because if they orgasmed maybe they had wanted it).
I have been reading this thread on and off for a day now, so can't be stuffed finding the links for you, but several people have mentioned it.
"she deserved it because she dressed like a slut and forced the weak spined guy to rape her."
And this is the point where I find the treatment of women in many places around the world particularly offensive.
But you guys should be offended too. When Islam make women wear the veil, what they are say is that men are no better than a tomcat near a queen on heat and have no self control. Have you guys got no sense of self-worth or self-respect that you let these (usually) guys talk about you in this way?
Maybe these guys in power have no sense of self control and they feel the need to assert themselves over others to make up for it. But generally I expect better of the people around me.
It wouldn't surprise me if evolutionary pressures meant that stranger rape had a better chance of producing offspring as a means of increasing genetic diversity. Furthermore, it would hold that on some level this might be hardcoded into women to accept this on some level - hence all the rape fantasies you see in bodice ripper romance novels (even the genre title gives it away)
This doesn't mean that a 'civilised' [1] woman wouldn't feel violated by experiencing non-consensual sex, whether it be forceful or under any other form of duress. If nothing else it's an assault on a sovereign sense of self as an individual.
By civilised, I am not seeking to distinguish between 1st and 3rd world individuals, but rather homosapiens vs. an earlier evolutionary ancestor who may not have had the same self-awareness and sense of individualism as we currently do.
The 'sensible' resolution of this would be that yes, it's statutory rape in the case of both participants (neither are deemed capable of making informed consent or accurately assessing the risks of either pregnancy or STIs), however it's on a sealed juvenile record that doesn't follow them into adulthood.
That way you could track predators (there are juveniles capable of evil acts just as abhorrent as adults), but youthful indiscretions don't ruin an otherwise spotless life.
1) No form of birth control is 100% effective.
2) Being on birth control is does not constitute consent.
This is still practiced today in countries where female children as valued significantly less than male children. It may not be legal, but it still happens.
Unless raped, the mother engaged in sexual intercourse of her own free will.
And this is where you get into the really fuzzy definitions of rape. Take the Julian Assange case for example - was initiating sex with a sleeping woman (who had only the night before consented to sex) rape? Had she given consent on this occasion? Had she weighted up the possibility of getting pregnant and all that potentially entails. Part of the case against him is the failure to use a condom, plenty of geeks are saying that's not rape, but if it was a condition of consent he could have 'condemned' those women to raise an unwanted child that you are saying she would have deserved.
How about the girl who thinks she'll be socially ostracised if she doesn't put out. Or if the birth control fails (I have a friend who conceived while on the pill for example). Was it free will or socially acceptable duress to give consent. Was it free will to have sex with the intent (acted upon) not to get pregnant.
How about the concept of informed consent. Those of us outside of the US here a lot of terrible things about sex education in US schools where I would be less than surprised if the girls and guys involved had no idea that what they were doing may result in a pregnancy. There would be a whole lot less teenage pregnancy in the world if the teenagers in question had to explicitly state they understood that what they were about to do could result in the birth of a child EACH and EVERY time they had sex.
In the grand scheme of things, sex very rarely results in pregnancy. It can take only once, it can also be impossible due to the particular combination of male and female fertility involved. STIs are more likely than pregnancy from indiscriminate sex. Black and white statements like "she made a choice" doesn't take into account all the small ways the ability to choose may have been compromised.
Would this analogy be more accurate if rather than using the emotionally charge supposition that the 'victim' was a would renowned violinist and said that the 'victim' is a unknown John/Jane Doe of unknown resources/capability/inspiration/motivation who may achieve greatness or nothing at all.
Not to mention that adoption only "helps out" after the woman was forced to remain pregnant by her rapist for an entire pregnancy (10 months, give or take a few weeks) and then give birth to the rapist's baby. And even after her rapist's baby is whisked off to be adopted and other people declare "Problem Solved!", she might very well have to deal with postpartum depression, changes in her physique, problems in her marriage due to stress over carrying a rape pregnancy to term, etc. Adoption addresses none of these issues, but is frequently cited as if it is a magic cure-all for women who find themselves pregnant after being raped.
If fact, it's seen as the cure all for any unwanted pregnancy, rape just adds some bonus trauma.
Bizarrely adoption is also see to be the answer to the flip side of the equation - my husband and I have spent years and tens of thousands of dollars trying to get pregnant and conceive a child. The automatic response form everyone seems to be "have you considered adoption" like it's as simple as ordering something from amazon.com.
Mixed in with this is the fact that about a third of the "individuals" ever fertilized have been lost to miscarriages, often without even the mother's knowledge, and it's routine for us to kill many, many "individuals" in the process of in vitro fertilization.
I think you are vastly under-estimating the number of fertilised eggs which are spontaneously miscarried. I recently tried to conceive via IVF and our specialist told us the over 70% of fertilised eggs fail to result in a viable pregnancy from any source, whether it be natural fertilisation (sex) or artificial fertilisation (IVF).
Another aspect to this debate is the way people seem to conflate choosing to have an abortion as being a decision as simple or trivial as the decision to use an condom or not (both being a means to prevent a live birth).
Exceptionally few women choose to have an abortion lightly. Most choose to abort because they are emotionally, mentally, physically or financially unable to support a child in such a way that will be of most benefit to the child. In some cases, the addition of another child to the family unit will negatively impact on existing children. Often these women believe themselves to be in a situation where they will have little or no support.
The choice to seek an abortion is generally a rational decision made with much soul searching. Forcing a woman to carry to term, where she will potentially bond with a child she KNOWS she is incapable of raising ad then telling her to just adopt it out isn't a great answer either. Many of these women would love to have children if they were in a better situation to care for it.
Up thread there was the posit that we are not far from genuine test-tube-children who could be grown from mitosis to birth in an entirely artificial environment. If that comes about, then all pro-lifers should be taxed to support all the resulting children they force to be born of reluctant parents. Fathers who want the child but the mothers don't would have an opportunity to claim responsibility to raise the child.
But until that day comes, if the only viable incubator is a woman's womb - do you really have the right to force that on someone who is unwilling?
Furthermore, you are putting the woman's life at risk by continuing a pregnancy she doesn't want. While advances in medicine have greatly reduced the risk for maternal death, it hasn't entirely eliminated it, even where births take place in maternity hospitals.
So not only are you saying that this hypothetical woman has to go through the expense and discomfort of pregnancy, she has to accept the risk of death or disability.
When you are actively seeking to get pregnant, you accept that risk. When you aren't trying to get pregnant you may not have even considered it.
Harry Blackitt: Look at them, bloody Catholics, filling the bloody world up with bloody people they can't afford to bloody feed.
Mrs. Blackitt: What are we dear?
Harry Blackitt: Protestant, and fiercely proud of it.
Mrs. Blackitt: Hmm. Well, why do they have so many children?
Harry Blackitt: Because... every time they have sexual intercourse, they have to have a baby.
Mrs. Blackitt: But it's the same with us, Harry.
Harry Blackitt: What do you mean?
Mrs. Blackitt: Well, I mean, we've got two children, and we've had sexual intercourse twice.
Harry Blackitt: That's not the point. We could have it any time we wanted.
Mrs. Blackitt: Really?
Harry Blackitt: Oh, yes, and, what's more, because we don't believe in all that Papist claptrap, we can take precautions.
Mrs. Blackitt: What, you mean... lock the door?
Harry Blackitt: No, no. I mean, because we are members of the Protestant Reformed Church, which successfully challenged the autocratic power of the Papacy in the mid-sixteenth century, we can wear little rubber devices to prevent issue.
Mrs. Blackitt: What d'you mean?
Harry Blackitt: I could, if I wanted, have sexual intercourse with you...
Mrs. Blackitt: Oh, yes, Harry.
Harry Blackitt: ...and, by wearing a rubber sheath over my old feller, I could insure... that, when I came off, you would not be impregnated.
Mrs. Blackitt: Ooh.
Harry Blackitt: That's what being a Protestant's all about. That's why it's the church for me. That's why it's the church for anyone who respects the individual and the individual's right to decide for him or herself. When Martin Luther nailed his protest up to the church door in fifteen-seventeen, he may not have realised the full significance of what he was doing, but four hundred years later, thanks to him, my dear, I can wear whatever I want on my John Thomas...
Harry Blackitt: ... and, Protestantism doesn't stop at the simple condom. Oh, no. I can wear French Ticklers if I want.
Mrs. Blackitt: You what?
Harry Blackitt: French Ticklers. Black Mambos. Crocodile Ribs. Sheaths that are designed not only to protect, but also to enhance the stimulation of sexual congress.
Mrs. Blackitt: Have you got one?
Harry Blackitt: Have I got one? Uh, well, no, but I can go down the road any time I want and walk into Harry's and hold my head up high and say in a loud, steady voice, 'Harry, I want you to sell me a condom. In fact, today, I think I'll have a French Tickler, for I am a Protestant.'
Mrs. Blackitt: Well, why don't you?
Harry Blackitt: But they - Well, they cannot, 'cause their church never made the great leap out of the Middle Ages and the domination of alien Episcopal supremacy.
Monty Python, the Meaning of Life
As a non-American, the bit I find utterly absurd is that generally the same people (politically) who are staunchly anti-abortion seem to be the same people who are pro-execution.
They are the same people (politically) who are pro-guns - which only have one intended use - to kill things.
They seem to be the same people (politically) who are against socialised medicine. So it's ok for you to die of neglect if you are poor, but abortion and euthanasia are right out.
I have an extremely difficult time believing them when they say it's about protecting life when they seem to go out of their way to enable lives being destroyed in so many other ways.
The thing about how communities work is that they group together to share responsibility for various tasks and resource requirements because the larger society as a whole benefits more than everyone being individually responsible for every aspect of their lives.
It allows for specialisation, e.g. not everyone needs to be a doctor AND an engineer AND a chef AND an farmer.
It allows us to care for people who are vulnerable as certain points in their lives, such as children and the elderly.
The 'cost' of this is that sometimes we will 'pay' for goods and services that we don't directly benefit from. The 'value' is that someone we care about (including ourselves) may benefit from something out of the ordinary at some point.
I know several professional Mistresses who make quite a (dis)respectable living from CBT. It's not that uncommon.
Reminds me of a quote from one of my technical repairs service trainers [1] - ...none of the screws are optional.
[1] I think it was an Epson guy, it may have been NEC. I've certainly worked with plenty of techs who thought a number of screws were optional, and it led to devices being returned multiple times for repairs.
And yet we have societies in the present day who routinely practice infanticide against female infants because it is culturally more appealing to have a male child.
Morality is a cultural construct. Rational discussion about why something may or may not be moral is not in and of itself a bad thing, if only to reinforce why a particular decision should be considered good or bad.
Absolutes is how the US has got itself into the position where you have pro-life advocates looking to make hormonal birth control illegal as a form of abortion.
$deity forbid your parents are hipsters or whatever the equivalent is, and make choices on the edge of normal. They might be trendy a few years later - but for you, life would be hellish.
we could have given you a better life but we decided to gamble instead
The whole point is it wouldn't be the 'you' mentioned in your 'quote', it would be an entirely different person, because the screened child would never have been born.
Think about it, what if you can keep your child "12" until they're 21?
Are you really ready for pop culture to become even more filled with drivel like Justin Bieber, One Direction and Twilight?
Someone already thought of it. Obligatory link to a tag from the article.
All the people you mentioned have more power than I do. They exercise this power in the pursuit of more money on a regular basis through the negotiation of sponsorship contract (using their power with the general public to sway purchasing decisions) or through the sponsorship of politicians (Hollywood is seen as an attractive target for lobbyists as well).
While they may not have the power of a Rothschild or a Bill Gates, it's naive to imply they don't have greater power than most.
Not all people with power abuse it. But some do.
Do you really think that a someone who changes their body with extreme cosmetic surgery (which often requires a minimum of wealth to achieve) wouldn't manipulate their child genetically to better fit their vision of what the child should be like beyond simply removing life-threatening traits?
Yes, embryo adoption. Many couples have none of their IVF embryos destroyed.
As someone who has done IVF I find this very hard to believe. The attrition rate of fertillised embryos to ones that were viable for implant was close to 50%. From talking to other couples who have tried IVF, my experience was better than many, even though we didn't manage to conceive.
It would be exceptional to have a cycle where all embryos were of a grade for implant. Or are you conveniently ignoring those embryos?