Outrage? (Scientifically speaking) Joy? (The miracle of birth) Astonishment? (What was wrong with six) None of society's damn business? (This one speaks for itself).
I had originally had this as a comment, but I figured I'd move it to my original post...maybe this will get me out of trouble with LaPH. I was cleverly trying to instigate dialog. But she was right, I was cheating a bit as well. :)
The simple answer is I find this to be scientifically irresponsible.
I'm not well versed in IVF. A quote from Wikipedia states, "Embryos are graded by the embryologist based on the number of cells, evenness of growth and degree of fragmentation. The number to be transferred depends on the number available, the age of the woman and other health and diagnostic factors. In countries such as the UK, Australia and New Zealand, a maximum of two embryos are transferred except in unusual circumstances. In the UK and according to HFEA regulations, a woman over 40 may have up to three embryos transferred, whereas in the USA, younger women may have many embryos transferred based on individual fertility diagnosis. Most clinics and country regulatory bodies seek to minimize the risk of pregnancies carrying multiples."
Going off that alone I have two thoughts. (1) The UK, Australia, New Zealand limits make sense to me. Considering the incidence of premature birth that comes from multiples along with the medical issues a two/maybe three egg limit that mimics what tends to occur naturally seems acceptable. (2) Who in the US thought eight was a brilliant idea? I mean either they all fail or only a couple remain viable or all of them remain viable and then you have just stepped into the termination debate.
But hey, at least it wasn't stem cell research.