Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, eliminating constitutional right to abortion

Ignorant post.

• There is a massive amount of hormone prep that is very hard on the woman’s body that happens before each implantation procedure. It’s not a gumball machine.
  
• Efficacy of implanting one embryo is much lower than multiple at a time.
  
• Each failed attempt is a miscarriage. Do you understand what that means to prospective parents, especially people who have to turn to IVF? It’s devastating.
  
• Each procedure costs money.

Better to leave this the **** alone.

 

I didn't mention religion a single time. Nor are these views informed by my religious beliefs (of which I don't post regularly and you are likely not aware). The fact is this is a living being that is human and not yet an adult, aka a child. Killing children is considered wrong by atheists as well as believers.

See above.

I don't know how much support they require, it is mostly at this point keeping them in a freezer. There shouldn't be personal income tax, so go ahead and deduct away.

I already stated my position on IVF. It should be reformed to create one embryo at a time and attempt implantation. I agree that some people like to make up a fairy tale where there is some magic that happens sometime between fertilization and being 2 years old that makes someone transition from being a clump of cells to a person. I do not chose to engage with those delusions. There is a very clear demarcation from there being two separate gametes to one combined entity. The next clear transition is death. Everything in between is simply development.

It is neither. It is an ethical and moral one.

 

And again my understanding from people
Who work in this field is that doing so is practically impossible to do IVF that way and even in that scenario embryos will still likely be destroyed.

You’re free to hold that belief and there is no point debating you on it since it is clear your mind is closed on it.

In our system though we can and are addressing it through democratic republic means. Particularly when it comes to IVF it appears that even most of the “prolife” side are willing to make an exception to keep IVF as it currently is practiced. Which means a lot of embryos will be destroyed.

 

That is a religious belief, not a scientific one.

Twist it however you like, but there is no science that can say a single cell is the same as a full human being. There is no experiment or paper, nothing on in this universe that make that claim. It is not a fact, it is part of your subjective reality.

You stating your opinion as fact is nothing but your belief system. A belief ultimately informed by your Judeo-christian values.

 

We have scientific definitions for life/living/alive. We have scientific definitions for human. A zygote meets both.

 

Can we drop the zygote off at the local fire station?

 

Absolutely. Just need the host to stay with it.

Are viruses alive? And why does it matter? | Science News

 

wrong again. every time you say this you are WRONG.

Thank goodness I no longer argue with STUPID.

Keep on, keeping on... and being wrong.

 

Better off dropping at local orphanages that have cryo freezers for this.

Some even tackle harder issues like literacy and education.

Spoiler

 

What science can say when it is a "full human being"?

 

I'm down. It is the logical conclusion of the life begins at conception belief. The only way to do IVF ethically would be to try to implant every embryo you create and to do so timely. Which probably makes IVF untenable given the clash between this ethical requirement and the practical consideration. Which is fine by me since I see no real societal benefit (individual benefit sure, but no societal benefit beyond simple freedom) to having IVF anyway. From a perspective of public policy, I would think it pretty ridiculous anyway to allow abortions so that women can choose to have children and not allow abortions so that women can choose to not have children. If terminations are banned, everything should be banned.

So, I'd be with you if I believed that life begins at conception. But, I don't, so I'm not. I'd prefer you get your rights when you're born. In that version, while I still don't see that having IVF around is worthwhile, I don't see any ethical reason to prevent it. So simply for freedom's sake, it'd be allowed. And terminations would be allowed. And stem cell research would be allowed. And the government could fund it. And the schools could teach it.

 

Anatomically, what's the difference the moment before vs after you are born?

 

Don’t you means hosts? It takes two to tango.

 

This is one of the dumbest posts I've ever seen

 

Zygote has one host. But, if we want to play the potential for life and not actual life itself, sure. We can even go back as far as a single carbon atom as a "child".

 

The zygote is a brand new human being, who has a mother and a father, both equally responsible for taking care of the “baby”.

If the mother risks the life of the baby, the father is responsible for protecting the baby’s life from the actions of the mother. If the father had not wanted that responsibility, he should have been more careful where he spreads his seed.

 

Absolutely, if we are talking about responsibility.

If we are talking about the actual biological mechanism, the bio-chemical reactions in a zygote cease to exists as soon as it's outside of a biological host. It's not self-sustaining. Even one of the most liberal "scientific" definitions of life, by NASA for the purpose of life detection on distant rocks, requires self-sustaining capability.

 

Anatomically there isn't a damn bit of difference. But we don't need to base our decisions about rights on biology. There isn't a biological difference between a 17 year old and an 18 year old, but one can vote and the other can't. There isn't any biological difference between a Guatemalan and an American, but one can legally work in the US and the other can't. It is a pro-life conceit that arguments about policy must stem from biology. They don't have to.

 

This is pure conjecture from me, but I'm inclined to push back on this based on the assumption that people who conceive via IVF are a lot more motivated to be good, engaged parents than teenagers who forego protection. A societal benefit is more families with invested parents.