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

Turning back the clock to 1950 (where women were barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, blacks were in the back of the bus, Japanese Americans were freshly out of detention camps) is step one. Step two is 1850.

 

trump reads the tea leaves both in terms of broad national opinion and contrasting with nikki haley and speaks out against the AL supreme court decision on IVF

 

I'll give it a go, but I do not speak for JV. A pregnancy can result with or without the intention of the woman and can directly impact her health and even lifespan. Abortions most often result from an unintended pregnancy, an "oops."

Lab-fertilized embryos always happen with intention and usually with more embryos generated than could be used. Some are doomed to be discarded even though they were intentionally generated.

I have always seen it as a numbers game and have argued (on the site) previously that anyone who cares about an unborn embryo inside a mother should also care about IVF. I mean, we have more abortions in the US than discarded IVF embryos, but only by like a factor of 3 or so, I think.

In 2021, for instance, the US saw over 400,000 "ART cycles" (which usually involves a fertilized egg in a lab) for a total of not quite 100,000 infants born from those processes. So, unless I am missing something, we collectively kinda sacrified 300,000 embryos in 2021 -- maybe more if each ART cycle collected multiple eggs and fertilized them -- not sure. [using CDC data] Compared to the difficult individual decisions surrounding abortion (which usually results from an accidental pregnancy), these procedures went forward knowing from the start that many embryos would be created and would never become babies. That is not an "oops" but just a cost of giving the process a try.

I say this without judgment for families using the technology and making hard decisions, and I'm also pro-choice for women and individual households, without government interference. But I've always been confused how someone could care about an unborn embryo in the accidental case but not in the intentional case. It has the appearance, IMHO, of just wanting women to suffer.

Not sure how JV feels. And I have no idea if my understanding of the stats is correct.

 

Watching maga republicans scramble is interesting...

 

unfortunate verb is unfortunate.

 

You can ‘test’ embryos and select the one you like the most. I think that’s where the creepiness comes in. Of course, today, most people going through the procedure just want a baby, not selection.

 

Trump appointed federal judges note Dementia Don's IVF opinion and will proceed to legislate from the bench to implement the SCW agenda ... "Sorry Donny, we are driving the bus now".

Trump is ****ing ignorant. He thinks that all he has to do to call his appointed judges and get them to bend to his will. You would figure by now after losing so many times in courts with his appointed judges, he would know better, but alas he does not.

 

My understanding is that Catholic church opposes IVF on similar grounds and also the idea that life is being created through unnatural means.

I find the argument that fertilized embryos that aren’t even attached to a uterus are alive interesting as only about 25% of fertilized embryos within a body successfully attach to the uterus. So even in completely biological procreation there are a lot of embryos created that never make it beyond that stage.

So in that case when a couple has sex at a where it’s not ideal for an embryo to develop and the embryo gets flushed out of the women’s body is that negligent homicide?

Or if a woman takes birth control that prevents an embryo from attaching to the uterine is that intentional homicide?

 

Creates a bit of a moral hazard of couples waiting into middle age to have children because they figure they can do IVF if they can't conceive naturally. And then it's a lot of trouble and expense to have 'your own' when there are kids out there to adopt. Besides all that we are killing the planet with overpopulation. Or to take the prolife language, if God didn't want you to conceive, maybe you shouldn't be trying so hard.

 

So the moral hazard is people unable to naturally conceive going through the process and expense of IVF over adoption, I don't know if I'd agree that the practice is immoral because of it, but I can certainly understand that point.

But then to argue that having children in itself is a moral hazard, due to our energy/goods consumption rates, I'd disagree and point to the latter being the fundamentally moral/ethical issue, rather than the former. I understand that one could argue separating the two is semantics and the two can't be decoupled, but I think they can and should be, especially if one cares about morals/ethics in general, because solving the former vs solving the latter...

The last point, I'd suppose makes sense for a religious person, and @B-Bob 's point makes great sense for those opposed to contraception/early abortions as well.

Thanks for the replies guys.

 

Notice that none of this back pedaling addresses why IVF clinics in Alabama have paused treatment. Alabama's supreme court didn't outlaw IVF; they just said that embryos are children which is incongruous with how IVF works unless couples or the state are willing to pay for perpetual freezing.

 

And hey, I'm not criticizing. I wouldn't reproach someone doing IVF, even in my head. Just that it unsettles me and I don't think I'd want to do it because it doesn't feel right.

 

can you put embryos on your taxes?

Child support?

Can i foster other peoples embryos and collect money from the guberment???

This kind of unbelievably moronic thinking is why most people won't vote republican and are delegated to independent. The democrats are so ****ing bad but the republicans ask them to hold their beer every time

 

When are Christians going to do the Christ part?

 

The net result is that we value a single cell orgasm that has 0 self-awareness, consciousness, nerves, emotions, thoughts, or anything OVER women.

In the Christian patriarchal society of many of our friends on this board - if a women gets raped, it's probably her fault for dressing a certain way, not taking precautions, not carrying a gun. If she gets abused - it's her fault. If a college kid rapes a student, he should get lenciency because it's not fair to ruin his life. A women who complains about the way she is treated is woke. And if women wanted to have control over their bodies, well, they should have thought about that before they became women.

 

Amazing how the republicans are so afraid of admitting their true intentions, so they spin out easily disproven lies like speaker johnson...

 

rep. donalds wants more breeders...