Are Republicans For or Against IVF?

[CdnFox]

34 minutes ago, Matthew said:

Ok then. Should embryos created during IVF legally be considered children?

After further reading, it turns out that Alabama did in fact create a law that attempted to address the problem (see SB 159), which the governor signed into law.

However, the hospital in the alabama case has not resumed IVF procedures and other clinics in that state are sending their embryos to other states, because the new law still does not resolve the central problem. The Alabama court applied the emryos-are-children anti-abortion principle to IVF and the the new law does not change that stance, and in fact holds companies liable if their medical equipment is involved in the destruction of an embryo.

 

So what's your issue then? Or do you have one

[gatomontes99]

51 minutes ago, eyeball said:

 

It doesn't matter if every sperm is precious - the poor little ones that don't make it are no less a victim than an unloved egg.

 

You do know how stupid this sounds, don't you? Did you actually think this ridiculous straw-man would somehow be inciteful?

Edited August 15 by gatomontes99

[Matthew]

18 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

So what's your issue then? Or do you have one

Well I'm curious whether republicans will be willing to make a law that says embryos created during the IVF process are not legally considered children. If they can't do this, then they are de facto opposed to IVF, which they claim to support.

Making such a claim would dangerously alienate many of their core base of evangelical voters. But failing to make such an exception would alienate the overwhelming number of voters who think IVF is good.

Edited August 15 by Matthew

[User]

1 hour ago, Matthew said:

Ok then. Should embryos created during IVF legally be considered children?

After further reading, it turns out that Alabama did in fact create a law that attempted to address the problem (see SB 159), which the governor signed into law.

However, the hospital in the alabama case has not resumed IVF procedures and other clinics in that state are sending their embryos to other states, because the new law still does not resolve the central problem. The Alabama court applied the emryos-are-children anti-abortion principle to IVF and the the new law does not change that stance, and in fact holds companies liable if their medical equipment is involved in the destruction of an embryo.

You are steering the discussion in a different direction now. My personal opinion on this vs what the party position currently is. 

The Hospital is going to do what they are going to do... that is not a reflection on Republicans or what the party in general supported there. 

The IVF industry should be regulated and more care provided to the process. You can still support IVF, but also ensure it is done in a better way. They are in fact playing with creating life and it should be respected as such. 

[eyeball]

33 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

You do know how stupid this sounds, don't you? Did you actually think this ridiculous straw-man would somehow be inciteful?

Said the incited one.

[gatomontes99]

5 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Said the incited one.

What does that even mean? You need to remember, I don't live in your fantasy world. I stick to reality. So, if you have some fantasy world assumptions, I don't know what they are. They are your assumptions and yours alone.

[Matthew]

27 minutes ago, User said:

You can still support IVF, but also ensure it is done in a better way.

But not in a way in which zero fertilized eggs (embryos) are destroyed. What you're in fact suggesting is that IVF is ok, as long as it doesn't happen the way it medically has to be done.

[User]

1 minute ago, Matthew said:

But not in a way in which zero fertilized eggs (embryos) are destroyed. What you're in fact suggesting is that IVF is ok, as long as it doesn't happen the way it medically has to be done.

You can't have a normal pregnancy without the deaths of the unborn or the mother. That doesn't mean we outlaw pregnancy... 

The disregard for life the practice has now is not the way it must be done, where they create 20 embryos and pick and choose what they think are the best and destroy the rest. 

Lousianna has had some restrictions like this in place for decades now, and IVF is still happening there. 

[Matthew]

2 hours ago, User said:

You can't have a normal pregnancy without the deaths of the unborn or the mother. That doesn't mean we outlaw pregnancy... 

I agree, and the death of ferilized cells is a frequent part of the natural reproduction attempts too.

2 hours ago, User said:

not the way it must be done, where they create 20 embryos and pick and choose what they think are the best and destroy the rest. 

Many artifically fertilized eggs don't develop normally or don't make it to the blastocyst stage needed for implatation. The source i quoted earlier estimated that it often takes about 10-12 human eggs to achieve one normal healthy embryo capible of being used for IVF.

2 hours ago, User said:

Lousianna has had some restrictions like this in place for decades now, and IVF is still happening there.

Only because the leftover embryos in Louisiana are sent out of state to be used or destroyed.

Also the existing Louisiana law does not regard a fertilized egg as having the full legal status of a child, as in alabama. They define a fetus produced via IVF as a "juridical person" much like business entities or partnerships, with some rights, but not the same as a fully developed human.

Next, existing Louisiana law does allow embryos to be destroyed if they do not reach the viable blastocyst stage within 36 hours.

So no, doctors in louisiana have not changed the procedure at all and it still involves the same destruction of fertilized cells. But are you ok with these legal compromises louisisna has used for many years?

Edited August 15 by Matthew

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Matthew said:

Well I'm curious whether republicans will be willing to make a law that says embryos created during the IVF process are not legally considered children. If they can't do this, then they are de facto opposed to IVF, which they claim to support.

Making such a claim would dangerously alienate many of their core base of evangelical voters. But failing to make such an exception would alienate the overwhelming number of voters who think IVF is good.

US law isn't a specialty of mine in this area but isnt' that already the case? Like murder laws don't apply to the unborn alraedy, the unborn arent' afforded some protections that 'post birth children' are allowed if you will.  

I guess what i'm saying is i don't know what's "wrong" with the law now that would need to change to make things better.  Like, if you tossed out a viable fertalized egg now i assume you couldn't be charged with murder or the like?

[Matthew]

9 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Like, if you tossed out a viable fertalized egg now i assume you couldn't be charged with murder or the like?

This year the Alabama Supreme Court used the anti-abortion law in that state, (which defines ferilized cells as children) and upheld the prosecution of a clinic that accidently destroyed a couple's last remaining fertilized eggs. On top of this some big evangelical Christian groups are coming down as being anti IVF.

So yeah what you're describing is common sense. If a building was on fire and you could only save a 10 year old or tray of 50 fertilized eggs, everyone would pick the 10 year old.

[herbie]

Only if the IVF is from the seed of the Grand Trumpalo

 

[CdnFox]

21 minutes ago, Matthew said:

This year the Alabama Supreme Court used the anti-abortion law in that state, (which defines ferilized cells as children) and upheld the prosecution of a clinic that accidently destroyed a couple's last remaining fertilized eggs. On top of this some big evangelical Christian groups are coming down as being anti IVF.

So yeah what you're describing is common sense. If a building was on fire and you could only save a 10 year old or tray of 50 fertilized eggs, everyone would pick the 10 year old.

I can see where the Law would need clarification. I don't think the tray example is a particularly good one, 50 potential lives which may or may not ever be capable of growing into a child without being inserted into a womb can't be compared to someone who's completed the process. But I do think it needs clarifying if there's questions about what constitutes a 'pregnancy'.   I do know that nobody in Canada on the conservative side would be likely to have an issue with it, i would be surprised to find out very many republicans in the states would in principle, but i can see specific laws and definitions running into issues that they won't vote for or wouldn't feel comfortable supporting for political reasons. 

[Matthew]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

50 potential lives which may or may not ever be capable of growing into a child without being inserted into a womb can't be compared to someone who's completed the process

Exactly. The current issue in the US is that republicans have painted themselves into a corner by allowing a minority of hardline anti-abortion evangelicals to decare that all fertilized cells have the exact same legal status as children.

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

i would be surprised to find out very many republicans in the states would in principle, but i can see specific laws and definitions running into issues that they won't vote for or wouldn't feel comfortable supporting for political reasons.

Yes the vast majority of republicans and democrats support IVF. But the republicans are so far unable to pass any law that protects IVF without contradicting the increasingly radical position they've staked out on abortion in some states.

Edited August 15 by Matthew

[CdnFox]

33 minutes ago, Matthew said:

Exactly. The current issue in the US is that republicans have painted themselves into a corner by allowing a minority of hardline anti-abortion evangelicals to decare that all fertilized cells have the exact same legal status as children.

 

Sounds like they're the minority and it'll get worked out.  I mean - once they're inserted and have "taken root" (don't tell the ladies i said it like that) then sure, abortion laws may be appropriate but until then i think it's a tough sell. 

Quote

Yes the vast majority of republicans and democrats support IVF. But the republicans are so far unable to pass any law that protects IVF without contradicting the increasingly radical position they've staked out on abortion in some states.

well it sounds like it's a bit of a new debate given the new interpretation of the constitution so i would imagine it'll be a hot topic with certain elements for a short while.  Sounds like it'll settle down to a sensible solution given time.  Odd sort of thing to come up but you know what they say about the law of unintended consequences, there was bound to be a certain level of kerfuffle when wade got overturned 

[Matthew]

7 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Sounds like it'll settle down to a sensible solution given time

I don't think you'll ever get republican lawmakers to admit that frozen fertilized cells are not the same as children.

[User]

10 hours ago, Matthew said:

This year the Alabama Supreme Court used the anti-abortion law in that state, (which defines ferilized cells as children) and upheld the prosecution of a clinic that accidently destroyed a couple's last remaining fertilized eggs. On top of this some big evangelical Christian groups are coming down as being anti IVF.

So yeah what you're describing is common sense. If a building was on fire and you could only save a 10 year old or tray of 50 fertilized eggs, everyone would pick the 10 year old.

That doesn't mean the ferilized eggs are any less considered life. 

No different than if you were in a burning building and you could save your family, you wife and kids... or a room full of 100 strangers. 

If you choose to save your family, that doesn't mean the 100 strangers were not humans with any significance with regard to their being living beings. 

The point is, we can place reasonable restrictions on IVF that demands they have some regard for the lives they are creating while still doing IVF. 

It is the same reason why we have standards for the medical practice and Hospitals are not just some moldy basement room with blood stains and doctors are not just smoking and never washing their hands while they deliver babies and then leave the mothers laying on the floor in their own poo... no, we demand better so women and babies don't die needlessly during child birth. 

 

13 minutes ago, Matthew said:

I don't think you'll ever get republican lawmakers to admit that frozen fertilized cells are not the same as children.

Will we ever get folks like you to admit they have some significance as human life that deserves protection?

[Deluge]

19 hours ago, Goddess said:

How 'bout we just leave medical decisions to others and their doctor?

That's fine. Just don't murder the unborn. 

[Deluge]

19 hours ago, Matthew said:

IVF is overwhelmingly supported by Americans, even by quite a huge share of anti-abortion-in-all-cases Republicans. A few republicans have proposed bills to protect IVF from anti-abortion laws. But so far a conservative Alabama court this year sided against IVF in a case, and this summer a large number of republican lawmakers in Congress sided against protecting IVF in a bill that would have done so.

So has the republican consensus on this already been decided and if so, what is it and why?

 

Preserving life is what's most important. Just work from that standpoint and everything else falls into place.  

[Nationalist]

18 hours ago, Hodad said:

Lol. You really have no idea. 

The procedures to retrieve the eggs are invasive, expensive and generally unpleasant. They harvest the eggs in large batches. They also fertilize the eggs in large batches, though harvesting semen is considerably more pleasant.

In these batches a certain number become tested, viable embryos. Some are selected (random or deliberate) and implanted with the hope of at least one making it to the next stage of development. The rest are frozen and, eventually, discarded. 

So why are Republicans pro murder all of a sudden?

 

Of course, I'm kidding. It's not murder in the least. But then again, neither is abortion. The trouble is you people can't make up your minds. 

No. He does. You don't though.

Few, if any Republicans are against IVF. It happens to be necessary now after all the decades of crap we've been ingesting.

[gatomontes99]

1 hour ago, Matthew said:

I don't think you'll ever get republican lawmakers to admit that frozen fertilized cells are not the same as children.

Nobody ever said they were.

[WestCanMan]

15 hours ago, Matthew said:

.Do you think the minority of hardline evangelicals within the party who oppose IVF will ultimately call the shots on this issue?

I think that it's really important to fix the economy, which Biden and Kamala ruined with their war on domestic energy and the US dollar. 

I think it sucks that Biden's war in Ukraine and the war that started in Israel because Biden enriched Iran are killing so many people. 

I think that Kamala turned the border into Swiss cheese, and that the person who broke something isn't the person that you should hire to fix it.

I think that you want to pretend that it's not Kamala's fault that everything she touched turned to shit.

I think that evangelicals aren't going to get to stop IVF all by themselves, and this thread is a petty distraction. 

[Deluge]

20 hours ago, Matthew said:

Yes, but who's leading them?

Certainly not the lemmings. They're completely brainwashed and Left. 

[eyeball]

13 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

What does that even mean? You need to remember, I don't live in your fantasy world. I stick to reality. So, if you have some fantasy world assumptions, I don't know what they are. They are your assumptions and yours alone.

I was merely making a joke by making a reference to an old Monty Python skit.

https://www.google.com/search?q=every+sperm+is+precious&oq=every+sperm+is+precious&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOdIBBzgzMGowajeoAg-wAgE&client=ms-android-telus-ca-revc&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:c577e1aa,vid:bzVHjg3AqIQ,st:0

[Matthew]

25 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

Nobody ever said they were.

The Alabama supreme court using the law passed by Republicans.

Edited August 15 by Matthew