Are Republicans For or Against IVF?

[User]

12 minutes ago, Matthew said:

The Alabama supreme court using the law passed by Republicans.

Really, which law is that exactly?

The one passed in 1872? Is that really what you are trying to blame on "Republicans" for saying unborn children in IVF are considered children?

No, this has been the culmination of over a hundred years of law and legal precedent. 

And to the point here... these IVF clinics should in fact be doing more to ensure the protection of these humans. They did in fact destroy them through negligence and dropping them on the floor because some fool could open up the container and did so with his bare hands. 

Do you think the parents who entrusted that IVF clinic should have no standing to challenge this in any way or just that it goes too far in saying they are children that were harmed?

 

[gatomontes99]

1 hour ago, Matthew said:

The Alabama supreme court using the law passed by Republicans.

That is not what the ruling was about. The ruling was about the fertility clinic not properly securing embryos that were ruined because a patient tried to steal them.

The plaintiffs IVF treatments led to the creation of several embryos , some of which were implanted and resulted in the births of healthy babies . The plaintiffs contracted to have their remaining embryos kept in the Center's cryogenic nursery , which was located within the same building as the local hospital, the Mobile Infirmary Medical Center ( the Hospital"). The Hospital is owned and operated by the Mobile Infirmary Association (" the Association"). The plaintiffs allege that the Center was obligated to keep the cryogenic nursery secured and monitored at all times . But, in December 2020 , a patient at the Hospital managed to wander into the Center's fertility clinic through an unsecured doorway . The patient then entered the cryogenic nursery and removed several embryos . The subzero temperatures at which the embryos had been stored freeze -burned the patient's hand, causing the patient to drop the embryos on the floor , killing them .

You guys really need to go to the source. Don't believe the lies the media tells you. They will make grotesque accusations, with no basis in reality, because it will advance an agenda and get viewership.

[robosmith]

23 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

Total fallacy. First, they may not be fertilized. Even though the seman is inserted, that doesn't mean it is going to develop.

Second, those that arent going to develop are tossed and the "possibly" viable are then inserted back into the woman.

Third, there is no way to know what is and isn't viable in a natural pregnancy. Like Schrödinger's cat, they can be thought of as both alive and dead. Conservatives chose life because being wrong about it being alive us meaningless but being wrong about it being dead is catastrophic.

Neither spontaneous abortion nor intentional abortion is "catastrophic."

In reality the demise of a WANTED pregnancy is far more emotionally damaging that an unwanted pregnancy. 💡

[robosmith]

18 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Pretty hard to start a fight about IVF imo. 

Zealots can start a fight about ANYTHING. Even whether denying rain that clearly occurred is a LIE. LMAO

[impartialobserver]

There are some who oppose IVF but not enough to make an actual impact. 

[Five of swords]

On 8/14/2024 at 2:00 PM, 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?

 

Both Republicans and democrats support whatever they are told to support. Polls are nothing but a reflection of whatever their preferred media messages were a few months ago. It is ridiculous to think kthatanyone ever just makes up their own mind about anything, lol. Especially not on a mass scale. That has never happened and doesn't happen now.

[Matthew]

5 hours ago, User said:

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. 

Ok so a ten year old child vs a labaratory tray of 100 fertilized cells. You're saying you would rescue the tray of cells and let the ten year old burn to death?

[Matthew]

3 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Few, if any Republicans are against IVF.

So far conservatives in this thread have did they are ok with IVF as long as they don't do the things that 100% of IVF involves.

[User]

1 minute ago, Matthew said:

Ok so a ten year old child vs a labaratory tray of 100 fertilized cells. You're saying you would rescue the tray of cells and let the ten year old burn to death?

I already gave you my response to this stupid hypothetical. You literally quoted half of it. 

Why are you ignoring it? 

 

Just now, Matthew said:

So far conservatives in this thread have did they are ok with IVF as long as they don't do the things that 100% of IVF involves.

I should have known you had no intention of being honest in this thread from the start. 

[CdnFox]

Just now, Matthew said:

So far conservatives in this thread have did they are ok with IVF as long as they don't do the things that 100% of IVF involves.

That's not true. As I've said I don't know of a single conservative that would even consider this to be an issue. I myself have expressed you that I wouldn't consider it an issue. And you haven't demonstrated that all conservatives or even a handful of conservatives actually feel it is an issue, the best you've been able to demonstrate is somewhere I'm comfortable with the laws that were attempted to be passed around the issue

If you have to lie to make a point it's not a very good point. Let's try and keep it real.

[Matthew]

2 hours ago, User said:

Really, which law is that exactly?

The one passed in 1872? Is that really what you are trying to blame on "Republicans" for saying unborn children in IVF are considered children?

Alabama's Human Life Protection Act of 2019 (implemented 2022)

[Hodad]

4 hours ago, Nationalist said:

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.

Lol. You know, just because someone on "your team" says something doesn't' mean you have to automatically nod along and shake your pom poms. 

He fundamentally misstated the IVF process when understanding that process is absolutely essential to understanding the thread topic. I provided the correct information. Really no need for you to say or do anything. Just learn something and move on.

[Matthew]

2 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

That is not what the ruling was about. The ruling was about the fertility clinic not properly securing embryos that were ruined because a patient tried to steal them.

Yes, the couple was mad that the clinic's error ended their chance of ever having a kid. The lawyer got clever and used alabama's anti-abortion law to claim that the error was a more serious offense akin to manslaughter and the alabama supreme court agreed and ruled that by law the frozen embryos are considered children in Alabama.

[Matthew]

13 minutes ago, User said:

I already gave you my response to this stupid hypothetical.

It was unclear. What I got out of your response is that you would rescue the tray of frozen cells and let the ten year old burn to death. Hence me trying to confirm if that's literally what you meant.

[User]

12 minutes ago, Matthew said:

Alabama's Human Life Protection Act of 2019 (implemented 2022)

So, what part of that law deals with IFV?

It is a law against abortion. 

Hint: Try reading the actual ruling you are discussing and the law referenced in it. 

2 minutes ago, Matthew said:

It was unclear. What I got out of your response is that you would rescue the tray of frozen cells and let the ten year old burn to death. Hence me trying to confirm if that's literally what you meant.

Nothing unclear about this, stop ignoring what I wrote:

"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. "

It means, what you choose has no bearing on what you did not choose being a human life or not with any significance as a human life. 

 

[Matthew]

20 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

That's not true.

You clearly have common sense on this issue and have made it clear that you do not consider a fertilized cell to be the same as an actual child.

User disagrees and (correct me if I'm wrong) believes that a fertilized cell is a living human being and that such fertilized cells should not be legally destroyed through any medical procedure.

I have yet to see any rationale for how destroying non-viable, abnormal, and uneeded embryos is a not a standard part of all IVF procedures everywhere.

[Matthew]

1 hour ago, User said:

what part of that law deals with IFV

I mean that's a good question. Their proximity might just be creating a perception of them being directly connected. The common denominator is that the alabama consitution was amended in 2018 to outlaw abortion.The abortion law of 2019 followed from that, and identifed terminating a fetus at any stage of development as a felony in the same class as murder. Then the recent 2024 alabama supreme court explicity applied the same anti-abortion language of the new amendment to IVF. Also taking the empryos are children logic and applying it to the states existing wrongful death of a minor statute.

1 hour ago, User said:

Nothing unclear about this, stop ignoring what I wrote:

"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. "

It means, what you choose has no bearing on what you did not choose being a human life or not with any significance as a human life. 

Yeah, what's unclear is whether you would save the tray of frozen cells or the ten year old.

Edited August 15 by Matthew

[CdnFox]

18 minutes ago, Matthew said:

You clearly have common sense on this issue and have made it clear that you do not consider a fertilized cell to be the same as an actual child.

well just to be clear  i wouldn't if it was living in a tray   I also don't personally believe that humanity begins at the moment of conception and i'm hardly alone there in the conservative world but even among those who do i think they'd make a distinction between an egg in a womb that was in the process of gestating and had  a reasonable chance of maturing to birth. 

Quote

 

User disagrees and (correct me if I'm wrong) believes that a fertilized cell is a living human being and that such fertilized cells should not be legally destroyed through any medical procedure.

I have yet to see any rationale for how destroying non-viable, abnormal, and uneeded embryos is a not a standard part of all IVF procedures everywhere.

 

I'll leave it up to him to expand or comment  on his own arguments. but regardless of what he believes or doesn't you can't say all or even most conservatives believe that disposing of a fertilized egg that's  in a tray is 'abortion' without more evidence than that.   I don't believe for a moment that's the case. 

[User]

35 minutes ago, Matthew said:

Then the recent 2024 alabama supreme court explicity applied the same anti-abortion language of the new amendment to IVF.

Which part, where?

36 minutes ago, Matthew said:

Also taking the empryos are children logic and applying it to the states existing wrongful death of a minor statute.

"Also?" that was the law that led to this decision and it was primarily based upon. 

37 minutes ago, Matthew said:

Yeah, what's unclear is whether you would save the tray of frozen cells or the ten year old.

Once again, you completely ignore what I said and want to keep playing your dumb game. 

What if it is the woman wanting to be a mother who desperately wants a child and those frozen embryo's were what she had been holding all her hopes on... and she grabs them instead of the 10 year old. Now what? What is the point of your question?

 

[Matthew]

15 hours ago, CdnFox said:

I also don't personally believe that humanity begins at the moment of conception and i'm hardly alone there in the conservative world

I get it. My generalization earlier about conservatives in this thread was inaccurate. I started this thread due to curiosity about these divergent views I was noticing and I genuinely wondered what republican-minded people thought about the issue. The impression that is forming is that the really hardcore anti-abortion folks are sometimes less than straightforward about their opinion on this subject.

Alabama shows why this matters. Most Republicans in Alabama believe in abortion exceptions for rape/incest/health of mother and that IVF is good. Yet Alabama now has the most extreme trifecta of anti-abortion policies that allows for [edit: very few] exceptions and declaring cells in a lab to be persons. It maybe shows how much more influence the religious extremists have in the party.

15 hours ago, CdnFox said:

ll leave it up to him to expand or comment

I wish. For some reason he prefers obfuscation instead of stating his anti-IVF position clearly.

Edited August 16 by Matthew

[User]

6 hours ago, Matthew said:

I wish. For some reason he prefers obfuscation instead of stating his anti-IVF position clearly.

I have responded to you every step of the way beyond good faith. I directly answered the original question of this thread and your steering it to my personal views as well as your further attempts to drag this off into stupidity. 

You can't respond to me honestly, so instead you have to sit here making up crap about my positions. 

[User]

6 hours ago, Matthew said:

Alabama shows why this matters. Most Republicans in Alabama believe in abortion exceptions for rape/incest/health of mother and that IVF is good. Yet Alabama now has the most extreme trifecta of anti-abortion policies that allows for no exceptions and declaring cells in a lab to be persons. It maybe shows how much more influence the religious extremists have in the party.

Alabama abortion law does have exceptions for the life and serious health risks of the mother. 

You are conflating so many things here and ignoring almost everything already discussed before now. 

[Matthew]

7 hours ago, User said:

Alabama abortion law does have exceptions for the life and serious health risks of the mother. 

No exceptions was an overstatement. Ive edited to "very few." But the point stands that it is a far more extreme law than even the Republican voters of Alabama want.

It's dangerous for women's health too, because if your preganancy takes a bad turn that has a high chance of killing you or harming you, doctors can be more inclined to wait until your start to get seriously ill rather than risking life in prison for murder.

[Matthew]

8 hours ago, User said:

I have responded to you every step of the way

You have certainly said things at every step of the way as usual. But you've not been open about your desire to ban IVF as it actually exists, instead of the non-existent version where they don't destroy fertilized cells.

[Boges]

On 8/14/2024 at 2:26 PM, Goddess said:

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

That's clearly communism 🙃