I.V.F. and the Liar-in-Chief

[Aristides]

1 minute ago, ironstone said:

Lot's of people were forced to make a choice, either get the shot or lose your job.

It's a hell of a way to say no one was forced to do it.

In my job I had to do extensive physicals every six months that included blood work, drug testing, cardiograms and chest X  Rays. I wasn't forced to do it but If didn't like it I could find another line of work. Life is full of consequences.

[myata]

One of these days I came across a quote from someone in the 70th of the last century aptly observing that the true purpose of blatant, in-your-face lying is not so much to make people believe the obvious lie but rather to erase the difference between the lie and the reality, normalize it. In such an orwellian-trumpian world, there would be no facts, no memories, principles or guidelines all and anything can be made up on a whim or erased, instantly.

It's more subtle than just pathological lying. And more dangerous.

Edited October 17, 2024 by myata

[WestCanMan]

38 minutes ago, Aristides said:

WTF is it you don't understand about freedom of choice? Pro choice isn't pro abortion, it's about the freedom to choose. Personally I'm not big on abortion but I'm not about to impose my choices on others.

IVF should be a choice. 

Pro-choice is pro-abortion. I think you're the only one saying otherwise. 

It's not like people are disputing a woman's right to carry a baby to term and then give birth, but I wouldn't put it past the demonrats. 

[Aristides]

35 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Pro-choice is pro-abortion. I think you're the only one saying otherwise. 

It's not like people are disputing a woman's right to carry a baby to term and then give birth, but I wouldn't put it past the demonrats. 

Bullshit, you don’t have to approve of someone’s choice, just their right to choose. You are forcing a woman to carry a baby to term regardless of the circumstances . You are about taking rights away just to justify your own predjudices.

[Aristides]

43 minutes ago, myata said:

One of these days I came across a quote from someone in the 70th of the last century aptly observing that the true purpose of blatant, in-your-face lying is not so much to make people believe the obvious lie but rather to erase the difference between the lie and the reality, normalize it. In such a orwellian-trumpian world, there would be no facts, no memories, principles or guidelines all and anything can be made up on a whim or erased, instantly.

It's more subtle than just pathological lying. And more dangerous.

The Joseph Goebbels method.

[myata]

2 minutes ago, Aristides said:

The Joseph Goebbels method.

I guess. Nothing is forgotten really, under this sun.

[WestCanMan]

18 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Bullshit, you don’t have to approve of someone’s choice, just their right to choose. You are forcing a woman to carry a baby to term regardless of the circumstances . You are about taking rights away just to justify your own predjudices.

Who's forcing women to carry to term? Maybe 1%, same as there are 1% who think that arbitrarily aborting a baby after contractions start at 9.5 months is a woman's right.

There's a reasonable time frame for abortion, and then it's murder. 

[Aristides]

12 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Who's forcing women to carry to term? Maybe 1%, same as there are 1% who think that arbitrarily aborting a baby after contractions start at 9.5 months is a woman's right.

There's a reasonable time frame for abortion, and then it's murder. 

Several states have outlawed abortions on any terms, others have put time restrictions on them that make them just about impossible including outlawing the morning after pill. Some will prosecute doctors who performs them or anyone who assists a woman to get to a place where an abortion can be done legally. Late term abortions are almost non existent unless a woman's life is in danger. Doctors just won't do them regardless if they are legal or not. In Canada where there are no laws regarding abortions doctors won't do them after 24 weeks.

This is from the NP, a right wing newspaper

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/letters/todays-letters-late-trimester-abortions-are-not-happening-in-canada-without-a-reason

Quote

While in Canada we do not have a law, we do have very strict professional guidelines. No physician in Canada can terminate a pregnancy over 24 weeks without serious indications that the life of the mother is at risk or that the fetus has very serious malformations.

I doubt any woman who really wants an abortion is going to wait anywhere near 24 weeks to get one.

Edited October 17, 2024 by Aristides

[WestCanMan]

13 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Several states have outlawed abortions on any terms, others have put time restrictions on them that make them just about impossible including outlawing the morning after pill. Some will prosecute doctors who performs them or anyone who assists a woman to get to a place where an abortion can be done legally. Late term abortions are almost non existent unless a woman's life is in danger. Doctors just won't do them regardless if they are legal or not. In Canada where there are no laws regarding abortions doctors won't do them after 24 weeks.

This is from the NP, a right wing newspaper

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/letters/todays-letters-late-trimester-abortions-are-not-happening-in-canada-without-a-reason

I doubt any woman who really wants an abortion is going to wait anywhere near 24 weeks to get one.

Blah blah blah.

"FYI your "late-term abortions are almost non-existent" situation is just as bad as the "no abortions are allowed" situation. 

The morning-after pill is a poor go-to. I don't think that indiscriminate use of it is a good thing. 

 

Quote

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/letters/todays-letters-late-trimester-abortions-are-not-happening-in-canada-without-a-reason

I didn't think that late-term abortions were happening here without reason. 

[Aristides]

18 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Blah blah blah.

"FYI your "late-term abortions are almost non-existent" situation is just as bad as the "no abortions are allowed" situation. 

 

 

 

 

You keep going on about things that don't happen just to justify banning something you don't like.

Quote

The morning-after pill is a poor go-to. I don't think that indiscriminate use of it is a good thing. 

I don't either but it's a hell of a lot better than forcing women (particularly teenagers) to carry pregnancies they don't need, want or can't afford to term.

Quote

I didn't think that late-term abortions were happening here without reason. 

 

Then why even bring them up?

 

 

I didn't think that late-term abortions were happening here without reason. 

Edited October 18, 2024 by Aristides

[User]

2 hours ago, Aristides said:

In my job I had to do extensive physicals every six months that included blood work, drug testing, cardiograms and chest X  Rays. I wasn't forced to do it but If didn't like it I could find another line of work. Life is full of consequences.

That is your employer... not the federal government trying to tell EVERY business they must do that. You have no alternative employment. 

That is not the government saying if you want to travel you must be vaccinated. You have no alternatives for how to travel. 

 

[User]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

Bullshit, you don’t have to approve of someone’s choice, just their right to choose. You are forcing a woman to carry a baby to term regardless of the circumstances . You are about taking rights away just to justify your own predjudices.

No one forced that woman to produce a child inside of her. Outside of rape, which is less than 5% and that 5% includes incest, rape, and life threatening conditions... 

Once that woman has a child in her, the choice being made here is to kill an unborn child. That child has a right to life. 

Even then... you most likely want to force her to carry to term as well, unless you support abortion on demand for any reason up to the moment before birth. 

3 hours ago, Aristides said:

Personally I'm not big on abortion but I'm not about to impose my choices on others.

Why are you not big on abortion?

 

[Aristides]

1 hour ago, User said:

No one forced that woman to produce a child inside of her. Outside of rape, which is less than 5% and that 5% includes incest, rape, and life threatening conditions... 

Once that woman has a child in her, the choice being made here is to kill an unborn child. That child has a right to life. 

Even then... you most likely want to force her to carry to term as well, unless you support abortion on demand for any reason up to the moment before birth. 

 

 

Yes it's all her fault, a man had nothing to do with it and won't bear the consequences yet men want to run her life, have dominion over her body and impact the rest of her life. Lot of misogynists on this forum.

Quote

Why are you not big on abortion?

Because I think is the worst form of birth control but that doesn't mean it should be banned.

[User]

7 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Yes it's all her fault, a man had nothing to do with it and won't bear the consequences yet men want to run her life, have dominion over her body and impact the rest of her life. Lot of misogynists on this forum.

Men are held accountable through many laws regarding their support for a child. 

Are you now saying the father gets a say in whether the woman gets to have an abortion or not? 

It is not just men who are Pro-life either. The unborn child is not her body, it is a separate life with a body of its own. 

 

[Aristides]

14 minutes ago, User said:

Men are held accountable through many laws regarding their support for a child. 

 

I asked you before why there were so many single moms living in poverty but you never did answer.

Quote

Are you now saying the father gets a say in whether the woman gets to have an abortion or not? 

In the case of a couple you would hope it would be a mutual decision. Otherwise no.

Quote

 

It is not just men who are Pro-life either. The unborn child is not her body, it is a separate life with a body of its own. 

 

I realize it is not just men and men should butt out of a decision that has nothing to do with them. You have no business dictating to women you have never met what they have to do  with their lives.

An unborn child is her body until it can live outside of the womb.

[Rebound]

10 hours ago, User said:

That is your employer... not the federal government trying to tell EVERY business they must do that. You have no alternative employment. 

That is not the government saying if you want to travel you must be vaccinated. You have no alternatives for how to travel. 

 

Really? So instead of flying, you can’t drive, or take a bus, boat, or a train? 

Edited October 18, 2024 by Rebound

[Deluge]

On 10/16/2024 at 4:38 PM, Rebound said:

Liar-in-Chief Donald Trump proclaimed today that he is "The Father of I.V.F.," and that the Republicans are "the party for I.V.F."

In the speech, the "Father of I.V.F." said that he first heard of I.V.F. two years ago, and had to ask what it was. Yeah. The "Father of I.V.F." didn't know what it was until 2022, even though I.V.F. first created a human being in 1978. 

The Party of I.V.F. has twice voted to block nationwide protections for I.V.F. 

Senate G.O.P. Blocks I.V.F. Access Bill : June 13, 2024: Senate Republicans on Thursday blocked legislation that would codify the right to access fertility treatments such as in vitro fertilization, with all but two Republicans opposed to advancing the bill.

Senate Republicans Block I.V.F. Protection Bill a Second Time: September 17, 2024: Senate Republicans on Tuesday blocked legislation that would guarantee federal protections and insurance coverage for in vitro fertilization treatments, the second time in three months that the G.O.P. has thwarted the broadly popular measure.

If you want a government that will look you straight in the eye and lie its ass off right to your face, Donald Trump is your man.  Nobody in America lies as well or as much as Donald Trump. 

Donald Trump said he is the father of I.V.F.? Oh, DEAR! 

By the way, what the f*ck IS I.V.F.? 

Meanwhile, the mother of B.O.R.D.E.R. is unleashing illegal aliens on Americans.

 

 

[User]

11 hours ago, Aristides said:

I asked you before why there were so many single moms living in poverty but you never did answer.

No, you were making an absurd argument about my wanting more women to live in poverty and I responded to every one of your comments and had the last word in that discussion. 

Living in poverty is a non-sequitur. Unless you are so evil and depraved, you support killing 5-year-olds too, so that women can get out of poverty. 

11 hours ago, Aristides said:

In the case of a couple you would hope it would be a mutual decision. Otherwise no.

Hope? So, now all of a sudden you are the one who doesn't want the father involved. 

11 hours ago, Aristides said:

I realize it is not just men and men should butt out of a decision that has nothing to do with them. You have no business dictating to women you have never met what they have to do  with their lives.

An unborn child is her body until it can live outside of the womb.

So which is it? First you try to argue men should be involved, now you say it has nothing to do with them. 

You have made these lame arguments before and ran away from them before. 

It is not the woman life when she is killing the unborn child. It is the unborn child life I am concerned with. 

It is not her body. 

And are you now absurdly claiming that a woman should be able to have an abortion for any reason, any time, up to the moment of birth?

[Nationalist]

20 hours ago, Rebound said:

No, IVF is not a states issue. It is medical treatment which women have a right to. 

You mean couples...don't you?

[Aristides]

1 hour ago, User said:

No, you were making an absurd argument about my wanting more women to live in poverty and I responded to every one of your comments and had the last word in that discussion. 

 

Still won't answer the question. You just want to ignore the fact they are related. You would have children brought up in poverty then blame the woman for  being a lousy mother.

Quote

Living in poverty is a non-sequitur. Unless you are so evil and depraved, you support killing 5-year-olds too, so that women can get out of poverty. 

That's about the most ignorant thing you have ever posted. Now a 10 week old fetus is a 5 year old.

Quote

Hope? So, now all of a sudden you are the one who doesn't want the father involved. 

I think it would be great if the father was involved but what if they have no interest in being involved and see the kid as an inconvenience? Maybe they are even worse equipped to raise a kid than the woman they abandoned because she was pregnant.

Quote

t is not the woman life when she is killing the unborn child. It is the unborn child life I am concerned with. 

It is not her body. 

And are you now absurdly claiming that a woman should be able to have an abortion for any reason, any time, up to the moment of birth?

It sure as hell isn't your body.

It's obvious you don't care much for women unless they live according to your rules. I've never said a woman should be able to have an abortion any time for any reason and they can't. It's a bullshit argument because doctors won't do them any time for any reason. 

 

BTW. This thread is about IVF and Trump's absurd claim. Are you against that too?

Edited October 18, 2024 by Aristides

[Aristides]

14 hours ago, User said:

That is your employer... not the federal government trying to tell EVERY business they must do that. You have no alternative employment. 

That is not the government saying if you want to travel you must be vaccinated. You have no alternatives for how to travel. 

 

Not my employer, governments.  The MOT in Canada, FAA in the US and JCAB when I worked for the Japanese.

[User]

9 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Still won't answer the question. You just want to ignore the fact they are related. You would have children brought up in poverty then blame the woman for  being a lousy mother.

You dishonestly said I didn't answer it the first time. I am not ignoring anything. Yes, I would rather have a child in poverty than kill the child. That is quite obvious to anyone with any morality at all. You don't kill humans because they are in poverty. 

13 minutes ago, Aristides said:

That's about the most ignorant thing you have ever posted.

You are the one here trying to justify killing children because they might live in poverty. That is depraved and evil. 

13 minutes ago, Aristides said:

I think it would be great if the father was involved but what if they have no interest in being involved and see the kid as an inconvenience? Maybe they are even worse equipped to raise a kid than the woman they abandoned because she was pregnant.

OK, so we are back to: Are you OK with the father having a say in a woman not being able to abort their child?

We have a lot of laws and precedents around holding fathers accountable for providing for their children. 

24 minutes ago, Aristides said:

It sure as hell isn't your body.

No, it is not. Neither is some random 5 year old either, I still think it is wrong for someone in town to take their kid out back and kill them and bury them in the backyard. 

25 minutes ago, Aristides said:

It's obvious you don't care much for women unless they live according to your rules.

Well, no. We have thousands of laws that apply to everyone and in this instance we are taking about one of the most fundamental laws we have regarding not killing other people. 

26 minutes ago, Aristides said:

I've never said a woman should be able to have an abortion any time for any reason and they can't. It's a bullshit argument because doctors won't do them any time for any reason. 

Oh, so like I said, "you most likely want to force her to carry to term as well, unless you support abortion on demand for any reason up to the moment before birth."

So, welcome to the club, you want to force women to carry to term too!

27 minutes ago, Aristides said:

BTW. This thread is about IVF and Trump's absurd claim. Are you against that too?

BTW, you started making comments on abortion. The absurd claim here is that somehow Trump or the GOP is currently opposed to IVF. It is in the party platform they support it. I support IVF with some considerations regarding how it is done. 

 

[Aristides]

7 minutes ago, User said:

You dishonestly said I didn't answer it the first time. I am not ignoring anything. Yes, I would rather have a child in poverty than kill the child. That is quite obvious to anyone with any morality at all. You don't kill humans because they are in poverty. 

You are the one here trying to justify killing children because they might live in poverty. That is depraved and evil. 

OK, so we are back to: Are you OK with the father having a say in a woman not being able to abort their child?

We have a lot of laws and precedents around holding fathers accountable for providing for their children. 

No, it is not. Neither is some random 5 year old either, I still think it is wrong for someone in town to take their kid out back and kill them and bury them in the backyard. 

Well, no. We have thousands of laws that apply to everyone and in this instance we are taking about one of the most fundamental laws we have regarding not killing other people. 

Oh, so like I said, "you most likely want to force her to carry to term as well, unless you support abortion on demand for any reason up to the moment before birth."

So, welcome to the club, you want to force women to carry to term too!

BTW, you started making comments on abortion. The absurd claim here is that somehow Trump or the GOP is currently opposed to IVF. It is in the party platform they support it. I support IVF with some considerations regarding how it is done. 

 

Your posts get more disjointed all the time.

You want to force women to live according to a moral code that you don't have to live up to because you can't get pregnant. How noble. And then you whine about having to get a vaccination to work or travel.

I didn't start making comments on abortion, you have it backward. My first response was to statements you and Ironstone made on abortion.

Edited October 18, 2024 by Aristides

[User]

3 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Your posts get more disjointed all the time.

Feel free to actually argue how. Looks like you are running away again. 

4 minutes ago, Aristides said:

You want to force women to live according to a moral code that you don't have to live up to because you can't get pregnant. How noble. And then you whine about having to get a vaccination to work or travel.

My moral code is quite simple here and I live by it too:

It is wrong and should be unlawful to kill humans, including unborn children, for the mere convenience of it. 

Yes, I rightly complain about the federal government violating the law and Constitution to compel people to get vaccinated through their employers and other such mandates. 

6 minutes ago, Aristides said:

I didn't start making comments on abortion, you have it backward. My first response was to statements you and Ironstone made on abortion.

Yes, you jumped into this discussion, and now I am responding to the crap you are saying. If you didn't want to talk about abortion, you could have moved right along. 

[WestCanMan]

15 hours ago, Aristides said:

You keep going on about things that don't happen just to justify banning something you don't like.

Stop pretending that anyone thinks women who get raped have to have babies, or that no conservatives want women to ever have access to abortion.

Almost everyone on both sides is somewhere in the middle ground. 

The problem in the US is that Roe v Wade was 100% unconstitutional, and even RBG said so. It was a classic case of judges ruling from the bench. If you don't know what 'ruling from the bench' means, just google it. 

A court or a supreme court ruling is only supposed to be a stop-gap solution, not forever legislation. FYI legislation comes from a group of elected officials, like congress or a provincial legislature, not from judges. That's a foundational aspect of democracy, not an either/or thing.

It will take a while for each state to get it right, but it's still much easier to get all the necessary compromises made at regional levels, where people are more similar. Urban and rural areas just have different moral expectations.