Are you worried about the end of reproductive rights?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:According to the constitution Having a child is a privilege not a right, however children have constitutional right to live. Don't shoot the messenger, you'll need an amendment to change that

None of that is in the Constitution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm definitely nervous. I'm hoping any embryos created before a new law are grandfathered in.

Grandfathered into what? Once those embryos are declared people, you will have to either implant all of them or put your unused embryos up for adoption, because any other choice that results in their destruction will be chargeable as homicide.

Of maybe they could be frozen in perpetuity?

What facility is going to provide those storage services when any error or mechanical failure that leads to the destruction of embryos could be changed with negligent homicide?

True but IVF is a major industry. SG and CCRM won't go down without a fight (lobbying, etc.)? Right?

States will have a greater interest in finding adoptive parents for surrendered infants so that the state doesn’t have to be financially responsible for their care. The states will be quite happy to see fertility procedures banned so they can tell couples dealing with infertility their choice is to die childless and alone, or adopt this baby that may be drug addicted, or may have fetal alcohol syndrome, or has a birth defect that will cause cognitive impairment. The state will bank on your desperation to have a parent to get all of those kids off their hands.

I don't get why freezing indefinitely would suffice as a workaround. All of these embryos eventually die if not implanted, even if they are frozen. In fact, a pretty predictable percentage die each year of freezing.

All it would take -- and I am completely serious about this -- is for that workaround to be turned around and used for abortion. The provider isn't "killing" the fetus, just removing it to remain frozen until eventually reimplanted or something. And then you just wait, and it dies. Same as the non-implanted IVF embryos.

Please cite your sources. Embryos once frozen do not die because they do not grow. They are literally suspended in time. The loss that happens rarely is when you thaw to implant, but how would the embryo have a chance to implant at all I'd you don't thaw?

Sure, I will cite. The info isn't hard to find -- it will take me a couple of minutes

This post of yours, however, is a testament that you are clueless about the basic facts on which you base your political and moral arguments about reproductive rights and freedoms. Think about that.

Because you say something is a testament that someone is clueless doesn’t mean it is. Nothing of what you say means anything.

I mean, if you want to make a distinction between "become no longer a viable" and "die," then we can change the language. But you can't come up with a reason why it's wrong to freeze a fetus indefinitely but somehow perfectly fine to do it with an IVF embryo, can you?

Can you?

Still waiting for you to cite all your claims.

You missed the viability study above? Do you need me to screenshot this page and circle it for you in read?

So, now -- can you give the justification that makes freezing fetuses indefinitely wrong, given it's okay to do for IVF embryos and rate of viability doesn't really matter?

No, no, no. You need to cite all your wacky claims, cherry picker.

Ah. So you won't respond to the published study cited, and you won't answer questions.

Fair enough. Let it play out, and let's see what happens.

Still waiting on you to cite that you said would only take a few minutes about an hour ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The same people who told us for 10 years (and more) that it was a waste of time to worry about abortion access because Roe would never be overturned are now trying to tel us not to worry about access to reproductive care because it will never be impacted. They were wrong about Roe, so we would be fools to listen to them now on reproductive care.

Because it’s pretty obvious that a lot of people dislike the idea of killing babies. Most people don’t view birth control the same way. I suppose if you’re staunchly pro choice and can’t empathize with the pro life crowd then you can’t see the difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:According to the constitution Having a child is a privilege not a right, however children have constitutional right to live. Don't shoot the messenger, you'll need an amendment to change that

None of that is in the Constitution.

Similar to what libs are saying about roe v wade ban.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:According to the constitution Having a child is a privilege not a right, however children have constitutional right to live. Don't shoot the messenger, you'll need an amendment to change that

None of that is in the Constitution.

Similar to what libs are saying about roe v wade ban.

What is a "roe v wade ban"? Do you know what a Supreme Court ruling is? You can't ban a ruling. Nothing you're saying even makes sense, and you don't seem to understand the terms of the debate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:According to the constitution Having a child is a privilege not a right, however children have constitutional right to live. Don't shoot the messenger, you'll need an amendment to change that

None of that is in the Constitution.

Similar to what libs are saying about roe v wade ban.

What is a "roe v wade ban"? Do you know what a Supreme Court ruling is? You can't ban a ruling. Nothing you're saying even makes sense, and you don't seem to understand the terms of the debate.

People get worked up over trivialities. The Pp likely meant the overturn. Do you correct grammar on here too?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The same people who told us for 10 years (and more) that it was a waste of time to worry about abortion access because Roe would never be overturned are now trying to tel us not to worry about access to reproductive care because it will never be impacted. They were wrong about Roe, so we would be fools to listen to them now on reproductive care.

Because it’s pretty obvious that a lot of people dislike the idea of killing babies. Most people don’t view birth control the same way. I suppose if you’re staunchly pro choice and can’t empathize with the pro life crowd then you can’t see the difference.

Go look at Louisiana where they’ve moving forward with legislation that would ban abortion from the moment of fertilization, which would also implicate hormonal birth control (and non-hormonal IUDs) that operate in part by thinning the uterine lining and/or creating a hostile uterine environment to prevent a fertilized egg from implanting.

If life begins at fertilization and must be protected at all costs, that applies equally to unimplanted embryos.

[Anonymous]

Where state laws define life as beginning at conception, how would those laws view embryos created via IVF? They would say those are babies, yes? Where state laws ban abortion, possibly with exceptions in cases of rape/incest/health of the pregnant woman, how would those laws be applied to embryos not implanted - either disposed of or placed in long-term cryopreservation?

Believing overturning Roe will have no effect on IVF treatments is naive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:According to the constitution Having a child is a privilege not a right, however children have constitutional right to live. Don't shoot the messenger, you'll need an amendment to change that

None of that is in the Constitution.

Exactly hence the title reproductive rights is some made up thing to sound legitimate

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The same people who told us for 10 years (and more) that it was a waste of time to worry about abortion access because Roe would never be overturned are now trying to tel us not to worry about access to reproductive care because it will never be impacted. They were wrong about Roe, so we would be fools to listen to them now on reproductive care.

Because it’s pretty obvious that a lot of people dislike the idea of killing babies. Most people don’t view birth control the same way. I suppose if you’re staunchly pro choice and can’t empathize with the pro life crowd then you can’t see the difference.

Go look at Louisiana where they’ve moving forward with legislation that would ban abortion from the moment of fertilization, which would also implicate hormonal birth control (and non-hormonal IUDs) that operate in part by thinning the uterine lining and/or creating a hostile uterine environment to prevent a fertilized egg from implanting.

If life begins at fertilization and must be protected at all costs, that applies equally to unimplanted embryos.

Except hormonal birth control does not work the way you said. It prevents fertilization, therefore there would be no fertilized egg to get implanting like you incorrectly said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:According to the constitution Having a child is a privilege not a right, however children have constitutional right to live. Don't shoot the messenger, you'll need an amendment to change that

None of that is in the Constitution.

Exactly hence the title reproductive rights is some made up thing to sound legitimate

Inserting "hence" into word salad does not a sentence make.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:According to the constitution Having a child is a privilege not a right, however children have constitutional right to live. Don't shoot the messenger, you'll need an amendment to change that

None of that is in the Constitution.

Exactly hence the title reproductive rights is some made up thing to sound legitimate

It's like you don't even know the 9th Amendment exists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The same people who told us for 10 years (and more) that it was a waste of time to worry about abortion access because Roe would never be overturned are now trying to tel us not to worry about access to reproductive care because it will never be impacted. They were wrong about Roe, so we would be fools to listen to them now on reproductive care.

Because it’s pretty obvious that a lot of people dislike the idea of killing babies. Most people don’t view birth control the same way. I suppose if you’re staunchly pro choice and can’t empathize with the pro life crowd then you can’t see the difference.

Go look at Louisiana where they’ve moving forward with legislation that would ban abortion from the moment of fertilization, which would also implicate hormonal birth control (and non-hormonal IUDs) that operate in part by thinning the uterine lining and/or creating a hostile uterine environment to prevent a fertilized egg from implanting.

If life begins at fertilization and must be protected at all costs, that applies equally to unimplanted embryos.

Except hormonal birth control does not work the way you said. It prevents fertilization, therefore there would be no fertilized egg to get implanting like you incorrectly said.

No, hormonal birth control does both. And so do IUDs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The same people who told us for 10 years (and more) that it was a waste of time to worry about abortion access because Roe would never be overturned are now trying to tel us not to worry about access to reproductive care because it will never be impacted. They were wrong about Roe, so we would be fools to listen to them now on reproductive care.

Because it’s pretty obvious that a lot of people dislike the idea of killing babies. Most people don’t view birth control the same way. I suppose if you’re staunchly pro choice and can’t empathize with the pro life crowd then you can’t see the difference.

Go look at Louisiana where they’ve moving forward with legislation that would ban abortion from the moment of fertilization, which would also implicate hormonal birth control (and non-hormonal IUDs) that operate in part by thinning the uterine lining and/or creating a hostile uterine environment to prevent a fertilized egg from implanting.

If life begins at fertilization and must be protected at all costs, that applies equally to unimplanted embryos.

Except hormonal birth control does not work the way you said. It prevents fertilization, therefore there would be no fertilized egg to get implanting like you incorrectly said.

You are deeply misinformed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:According to the constitution Having a child is a privilege not a right, however children have constitutional right to live. Don't shoot the messenger, you'll need an amendment to change that

None of that is in the Constitution.

Exactly hence the title reproductive rights is some made up thing to sound legitimate

It's like you don't even know the 9th Amendment exists.

Technically, the Supreme Court doesn't seem to realize it either.