Are you worried about the end of reproductive rights?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That and the 13th Amendment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The medical establishment has determined in recent years that Plan B is not effective after fertilization. That changed has been documented and is not the same as when it first came on the market.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The medical establishment has determined in recent years that Plan B is not effective after fertilization. That changed has been documented and is not the same as when it first came on the market.

I'm talking about the pill, not Plan B. And IUDs. Remember, a lot of women can't take hormonal birth control and rely on 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 need to educate yourself. Hormonal birth control generally works through three mechanisms. First, it prevents ovulation. Second, it changes the cervical mucus to make it harder for sperm to pass through and fertilize an egg that may have been released anyway. And then the back-up mechanism to those is to thin the uterine lining or, in the case of copper IUDs, make the uterus “hostile” to implantation so that if an egg is released and fertilized, it cannot implant in the uterus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It is wise and reasonable to say that you know overwhelmingly more about judicial matters than the Supreme Court justices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 need to educate yourself. Hormonal birth control generally works through three mechanisms. First, it prevents ovulation. Second, it changes the cervical mucus to make it harder for sperm to pass through and fertilize an egg that may have been released anyway. And then the back-up mechanism to those is to thin the uterine lining or, in the case of copper IUDs, make the uterus “hostile” to implantation so that if an egg is released and fertilized, it cannot implant in the uterus.

I don’t need to do anything. You need to not tell others what to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It is wise and reasonable to say that you know overwhelmingly more about judicial matters than the Supreme Court justices.

I guess it's more accurate to say that they are blatantly ignoring the 9th and 13th amendments in order to implement their preferred policy positions. But my way is pithier, so.

[Anonymous]

The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly mention a right to reproduce,

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

It’s also a deliberate misinformation campaign to keep women complacent until after their rights have already been stripped away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly mention a right to reproduce,

It doesn't need to. See the 9th Amendment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 need to educate yourself. Hormonal birth control generally works through three mechanisms. First, it prevents ovulation. Second, it changes the cervical mucus to make it harder for sperm to pass through and fertilize an egg that may have been released anyway. And then the back-up mechanism to those is to thin the uterine lining or, in the case of copper IUDs, make the uterus “hostile” to implantation so that if an egg is released and fertilized, it cannot implant in the uterus.

Right, with hormonal birth control the egg doesn’t get fertilized. Like you just indicated. Thank you.
I never said anything about iuds.

[Anonymous]

To the poster claiming that freezing fetuses would be wrong, I just want to point out that it is technologically impossible to freeze a fetus and then thaw it for implantation. You can only do that with an embryo that has been created in the lab.
Just like it is impossible to cyrogenically freeze a person and then revive them.
Another reason why I don't consider embryos to be human beings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It is wise and reasonable to say that you know overwhelmingly more about judicial matters than the Supreme Court justices.

I guess it's more accurate to say that they are blatantly ignoring the 9th and 13th amendments in order to implement their preferred policy positions. But my way is pithier, so.

Of course not, I am absolutely taking your knowledge over Supreme Court justices. Why wouldn’t I? You are superior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 need to educate yourself. Hormonal birth control generally works through three mechanisms. First, it prevents ovulation. Second, it changes the cervical mucus to make it harder for sperm to pass through and fertilize an egg that may have been released anyway. And then the back-up mechanism to those is to thin the uterine lining or, in the case of copper IUDs, make the uterus “hostile” to implantation so that if an egg is released and fertilized, it cannot implant in the uterus.

Right, with hormonal birth control the egg doesn’t get fertilized. Like you just indicated. Thank you.
I never said anything about iuds.

So you're clearly trolling, but for the people who are reading this thread, to emphasize, hormonal birth control (the Pill) does prevent fertilized eggs from implanting in addition to preventing the egg from fertilizing in the first place. Do not believe lawmakers when they say they are not coming for contraception next.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

It’s also a deliberate misinformation campaign to keep women complacent until after their rights have already been stripped away.

It’s a deliberate fear mongering campaign from you and other libs.