Are you worried about the end of reproductive rights?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Here's a fun exercise, list every Supreme Court Case where the 9th amendment was used to uphold a right. It shouldn't take long because there is only one case, and even that case only mentions the 9th in a concurrence.

You’re the one who knows it all. You do it. This exercise will be clear proof that you are monumentally superior to the justices.

There are no cases you utter dolt. That's the whole point- the Dourt does not and nver has cared about the 9th amendment

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/08...ves-mississippi-contraception/
When asked if Mississippi might next target the use of contraceptives such as the Plan B pill or intrauterine devices, Reeves demurred, saying that was not what the state was focused on “at this time.”

Are you forced to live in Mississippi?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/08...ves-mississippi-contraception/
When asked if Mississippi might next target the use of contraceptives such as the Plan B pill or intrauterine devices, Reeves demurred, saying that was not what the state was focused on “at this time.”

But also refused to rule it out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Here's a fun exercise, list every Supreme Court Case where the 9th amendment was used to uphold a right. It shouldn't take long because there is only one case, and even that case only mentions the 9th in a concurrence.

You’re the one who knows it all. You do it. This exercise will be clear proof that you are monumentally superior to the justices.

There are no cases you utter dolt. That's the whole point- the Dourt does not and nver has cared about the 9th amendment

We are all utter dolts to you. You know more than the Supreme Court justices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That's what they said about a possible RvW overturn. It's "settled law".

You cannot ban the murder of humans because life begins at conception, and then make ANY exceptions. There cannot be selective reduction if you ban abortion. There cannot be expections for rape and incest. It is not the fault of the embryo as to how it was conceived. You cannot flush embyros by the thousands down the drain. You cannot allow IUDs to cause fertilized embryos to be flushed out of the womb.

If you ban abortion and still allow all of the above.... then it would almost be like fetal life is not the point. Which would be really weird.

So how do you view the many European countries that ban abortion after 12 weeks?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/08...ves-mississippi-contraception/
When asked if Mississippi might next target the use of contraceptives such as the Plan B pill or intrauterine devices, Reeves demurred, saying that was not what the state was focused on “at this time.”

But also refused to rule it out.

Are you trapped under a net in Mississippi? Do you need some help escaping?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/08...ves-mississippi-contraception/
When asked if Mississippi might next target the use of contraceptives such as the Plan B pill or intrauterine devices, Reeves demurred, saying that was not what the state was focused on “at this time.”

Are you forced to live in Mississippi?

You are awful. Truly. You want to pretend that all of this is a "scare tactic" when it's happening. You want to pretend that poor people in red states can just.... relocate?

Your privilege is disgusting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That's what they said about a possible RvW overturn. It's "settled law".

You cannot ban the murder of humans because life begins at conception, and then make ANY exceptions. There cannot be selective reduction if you ban abortion. There cannot be expections for rape and incest. It is not the fault of the embryo as to how it was conceived. You cannot flush embyros by the thousands down the drain. You cannot allow IUDs to cause fertilized embryos to be flushed out of the womb.

If you ban abortion and still allow all of the above.... then it would almost be like fetal life is not the point. Which would be really weird.

So how do you view the many European countries that ban abortion after 12 weeks?

DP. This thread isn’t about European abortion laws, it’s about the implications for access to fertility treatments of Toe is overturned and abortions are banned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That's what they said about a possible RvW overturn. It's "settled law".

You cannot ban the murder of humans because life begins at conception, and then make ANY exceptions. There cannot be selective reduction if you ban abortion. There cannot be expections for rape and incest. It is not the fault of the embryo as to how it was conceived. You cannot flush embyros by the thousands down the drain. You cannot allow IUDs to cause fertilized embryos to be flushed out of the womb.

If you ban abortion and still allow all of the above.... then it would almost be like fetal life is not the point. Which would be really weird.

So how do you view the many European countries that ban abortion after 12 weeks?

DP. This thread isn’t about European abortion laws, it’s about the implications for access to fertility treatments of Toe is overturned and abortions are banned.

Seems relevant to me. You’re acting as though limiting abortion will mean contraceptives, IVF etc will be illegal or regulated. Has this happened in Europe?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That's what they said about a possible RvW overturn. It's "settled law".

You cannot ban the murder of humans because life begins at conception, and then make ANY exceptions. There cannot be selective reduction if you ban abortion. There cannot be expections for rape and incest. It is not the fault of the embryo as to how it was conceived. You cannot flush embyros by the thousands down the drain. You cannot allow IUDs to cause fertilized embryos to be flushed out of the womb.

If you ban abortion and still allow all of the above.... then it would almost be like fetal life is not the point. Which would be really weird.

So how do you view the many European countries that ban abortion after 12 weeks?

Frankly, selective reduction is abhorrent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/08...ves-mississippi-contraception/
When asked if Mississippi might next target the use of contraceptives such as the Plan B pill or intrauterine devices, Reeves demurred, saying that was not what the state was focused on “at this time.”

Are you forced to live in Mississippi?

You are awful. Truly. You want to pretend that all of this is a "scare tactic" when it's happening. You want to pretend that poor people in red states can just.... relocate?

Your privilege is disgusting.

I don’t think it’s disgusting. PP has a point. Sorry, but many people in these states don’t want for women to be allowed to have abortions. They truly think the women are killing babies. I don’t agree with that, but I can empathize with people who feel that way. The great thing about America is you can move. If you truly need easy access to abortions then you can move to one of the many blue states. There are even states that allow extremely late term abortions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That's what they said about a possible RvW overturn. It's "settled law".

You cannot ban the murder of humans because life begins at conception, and then make ANY exceptions. There cannot be selective reduction if you ban abortion. There cannot be expections for rape and incest. It is not the fault of the embryo as to how it was conceived. You cannot flush embyros by the thousands down the drain. You cannot allow IUDs to cause fertilized embryos to be flushed out of the womb.

If you ban abortion and still allow all of the above.... then it would almost be like fetal life is not the point. Which would be really weird.

So how do you view the many European countries that ban abortion after 12 weeks?

DP. This thread isn’t about European abortion laws, it’s about the implications for access to fertility treatments of Toe is overturned and abortions are banned.

Seems relevant to me. You’re acting as though limiting abortion will mean contraceptives, IVF etc will be illegal or regulated. Has this happened in Europe?

As you noted, most European countries allow abortion at least up to 12 weeks, which means their experiences are irrelevant to the question of how access to fertility treatments would be affected by an abortion ban in the US.

If you have examples of countries than ban abortion from conception but allow ready access to fertility treatments, feel free to share them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That's what they said about a possible RvW overturn. It's "settled law".

You cannot ban the murder of humans because life begins at conception, and then make ANY exceptions. There cannot be selective reduction if you ban abortion. There cannot be expections for rape and incest. It is not the fault of the embryo as to how it was conceived. You cannot flush embyros by the thousands down the drain. You cannot allow IUDs to cause fertilized embryos to be flushed out of the womb.

If you ban abortion and still allow all of the above.... then it would almost be like fetal life is not the point. Which would be really weird.

So how do you view the many European countries that ban abortion after 12 weeks?

DP. This thread isn’t about European abortion laws, it’s about the implications for access to fertility treatments of Toe is overturned and abortions are banned.

Seems relevant to me. You’re acting as though limiting abortion will mean contraceptives, IVF etc will be illegal or regulated. Has this happened in Europe?

As you noted, most European countries allow abortion at least up to 12 weeks, which means their experiences are irrelevant to the question of how access to fertility treatments would be affected by an abortion ban in the US.

If you have examples of countries than ban abortion from conception but allow ready access to fertility treatments, feel free to share them.

This is the problem. Then end game is not ending abortion in certain states, it's ending all access to abortion country wide (Mitch McConnell) and ending most access to contraception.

If you can't have any abortion, you essentially can't do most fertility treatments. Please list the countries banning all abortions under any circumstances, which also have fertility treatment center.

[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:

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.

You didn’t cite your claims. None of them. Because you made them all up, just as I said. Now you’re trying to weasel out of it.

I'm guessing are confused and think you aren't talking to multiple people. You are.

I made one claim and cited it. In just 9 months, viability of frozen embryos dropped by about 50%. But you don't want to talk about that, and that's fine. We'lle just have to see what happens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That's what they said about a possible RvW overturn. It's "settled law".

You cannot ban the murder of humans because life begins at conception, and then make ANY exceptions. There cannot be selective reduction if you ban abortion. There cannot be expections for rape and incest. It is not the fault of the embryo as to how it was conceived. You cannot flush embyros by the thousands down the drain. You cannot allow IUDs to cause fertilized embryos to be flushed out of the womb.

If you ban abortion and still allow all of the above.... then it would almost be like fetal life is not the point. Which would be really weird.

So how do you view the many European countries that ban abortion after 12 weeks?

DP. This thread isn’t about European abortion laws, it’s about the implications for access to fertility treatments of Toe is overturned and abortions are banned.

Seems relevant to me. You’re acting as though limiting abortion will mean contraceptives, IVF etc will be illegal or regulated. Has this happened in Europe?

As you noted, most European countries allow abortion at least up to 12 weeks, which means their experiences are irrelevant to the question of how access to fertility treatments would be affected by an abortion ban in the US.

If you have examples of countries than ban abortion from conception but allow ready access to fertility treatments, feel free to share them.

This is the problem. Then end game is not ending abortion in certain states, it's ending all access to abortion country wide (Mitch McConnell) and ending most access to contraception.

If you can't have any abortion, you essentially can't do most fertility treatments. Please list the countries banning all abortions under any circumstances, which also have fertility treatment center.

I am fairly certain that every single country in the world has people trying to end abortion. As of now, there is no such ban across the US.