Amy Coney Barrett and IVF

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But IVF is so different from abortion. Embryos that are not implanted have no chance at survival on their own. They are essentially a mass of cells. Without further medical intervention nothing will grow from them. I can’t see how we would get to the level of extreme that would eliminate IVF

Well then you have not read enough about our new Justice. That is exactly where she wants us headed. Anyone that wants that CULT member on the Supreme Court for a lifetime appointment is an idiot.

She's not qualified.
She's not "Catholic"
She's a cult member
She's not qualified and putting her in a lifetime appointment for single issue voting is insane. Less than 3 years experience. Conservatives are desperate to put a cult member there. UGH>>. No one else would ever get a job like that with so little experience.

Ladies keep supporting her. Next year at this time come on back to this board you will be screaming she has completely destroyed us. She will be Typhoid Mary to women. Are you willing to give your paycheck to your male head of household or the head of your Church??????

Ok fine, have it your way - no judges can be a member of any religion because there is NO WAY they could be capable of sound judgment. The state is the only religion. Hitler and Stalin would agree!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But IVF is so different from abortion. Embryos that are not implanted have no chance at survival on their own. They are essentially a mass of cells. Without further medical intervention nothing will grow from them. I can’t see how we would get to the level of extreme that would eliminate IVF

Well then you have not read enough about our new Justice. That is exactly where she wants us headed. Anyone that wants that CULT member on the Supreme Court for a lifetime appointment is an idiot.

She's not qualified.
She's not "Catholic"
She's a cult member
She's not qualified and putting her in a lifetime appointment for single issue voting is insane. Less than 3 years experience. Conservatives are desperate to put a cult member there. UGH>>. No one else would ever get a job like that with so little experience.

Ladies keep supporting her. Next year at this time come on back to this board you will be screaming she has completely destroyed us. She will be Typhoid Mary to women. Are you willing to give your paycheck to your male head of household or the head of your Church??????

Ok fine, have it your way - no judges can be a member of any religion because there is NO WAY they could be capable of sound judgment. The state is the only religion. Hitler and Stalin would agree!

There are religions, and then there are cults. She is in a cult.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But IVF is so different from abortion. Embryos that are not implanted have no chance at survival on their own. They are essentially a mass of cells. Without further medical intervention nothing will grow from them. I can’t see how we would get to the level of extreme that would eliminate IVF

Well then you have not read enough about our new Justice. That is exactly where she wants us headed. Anyone that wants that CULT member on the Supreme Court for a lifetime appointment is an idiot.

She's not qualified.
She's not "Catholic"
She's a cult member
She's not qualified and putting her in a lifetime appointment for single issue voting is insane. Less than 3 years experience. Conservatives are desperate to put a cult member there. UGH>>. No one else would ever get a job like that with so little experience.

Ladies keep supporting her. Next year at this time come on back to this board you will be screaming she has completely destroyed us. She will be Typhoid Mary to women. Are you willing to give your paycheck to your male head of household or the head of your Church??????

Ok fine, have it your way - no judges can be a member of any religion because there is NO WAY they could be capable of sound judgment. The state is the only religion. Hitler and Stalin would agree!

If she gets appointed, the Democrats are well within their rights to court pack. She has radical opinions that would limit fundamental rights, appointed by a President who did not win the popular vote.

[Anonymous]

If she gets appointed, the Democrats are well within their rights to court pack. She has radical opinions that would limit fundamental rights, appointed by a President who did not win the popular vote.

That has no bearing on whether or not she should be appointed. Get off the Senate Dems press team talking points email list.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually, 06:21, you are completely wrong - under ACB's views, life begins at conception and exists "from fertilization until death." They believe that IVF that results in the creation and eventual destruction of extra embryos destroys life and is tantamount to murder. This is in line with some Catholics' views (including my MIL's) but is not talked about because IVF is much more popular than abortion. ACB has supported a group that is on record advocating criminalizing the destruction of fertilized embryos.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/01/amy-coney-barrett-supported-group-fertilization

I know Catholic couples that have done IVF. They either used all their embryos or donated them to other women. That way none were destroyed.

Individual Catholics go against the Church's teachings all the time. I know many, many Catholics who have had abortions. That's really neither here nor there. ACB using the Church's teachings to shape US law is not going to be impacted by the behavior of random laypeople.

Any use of IVF, even if no embryos are destroyed, is against the teachings of the Catholic Church: https://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/reproductive-technology/begotten-not-made-a-catholic-view-of-reproductive-technology

The catholic church s hopelessly slow and behind in its rate of change in response to scientific advancement. Many catholic churches are chock full of people who are on their own to navigate all these conflicts but many do it successfully.

I wa once a member of the gayest catholic church you have ever seen. Amazing parish. has and still has a thriving soup kitchen that feeds thousands each week.

adn no doubt there were many women in the pews that had terminated pregnancies, used birth control, had IVF procedures, baptized IVF babies, etc, etc,

I agree, but ACB is an out-and-proud hardline literalist when it comes to Church teachings. She joined a whackadoodle handmaid cult because she felt her church was too liberal in applying the faith. She's the one we need to worry about, not a hypothetical random Catholic family in the pews.

Agree and it looks like she will be confirmed. I dont think she will change the views of the millions of catholics that disapprove of that path. In her own parish there are probably members that have terminated pregnancies or had iVF or were conceived via IVF even at this poi

Even if row is overturned, pregnancies will be terminated a they always have been and will be.

The solution is in state legislatures to legislate protection of reproductive rights.

that solution won’t last long once there is a federal anti-abortion law.

That seems highly unlikely. A federal reproductive rights law would be more probable but only with executive.one party control of house, senate and executive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

If she gets appointed, the Democrats are well within their rights to court pack. She has radical opinions that would limit fundamental rights, appointed by a President who did not win the popular vote.

That has no bearing on whether or not she should be appointed. Get off the Senate Dems press team talking points email list.



why? This is RBG's replacement. RBG. ACB would possibly not even be under consideration period, without the legacy of RBG and yet she is a slap in RBG's face..

IF they replace RBG with ACB, there will be consequences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

If she gets appointed, the Democrats are well within their rights to court pack. She has radical opinions that would limit fundamental rights, appointed by a President who did not win the popular vote.

That has no bearing on whether or not she should be appointed. Get off the Senate Dems press team talking points email list.


Here’s why it does have a bearing on whether the Senate should proceed with the confirmation process before the end of January:

In 2016, McConnell and other Senate Republicans said that the reason why they would not comply with the US Constitution by holding a confirmation hearing for Merrick Garland, Obama’s nominee, was because it was an election year and the American people deserved to have a say in which president would get to appoint the next justice. Then voters chose Clinton. The American people did not choose Trump, yet he was handed Obama’s appointment. MCConnell and Senate Republicans have flip flopped and now say that ACB should have a confirmation hearing less than 30 days before an election. They don’t want to leave the choice up to the American people. Democrats are asking for fairness, consistency, and parity in how SC appointments are handled in election years. The Democrats want there to be one standard, regardless of the party affiliations of the President and the Senate majority.

Republicans have been faithfully (and successfully!) executing a multi-pronged scheme to pack the federal courts for years.