IVF embryos are people too

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m lucky that I didn’t have to have fertility treatments - how would those even work if you needed to travel to another state? Don’t you need to report in on short notice?

People already do IVF in other states. They take up residence there during the cycle, I think. But it's common to travel to NYC or DC for fertility treatment.
Clearly not everyone can do this, and it will mean some people simply won't get IVF.

I think it's horrible that the Red states are ignorantly bulldozing women's bodily autonomy, and this is just one more step.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are some Republicans falling over themselves saying they support IVF, meanwhile Congress and the courts are stocked with Christian conservatives who sponsor and rule on legislation which will ultimately ban it. 125 Republicans in the House sponsored a bill that would ban IVF, the Life at Conception Act. Speaker Mike Johnson is a co-sponsor. https://newrepublic.com/post/179288/republicans-lying-supporting-ivf?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=SF_TNR
In the Senate, Tammy Duckworth proposed legislation to protect IVF access and Senate Republicans blocked it.
https://www.axios.com/local/chicago/2024/02/27/tammy-duckworth-ivf-legislation?utm_campaign=editorial&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

This isn't about IVF! This is what happens when you grant a fetus (and no embryo) personhood status.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m lucky that I didn’t have to have fertility treatments - how would those even work if you needed to travel to another state? Don’t you need to report in on short notice?

You most likely have to be close to the center during the monitoring before egg retrieval, the actual egg retrieval and the embryo transfer (usually day 5 after egg retrieval). I did PGD-IVF 5 times and ended up with 2 babies in the 2000s when it wasn't very common (only IVF was common). I had to assemble a team in Maryland, Illinois and DC and it involved medical overnight courier for the PGD part, or I could have done it all in Illinois but I lived in the DMV. It was super expensive.

In 2024 you can get both PGD for single cell mutation and IVF done at most large fertility clinics (like Shady Grove). But the cost, plus the drugs, are astronomical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For every woman who is worried now about her embryos; transfers or if she can even start IVF - I ask you who did you vote for in 2016; who do you plan to vote for in 2024.

I had my babies. I want to see others be able to as well. But I laugh at those now in Alabama and other places (Texas, Ohio, etc) who said "but her emails" to me. They can stay barren.

Barren women shall stay barren regardless of their votes. We don't need artificially created babies. We have millions of newly arrived immigrants who can populate this country with healthy, naturally conceived babies.

Are you a troll?

No. It is common in DC area to call anyone who does not agree with you a troll. The planet is already overpopulated and lacks the resources. We have millions of women who give birth to 5-10 healthy naturally conceived babies. What is the point of supporting IVF at all? They can stay barren as previous poster said.

Unlike you, the previous poster reserved her “stay barren” ire for those who actively vote for forced birther politicians. You’re just hateful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are some Republicans falling over themselves saying they support IVF, meanwhile Congress and the courts are stocked with Christian conservatives who sponsor and rule on legislation which will ultimately ban it. 125 Republicans in the House sponsored a bill that would ban IVF, the Life at Conception Act. Speaker Mike Johnson is a co-sponsor. https://newrepublic.com/post/179288/republicans-lying-supporting-ivf?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=SF_TNR
In the Senate, Tammy Duckworth proposed legislation to protect IVF access and Senate Republicans blocked it.
https://www.axios.com/local/chicago/2024/02/27/tammy-duckworth-ivf-legislation?utm_campaign=editorial&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

This isn't about IVF! This is what happens when you grant a fetus (and no embryo) personhood status.

When you grant an embryo personhood status at conception, you won’t have IVF.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For every woman who is worried now about her embryos; transfers or if she can even start IVF - I ask you who did you vote for in 2016; who do you plan to vote for in 2024.

I had my babies. I want to see others be able to as well. But I laugh at those now in Alabama and other places (Texas, Ohio, etc) who said "but her emails" to me. They can stay barren.

Barren women shall stay barren regardless of their votes. We don't need artificially created babies. We have millions of newly arrived immigrants who can populate this country with healthy, naturally conceived babies.

Are you a troll?

Troll or not, there are many people who agree with this decision. People are allowed to have different opinions. But it’s not an opinion you often hear in DC.

The vast majority of people do not agree.

Ok. 👍🏼

People are allowed to have different opinions. If so many people disagree, then they will vote accordingly in upcoming elections and you have nothing to worry about.

We may get to vote for state Supreme Court justices, but we, the people, do not get to pick federal judges or Supreme Court justices. Voters picked the Democratic presidential nominee in 7 of the last 8 presidential elections, but look at the current makeup of the Supreme Court. With tyranny of the minority, we have every reason to worry.

Or maybe it is the majority of the population who don't support IVF?

Please cite evidence that the majority of the population doesn’t support IVF.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are some Republicans falling over themselves saying they support IVF, meanwhile Congress and the courts are stocked with Christian conservatives who sponsor and rule on legislation which will ultimately ban it. 125 Republicans in the House sponsored a bill that would ban IVF, the Life at Conception Act. Speaker Mike Johnson is a co-sponsor.
https://newrepublic.com/post/179288/republicans-lying-supporting-ivf?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=SF_TNR

In the Senate, Tammy Duckworth proposed legislation to protect IVF access and Senate Republicans blocked it.

https://www.axios.com/local/chicago/2024/02/27/tammy-duckworth-ivf-legislation?utm_campaign=editorial&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are some Republicans falling over themselves saying they support IVF, meanwhile Congress and the courts are stocked with Christian conservatives who sponsor and rule on legislation which will ultimately ban it. 125 Republicans in the House sponsored a bill that would ban IVF, the Life at Conception Act. Speaker Mike Johnson is a co-sponsor. https://newrepublic.com/post/179288/republicans-lying-supporting-ivf?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=SF_TNR
In the Senate, Tammy Duckworth proposed legislation to protect IVF access and Senate Republicans blocked it.
https://www.axios.com/local/chicago/2024/02/27/tammy-duckworth-ivf-legislation?utm_campaign=editorial&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

This isn't about IVF! This is what happens when you grant a fetus (and no embryo) personhood status.

When you grant an embryo personhood status at conception, you won’t have IVF.

PP here. I agree. My point is that media needs to stop asking if GOP support IVF and ask if they support embryo personhood and all the problems that come from that. Keeps asking and force GOP to get verbalize logical conclusions to embryo personhood.

“Congressman, do you believe in the premise of the AL ruling that embryos are persons?”

“If embryos are persons do we change age to start at conception or birth?”

“If embryos are children don’t parents have a right to claim them on their taxes.”

Because this new line that “we’re gonna protect IVF” is a out and a lie if you think embryos are children and destruction of them means murder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are some Republicans falling over themselves saying they support IVF, meanwhile Congress and the courts are stocked with Christian conservatives who sponsor and rule on legislation which will ultimately ban it. 125 Republicans in the House sponsored a bill that would ban IVF, the Life at Conception Act. Speaker Mike Johnson is a co-sponsor. https://newrepublic.com/post/179288/republicans-lying-supporting-ivf?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=SF_TNR
In the Senate, Tammy Duckworth proposed legislation to protect IVF access and Senate Republicans blocked it.
https://www.axios.com/local/chicago/2024/02/27/tammy-duckworth-ivf-legislation?utm_campaign=editorial&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

This isn't about IVF! This is what happens when you grant a fetus (and no embryo) personhood status.

When you grant an embryo personhood status at conception, you won’t have IVF.

PP here. I agree. My point is that media needs to stop asking if GOP support IVF and ask if they support embryo personhood and all the problems that come from that. Keeps asking and force GOP to get verbalize logical conclusions to embryo personhood.

“Congressman, do you believe in the premise of the AL ruling that embryos are persons?”

“If embryos are persons do we change age to start at conception or birth?”

“If embryos are children don’t parents have a right to claim them on their taxes.”

Because this new line that “we’re gonna protect IVF” is an out and a lie if you think embryos are children and destruction of them means murder.

Preach

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are some Republicans falling over themselves saying they support IVF, meanwhile Congress and the courts are stocked with Christian conservatives who sponsor and rule on legislation which will ultimately ban it. 125 Republicans in the House sponsored a bill that would ban IVF, the Life at Conception Act. Speaker Mike Johnson is a co-sponsor. https://newrepublic.com/post/179288/republicans-lying-supporting-ivf?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=SF_TNR
In the Senate, Tammy Duckworth proposed legislation to protect IVF access and Senate Republicans blocked it.
https://www.axios.com/local/chicago/2024/02/27/tammy-duckworth-ivf-legislation?utm_campaign=editorial&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

This isn't about IVF! This is what happens when you grant a fetus (and no embryo) personhood status.

When you grant an embryo personhood status at conception, you won’t have IVF.

PP here. I agree. My point is that media needs to stop asking if GOP support IVF and ask if they support embryo personhood and all the problems that come from that. Keeps asking and force GOP to get verbalize logical conclusions to embryo personhood.

“Congressman, do you believe in the premise of the AL ruling that embryos are persons?”

“If embryos are persons do we change age to start at conception or birth?”

“If embryos are children don’t parents have a right to claim them on their taxes.”

Because this new line that “we’re gonna protect IVF” is an out and a lie if you think embryos are children and destruction of them means murder.

ITA but political media is mostly 32-year-old men who have no idea how the reproductive system works and are only interested in a horse race. You could start with the basic “How can you simultaneously support IVF while you’re co sponsoring a fetal personhood bill?” and they wouldn’t get it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m lucky that I didn’t have to have fertility treatments - how would those even work if you needed to travel to another state? Don’t you need to report in on short notice?

People already do IVF in other states. They take up residence there during the cycle, I think. But it's common to travel to NYC or DC for fertility treatment.
Clearly not everyone can do this, and it will mean some people simply won't get IVF.

I think it's horrible that the Red states are ignorantly bulldozing women's bodily autonomy, and this is just one more step.

Once again, the rich are insulated from the consequences of policies they voted for.

[Anonymous]

Please remember everybody that some people here only ARE parents because of IVF. Can we keep the tone a little bit considerate here? Please.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish I could post this in the thread about Rob Reiner’s documentary on Christian Nationalism but it got locked. This is language in a real court ruling in America.

The Catholic Church strongly opposes IVF.

The Catholic Church? I lost all respect for the CC during the HIV/AIDS epidemic when they opposed condom use (because they oppose contraception except for the rhythm method) and promoted "chastity." Never mind, how they protected pedophile priests...

The twin cruelties of denying birth control and their child raping road show is why I despise the Catholic Church, add to that their worsening the HIV/AIDS crisis and their political action and they’re even worse.

I guess denying IVF is why they need to have more White babies for the pipeline or whatever the Handmaiden said.

The Church’s teaching on the immorality of IVF is based upon God ordained natural law. Chastity outside of marriage between a man and a woman has always been part of the Catechism. The Catholic Church is furthermore growing fastest in Subsaharan Africa so it has nothing to do with white babies (the Church is shrinking fastest in Western Europe and North America. The next Pope may very well be a black African.
Oh, and there’s a very special place in Hell for child raping priests.

Folks that do not believe in IVF should not get IVF treatment. Other people were given an amazing IVF treatment by their God to allow them to have a family and it does nto concern you in any way.

I have one vote just like you do. My vote is determined by my conscience formed by the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

I am catholic and I have a children conceived by IVF. God told me to do it and was right.

God did not tell you that. You told yourself that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish I could post this in the thread about Rob Reiner’s documentary on Christian Nationalism but it got locked. This is language in a real court ruling in America.

The Catholic Church strongly opposes IVF.

The Catholic Church? I lost all respect for the CC during the HIV/AIDS epidemic when they opposed condom use (because they oppose contraception except for the rhythm method) and promoted "chastity." Never mind, how they protected pedophile priests...

The twin cruelties of denying birth control and their child raping road show is why I despise the Catholic Church, add to that their worsening the HIV/AIDS crisis and their political action and they’re even worse.

I guess denying IVF is why they need to have more White babies for the pipeline or whatever the Handmaiden said.

The Church’s teaching on the immorality of IVF is based upon God ordained natural law. Chastity outside of marriage between a man and a woman has always been part of the Catechism. The Catholic Church is furthermore growing fastest in Subsaharan Africa so it has nothing to do with white babies (the Church is shrinking fastest in Western Europe and North America. The next Pope may very well be a black African.
Oh, and there’s a very special place in Hell for child raping priests.

Folks that do not believe in IVF should not get IVF treatment. Other people were given an amazing IVF treatment by their God to allow them to have a family and it does nto concern you in any way.

I have one vote just like you do. My vote is determined by my conscience formed by the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

I am catholic and I have a children conceived by IVF. God told me to do it and was right.

God did not tell you that. You told yourself that.

It is no one else's business either way.

[Anonymous]

Republican Senator blocks unanimous consent for Tammy Duckworth’s bill protecting IVF.

https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/02/28/congress/blocks-ivf-vote-gop-senate-protections-00143918