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.

Anonymous wrote:So ACB is consistent in her opinions and Duckworth moves the goal post about the value of life. Try again, Senator.

what?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone else read about the supreme court nominee’s opinions on IVF? This NPR article describes Tammy Duckworth stating that she likely would not support embryo banking or any IVF treatment that could result in discarded embryos. Would politicians be able to end embryo banking? Or PGS testing?
https://www.npr.org/2020/10/06/920823849/duckworth-block-supreme-court-pick-who-thinks-my-daughters-shouldn-t-even-exist

If roe is over turned, there is no ‘right’ to discard embryos. States could choose to ban certain practices

Its not getting overturned. Turn off NPR and calm down.

This

stop gaslighting. the Rs are VERY clear that “Roe was wrongly decided.” There’s no question that it’s going to be overturned.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IVF doesn’t HAVE to result in the destruction of embryos, right?

Sure, everyone can be Octomom

She had multiple embryos implanted. Most people don’t.

It is certainly possible to create one and implant one.

Except that each harvest is 25K.

Most people can’t afford to pay that much for each try. There’s also the time and physical toll that each harvest takes on the woman’s body. Most people want to extract as many eggs as possible during each try so they have the best shot of a viable embryo. Sometimes only one or two embryos are normal sometimes it’s eight or ten.

Well, this is all quite obvious, but it doesn't make it right if we're talking about destroying embryos. I mean, let's talk abou some compromise here. I transferred one, two times, both are now teenagers.

"destroying embryos" to you is desperately trying to bear a healthy child to me. Some times selective reduction is recommended to help ensure a safe healthy pregnancy. This is another area where people really need to mind their own business.

Struggling with infertility is a huge challenge on its own for the family or person involved and she/they doe not need any judgy right to lifers butting in on an already difficult situation. You can use reproductive technologies as you see fit for your own struggle. I am glad for your great outcome but you need to stay out of my situation.

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

This argument does not sway dedicated pro-life Catholics. It's the exact same argument as abortion (although as a side note, I'd be interested in this imaginary implanted embryo that can survive "on its own"), and the reason they call IUDs and Plan B "abortifacients" rather than contraception - because they prevent implantation.

As a silver lining, if she's truly pro-life at least she's going to be against the death penalty too.

People that want to protect reproductive rights and access to reproductive technologies and abortion are not anti life.

As one of those people, I'm well aware. But I do think that it's worth using their own verbiage here. So many people just blindly cheer for anyone "pro life" because they think that person means what *they* mean when they say it. No late term abortion, no abortion as birth control, something like that. But Catholic teachings are very clear: no abortion, including what Karen thinks of when she thinks of abortion, BUT ALSO including when the fetus is nonviable, when there are severe chromosomal abnormalities, when the mother is in danger, when the mother was raped; no IVF; no contraception at all (outside of the rhythm method); no death penalty, all of it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IVF doesn’t HAVE to result in the destruction of embryos, right?

Sure, everyone can be Octomom

She had multiple embryos implanted. Most people don’t.

It is certainly possible to create one and implant one.

Except that each harvest is 25K.

Most people can’t afford to pay that much for each try. There’s also the time and physical toll that each harvest takes on the woman’s body. Most people want to extract as many eggs as possible during each try so they have the best shot of a viable embryo. Sometimes only one or two embryos are normal sometimes it’s eight or ten.

Well, this is all quite obvious, but it doesn't make it right if we're talking about destroying embryos. I mean, let's talk abou some compromise here. I transferred one, two times, both are now teenagers.

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

This argument does not sway dedicated pro-life Catholics. It's the exact same argument as abortion (although as a side note, I'd be interested in this imaginary implanted embryo that can survive "on its own"), and the reason they call IUDs and Plan B "abortifacients" rather than contraception - because they prevent implantation.

As a silver lining, if she's truly pro-life at least she's going to be against the death penalty too.

People that want to protect reproductive rights and access to reproductive technologies and abortion are not anti life.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Maybe in addition to creating fewer embryos, some could be donated to working class women?

So you are okay with your biological offspring involuntarily being given to and raised by other people? I'm sorry, no, this falls squarely into my/my husband's choice.

This is so hypocritical. Conservatives are anti-choice when it comes to women choosing to abort their embryos—except when it involves IVF—then aborting embryos is just fine.

There's a whole industry of embryo adoption and many conservatives who would never try IVF.

It is against the teachings of many churches.

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

This argument does not sway dedicated pro-life Catholics. It's the exact same argument as abortion (although as a side note, I'd be interested in this imaginary implanted embryo that can survive "on its own"), and the reason they call IUDs and Plan B "abortifacients" rather than contraception - because they prevent implantation.

As a silver lining, if she's truly pro-life at least she's going to be against the death penalty too.

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

sorry but reproductive technologies and terminating a pregnancy are flip sides of the same coin.

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

look up selective reduction.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Maybe in addition to creating fewer embryos, some could be donated to working class women?

So you are okay with your biological offspring involuntarily being given to and raised by other people? I'm sorry, no, this falls squarely into my/my husband's choice.

This is so hypocritical. Conservatives are anti-choice when it comes to women choosing to abort their embryos—except when it involves IVF—then aborting embryos is just fine.

There's a whole industry of embryo adoption and many conservatives who would never try IVF.

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

So ACB is consistent in her opinions and Duckworth moves the goal post about the value of life. Try again, Senator.

You would think that IVF as a lucrative industry would be safe but I would not be so sure in this environment. All the embryos do not ake it and that is enough to send the life begins at conception crowd into a frenzy.