Anonymous wrote:International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 1999, 19:3/4:22-36 (in press)

WHEN DO HUMAN BEINGS BEGIN?

"SCIENTIFIC" MYTHS AND SCIENTIFIC FACTS

Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D.

(copyright February 1999)

https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html

Is this supposed to be a point you’re trying to make? A link is not an argument.

This ruling is so dumb and Republicans are very foolish not to sponsor a bill to protect IVF, given that the majority of their own voters support it. However, I am not sure this will have a meaningful impact on the upcoming Senate races. The odds are stacked against democrats maintaining a majority in the senate for the next election cycle. WV is basically guaranteed to go Republican since Manchin is not running for reelection. Democrats have 7 competitive seats they need to hold. Republicans only have TX and FL to hold and they are unlikely to lose them.

International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 1999, 19:3/4:22-36 (in press)

WHEN DO HUMAN BEINGS BEGIN?

"SCIENTIFIC" MYTHS AND SCIENTIFIC FACTS

Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D.

(copyright February 1999)

https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html

This is why politicians need to say the F* out of medicine and healthcare treatment.

Is a snail darter embryo not a snail darter?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you're inside of a hospital and it's burning to the ground and everyone inside will die and you can either pick up a new born baby or a case with 1000 frozen embryos, which do you save?

The idea of personhood for a zygote is so lacking in all reason.

Sure we should treat human embryos with respect and have regulations and protocols on how to deal with IVF extra embryos etc. We should also treat human remains with respect. Doesn’t mean you give them the same rights and protections you give a living human being. Why is this so hard?

Oh I agree with you. I posted that scenario because I think it makes the idea that an embryo is a baby and deserves the rights of a baby obviously false to most people. It's the trolley problem except one track has a living baby. It's pretty clear that embryos aren't babies.

Anonymous wrote:If you're inside of a hospital and it's burning to the ground and everyone inside will die and you can either pick up a new born baby or a case with 1000 frozen embryos, which do you save?

The idea of personhood for a zygote is so lacking in all reason.

Sure we should treat human embryos with respect and have regulations and protocols on how to deal with IVF extra embryos etc. We should also treat human remains with respect. Doesn’t mean you give them the same rights and protections you give a living human being. Why is this so hard?

Someone really needs to test embryo personhood by claiming their embryos as dependents on taxes and counting in the next census.

Maybe then we can put an end to this absurdity.

If you're inside of a hospital and it's burning to the ground and everyone inside will die and you can either pick up a new born baby or a case with 1000 frozen embryos, which do you save?

What happens to all the unfrozen embryos? Do the Alabama courts now go after the clinics for false imprisonment?

No one is going to be willing to do IVF with rulings and laws that make embryos "people."

It is terrible. All Republican voting families who are barren DESERVE THIS.

Anonymous wrote:Bama passed a bill to secure IFV. A quote from a MAGA GOP, “We could pass a law limiting the number of eggs you can fertilize in a cycle. But I don’t think we should legislate that,” Stutts said. “I’m not talking about morality, I’m talking about the practice of medicine.”

Do these people not hear themselves! I hope the AL scotus strikes this down. You CANNOT have fetal personhood and IVF. They are contradicting. Bama needs to decide it they want embryos to be considered children or not.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2024/02/29/ivf-protections-alabama-legislature-bill/

Have the clinics said they will provide IVF with this bill?

Bama passed a bill to secure IFV. A quote from a MAGA GOP, “We could pass a law limiting the number of eggs you can fertilize in a cycle. But I don’t think we should legislate that,” Stutts said. “I’m not talking about morality, I’m talking about the practice of medicine.”

Do these people not hear themselves! I hope the AL scotus strikes this down. You CANNOT have fetal personhood and IVF. They are contradicting. Bama needs to decide it they want embryos to be considered children or not.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2024/02/29/ivf-protections-alabama-legislature-bill/

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?

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.

So if you wish someone to stay barren on Republican -- that is totally acceptable. If you wish any barren women to stay barren - that is hateful?