Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, eliminating constitutional right to abortion

Embryos created for IVF are of course children. That's why they are being created, after all, because the parents want children. They aren't going to a fertility clinic and combining a sperm and an egg to create some random cell and implanting it in a woman and oh what a coincidence they end up pregnant. Pro-choice people just don't like the implications of the practice. They don't like that the way IVF is done modernly is to create many more embryos than they want to birth children, and just culling (aka killing) the majority of them, in the name of saving money. They could create one embryo at a time, try to implant it, see if they can birth a child, and repeat as necessary, but that would cost a lot more.

 

You really had to ponder on this one before making your usual outrageous statements...

 

I'm not going to claim expertise in this but my understanding is that it's not just that. The process of creating embryos is not that simple and the embryos are very fragile. The can easily be damaged just moving them from a petri dish where they're being fertilized. Given that even within the human body most embryos don't make it to implantation in the uterus it should be no surprise that in IVF it is a difficult process. The idea of creating multiple embryos isn't just a matter of saving money but to get redundancy. Also given that you can't just implant embryos anytime into a womb but it takes timing in the hormonal cycle for someone who already is having trouble conceiving naturally they may not be able to do multiple implantations of embryos going one at a time.

 

This makes no sense.

Pro-life people are the ones who want to ban IVF.

 

Yes, because they are not pretending that the embryos are not people. The pro-choice stance, when it comes to abortion and when it comes to IVF has to pretend that it is not a person being killed, but just a random clump of cells, no different than cancer or skin cells or sperm that is just being removed. Otherwise, it is monstrous what is being supported.

 

Do you think IVF should be banned?

 

Pro-choice people start out as pro-life because ... reasons. Then they decide **** it .. it is more convenient if embryos are not persons ... or because ... reasons or other reasons.

This is what is called in The Trades, a Straw Man.

All the while, your scientific understanding of embryos predates The Bible. I do not see how your world view can deal with the following facts:

5 of 10 embryos (sperm meets egg strolling down the fallopian tube) does not attach to the uterine wall.
1 of 10 embryos attached to the uterine wall but are miscarried in the first trimester (12 weeks)
4 of 10 embryos make it to babyhood.

If it is down to god's will, god kills more embryos than he/she/it lets live. You might think about finding a better god to worship, like Zeus Pater ... yeah he is the ancient OG but at least he only minimally ****s around with his worshipers (thumbs up) especially the young comely virgins (thumbs down).

 

The extreme religious right believes embryos are children, yet they have just proposed laws allowing the killing of them, at least for the election season. The logical conclusion is that girls and women should be charged with killing their children, whether unknowingly or knowingly, if they killed an embryo in their body.

In contrast, normal folks do not believe embryos are children, so they are okay with IVF and aren’t keen on destroying real people (women and girls).

 

I came across a religious right proposal that IVF should only permit "creating" and "implanting" one embryo at a time. The impact would be a significant decrease in the IVF success rate (currently ranging from 5%-45%, depending on your age), along with a considerable increase in procedure costs. In contrast to the existing IVF process, which involves genetic testing to screen out defects before implantation, the proposal prioritizes not destroying embryos. This approach will lead to an elevated risk of birth defects, possibly surpassing the rates seen in natural fertilization, where nature has a process to naturally reject implantation and/or destroy embryos that aren't "good".

 

My gosh... how cravenly dishonest can the folks in Alabama be...

 

That's not God's doing. God only provides the mechanism and process for creating children. Humans execute on it. The reason why 6 out of 10 embryos are destroyed is that the human beings involved aren't doing a good job – whether it's the right food, exercise, a mindful state, living in a bad environment, and so on.

 

Should we pray harder for the embryos?

 

I wonder how many complete idiots think the way trump does?

 

In 2016, Trump campaigned on overturning Roe, so it's natural that he's continuing to lie about it. Which reminds me of something that many people keep doing: they hear what Trump said he would do and because it's so extreme, they don't believe it would happen. They still repeat this same mistake today.

A a crystal clear example is Kathleen Parker's 2018 op-ed. She was so sure Roe was safe even thought it was clearly not, she mocked others for saying it was in danger. (Roe was overturned by all 3 of the Justices that Trump selected, as predicted but pushed aside as "calm down, it's not going to happen". The other two were Altio and Thomas.

Calm down. Roe v. Wade isn’t going anywhere.

On abortion, as well as same-sex marriage, a conservative court on social issues would lag behind the American people, a majority of whom hold a non-absolutist position on abortion rights, even if many wouldn’t object to some reasonable restrictions, according to the Pew Research Center. A majority of people also have made peace with alternative family formulations. Sixty-two percent support same-sex marriage, also according to Pew.

What new justice would want to be that man or woman, who forevermore would be credited with upending settled law and causing massive societal upheaval? As for other conservative justices, only Clarence Thomas would likely vote to overturn Roe v. Wade

For now, lamentations about abortion’s end are wasted on what is mostly a red herring deployed for political expediency. But it will have served its purpose, which is to separate voters from their dollars, get the bases ripe and ready for Election Day, and give politicos and pundits something to knit and fret about.​

 

No, I think it should be done in a different way. They should create one embryo and attempt to implant it. If it works, job done. If it doesn't work, you can try again.

 

I think you mean that the woman can try again after she has been released from prison. Killing an embryo/person has consequences.

 

It does if you have the required mens rea. Attempting to have a baby is not illegal.

 

Damn this is dumb. Is a 50 year old a child? Of course not. Calling an embryo a child is even dumber.

 

@tinman are you a half-century man-baby or do you play one on clutchfans?

This could answer some big questions wrt to abortion.

 

Using the rights extreme slippery slope logic, I’m pro choice just so that we can legally abort @tinman at 2600 weeks.