Pastor Barnhart explains right-wing anti-abortion politics.

Page 17 of 17 [ 265 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 13, 14, 15, 16, 17

ironpony
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Age: 38
Posts: 5,416
Location: canada

24 May 2022, 12:17 am

Yeah it could just be my overactive, pessemistic imagination :).



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 110,420
Location: the island of defective toy santas

24 May 2022, 12:18 am

even as one of the fortunate canadians, you have good reason to be pessimistic about having a dysfunctional nation on the other side of your border.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 56,888
Location: Stendec

24 May 2022, 7:59 am

Once Upon a Time, In the Republic of Trumplandia . . .

Image
. . . And They Call Themselves the "Pro-Life Party".

:roll:



Cornflake
Administrator
Administrator

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 59,126
Location: Over there

24 May 2022, 8:42 am

IVF procedures could also be in trouble -

Politico wrote:
Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt will sign the nation’s strictest abortion bill into law any day now, barring nearly all abortions from the moment of “fertilization.”

That word choice has led not only to blaring alarms about what this means for Oklahomans’ access to abortion, but also to additional warnings from abortion rights advocates and some Democrats that such legislation could also affect fertility treatments, like in vitro fertilization.

(...)

The more common practice, IVF, which results in half a million deliveries annually, is when eggs are extracted, fertilized and the embryos are formed in a petri dish outside of the body. The embryos are then genetically tested, and only the healthy ones are implanted, reducing the chances of selective reduction because they don’t have to implant as many at once, Mohapatra said. The unused embryos are either frozen and stored for later use, discarded during or after the process or donated for scientific research.

(...)

“There is this worry that if Roe falls — and if there are measures that define a fetus as a person or even an embryo as a person — then destroying an embryo, depending on what the state measures are, could subject someone to fines or criminal penalties,” Mohapatra said.

(...)

The goal, by and large, doesn’t appear to be to make IVF illegal, Tipton said, but restrictive abortion bans in turn could make “doing IVF properly illegal” in some states. If doctors aren’t authorized to freeze eggs, it could mean suboptimal care or lower the chances of a successful pregnancy.

“I don’t think most components of the anti-choice community are out to get infertility patients,” Tipton said. “But they are perfectly happy to throw them under the bus on the way of stopping abortion.”
https://www.politico.com/newsletters/po ... f-00034409


_________________
Giraffe: a ruminant with a view.


Fireblossom
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jan 2017
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,421

24 May 2022, 9:26 am

Cornflake wrote:
IVF procedures could also be in trouble -
Politico wrote:
Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt will sign the nation’s strictest abortion bill into law any day now, barring nearly all abortions from the moment of “fertilization.”

That word choice has led not only to blaring alarms about what this means for Oklahomans’ access to abortion, but also to additional warnings from abortion rights advocates and some Democrats that such legislation could also affect fertility treatments, like in vitro fertilization.

(...)

The more common practice, IVF, which results in half a million deliveries annually, is when eggs are extracted, fertilized and the embryos are formed in a petri dish outside of the body. The embryos are then genetically tested, and only the healthy ones are implanted, reducing the chances of selective reduction because they don’t have to implant as many at once, Mohapatra said. The unused embryos are either frozen and stored for later use, discarded during or after the process or donated for scientific research.

(...)

“There is this worry that if Roe falls — and if there are measures that define a fetus as a person or even an embryo as a person — then destroying an embryo, depending on what the state measures are, could subject someone to fines or criminal penalties,” Mohapatra said.

(...)

The goal, by and large, doesn’t appear to be to make IVF illegal, Tipton said, but restrictive abortion bans in turn could make “doing IVF properly illegal” in some states. If doctors aren’t authorized to freeze eggs, it could mean suboptimal care or lower the chances of a successful pregnancy.

“I don’t think most components of the anti-choice community are out to get infertility patients,” Tipton said. “But they are perfectly happy to throw them under the bus on the way of stopping abortion.”
https://www.politico.com/newsletters/po ... f-00034409


That's bad too, but if they allowed infertility treatments to remain as they are while forbidding abortion, then it would prove that it's about controlling women and their bodies, not about protecting the unborn lives, so if they forbid abortion, they should also protect the fertilized embryos not inside of women and forbid getting rid of them.



Cornflake
Administrator
Administrator

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 59,126
Location: Over there

24 May 2022, 9:47 am

Yes indeed - it creates something of a quandary: should all those excess fertilized eggs be retained and (somehow) grown to a fully-fledged child?
If it's really about saving life then they should, but I suspect control will simply be extended to cripple IVF treatment in some way.


_________________
Giraffe: a ruminant with a view.


AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,076
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

24 May 2022, 10:33 am

Cornflake wrote:
Yes indeed - it creates something of a quandary: should all those excess fertilized eggs be retained and (somehow) grown to a fully-fledged child?
If it's really about saving life then they should, but I suspect control will simply be extended to cripple IVF treatment in some way.

I do agree that there should be more clarity on this issue. If you're going to allow IVF but then treat embryos as persons with rights, somehow trying to enforce abortion laws, things will quickly get absurd.

IDK, maybe not. Abortion is defined in strict terms as terminating a pregnancy, meaning a woman is already carrying a baby and chooses to destroy them. An embryo created outside the womb was never in the womb to be terminated in the first place. The way I read the laws that are out there so far is that the assumption and intent of the law are that personhood begins at conception, precisely at fertilization. The scope, however, remains with the child's right to life within the womb, a right the child cannot have UNTIL they are in the womb. Strictly speaking, one has nothing to do with the other. You cannot be charged with murder for discarding non-viable embryos. You can only be charged with murder if you go through with IVF and THEN decide to have an abortion.

If you want to go "all-in" with the IVF issue and oppose abortion, it makes sense that you might have to address and perhaps cancel IVF altogether. If personhood begins at fertilization and you have all these frozen embryos lying around everywhere, that's not exactly unlike abortion.

I'm not exactly against restricting IVF. IVF is prohibitively expensing as it is, multiple fertilized embryos have to be implanted since they often don't take, and often there are problems besides infertility that means prospective mothers might be more likely to lose the babies. I don't have a problem wanting to fulfill anyone's desire to have a baby. What bothers me is the lack of respect for a new human person once they're created. It would seem that canceling IVF would solve many more problems than it causes.



Cornflake
Administrator
Administrator

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 59,126
Location: Over there

24 May 2022, 11:50 am

I'm puzzled how you appear to describe a fertilized egg in vitro as an embryo, but the same thing in utero as a baby or person - also that an abortion can only be called that when it involves a woman carrying it.

In all cases of pregnancy termination or IVF surplus embryo disposal, a fertilized egg is prevented from developing into a fully-fledged child so I guess I fail to see the distinction since each has the exact same end result - no child, artificially terminated, a life denied, and so on.

If one method of termination is or is about to be subject to strict legislation it really makes no sense to me for the other method not to be subject to it in the same way.
If personhood does indeed begin at fertilization, for the purposes of legislation, then from that same legal viewpoint there can surely be no differentiation.

But in that case, who's going to nurture all those excess fertilized eggs into becoming children? Will this become the real test of respect for a new human person?


(for the avoidance of doubt: I am opposed to legislation which removes a woman's right to bodily autonomy, and IVF is functioning, albeit poorly, as designed)


_________________
Giraffe: a ruminant with a view.


AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,076
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

24 May 2022, 2:34 pm

Cornflake wrote:
I'm puzzled how you appear to describe a fertilized egg in vitro as an embryo, but the same thing in utero as a baby or person - also that an abortion can only be called that when it involves a woman carrying it.

In all cases of pregnancy termination or IVF surplus embryo disposal, a fertilized egg is prevented from developing into a fully-fledged child so I guess I fail to see the distinction since each has the exact same end result - no child, artificially terminated, a life denied, and so on.

If one method of termination is or is about to be subject to strict legislation it really makes no sense to me for the other method not to be subject to it in the same way.
If personhood does indeed begin at fertilization, for the purposes of legislation, then from that same legal viewpoint there can surely be no differentiation.

But in that case, who's going to nurture all those excess fertilized eggs into becoming children? Will this become the real test of respect for a new human person?


(for the avoidance of doubt: I am opposed to legislation which removes a woman's right to bodily autonomy, and IVF is functioning, albeit poorly, as designed)

I don’t pretend to have all the answers. Simply terminating an unborn person isn’t really what the debate is about. It’s about whether a procedure can be performed that destroys the unborn in the womb. Abortion as we currently understand it legally and medically refers to a surgical procedure or a medical alternative that removes the baby from the womb and destroys it. An embryo in vitro can be destroyed but not removed from the womb. It never WAS in the womb. The embryo cannot be destroyed and removed from the womb if it was never in the womb.

Let’s say you have a baby in a test tube on a table. The woman who donated the egg to be fertilized wishes to abort the baby in the test tube. So she takes a couple doses of misoprostal (see medical abortion for exact details) to kill the baby. In the test tube. Or perhaps she has a classic D&C. How will that affect the baby in the test tube?

If the baby isn’t in her womb, abortion procedures have no effect. Since no baby was killed in her womb, no crime has been committed aside from medicine was prescribed or procedures carried out without any necessity (even in my view abortions might be necessary to save the mother’s life).

Now…if someone destroys an embryo in a test tube, whether deliberately or if the embryo is unneeded and stored too long, well…it is in a test tube or freezer or whatever and does not have the same protection of a baby in the womb. I am unaware of any laws that grant special protection to embryos outside the womb.

My point is that what is inside the womb versus outside the womb are separate issues. If we accept that an embryo outside the womb deserves the same respect as a baby inside the womb, then I think that beyond complicates things. Nevertheless, if indeed abortion is universally banned under the rationale that personhood begins at fertilization, a dialogue on IVF may be necessary.