SuzukiSavage.com - Print Page

SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl
General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> IVF
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1708702746

Message started by Serowbot on 02/23/24 at 07:39:06

Title: IVF
Post by Serowbot on 02/23/24 at 07:39:06

In Vitro Fertilization
Assisted reproductive technology procedure (ART) in which a women’s eggs are fertilized by sperm in a laboratory instead of inside the fallopian tube

If a cluster of cells is a life... destroying them is murder.
This logical fallacy will end the hopes of millions of couples hoping to have a child
Is that a pro life position?

Quite a pickle

Title: Re: IVF
Post by WebsterMark on 02/23/24 at 09:16:46

I don’t agree with the decision but that’s what you abortion-for-birth control zealots have forced those who give a $hit about unborn children into. There’s no common-sense boundary with leftist. Abortion at any time for any reason, open borders to let new voters cross, boys dressing up as girls and destroying girls sports, paying off student loans, the list is endless. And those uncompromising positions create essentially a battleground. Leftist are like Hamas, you’ll use any tactic to “win” even if destroys the very country you live in. Leftist=viruses.

I suspect it will be quickly countered with legislation from the state.

Title: Re: IVF
Post by Serowbot on 02/23/24 at 09:28:49

Sorry bud, but this is all you.
These actions are taken by Right Wing religious zealots,
Defining a cluster of cells as a human being has consequences.
Millions of women forced to birth unwanted babies and millions of couples wanting children prevented from having them.
Medical dangers to women, and children born with fatal deformities.
All on you.
You could have left things alone.

...and this will lose you an another election
80% of voters disagree with what's going on

Thousands of years defined life at viability/or the "quickening". Now that is changed.
It is a clusterfkk... and it will be reversed.

Title: Re: IVF
Post by Serowbot on 02/23/24 at 09:40:41

Republicans struggle to respond to Alabama embryo ruling
https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/23/politics/republicans-alabama-embryo-ruling/index.html
This latest battle – over deeply personal health care decisions and beliefs about when life begins – is inherently political since it was precipitated by anti-abortion activists who have been waging public campaigns on the issue for years.

Title: Re: IVF
Post by WebsterMark on 02/23/24 at 13:59:39

You could have left things alone.

Says the group who took limited, 1st trimester to killing perfectly health babies for birth control and full term ,partial birth. You know you have representatives from your group who have mentioned the window after birth, as long as three months for the mother, to terminate the child.

You let doctors to cut the sexual organs off of confused13 and 14 year olds and call it healthcare. Everything you get involved with, you extrapolate to ridiculous ends. You pretend someone’s mental delusions deserve to be validated to the point everyone else suffers. You’re like little children put in power. And the result is a push back from the right and in this case, a bad decision.

January 6th was no insurrection but darn I wonder how much better we’d be if it was.

Title: Re: IVF
Post by Eegore on 02/23/24 at 16:19:51

The interesting part here is that in Alabama the frozen embryos must be frozen forever now or the guy shutting off the fridge commits child murder.

The appropriate thing to do here is for Alabama to no longer allow the extraction of eggs for fertility/preservation reasons. Those humans should not, in Alabama, have children unless they can do it by standard sexual intercourse.

At the end of the day, who actually gets the murder charge? The parents, the clinician extracting the egg, the clinic staff and the company providing the equipment (murder weapons) I would imagine since they would all be complicit in murdering a human child.

Title: Re: IVF
Post by buster6315 on 02/23/24 at 22:02:48

Ever notice how many abortions are for non-whites? Why is that?

Title: Re: IVF
Post by WebsterMark on 02/24/24 at 05:44:57

57404641504703060400350 wrote:

Ever notice how many abortions are for non-whites? Why is that?

That’s a Willie Sutton type question. He robs banks because that’s where the money is. Planned Parenthood operates in black communities because of there’s a high rate of out of wedlock pregnancies for one and two, they’ve managed to remove any shame over abortions so business is booming. At one time, it was reported that over 70% of pregnancies of African Americans in NYC were ended by abortion.

Democrats have killed more blacks than anyone.

And planned parenthood is an organization founded on the concept of eugenics so their very foundation is racist.

Title: Re: IVF
Post by buster6315 on 02/24/24 at 06:48:09

Good one!

Planned parenthood originally frowned on abortion, instead, promoted birth control. Yes, eugenics was the goal. Planned parenthood now uses abortion as birth control, and makes a buck doing it! How sad.

Title: Re: IVF
Post by LANCER on 02/24/24 at 08:16:12

How is life generally determined ?
If you are in an accident and are taken to the ER, what does the Doc look for to determine if you are alive ? It’s your heart beat.
When does a babies heart beat begin ? A couple of weeks after conception, before a woman even knows she is pregnant.
If left alone in the womb a human baby will emerge in due time. It’s been this way since we were created.
To interrupt this miraculous event by burning a baby to death with a highly saline solution or cutting the baby in pieces with a knife or scissors is nothing but the murder of a child.

So when is it ever ok to kill a living baby in the womb ?

NEVER

Title: Re: IVF
Post by thumperclone on 02/24/24 at 09:09:24

January 6th was no insurrection but darn I wonder how much better we’d be if it was.
[/quote]

we would have an autocracy system with the orange one as the dictator

Title: Re: IVF
Post by Serowbot on 02/24/24 at 09:47:54

Evangelism is more prudish than Jesus
Pat yourselves on the back
Then, nail yourself to a cross

Title: Re: IVF
Post by Eegore on 02/24/24 at 10:06:25

So when is it ever ok to kill a living baby in the womb ?

But is it ok to destroy embryos outside of a human body? There is no heartbeat at that time since it is frozen.

Title: Re: IVF
Post by zevenenergie on 02/24/24 at 12:59:08

I know from a reliable source that the human spirit only enters the body after 3 months. An arbortion is traumatic for the mother who carried the child and carries the spirit in her aura. What it is like for the new soul is a bit unclear to me because the soul only attracts a personality at birth, even though it has already had imprints in the womb. I personally find it strange to label an embryo outside the mother as a human being. At that stage, all embryos of all mammals are almost identical.

I find it strange that we are suddenly going to regulate this by law, you could now also take a woman who loses her fetus in the first month to court for murder because she drove over a bumpy road.

I just see it as a case of thoughtlessly cobbling together a law by people who do not recognize the responsibility for the implications of their mistakes.

Title: Re: IVF
Post by Serowbot on 02/24/24 at 13:17:35

It would be the exact same cluster of cells in the woman or outside her body.
You can't call one a living human and not the other.

Wasn't this all better when a woman had a choice?
Who better to decide?

Title: Re: IVF
Post by buster6315 on 02/24/24 at 18:38:22

'When woman had a choice' doesn't that sound nice? How about 'when a woman had the right to kill an unborn baby'. Why try to mask the result of 'choice?' Oh yes, then there's 'reproductive rights'. Another good one! How about some 'self control' or 'birth control'?

Title: Re: IVF
Post by zevenenergie on 02/25/24 at 01:53:01

There are women who are not yet 21 years old, and their brains are not yet fully developed and therefore sometimes make wrong decisions.

Then there are also women with a lower than average IQ.

And then there are women who are born in very bad circumstances.

And then you also have addicted women.

And then you also have men in these categories who do not have the word respect in their dictionary.

And the other men who are predators.

So contraception doesn't work there and this is how women become pregnant.

It is a wild world and since the legalization of arbortes, these groups, and especially women, have made great progress socially.

You can ban abortion again, but aren't you doing violence to people? In an ideal world, arbortion would not have been necessary.

I think it is an excellent idea to give women the choice After all the entire burden falls 100% on their shoulders.Whether they can bear that burden or not
The child has to be lucky if there are people in the area who can assist the woman in a loving way.
There are also women who, out of love, do not want to give birth to their unborn child because the circumstances are too bad. So let them make that decision.

And don't think that a woman will easily give up her baby. The treatment is often extremely painful, and her body was fully preparing itself for pregnancy. The entire hormone balance is suddenly disrupted. Recovery sometimes takes years.
And then there's the heartbreak.

I think it's fine if people have an opinion about arbortion, but an opinion is often an obstacle rather than a means to achieving well-being.
Just look at how much tension the whole discussion alone creates. And how selfish the ideas are.

For example, someone who believes in the birth of Christ can take a fanatical attitude against arbortion and want to impose his belief on everyone. In the mean while he thinks sinful thoughts all day long and expresses them regularly.
Their faith is usually no more than a number of thoughts that they cannot fulfill themselves, but which make them feel better than non-believers.

That same belief has turned sexuality into a sin, which has led to all kinds of perferous behavior, which has only increased the need for abortion.

Good things never come from hypocrisy.

If you really want to live according to a teaching and it does you good, then I applaud your faith. But keep it to yourself and if you juicy, radiant and are happy, people will automatically come to you to ask how you achieved that.

I therefore advocate separating government and religion and making laws in a more scientific manner and more attuned to society as it is, instead of making all kinds lows that sprout from untenable ideologies.

https://imgur.com/gallery/gW3Mwxi Its time to show respeckt.

http://https://i.imgur.com/RF9Kjbem.png

Title: Re: IVF
Post by MnSpring on 02/25/24 at 16:24:45

57404641504703060400350 wrote:

Ever notice how many abortions are for non-whites? Why is that?

Looking at a few web sites.

CDC, USA Facts, PEW,
no separation or percent on race/skin-color found.

A Quote from PEW:
“…How many abortions are there in the U.S. each year?
An exact answer is hard to come by.
The CDC and the Guttmacher Institute each try to measure this,
but they use different methods and publish different figure ….”

Guttmacher Institute
27.1 - Black Non-Hispanic
18.1- Hispanic
16.3 - Other non Hispanic
10.0 - White non Hispanic

KFF
30% - White
42% - Black
7%. -Other
22% - Hispanic

VOX-
Black- 23.8
Other race - 13
Hispanic -11.7
White - 6.6

Standard-Examinar
(Just)
40% - Black

So it seams that one can,
just put in any numbers they want !

(Which will depend on who butters your bread)

Title: Re: IVF
Post by eau de sauvage on 03/21/24 at 14:57:37

@Webster said abortion-for-birth control zealots...

Not many words, but there's still a lot to unpack there.

The word 'zealots' is particularly relevant and interesting.This is associated with excessive fanaticism. Fanaticism is intense uncritical devotion to some interest.

Roe v Wade set down the marker, and it took the corrupt fanaticism of Alito, and Thomas, and the plainly undemocratic maneouvres that achieved this outcome. We don't need to go into them here.

Abortion is a religious issue, it has never been otherwise, one side is secular and fact based and the other is religious based. The opposition is based on religious precepts, even if they are made up, it's always framed as life is god given and so forth.

The religious opposition to abortian, is fine, and anyone's person beliefs on it whereby they regulate their own life, all good.

The problem is who if forcing their religious based will on whom?

And this is where we get to the essential word in WM's opportunity. Who actually is the 'zealot' here, who is the fanatic.

For white men to take over control of a woman's body, to force her to bend to their will, on an issue that is between her and her doctor, is the very definition of zealotry.

But WM, calls people who advocate for bodily autonomy, "zealots".

And that's all I'm going to say on this matter.

Title: Re: IVF
Post by Serowbot on 03/21/24 at 16:11:15

The Handmaid's Tale