Another thing about this that is so sad is that if an embryo has genetic testing done on it that reveals conditions that are incompatible with life, it would still need to be transferred and the person would be forced to carry that pregnancy. It's just thoroughly disgusting on so many levels.
Yes, absolutely disgusting. BECAUSE THE ISSUE HAS NEVER BEEN ABOUT BABIES ITS ABOUT CONTROLLING THE WOMEN.
Let’s dig into it - my question is - transferred to WHO ? The sperm donor is out because of biology, so the egg donor? What if the egg donor doesn’t want the embryo implanted? What then, sir?? What then?
I strongly disagree that they know. Every time you ask someone like this to explain IVF or fertility procedures they can't. Most people can't.
I think they know the basics. Ooh, embryo, baby, let's transfer. They don't know the reality as mmm so graciously described that out of all those treatments you may only get a few potentially viable and at huge financial and emotional cost.
These are also such anti science people that I don't think they get that part of the reason some pursue ivf isn't because of failure to conceive or implant but to prevent genetic conditions either incompatible with viability or a short and painful life. And even if they do, they don't care. They are forced birth assholes even if they know that child won't last 5 minutes post birth. It spends a very short life of constant medical care which of course they won't fund in pain for everyone involved.
I think they're ignorant about the particular details, yes. But moreso I think they're callous to human suffering so long as it better controls women, and, even better, secures votes and funding.
Tuberville stupidity aside, if they want more babies, wouldn't they want women to get started on the process again sooner if they're being unemotionally pragmatic? No, the cruelty and control is the reason.
They are evil, and I don't think anyone can convince me otherwise. They can put it in all the churchy words they want, but that doesn't fool me.
Post by fortnightlily on Feb 27, 2024 17:19:56 GMT -5
I think the media coverage still isn't doing a good enough job of explaining why embryos having personhood makes IVF untenable.
Similar to how the pro-birthers define "abortion" in their own heads as "the act of pursuing the end of a pregnancy for reasons I disapprove of" and not "the medical procedure of terminating a pregnancy, regardless of reason" and then wonder why shit like this happens: "An ectopic pregnancy put her life at risk. A Texas hospital refused to treat her." wapo.st/42Rqadr
QUOTE When Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2022, the two had argued fiercely about what a near-total abortion ban would mean for women in the state — with Norris-De La Cruz fearing a loss of personal freedoms, and Lloyd welcoming new protections for babies who couldn’t speak up for themselves. Initially, Lloyd said, she thought the Texas abortion law would only affect people who decided they didn’t want to be pregnant — never imagining it could prevent women from accessing lifesaving care. Now, she said, she has completely changed her mind about abortion bans. “I didn’t realize how far it had gone,” she said. “But it has happened to my life now, with my daughter." “Her life has been in danger and affected by someone who was too afraid to help.”
I read this in another forum and it really spoke to me:
“The unborn” are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don’t resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don’t ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don’t need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus, but actually dislike people who breathe. Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn.”
Related, so in more ways to control women, here ya go.
This is not just 1973. Current day they're saying people can just work it out. Nevermind this is one of the most dangerous times in a woman's life. Or that you'd never want a child with your abuser. 50 years later they're still having an eye on the man. And you know in their eyes it's a white man because if it were a man of color they'd call in swat
Yep, it was one of the first questions I had to answer upon filing.
My coworker couldn’t get divorced while pregnant with someone else’s child. She 100% knew it was not her husband’s, but didn’t matter.
Yet, my BIL was fully allowed to file for divorce when he got another woman pregnant.
Well that's just revolting.
I knew there were states that force you to be separated a year instead of 6 months if you have children, which is bad enough, but this is many degrees beyond even that. Especially when we know a woman is most vulnerable to violence when she's pregnant. The different standard surprises me absolutely not at all.
Yep, it was one of the first questions I had to answer upon filing.
My coworker couldn’t get divorced while pregnant with someone else’s child. She 100% knew it was not her husband’s, but didn’t matter.
Yet, my BIL was fully allowed to file for divorce when he got another woman pregnant.
Well that's just revolting.
I knew there were states that force you to be separated a year instead of 6 months if you have children, which is bad enough, but this is many degrees beyond even that. Especially when we know a woman is most vulnerable to violence when she's pregnant. The different standard surprises me absolutely not at all.
Just chiming in that there are also states that do not require any separation before filing for divorce.
I knew there were states that force you to be separated a year instead of 6 months if you have children, which is bad enough, but this is many degrees beyond even that. Especially when we know a woman is most vulnerable to violence when she's pregnant. The different standard surprises me absolutely not at all.
Just chiming in that there are also states that do not require any separation before filing for divorce.
Well, yes, of course, not all states are awful. I'm not sure why that's relevant right here, though. That there are states that give you fewer rights to leave simply because you're gestating is appalling especially when that'sthe situation where you are most likely to be victimized is the topic here.
Are you also going to point out there are states where you can still get IVF and not face "cryogenic nursery" wrongful death suits? The disparate situations is kind of the whole point of the thread.
Question to the Senator : “So parents should loose control of the embryos they created. You want the state to decide what happens to those embryos rather than the parents that have created them.”
Guys! He said “that’s not at all what I’m saying”
So, good news, I’ll sum up : Doctors should just sorta create the embryos at that time for that pregnancy. And just that pregnancy. And not create any more. Magically. You know, no more than 1-2 embryos that need to be stored. Excuse me, created “for reckless storage.”
Four white men in front of a microphone talking, incoherently, about women’s bodies and medical choices. Again.
Just chiming in that there are also states that do not require any separation before filing for divorce.
Well, yes, of course, not all states are awful. I'm not sure why that's relevant right here, though. That there are states that give you fewer rights to leave simply because you're gestating is appalling especially when that'sthe situation where you are most likely to be victimized is the topic here.
Are you also going to point out there are states where you can still get IVF and not face "cryogenic nursery" wrongful death suits? The disparate situations is kind of the whole point of the thread.
It sounded like you were saying that 6 is generally required, but some states extend it to 12 if the woman is pregnant.
Maybe it's not completely relevant, but it's a fact that divorces are more complicated when there's a pregnant person involved because there are certain aspects that can't be completely settled until the kid is born. I don't necessarily agree with how certain states handle it, but AFAIK, there isn't a state that doesn't allow a pregnant woman to get divorced while pregnant.
Well, yes, of course, not all states are awful. I'm not sure why that's relevant right here, though. That there are states that give you fewer rights to leave simply because you're gestating is appalling especially when that'sthe situation where you are most likely to be victimized is the topic here.
Are you also going to point out there are states where you can still get IVF and not face "cryogenic nursery" wrongful death suits? The disparate situations is kind of the whole point of the thread.
It sounded like you were saying that 6 is generally required, but some states extend it to 12 if the woman is pregnant.
Maybe it's not completely relevant, but it's a fact that divorces are more complicated when there's a pregnant person involved because there are certain aspects that can't be completely settled until the kid is born. I don't necessarily agree with how certain states handle it, but AFAIK, there isn't a state that doesn't allow a pregnant woman to get divorced while pregnant.
Missouri does not allow a woman that is pregnant to get divorced. That’s where this conversation stemmed from. BUT they only require a 30 day “cooling off” period between filing for divorce and the respondent submitting settlement papers. So if it’s uncontested, you can be divorced within roughly 1-2 months.
Which I guess technically, you could lie and say you’re not pregnant, especially if it’s early, but then there’s that whole perjury thing.
Our state is messed up. One of my dearest friends (who I’ve admittedly not talked to recently) is an embryologist, so I am very curious to hear her thoughts on this.
Watching this is beyond infuriating. I think I had about 19 eggs retrieved my first IVF cycle, I think only 12 fertilized, and we ended up with 7 embryos by day 5. Only 4 were genetically normal, and of those 4: 1 didn't take on transfer, 1 was my first child, the 3rd didn't survive thawing, and the last ended in an early MC. My second round of IVF (around 12-16 eggs I think) resulted in zero genetically normal embryos. I neded a third round to finally get my second child. But this fucker, who "knows it's an extensive process", thinks I should have only fertilized one or two eggs at a time so I didn't end up storing extra embryos? FUCK ALL THE WAY OFF.
It sounded like you were saying that 6 is generally required, but some states extend it to 12 if the woman is pregnant.
Maybe it's not completely relevant, but it's a fact that divorces are more complicated when there's a pregnant person involved because there are certain aspects that can't be completely settled until the kid is born. I don't necessarily agree with how certain states handle it, but AFAIK, there isn't a state that doesn't allow a pregnant woman to get divorced while pregnant.
Missouri does not allow a woman that is pregnant to get divorced. That’s where this conversation stemmed from. BUT they only require a 30 day “cooling off” period between filing for divorce and the respondent submitting settlement papers. So if it’s uncontested, you can be divorced within roughly 1-2 months.
Which I guess technically, you could lie and say you’re not pregnant, especially if it’s early, but then there’s that whole perjury thing.
Our state is messed up. One of my dearest friends (who I’ve admittedly not talked to recently) is an embryologist, so I am very curious to hear her thoughts on this.
Missouri does not allow a woman that is pregnant to get divorced. That’s where this conversation stemmed from. BUT they only require a 30 day “cooling off” period between filing for divorce and the respondent submitting settlement papers. So if it’s uncontested, you can be divorced within roughly 1-2 months.
Which I guess technically, you could lie and say you’re not pregnant, especially if it’s early, but then there’s that whole perjury thing.
Our state is messed up. One of my dearest friends (who I’ve admittedly not talked to recently) is an embryologist, so I am very curious to hear her thoughts on this.
I wasn't aware of this, and that really sucks.
Yes, that is what I was referring to.
I do think it's ridiculous that some states apply different standards on the basis of whether or not you have children.
But to not even give the option of divorce because you have a parasite is insane. It's not an extreme reach in post dobbs to think having frozen embryos might be justification to prevent divorce or, hell, even get medical care. A lot of what we thought would never happen in our lifetime, being so modern unlike our nanas, had already happened.
I do think it's ridiculous that some states apply different standards on the basis of whether or not you have children.
But to not even give the option of divorce because you have a parasite is insane. It's not an extreme reach in post dobbs to think having frozen embryos might be justification to prevent divorce or, hell, even get medical care. A lot of what we thought would never happen in our lifetime, being so modern unlike our nanas, had already happened.
and I believe, the mother’s husband is legally presumed to be the child’s father until that presumption is rebutted in court. Even if mom lists a different person on the birth certificate. So birth within wedlock v after dissolution has big consequences (I don’t know if that is actually true in Missouri, but it is true in some “places)
Alabama lawmakers gave final passage Wednesday night to a bill intended to give legal protection to in vitro fertilization clinics after an Alabama Supreme Court ruling caused some to pause services. --------- The bill was intended to provide immunity but did not directly address the question of whether embryos in storage have the status of children under state law.
Alabama lawmakers gave final passage Wednesday night to a bill intended to give legal protection to in vitro fertilization clinics after an Alabama Supreme Court ruling caused some to pause services. --------- The bill was intended to provide immunity but did not directly address the question of whether embryos in storage have the status of children under state law.
Am I reading this right in that this is 100% a political move? Like...we didn't know just how deeply unpopular this policy would be so we're protecting IVF but not abortion rights?
"Hello babies. Welcome to Earth. It's hot in the summer and cold in the winter. It's round and wet and crowded. On the outside, babies, you've got a hundred years here. There's only one rule that I know of, babies-"God damn it, you've got to be kind.”
I said this up thread, but this does diddly squat. There is so much more that routinely happens to embryos, such as destruction for genetic abnormalities, that isn't protected by this bill. I'd be shocked if the clinics resume operation.
It is so fucking clear that they do not understand what they are fighting for. My clinic made me freeze my embryo for DS2 because my body was not ready to accept it. It could have caused the embryo to stop developing, cause me to become ill, or even worse cause me to die. I wanted nothing more than to transfer it to my uterus ASAP, but it wasn't medically advisable. Fuck these guys so much.
I said this up thread, but this does diddly squat. There is so much more that routinely happens to embryos, such as destruction for genetic abnormalities, that isn't protected by this bill. I'd be shocked if the clinics resume operation.
In the article it says that 2 (I think, it could’ve been 1) said they will resume services.
Post by wanderingback on Mar 7, 2024 13:37:51 GMT -5
I’m sure republicans are patting themselves on the back for this, eye roll. Too late. It’s not so easy to just resume IVF like nothing ever happened depending on where you are in the cycle. They are literally the worse.
At least this person is fighting….
"House Minority Leader Anthony Daniels, D-Huntsville, said Wednesday afternoon the bill falls short because it does not address the question of whether embryos outside the womb are considered children under state law.
“Until that issue is addressed, it’s just putting a Band-Aid over something that requires stitches and surgery,” Daniels said.
Daniels proposed a bill, HB225, that says: “Any fertilized human egg or human embryo that exists in any form outside of the uterus of a human body shall not, under any circumstances, be considered an unborn child, a minor child, a natural person, or any other term that connotes a human being for any purpose under state law.”