I presume this will effectively end IVF treatment in Alabama
by IAND75 (2024-02-21 16:29:03)

In reply to: Alabama IVF Ruling  posted by FaytlND

Cannot Reply Return to Political

This ruling just affects Alabama and IVF treatment. (I’ve linked a CNN article for those that don’t have access to the NYT.) But it is likely to spread to other states. The risks involved in continuing to provide standard of care IVF service seem to me to be too high to continue to offer the service. Destroying a frozen embryo may carry the potential of a wrongful death charge. The implication is that any frozen embryo that isn’t implanted in someone, will have to be maintained properly frozen forever. I suspect that couples in Alabama who want to pursue IVF will have to go out of state. And I can’t imagine that this won’t be pursued in other states with strong conservative majorities and anti-abortion networks.



Not really pro life
by vermin05  (2024-02-21 17:53:50)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

This ruling will decrease pregnancies and prevent some infertile couples from having a child.
It's certainly not "pro-family." *
by KARLHUNGUS  (2024-02-22 12:36:21)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

Interestingly, I had very much the opposite take.
by Tex Francisco  (2024-02-21 18:18:38)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

A lot of my liberal friends are convinced that restricting abortion is a conspiracy by evil white men to keep more women out of the workforce and at home barefoot and pregnant. In my experience, most pro-life people truly believe that human life begins at conception. Restricting abortion is probably going to mean that a lot more poor black babies will be born, and restricting IVF will probably mean that fewer rich white babies will be born. If the pro-life crowd were truly the evil monsters that leftists think them to be, then you certainly wouldn't expect them to promote policies with these outcomes, but they do because they are actually motivated by a genuine belief that life begins at conception.
How does one form a conclusion
by ufl  (2024-02-22 07:07:44)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

on the practical consequences of this ruling by examining the motivations of prolife folks in general?
I was reacting to vermin05's point re not being "prolife"
by Tex Francisco  (2024-02-22 08:30:49)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

He seemed to be insinuating some hypocrisy on the part of the prolife crowd, but I don't think that's true based on what they interpret prolife to mean.

I still think it’s wrong
by vermin05  (2024-02-21 19:00:27)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

The embryos created for this procedure are only created for this procedure they would not exist without it. Is there a really crummy capture rate? Yup, but a small percent at life sure beats no chance. To co-opt an argument usually used by the abortion crowd, what if that baby was the next Mozart, Nelson Mandela or Einstein?

And in case you were wondering my stance, I think IVF likely provides a window into how many embryos fail to embed in the uterus. While never studied in vivo, if IVF success rate is 35-40% I think it’s fair to assume that naturally it’s probably right around 50% success rate for implantation. Post implantation, odds of a birth shoots way up. If that’s true and you believe life begins at conception then you believe our creator kills half of all life when it’s nothing but a ball of cells. I don’t believe that, personally, and with zero scientific proof, I think life begins at implantation and something metaphysical happens when mother and child first touch. But that’s just my opinion.