I solemnly swear if you take away any more of my daughters’ rights I’ll take a jack hammer to the I-10 every morning.
What? And improve it? How will that punish anyone?
Maybe just take the jackhammer to a billionaire.
If 750 of us do it in the US we’ll finally see some trickle down economics for the first time ever!
Jack hammer a billionaire. Trending.
deleted by creator
People generally hold that one has a right to have children (consider that things like government enforced sterilization of low income or minority groups are generally considered to be egregious breaches of the rights of the people affected.) IVF is used to assist people who wish to have children but who for medical reasons have been unable to do so, thus prohibiting it denies the people who need it in order to have kids the right to have them, thus it must be a right by proxy. Yes, things like housing and food should be rights too, but those are irrelevant to this discussion, given that it is possible for more than one thing to be an issue at a time.
Dude is on @monero.town. no way this is good faith discussion.
What’s monero.town? I’ve not seen it before
Monero is a cryptocurrency. So its probably a libertarian tech bro hive.
Fun fact: on some lemmy apps you can press-and-hold the username to never see them again.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
All rights require assistance to a lesser or greater extent to have any practical consequence. For example, if I were to make it illegal to share any information about where polling places are and then move them somewhere one would be unlikely to find by chance, it is technically still possible to vote if you manage to find the place to do it, but if I were to then argue that what I was doing wasn’t violating your right to vote because you aren’t entitled to assistance in exercising that right, you’d rightly call bullshit on that argument.
Further, “rights” do not exclusively refer to things spelled out as part of the constitution like the right to vote. There isn’t any explicit right to walk in the constitution that I can think of, but were I to make canes and crutches illegal, it’d absolutely be fair to say that i was taking away disabled people’s right to walk.
You really think IVF is a right? Somehow a lifestyle medical procedure is a right in your min
Restricting reproductive access falls into the “eugenics” umbrella. Of almost any eugenics scheme that’s ever been proposed or implemented a core feature has been preventing people who want to have kids from having kids
How do you expect anyone to care about this frivoulous nonsense when housing, the internet, food, and affordable healthcare all aren’t rights? All you’re doing is clawing for more privilege.
This is an argument against restricting rights. The GOP appears to be shifting strategy to preventing access to IVF, probably as a new front of the ongoing culture war they use as a smoke screen for everything else they do. Taking away rights that have no good reason to be taken away is absolutely worth fighting for.
Republicans try to increase birth rates, but end up blocking IVF instead:
“It hurt itself in its
confusionstupidity!”Because conservatives don’t consider it the correct way. A child must be conceived when a mommy, a daddy, and an Abrahamic god love each other very much and sleep together. The child can only be born vaginally or the mom isn’t a real mommy.
This is not a joke, they believe this.
You forgot they have to also be married in a proper church or both parents and the kid will be shunned
This is not a joke, they believe this.
Except for the 78% of Conservatives in support of IVF. This article is literally about Republican lawmakers scrambling because everyone is in favor of IVF.
78% of Conservatives in support of IVF
Yet here we are. These people voted in the idiots who would make a court who would rule this way.
If only they had some way to know that the Leopards were going to eat people’s faces…
deleted by creator
Back in 2001, Right To Life President George W, Bush ruled that fetal stem cell research, which involves aborted humans, was fine and dandy. This came after Right To Life former First Lady Nancy Reagan discovered that stem cell technology might help Ronnie’s dementia.
They have no problem playing both sides of the issue.
This is incorrect. Bush banned new lines of fetal stem cells from being used. This was a step backwards for research.
Read more here:
On August 9, 2001, U.S. President George W. Bush introduced a ban on federal funding for research on newly created human embryonic stem (ES) cell lines. The policy was intended as a compromise and specified that research on lines created prior to that date would still be eligible for funding. Seventy-one lines from 14 laboratories [1] across the globe met Bush’s eligibility criteria, and scientists who wished to investigate these lines could still receive grants through the National Institutes of Health (NIH). In practice, however, only 21 lines proved to be of any use to investigators [2].
It was a compromise that siad that some aborted corpses were okay.
It was a compromise that siad that some aborted corpses were okay.
They stopped any further lines from being created. What do you not understand about this? It was already ongoing research, and they put a stop to it for political purposes. Even if this calls it a “compromise” it meant that no further lines (no new fetal tissue) could be used.
Portraying GWB as someone who was fighting for stem cell research rather than against it is flat out false.
Where did I say he was fighting for it? I said that he didn’t ban it completely because there were other people in the GOP who wanted the research to continue.
If he’d really believed that the soul begins at conception, there would have no cell research at all. That’s the point I was trying to make.
What they wanted was no cell research at all. But that wasn’t politically possible, and it wasn’t because other members of the GOP didn’t want it. So he “compromised” by saying they could still use the existing lines but no future lines could be created. You’re acting like the GOP was okay with this, they were not. This was a compromise because it’s was the best they could do at the time, and it still got some of the research banned.
Sure Nancy Reagan was outspoken about it but it was not the GOP.
The GOP hates IVF because a man doesn’t get sexual gratification from the process… Well, not in the way they want anyways. And to think, a woman could get pregnant without a man. Or even worse, two gays could have a kid. The GOP is a sad organization that literally wants the elimination or subjugation of all nonwhite-nonmale-nonchristian-nonstraight people.
Its the Amerikkkan way
If a fetus is a person then I expect that pregnant women will be able to claim them on taxes, ride in the family lane, all that kind of stuff
Most likely not and the child will have less rights as soon as its born. Its always been about forced birth to maintain a population of poor folk that they can exploit as a cheap labor source.
Republicans TOTALLY would SUPPORT IVF but those DAMN Democrats had to Block it!
-Fox News. Probably.
This was all about how Alabama lawmakers sincerely thought you could make human/animal hybrids using IVF right?
Fucking complete gong show. Why don’t Americans do something about the gross mismanagement of their country at every single level?
deleted by creator
