AKA the "tree house ladder"-principe: when you are in it, pulling up the ladder so noone else can follow
AKA the "tree house ladder"-principe: when you are in it, pulling up the ladder so noone else can follow
Also they forget people can climb trees. And have saws.
Don't forget fire!
I believe he has that tattooed on a body part.
Of course it is his hypocrisy and hatred of everyone else that makes him worthy of ridicule not his sexuality but that joke was just on a platter.
"No women allowed"
-Matt Gaetz, probably
"The King can do no wrong" bit also lays up really nicely with "The President must have absolute immunity". It's an insightful commentary all around.
Omfg that's spot on
Have you ever thought about the crazy stupid things people did in the past? From using lead pipes in ancient Rome while knowing it was toxic, to blood letting, to witch trials? I used to think, "Man, we humans sure used to be stupid."
No. We still are and have always been collectively stupid. Now, the stupidest of us just have the same potential platform as the rest of us to reach out to the other stupid people via the internet.
That said, the leaded gasoline certainly did us no favours...
Well it quiet the valves....
/s
You see, your first mistake was expecting a logically-consistent platform from conservatives.
Their religion also says, essentially, to be a socialist, like Jesus was. It's literally all about forgiveness and making sure the least among us have everything they need. The facts about their religion are only relevant if they support what they were going to do anyway.
It's sort of an unintended side effect in my interpretation. Their goal was to get every possible fetus legally defined as a child (so that any and all abortions can be considered child murder and outlawed) but got IVF caught in the crossfire, because they handle fertilized eggs, which are then considered viable fetuses under this definition by the christofascists.
idk dude, I’d personally be more surprised if that was their platform because while it would still be a horrific violation of human rights, it would be too consistent with itself. I’d probably accuse them of using ChatGPT to write it or something.
They don’t give a shit about children, or birth. They think that women who have sex for fun deserve punishment, and that childbirth is just punishment for “immoral” sexual behavior.
Also that children who were raped should be forced to carry to term and that it's a gift from god.
they only want unwanted children, daaa!
I'm a little out of the loop, but I'd guess they're trying to build precedent such that if an IVF embryo has 'fetal rights' or whatever they term it, then the same will apply to pregnancy at the earliest stages. And they can say: No abortions 1 day after pregnancy or something like that.
The attack on reproductive rights is unconscionable
they've probably ran polls and figured out it would be worth it
Nah, the GOP isn't that smart anymore. They were before Trump ate their brains.
Not that they made decisions with the best interests of the people in mind before that, but they used to be much more strategic about their evil. They're now shooting from the hip.
The Goidels were on track to freeze embryos later this month, and they planned to only store the ones that were genetically normal.
But on Friday, the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that frozen embryos created through IVF are considered children under state law, meaning that people could theoretically be sued for destroying an embryo.
Because their idea of abortion is so fucking inanely stupid they think this counts. I mean, not for rich people or Republicans. That's why the DA Steve Marshall said he wouldn't prosecute IVF families. Which has no legal weight behind it at all so he can feel free to prosecute anyone who can't defend themselves, which is 99%.
Control. It's about nothing more than control.
This particular person is doing the general Republican thing where they say they support something but their actions make the thing impossible to do. Like treating IVF in a way that makes hospitals cancel IVF services because of the threat of legal action when it doesn't go perfectly.
Many think that artificial insemination is "subverting God's will". If they were meant to have kids, they could do it naturally. It's the same line of thinking that they didn't need a vaccine and could just pray their way to COVID immunity.
Alabama supreme court recently ruled that any IVF embryos are actual human beings. That means if you use IVF and dispose of embryos you are a murderer. Since it's almost impossible to do IVF with no 'lost' embryos they just want to ban it for everyone.
Also, some religious folks were already against it because it involves men ejcaculating into cups, and that's against the Bible.
They think the embryos used for IVF are the equivalent to children birthed from the womb and therefore it's child abuse. Mind you, these are the same morons who are pushing to remove any recreation from sex. Their goal is for sex to be only for procreation. They're actively trying to push us into their weird world of having sex through a hole in a bedsheet only for the purpose of bearing children. They want to outlaw all forms of contraceptives. Hell, Maggy Taylor Greene wants to push legislation so that women stop tempting Christian men. We're regressing as a country
Oh I know this one...... 1984!
God likes to watch, he needs some PIV action, IVF action is just not the same thrill.
It’s an ’unnatural’ conception made possible by use of embryos which these GOP lunatics would prefer be recognized as actual children, just in embryo form. Ergo, all embryos must be ‘protected’ which translates to no more science with embryos.
Curiosity question, if we are saying embryos are children, would it not be illegal to buy and sell them?
Headline is an outright lie. The article literally quotes her saying she supports IVF. The author speculates that a bill she is co-sponsoring (that does not mention IVF) may accidentally ban IVF (if it passes and Biden signs it).
Certainly you could denigrate her intelligence, performative politics, or the logical incoherence between her abortion and IVF positions. But you cannot say she wants to do something contrary to her actual explicitly stated desire.
This is how it always happens, lip service doesn't mean anything. They will be QUOTED as being in support of "women's health and safety" and "emergency exceptions" all day long as they vote to overturn Roe and strip down exceptions to meaningless inactionable jargon
They're not going to say (I guess some of the house bombastic ones might) "I'm a Republican in support of preventing your wife from bearing children"
But you cannot say she wants to do something contrary to her actual explicitly stated desire.
If she doesn't want to do it, then why is she co-sponsoring it?
That's an affirmation that she wants the thing that she sponsoring to be done.
He litterally said the bill doesn't mention IVF. It is just one authors opinion that the bill could possibly be corrupted to ban IVF. The reality is is that one can never predict all the side effects a bill might have when it is intentionally misinterpreted.
He litterally said the bill doesn’t mention IVF.
He? Where?
Never mind, went back and read through the whole article, instead of just depending on the summary.
My question still stands though.
What you're mentioning was that there's no carve out, also known as an exclusion of, for IVF. Not that it doesn't mention IVF.
From the article...
And as Rubashkin points out, there is no carveout in the bill for in vitro fertilization. Oops!
Of course this happens. The exact same bullshit happens with abortions as well, they just call the procedure something else (I forget what, basically sounded like cleaning out the lining?). When asked why they go "my case was a special case, it was the only legitimate abortion ever".
My case was special because I cheated on my husband and didn't want him to find out. But the 14 year old who was raped by her uncle and the pregnancy went ectopic and threatens the life of the underage mother...that should be illegal!!!!
During IVF, you don't prepare a single embryo. You prepare dozens at once.
IVF is used when for whatever reason the natural process fails. This can be due to had sperm, bad eggs, trouble with the path to the womb, hormonal imbalances, and a large number of illnesses that fuck up this delicate process. So IVF has to fight a steep uphill battle, and you want multiple fighters in the ring to increase the odds. Why do it all at once and not over after the other? Extraction of the eggs requires intense, weeks to months of hormonal therapy. The extraction is also a surgical procedure, requiring a surgeon to access the ovaries. This is painful and has health risks, you don't want to this every week. Less time and less procedures also help reduce costs. IVF is expensive, quickly costing many thousands of dollars. Last but not least, IVF is an intensely stress- and painful time for the couple on a psychological level alone. Every failed attempt weighs heavy, every miscarriage is a huge loss. Those emotions should not be toyed with and it's clearly ethical to follow the medical process with the highest success chance and least suffering.
Explaining the process: You extract many eggs and fertilize them with sperm at once. Then you wait for them to do their first couple cell divisions, usually until they are a count of 4, 8 or 16 cells, varies by nation and its laws. The more splits, the easier to qualify the health and success chance of the embryo.
Even during this early stage, multiple of the embryos typically fail to divide properly and are then discarded.
Then, the most vital and hopeful embryos are selected and implanted during another surgical procedure directly into the womb. Again, always multiple. This is because some embryos will die during the process, others will not attach. In the end, you only need one embryo to attach and get supplied by the womb, then you're on track to getting pregnant.
All the other good candidates are frozen, so you have them ready for possible future implantation attempts. It's common that the attachment process doesn't work at first try.
Once your pregnancy is carried out (miscarriage is always a big risk up until the end during IVF) and you are certain you don't want more kids, the rest of the frozen embryos are discarded.
With this new interpretation of the law, doctors and lab techs would be mass murderers.
If the embryos are people, just ask them if they don't mind being thrown out. If they say nothing, then it's fine.
Since they're underage, the mother would have the authority to make medical decisions on their behalf. If she decides that they wouldn't want to be kept alive by machines like an industrial freezer, surely that's her choice, right?
I'm not a lawyer but I'd love to see how something like this pans out. It feels like another one of those situations where an idiot makes a sweeping ruling that doesn't consider the many many ways it affects society.
What if the machine is the mother's body? 🤔
As a bonus fact: because multiple embryos are implanted at once, IVF has a much higher chance of having multiple embryos take hold at once. So while getting pregnant is hard on the first place, if it works, there's a higher than usual chance to get twins ( or even more, though much less likely).
This "risk" is clearly communicated in the preparation phase and the potential parents have to ok and accept this for IVF to go ahead at all.
I agree.
Also, more embryos may be created than needed. So after a couple conceives, if those embryos are considered to be people, what can the fertility clinic reasonably do with them that won't be considered murder?
With IVF, multiple embryos are grown and then analyzed - the best are implanted, the rest are usually either destroyed or (with the donors’ permission) used for research. You literally can’t conduct IVF without destroying some of the embryos.
Take the kids back
It's worse: if they ban the destruction of human morulae, they have to ban the use of the pill as well, at least the mini variant.
By my understanding, even with the mini pill (Progestogen-only), producing an embryo is unlikely. The pill thickens mucus membranes in the cervix, meaning most sperm do not make it into the reproductive system. And even low dose pills inhibit egg release 50% of the time, with more moderate doses getting to over 95%.
IIRC the main mechanism of the mini pill is that they prevent nidation. That's why they are (were?) banned by the catholic church.
Just looked it up – there are three mechanisms. Yours, mine and an induced tibary dysfunction. TIL, thank you.
That is something they would welcome.
The more unwanted, abused, amd uneducated.children, the more easily led by base emotion voters.
Rapidly reproducing uneducated hicktards that vote Republican.
You've seen Idiocracy, right?
Republicans trying to outdo each other in a race to the Far Realms.
Its not actually hypocritical to want to ban something that you used. Its like if you used Lemmy for a decade and want it banned, you can see the dangers of using Lemmy, you would actually be most aware of the dangers of the thing.
Yes, because having a social media account is EXACTLY the same as having a child 🙄 For the record, your example is still hypocritical, it's just not nearly as life-changing
Yeah, I am aware they are not the same thing, I just expected people could extrapolate the idea out to any number of things. I guess that was a poor assessment.
I'll upvote you for admitting to your mistake, that's better than most people on the internet. Thank you
Thank you!
thanks for using Leebra!
go to feed...
Ah yes, the "Fuck you, got mine" the Boomer Conservatives are so famous for.
save