Parents, Not the Government, Should Make IVF Decisions
Two-thirds of Americans oppose the Alabama ruling that claims frozen embryos are equivalent to children.

The sorry history of anti-miscegenation and forced sterilization laws in the U.S. provides ample evidence that preemptive government interference in the reproductive decisions of its citizens should be strongly rejected. In a free society, the default should be that individuals are best situated for weighing the costs and benefits, moral and material, with respect to how, when, with whom, and whether they choose to become parents.
The now infamous Alabama Supreme Court decision earlier this month essentially outlawing the use of in vitro fertilization (IVF) by would-be parents highlights the consequences of unwarranted government meddling in reproductive decisions all too well. At its most basic, IVF is a treatment for infertility involving the fertilization of eggs in a petri dish with the goal of installing them afterward in a woman's womb where they have a chance to implant and hopefully develop into a healthy baby. Since the implantation of any specific embryo is far from guaranteed, IVF often involves creating several embryos that are stored in liquid nitrogen that could be made available for later attempts at achieving pregnancy.
Some 12 to 15 percent of couples in the U.S. experience infertility. Fortunately, since 1981 many infertile folks have been able to avail themselves of IVF and assisted reproduction techniques with the result that more than 1.2 million Americans have been born using it. Currently, about 2 percent of all babies in the U.S. are born through assisted reproduction. A 2023 Pew Research poll reported that "four-in-ten adults (42%) say they have used fertility treatments or personally know someone who has." Given the wide public acceptance and ubiquity of IVF, it is no surprise that a new Axios/Ipsos poll finds that two-thirds of Americans oppose the Alabama court ruling that frozen IVF embryos are the equivalent of born children.
The moral intuition that embryos are not people implied by these poll results reflects what research has revealed about the fraught and complex biology of uterine implantation and pregnancy. In both IVF and natural conception most embryos will not become babies. Research estimates that between 50 to 70 percent of naturally conceived embryos do not make it past the first trimester. In other words, one foreseen consequence of conception through sexual intercourse is the likely loss of numerous embryos.
In his 2012 Journal of Medical Ethics article, University of Illinois Chicago philosopher Timothy Murphy argued that the moral good of the birth of a child counterbalances the unwanted but nevertheless foreseen loss of other embryos in both natural and IVF conception. Again, polling suggests that most Americans endorse this moral reasoning.
In another 2012 article speculating on the metaphysical ramifications of endowing embryos with souls, Murphy basically recapitulates the line of reasoning in my 2004 article asking, "Is Heaven Populated Chiefly with the Souls of Embryos?" There I suggest that "perhaps 40 percent of all the residents of Heaven were never born, never developed brains, and never had thoughts, emotions, experiences, hopes, dreams, or desires."
Murphy similarly concludes, "Since more human zygotes and embryos are lost than survive to birth, conferral of personhood on them would mean—for those believing in personal immortality—that these persons constitute the majority of people living immortally despite having had only the shortest of earthly lives."
Metaphysical conjectures aside, former President Donald Trump clearly knows where most Americans stand on IVF. "We want to make it easier for mothers and fathers to have babies, not harder! That includes supporting the availability of fertility treatments like IVF in every State in America," he posted on Truth Social. He's right.
Now, the 124 denizens of the House of Representatives (all Republicans) who cosponsored just over a month ago the Life at Conception Act are scrambling to explain that, no, they did not really mean that every frozen IVF embryo is a "human person" entitled to the equal protection of the right to life. As a butt-covering move, Rep. Nancy Mace (R–S.C.) is circulating a House resolution "expressing support for continued access to fertility care and assisted reproduction technology, such as in vitro fertilization."
More substantially, Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D–Ill.) is pushing for the adoption of the Right to Build Families Act that states, "No State, or official or employee of a State acting in the scope of such appointment or employment, may prohibit or unreasonably limit…any individual from accessing assisted reproductive technology."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Now, the 124
denizenshypocritical theocrats of the House of Representatives (all Republicans) who cosponsored just over a month ago the Life at Conception Act are scrambling to explain that, no, they did not really mean that every frozen IVF embryo is a "human person"FTFY
“In other words, one foreseen consequence of conception through sexual intercourse is the likely loss of numerous embryos.”
In other news the absolutely certain consequence of life is death.
Neither negates the inalienable right to life.
>>Alabama Supreme Court decision earlier this month essentially outlawing the use of in vitro fertilization (IVF)
no, some asshole with a clinic decided to upend IVF. everything is just fine.
FFS, did nobody read what the Alabama court said? If you negligently cause a miscarriage, forcing a woman to lose her embryo in utero against her will, that has been covered by wrongful death lawsuits for over a hundred years. The Alabama Court said it makes no difference whether an embryo is in utero or ex utero. That’s it. Everything about how embryos may or may not be persons with souls or whatever is a red herring. This case was about WHERE the embryo was located. Stay on topic and quit lying to people.
The clinic negligently caused an embryos destruction. Not the unused embryos that are routinely discarded, but the one the parents-to-be wanted to keep.
IVF is not illegal in Alabama, some clinics are choosing to shut down while they reevaluate their legal liability.
^^^ gracias.
Ditto, thanks for doing the reporter's job.
In addition, this really rankles:
FFS, I personally don't care if someone has an abortion, supports having one, or provides one. But when you completely ignore the anti-abortion thesis that it is murder, you lose all credibility with me. This kind of dishonesty by omission makes you look like a dishonest fuckwit, and makes me wonder what other pertinent arguments and facts you have left out.
Well, murder you say. That's a fairly firm line to draw. If the "child" develops wrong and is threatening the life of the woman isn't it then self defense? Not murder.
If the "child' was implanted by a rapist or creepy uncle as a result of an assault isn't removing the child of the rapist just common sense? It's not like the woman is using abortion as birth control then. Or are you a fundamentalist Christian who thinks the rapist or creepy uncle must pay the bride price of the woman to her father and then can keep her as his wife with no punishment at all?
Don't get me wrong. Abortion as a method of birth control is pretty sick, since there are so many methods available to prevent a pregnancy which can be employed. But murder is a pretty hard call unless you assume every conception has produced a viable offspring that will grow and be born in good health, which by nature does not happen. Many miscarriages happen without the woman having known she was pregnant. Are those somehow murder as well? A kind of negligent homicide perhaps.
The decision: https://publicportal-api.alappeals.gov/courts/68f021c4-6a44-4735-9a76-5360b2e8af13/cms/case/343D203A-B13D-463A-8176-C46E3AE4F695/docketentrydocuments/E3D95592-3CBE-4384-AFA6-063D4595AA1D
“God” (or some form of it) appears 41 times in this decision!!! Thank GOD that we are BLESSED with judges who can Read The Mind of God!!! TWAT would we do WITHOUT their Moist Awesome God’s-Mind-Reading Special Powers?!?!?
Butt... Thanks for the link!
Seems the judge has decided that his religion is established as the one our laws should heed and he is prohibiting the free exercise of any other views on the subject. After all, I have been told that before Christianity other religions encouraged not just the killing but the eating of the young. Who is to say that those who put the eggs into the freezer aren't followers of Jupiter and are simply exercising their own religious beleifs in killing children, they are just doing it before the child is born so it's less messy.
Embryos aren't children.
Not to anyone sane.
But for purposes of the argument I accept the opponents definitions so I don't have to play word games. So what if it's a baby. We have billions of busy breeders on this planet pumping out kids faster than most places can manage to feed the little shits.
In fact carrying children to term in many third world countries should be a crime. They are born into a miserable life of starvation, disease, lack of clean water and a thousand other miseries. The woman who has the child should be shot and the baby taken to a first world nation to adopt it into a better life.
You need to distinguish between the Chief Justice's concurring opinion and the majority opinion (and the dissents). The CJ's opinion offers lots of theological discussion, which you could take exception to. But note the CJ is using that to give context to the phrase "sanctity of life"; whether he was correct to do so or not is a different question. But his concurrence is not the law in AL - the majority opinion is. And there isn't any theology in that opinion - it is a straightforward issue of statutory interpretation.
The AL SCT interpreted a statute to include in the definition of "child" an embryo in an IVF facility. This case arose because a clinic allowed a non-employee to wander into the storage area, open the cold storage, remove embryos, and destroy them. That's about all we know about the facts, as the case was dismissed by the trial court before the plaintiffs had a chance to do any discovery. Those facts, however, sure sound like negligence (perhaps even gross negligence). The clinics in AL and elsewhere have used this decision to seek absolute immunity for their negligence. That's the crassest kind of rent-seeking.
Ok, assuming the 41 references is accurate I'd say the Chief Justice is going a bit too deep into the religious for his references. My mother, who is so religious she disowned me for 10 years when I told her I was an atheist, doesn't use that many religious references in an entire evening of conversation and she is usually quite hammered at that point. My sister, who doesn't believe in dinosaurs, doesn't even manage that many references to her diety.
The clinic was negligent in securing the embryos some idiot who walked in the freezer and dropped them on the floor was responsible for destroying them.
The bank, and its administrators of their storage vaults, was careless, and lost my gold coins that I had saved there. Would it be OK with you, then, if some judge declared that my gold coins had God-given souls, and threatened future banks, in this position, with MURDER charges?
So, you're okay with doctors forcibly turning pears into chihuahuas?
No, No, NOOOO!!! Pears are silent, and can be eaten by humans, with VERY few people objecting to that. Now, chihuahuas?!? CHIHUAHUAS?!?! Oye vey mia CHIHUAHUAS, they are SUCH annoying little yappy ass-hole dogs; get them OUT of here!!!
Chihuahuas are the perfect size for turning into burritos for a small family. In the case of Catholics they will need two or three chihuahuas.
+1 Welcome to Reason, where the "science editor" will report the NYT's brazenly activist falsehoods as fact a week after the women's rights editor (who has yet to retract her assertions that sonograms detect electric currents) commits the exact same mistakes reading from the exact same scripts.
The case didn't make IVF illegal. It was a civil case. It doesn't make the practice any more illegal than suing your housekeeper for negligently allowing thieves into your house renders private housekeeping illegal. *Even if* it did make it illegal, unlike housekeeping, you're still free to freeze and store your embryos in another state and have them shipped to you at the point of implantation... which is the whole point of IVF.
This retarded idiocy is, decades later, the same level of (intentional or not) scientific illiteracy of "President Bush banned stem cell research."
Bailey is referencing his bad arguments he put forward during the fetal stem cell debate where he wanted to use leftover embryos as experimental materials.
Lemme guess. Gozer worshippers.
LOL
Many great rabbis have argued that using leftover embryos as experimental materials is not only allowed ethically, but that doing so is the optimal thing to do with them.
While Christians pretend to love Jews because for some stupid reason they think Jews in Israel will hasten the end times they don't really care what Jews think. I suspect if Jesus returned and said, "Me! What is your obsession with a clump of cells?" they'd suddenly recall that he was a Jew and stop listening to him.
It didn't make it illegal, it just put clinics providing the service (as it has been offered in the past) in a position to be considered murderers for discarding the unused embryos should one of the first of a fertilized batch take hold after implantation. I suppose they could just rent adequate freezer space to keep all those unused embryos until the clinic owner dies. Seems practical...
Saying that the ruling did not make IVF illegal is disingenuous. Claiming that an embryo incapable of doing anything, thinking anything, feeling anything, barely visible and absolutely humorless, is equivalent in stature to a real living human being utterly preposterous. Any ruling that requires a god to justify it's purpose has no place in civil society. God belongs behind the closed doors of a church- out of sight of impressionable children and out of mind by reasonable people.
Yeah. Just like Roe v Wade didn't make abortion legal, just told states they couldn't prosecute women or doctors for being involved in an abortion.
Huge difference there.
No it didnt
Yes thanks. I suspected that the panic on both sides was BS. This is not an anti or pro abortion matter. From the sounds of it, this is a run of the mill case of statutory construction in a civil liability suit. I have not read the decision and if my assumptions are incorrect I will stand corrected. If the Alabama wants to give IVF clinics immunity from civil lawsuits they are free to do so, not that I think that it's necessarily a good idea. Beyond that, I think we need more babies in this world with parents that actually want them so I'm cool with IVF. But it would be helpful if "libertarians" actually demonstrated some actual grasp of the matter at hand.
"...the matter at hand" is that Judges can now read The Mind of God, and pass down legal declarations about Sacred Frozen Fartilized Egg Smells having souls, in the Sacred Name of GOD, and twat-snot! If THAT doesn't scare you YET, then TWAT will?
In both Judaism and Islam, IVF is supported by most if not all religious experts. Neither religion considers embryos to be human beings. In Israel (74% Jewish, 18% Muslim) the universal health insurance covers multiple rounds of IVF for free and both Muslim and Jewish couples take advantage of it. Israel has a low abortion rate because both Muslim and Jewish couples value children.
Given that two and one half out of three Abrahamic religions support IVF (Protestant churches that aren't involved with the political Right also do), it seems that the Court may have misread the Mind of God. It basically decided to Establish an extremist form of Christianity as the State Religion. Welcome to Saudi Arabia -- except that Saudi Arabia permits IVF. Alabama is now more extreme than Saudi Arabia. And a lot of supposed Libertarians don't seem to have a problem with it. Hypocrites.
Our own home brewed Taliban. Wonderful.
"Home brewed Taliban? "
You must be a special kind of moron to compare any religious group in the West to the Taliban.
If the suicide vest fits...
Of all the stupid moral arguments, taking a vote among religions could be the stupidest appeal to authority I’ve ever seen.
BTW, if you weight your vote by observant members of the denominations, your answer is vastly different. Left-wing protestants are not remotely half of Christians.
Congratulations.
But it would be helpful if “libertarians” actually demonstrated some actual grasp of the matter at hand.
^Here's your problem.
Ron's not a libertarian. He's a The Science! mouthpiece drumming up pro-abortion sentiment on behalf of "the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics" before an election.
Science! is the pursuit of theories hundreds of years ahead of our time such as anti gravity, exotic power supplies or powered armor. You know, mad scientists and such.
I haven't seen a single article about any Science! discoveries or theories.
Yes it is illegal in Alabama, because the destruction of embryos is a necessary part of the IVF process. Don't play us for stupid.
Ah, it's not illegal, just now the IVF clinics can be prosecuted for destroying fertilized eggs. See the difference? Very huge difference.
Slave owners and sellers should make decisions, not government.
Nah
Womb-slaves and fertility doctors should PAY-PAY-PAY when a Sacred Fartilized Egg Smell is destroyed, or rejected for being genetically defective!!! And All-Knowing Government Almighty, infinitely WISE Judges Who Can Read God's Mind, etc., shall be entrusted and empowered to decide for us all!!!!
Did you forget to take your meds again?
How can you possibly claim parents have the knowledge to determine what is best?
They don't when it comes to what should be taught in schools.
They don't when it comes to knowing if they have a son of a daughter, for Pete's sake!
Spoken like a childless deadbeat who could never find someone to love him.
Inane reply.
"The moral intuition that embryos are not people implied by these poll results reflects what research has revealed about the fraught and complex biology of uterine implantation and pregnancy. In both IVF and natural conception most embryos will not become babies. "
This "moral intuition" is a utilitarian justification that IVF logically requires that the humans produced by that method be objectified at their earliest stage of development because the technologically crude method of IVF used is easier. The moral difference is between taking an unwell person off of life support and letting nature take its course versus deliberately poisoning them. Just because they both end up with a dead patient does not mean they are ethically equivalent.
"More substantially, Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D–Ill.) is pushing for the adoption of the Right to Build Families Act that states, "No State, or official or employee of a State acting in the scope of such appointment or employment, may prohibit or unreasonably limit…any individual from accessing assisted reproductive technology.""
Well, putting the anti-federalism impulse behind this legislative proposal, it would require states to ignore the ancillary problems with reproductive technologies, like coming up with a scheme to deal with the tangle of parental rights with surrogacy that Senator Duckworth is likely too ideologically blind to see.
Well, putting the anti-federalism impulse behind this legislative proposal, it would require states to ignore the ancillary problems with reproductive technologies, like coming up with a scheme to deal with the tangle of parental rights with surrogacy that Senator Duckworth is likely too ideologically blind to see.
And this being generous by avoiding the positively intractable Orwellian Gordian Knot of anti-reproductive medicine and anti-family planning being defined as reproductive medicine and family planning… which Duckworth is almost certainly trying to exploit… because Democrats and aborto-freaks repeatedly…
Holy Shit! There’s an election of an unprecedentedly unpopular DNC candidate coming up and Ron “Science Editor” Bailey’s afactually and incorrectly parroting the DNC propaganda talking points a week after they dropped their support for the overt structured opposition candidate!
Things must be really, really bad if they’re at the point of “He’s a science correspondent in a libertarian-ish magazine.”/”I don’t care! Run the goddamned narrative, we’ve got our phony baloney jobs to worry about!”
A HUGE percentage of IVF customers want to pass on their genes, but select AGAINST Sacred Fartilized Egg Smells which are genetically DEFECTIVE, so that their son(s) and-or daughter(s) will NOT be born to endless suffering!!! THEIR "God", THEIR consciences, have told them they would rather NOT reproduce, at ALL, unless they are given this selective "out", or choice! Yet self-appointed self-righteous God's-Mind-Reading micro-managers feel TOTALLY cool with PUNISHING patients and doctors for DISCARDING the Sacred Fartilized Egg Smells that have the BAD genes for endless suffering and premature death! HOW self-righteous can micro-managing busy-body God's-Mind-Readers get, pray tell?
You are just so very boring.
You can SNOT refute twat I say, in other words, self-righteous Wonder Child! We must WORSHIT the (genetically defective) Sacred Fartilized Egg Smells, 'cause the God's-Mind-Reading Self-Righteous Theocrats SAY so!
You are not worth trying to have a reasoned debate with because your schtick beclowns your argument.
Do YOU or your wife or your girl-fiend volunteer to bring to term, the tested-genetically-defective (discarded, frozen) Sacred Fartilized Egg Smells? So that they can be still-born, or suffer and die in hours or days, post-birth? Did GOD tell you to do that? Then OBEY, please!!! But please do SNOT use your obscene "punishment boner" and Government Almighty to PUNISH-PUNISH-PUNISH those who hear a DIFFERENT God, with LESS self-righteous ears!!! PLEASE!!!
^+10
Dear Reason,
You realize that this is everyday, run of the mill sausage-making about an issue that actually deserves legislation and that your apoplexy and the way you’ve framed it essentially puts you in the position of supporting the inadvertent sterilization of women in defense of murdering babies, right? That this stance is yet another step closer to “Women have an unfettered right to abortion even if that means we have lose a few as we learn how to perform them ourselves in back alleys with coathangers.”, right?
Courts should rule according to written laws and the legislature should rewrite them or repeal them and when it comes to sterilizing women and killing babies it is a matter that mothers and fathers and people involved in the practice of medicine and anyone with morals should have a say in if not consider on a case-by-case basis. The idea that you have the issue solved better for Alabamans than they do for themselves doesn’t demonstrate any higher reasoning, intellect, or moral grasp, just your own thinly-veiled and immoral lust for power.
Go fuck yourselves you evil, unprincipled bastards.
"...immoral lust for power" belongs to the womb-slaves, NOT to those who would set them free! Go become a womb-slave, so that you can SEE, pretty PLEASE!!!
Gee, it's almost like "personhood begins at conception" has far less support once people realize the obvious consequences of what they're saying.
And how did you conceive of this idea of yours? Now that ye have conceived of it... Ye MUST bring it to term, dammit!!! Else ye are MURDERER!!!
That certainly seems true for Republicans who claim life begins at conception but who would also allow hormonal birth control and abortion up to 6, 12, or 16 weeks.
Those rascally Republicans! Not enforcing the ideological purity you wish they would enforce! Once you win an election, you'll show them how it's done!
Are you people *trying* to look like cartoon villains? It's a shame more of you haven't pulled the shotgun to your own face and shouted "Duck Season! Fire!"
There are two consistent approaches to this question. Life begins at conception and so hormonal birth control, IVF, abortion are wrong. The other is that hormonal birth control, IVF, and abortion are medical decisions between a doctor and patient and the government should not be involved. But life is sacred and so I will allow abortion before 6, 12, or weeks is totally inconsistent
There are two consistent approaches to this question.
The actual question at trial or the question you mad up in your own head? Did you ordain this number of consistent approaches or did your God hand you just the two on a stone tablet? If it’s the latter, he fucked up because you sure as hell aren’t Moses.
Once again, there are only two solutions if everyone buys the underlying premises you assert to the point of retarded equivocation about IVF, abortion, and death. Premises, assertions, and motivations that make people striving to convince others “Jesus walked on water.” seem plausible and well reasoned, if not just well-intentioned, in response.
From where I sit, it’s not just entirely feasible, not even really complicated… but explicitly set up for one court to say “A mother who doesn’t desire a child hasn’t committed a murder until the fetus’ heart beats and brain waves are detected, same as we define murder, down to the minute, for adults.” and “While an act may not criminally constitute murder, the act of robbing someone of a potential child can be considered as such based on the value of the woman or parent for remuneration purposes regardless of how or where the child was stolen/destroyed.” entirely without the invocation of God or your Ex Cathedra edicts… making both of them equally non-sequitur.
Once you move away from your own breed of secular religious zealotry, it becomes plain obvious to everyday people Christian, relgious, or other how conception is generally a joyous occasion while death is a somber one, that losing embryos and women losing the ability to reproduce is more like the latter than the former, no matter what yours or Moses’ stone tablets say. That even between the secular and the non-secular, the biological and the non-biological, the criminal and the civil, the legal and the personal, the idea that there are only consistent approaches is a hard limit imposed only by your own retardation.
Dumbass.
Well that was pretty much a rambling mess. Want to try again.
Gee, it’s almost like “personhood begins at conception” has far less support once people realize the obvious consequences of what they’re saying.
If this were true, Reason and the NYT wouldn't have to engage in deception from the headline on down by saying things like "Parents, Not the Government, Should Make IVF Decisions" when, in fact, the only reason they're reporting on the issue is because the Parents sued the IVF clinic.
Really, Dawkins and similar or more anti-relgious zealots have done Christianity a bit of a favor in demonstrating how if you have no ideals loftier than yourself and any concept of an intellect or morality greater than your own, any idiot can walk out of the woodwork, play even dumber than they already are, and make a "valid" argument against anything. Even things that people overwhelmingly reject out of their own nature because of the plain and obvious harm.
The religious hysteria (yes, aware of the word use) of the religious right regarding abortion has shut down any reasonable discussion on the topic. Now the far left is making abortion a sacrament of their own delusional religion just to piss of the right.
Both sides need to grow the fuck up.
Well for one thing, neither Judaism nor Islam accepts it.
Christians deep down don't consider either religion to be anything more that wacko cults. They are simply more vocal about the Muslims than the Jews.
The now infamous Alabama Supreme Court decision earlier this month essentially outlawing the use of in vitro fertilization (IVF)
It does no such thing.
Alabama passes a law that says those refugees from commie nations, legally or illegally invading the USA, should be severely PUNISHED for speaking their minds? Did Alabama OUTLAW Noy-Boy-Toy-Boy?!?! ... Hell no, it did NO such thing!!! All that is required, is for Noy-Boy-Toy-Boy to NOT speak the so-called "mind" of Noy-Boy-Toy-Boy!!!
(Womb slaves and fartility doctors just mindlessly OBEY the Laws of the Sacred Fartilized Egg Smells, and all will be FINE!!! Just FINE, if'n ye all just MIND!!!!)
Of course. It just makes the disposal of fertilized eggs prosecutable. It doesn't make it illegal.
Hmmm. So the gold-coins-losing bank described above, in addition to being ethically and civilly obligated to make the depositor whole, is perhaps also criminally guilty of grand theft? Sure, why not, let's just bump everything up from civil justice into criminal justice. After all, we know that there's no such thing as negligence--everything can be seen as intentional if we take deep dives into the offenders' souls.
Implantable embryos don't even slightly resemble human fetuses, let alone human children. They can't/don't do any of the things that all us after-borns regard as essential to quality of life: breathing, thinking, feeling, creating, loving, cherishing, teaching, learning, speaking, sharing, etc. But let's assume that perhaps they do visually resemble human persons to some extent but still can't do anything. In this case human cadavers would share all the same features with embryos--look like people more or less but can't do anything.
I have never ever found a convincing argument that god almighty is not a mass murderer of innocents, be they children born or unborn. How many women were pregnant at the time of the great flood? Did those women voluntarily give up the lives of their unborn children along with their own? How many pregnant women were living in Sodom or Gomorrah or Egypt or any of the dozens of places viciously vandalized by god almighty? And what about the 15-30% of all conceptions that we know for certain are lost in very early pregnancy? What kind of god almighty would set up such a sloppy system in the first place?
By the way, I guess, the IVF clinics in Alabama realize full well the court ruling applied to civil liability suits, not criminal cases. But they also know that in Alabama and everywhere else south of Cleveland the theocrats are sharpening their knives to pursue the latter as well. Jesus wept.
Thanks, Daddyhill!!! Sad but true...
You might like to read what I posted just now, right below, about what the Bible tells us all about God wanting us to KILL EVERYONE!!! Maybe one of our God's-Mind-Reading Special Theocrats can explain to us, WHY fartilized egg smells are a special exception to this?
So the gold-coins-losing bank described above, in addition to being ethically and civilly obligated to make the depositor whole, is perhaps also criminally guilty of grand theft? Sure, why not, let’s just bump everything up from civil justice into criminal justice.
You say this like A) it doesn’t already happen that the value of theft or the manner of object stole doesn’t already widely actually bump a charge up to grand theft, B) that, even if it did, embryos by their very nature wouldn’t be a valid reason to do so and C) this is what the law necessarily or intrinsically does or could do.
You know O.J. Simpson was found criminally innocent, but civilly liable of murder, right? That even though it doesn’t make a lot of sense that the two trials came to opposite conclusions, there were in fact two trials because that’s how justice systems around the world have worked for centuries right?
What kind of god almighty would set up such a sloppy system in the first place?
...
Jesus wept.
You realize your own "immaculate system" isn't even like 2 weeks old and is rather transparently (playing dumb) on the side of sterilizing these women, overturning more than 200 yrs. of Federalism and jurisprudence, and doing so in the name of murdering babies, right?
If he did weep, I can't tell if Jesus wept for the objective, secular moral harms you seek to justify, the depressingly low intellectual claims by which you justify them, or both.
Casually Mad, WHY do you want to turn ALL of the women into womb-slaves? Must they ALL be YOUR Personal womb-slaves, and do You REALLY want to make ALL of the world's babies? You personally? When humans colonize the Moon and Mars, will ALL of the babies there, also, need to be ALL Yours?
Twat about the whales in the Deep Blue seas? Will You have Your future genetic engineers finger out how to fartilize THEM with Your Sacred Seed ass well? In Your "Whales into Womb-Slaves" program? Will their EVER be an end to your Sacred Power Lust?
The South living down to the stereotype of pig ignorant Bible thumping morons. It would be depressing if it wasn't so predictable. After all, it is in the American South where one ton monuments to the ten commandments are put in front of courthouses to remind us that only Christians can expect fair treatment.
Of those ten only four regard how to treat each other and they omit any prohibitions on slavery and the mistreatment of women and children. In the same chapter of their holy book where these commandments are found there are also several bits of agricultural law and some of the most odious advise on controlling and punihing ones family. Stone the disobedient seems a popular punishment. Barbaric remnants of a past best left behind.
Parents, Not the Government, Should Make IVF Decisions
To be parents you must have a child. Your saying that parents should be able to kill their child when they want?
To those who have the enviable AWESOME Powers of Reading God's Mind, knowing WHICH exact types of clumps of cells, frozen or not... Hey, I have noticed that HUMANS tend to believe that HUMAN clumps of cells have souls, butt few humans EVER cry about killing fartilized whale smells, ape smells, dog smells... I wonder if the whales believe that God gives THEIR fartilized egg smells special souls, and humans are just like whale poop to them? I think it's a good question to ponder. Could You please read God's mind, and tell me what God thinks about that?
Anyway, those of You who tell God who He is, instead of vice versa, especially you Bible-worshitters... "Your" (sic, you're) saying that GOD WANTS US TO KILL EVERYONE?!?!
God COMMANDS us to kill EVERYONE!
Our that them thar VALUES of society outta come from that them thar HOLY BIBLE, and if ya read it right, it actually says that God wants us to KILL EVERYBODY!!! Follow me through now: No one is righteous, NONE (Romans 3:10). Therefore, ALL must have done at least one thing bad, since they’d be righteous, had they never done anything bad. Well, maybe they haven’t actually DONE evil, maybe they THOUGHT something bad (Matt. 5:28, thoughts can be sins). In any case, they must’ve broken SOME commandment, in thinking or acting, or else they'd be righteous. James 2:10 tells us that if we've broken ANY commandment, we broke them ALL. Now we can’t weasel out of this by saying that the New Testament has replaced the Old Testament, because Christ said that he’s come to fulfill the old law, not to destroy it (Matt. 5:17). So we MUST conclude that all are guilty of everything. And the Old Testament lists many capital offenses! There’s working on Sunday. There’s also making sacrifices to, or worshipping, the wrong God (Exodus 22:20, Deut. 17:2-5), or even showing contempt for the Lord’s priests or judges (Deut. 17:12). All are guilty of everything, including the capital offenses. OK, so now we’re finally there... God’s Word COMMANDS us such that we’ve got to kill EVERYBODY!!!
(I am still looking for that special exception clause for me & my friends & family… I am sure that I will find it soon!)
No. I am saying that to bring the government camel all the way into the tent and offer it tea is idiocy of the highest order. Only an adherent to a bronze age religion founded by syphalitic goat herders telling tales around the campfire could think that demanding government intrude into matters of the womb could be a good idea.
The Republican attitude to the health care of women is probably the most glaring anti-libertarian idea in todays politics. They simply can not stand back and allow people and doctors to make personal decisions.
It's funny how you guys, for years now, have said things like "Independents express overwhelming support for opposition to the two parties." only to, at the time of election, fail to accumulate even 5% support. Then go on to say "Republicans demonize liberalism", "Christian Conservatives ban free speech", "Vibenomics explains recession that didn't happen...
It's almost like admitting that you aren't the sole arbiters of all of human morality and then dictating peoples morals to them and using liberalism, libertarianism, and progressivism as a Motte-and-Bailey stalking horses for your own agendas isn't the winning or even effective formula you think it is and when people see you say things like "The Republican attitude to the health care of women is probably the most glaring anti-libertarian idea" the realize that it's a statement not about Republicans, but how you couldn't find a libertarian idea one way or the other any more than you could find your own ass with two hands.
OK, Casually Mad, You have now persuaded ALL of us that ALL HUMAN women should be Your womb-slaves!!! Well done, Sir!!!
(We can worry about all of the apes, the whales, the dugongs, the manatees, etc., later. There's ALWAYS another challenge!)
The Libertarian view is most often the one that reduces government interfearance and increases individual liberty. Which is why, while it is personally distateful for many, we cannot ask the government to preserve every potential life beause of the intrusions that preservation would require.
To actually stop a woman from early termination of a pregnancy you would have to create the most Orwellian governmental agency in the history of the world.
This terrifying agency would have to be aware of the results of every pregnancy test and then, for those that are positive, track every movement of the preganat woman to insure, in the case of a miscarriage, that she did not take any actions that may have endangered the welfare of her unborn child.
That means requiring her to attend routine doctor visits and have blood tests done to insure the woman's body is doing everything it needs to do for a baby to devlop. If tests indicate problems she would be required to take the proper suppliments both nutritional and hormonal.
Urine and hair samples would be required to insure no hazardous substances are entering the woman's body. Many substances have the "do not use if you are pregnant or trying to become pregnant." because they can endanger the developing chld.
In the case of women near the poverty line without health insurance these medical treatments and required dietary adjustments would have to be paid at taxpayer expense because we don't want that baby dying because the woman cant afford the prenatal diet, medications and doctor visits.
Now, as I said Libertarians don't want to see that kind of government overeach because it conflicts with our central ideas. Those ideals lead us to seek an end to the War on (Some) Drugs because of the horendous intrusiveness of all levels of government into people's lives. Another point where Conservatives tend to break with us. They are fine with that level of intrusiveness in the name of battleing sin or whatever it is you think using certain drugs recreationally falls under.
So yes, your attitudes on abortion are the thing that keeps a lot of Libertarians from seeing Republicans as a viable alternative to Democrats. Want our votes? Be the real party of smaller government and individual liberty instead of the one that tosses all that aside the moment you think someone is sinning.
It is odd how a party that claims to be small government goes all nanny state when abortion, education and drugs are brought up.
Can you imagine how intrusive government would have to get to insure no preganant woman terminated her pregnancy? It would make the Drug War look like a playground game of cops and robbers.
I want to know where in their precious holy book abortion is prohibited? Is it in the part that tells us slavery is a good thing? The part where genocide is lauded? The many parts where women are considered as property?
Every time the topic comes up I flash to The Meaning of Life and the song, "Every Sperm is Sacred".
Thanks MrMxyzptlk!!!
See my post above about…
God COMMANDS us to kill EVERYONE! … (The Bible TELLS us so!)
The entry point to the above-listed Deep Biblical Analysis is…
No one is righteous, NONE (Romans 3:10).
That means that NOT EVEN THE SACRED FARTILIZED EGG SMELLS are righteous! NO exception was listed for egg smells, fartuses, etc.! And if you follow the rest of the Biblical-literalness LOGICAL argument laid out above, then the Bible actually commands us to KILL said Sacred Fartilized Egg Smells!!!
WHERE are the Biblical literalists when we desperately NEED them?!?!
True, those who do not belong to the tribe are to die. Odds are those seeking an abortion are not "real" Christians so the Religious Right should want not only those women dead but their offspring as well. Unless of course the offspring is female so they can be taken as slaves.
Big Government for the win!
It is interesting that in your comment you never mention "abortion" or anything about the human life that is killed.
That is a clear "tell" as the poker players say, that you want to hide your own argument behind euphemisms.
What, you want him to list everything that falls under the umbrella of Woman's Healthcare? There's a lot of really gross shit in those clinics. I know, I used to do janitorial for a number of medical facilities.
To ban abortion you would need to interfere in a wide range of women's health services. Not just the limited scope of the actual abortion services.
Broadly speaking:
To libertarians, liberty is a birthright of all human beings. It does not have to be justified or earned, we all have it by virtue of existing.
But:
To the left, liberty is not a birthright, it is a utilitarian device to promote the most good while preventing the most harm. So we have the "liberty" of free speech but only if the speech does not cause more harm than good. Same with abortion. We have the "liberty" of abortion only because (to them) it does not cause more harm than good.
To the right, liberty is not a birthright, it must be earned by moral people doing moral things. So we have the "liberty" of free speech only if moral people are saying moral things - if they are immoral people saying immoral things, like with porn, or discussing communism, then those rights go out the window. Same goes with abortion. To them, we don't have the liberty to get an abortion because it's an immoral act (killing a baby) being conducted by immoral people (sluts who can't keep their legs closed).
Fundamentally that is why libertarians can not trust either Team Red nor Team Blue. Neither one is fully committed to the idea that liberty is a birthright. They both place conditions on it.
Good job Chemjeff!!!
(Just one quick question though... Are you by any chance related to SpermJeff Radical Pornist, born in the back of a rock and roll car? He's Spermy Daniels's son, ass I understand. Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course.)
Oh gee, individual rights mean nothing when the Right wants to impose its religious notions on others, but when their individual rights are limited, they become enraged.
Yeah, par for the course.
Fucking religious nuts. But they will have to change or their churches will lose even more members than they already are. Look at how much of their Bible they don't take seriously. All of the old testament except for the ten commandments, only 4 of which dictate how we treat each other. A healthy amount of the pro slavery and misogyny of the new testament has been tossed on the scrap heap. Soon their god of the margins will only dictate they be excellent to each other. That day can't come soon enough.
This could be rare opportunity.
Accepting an embryo as a “viable” living human being is not bad. This suggests they accept the notion that the embryo has potential to become a legal person.
If people were unilaterally opposed to an embryo being an human form of life, then businesses such as this could never hope to get off the ground under public license and could be driven underground and lumped in with criminal activities such as organ harvesting of abductees (ouch!)
You do not want government first telling you that embryos are not human in one breath then in the next halting business activities that aim to help couples procreate by involving third party services. No, there could by that sorry rationale be a risk of denying rights to those legally entitled to make contracts.
Even a corpse were ‘human’ and a form of human life because some corpses can be used to transplant ‘viable’ organs into living bodies, as loath as I am to encourage any such thing at an inappropriate expense anyways. Its DNA may also further be used to create new life, although I do not know if it can be.
The Alabama law is an Alabama law not a national law. The opinions and statistics contained in you article are national, not relevant to the state of Alabama. Perhaps the people of Alabama are happy with the law. I am curious about you motives for excluding relevant Alabama date and including irrelevant national data.
The First Amendment doesn't matter whether people are happy with it or not. In Judaism it is a commandment from God to have children if one can. IVF allows it for couples not otherwise able. The United States Supreme Court needs to overturn this decision on First Amendment grounds. Even if every Christian voter in Alabama will be upset.
There is no commandment in Judaism to have IVF. Silly. Absurd.
Oh come on. It's not just the cross cultists that pick, chose and interpret passages from their holy book. The Jews cant follow the bronze aged Torah exactly in this modern age anymore than the cross cultists can follow their New Testaments exactly. Both belong to bygone ages and require a lot of interpretation to be of any value in this modern age.
It would be helpful if you would address the legal, not the policy, issues in the Alabama case. I've read all the opinions, and while I think the dissent makes the better argument, reasonable people can--and did--differ. The court's opinion did not ban or limit access to IVF, but it created conditions under which clinics decided they did not want to continue to do business.
This is a matter for the Alabama legislature to address, as it is (surprisingly) doing. Congress need not interfere, and in any event, the language quoted from Sen. Duckworth's bill would not solve the problem. Under the court's opinion, no government employee has acted to "prohibit or unreasonably limit…any individual from accessing assisted reproductive technology." Any limitation on access to IVF has been implemented by the private clinics. Given the potential liability of employees of any public clinics, it would be difficult to credibly argue that shutting down IVF services is unreasonable.
Parents, Not the Government, Should Make IVF Decisions
No, actually, this is one of those places where the Government should step in.
If the parents decided to load up all their kids in the station wagon and drive it into a lake to drown them all, one would hope that the government does something to stop them. Or at least hold them accountable for it.
test
Intergalactic Despotism from Uranus!