The IVF community is reeling from a new Alabama court decision that embryos created during the in-vitro fertilization process are "extrauterine children" and legally protected like any other child.
IVF advocates say the ruling by the Alabama Supreme Court could have far-reaching consequences for millions of Americans struggling to get pregnant, especially those living in states with "personhood" laws granting legal status to unborn children.
The court's ruling repeatedly invoked Christian faith and the Alabama constitution, which specifically protects unborn children,
although that has typically referred to a developing baby inside a womb.
IVF advocates have been warning for several years that such decisions were a potential repercussion of the U.S. Supreme Court's 2022 decision to overturn Roe vs. Wade and permit states to ban abortions. The federal Department of Health and Human Services estimated in 2020 that there were at least 600,000 frozen embryos in storage nationwide; the National Embryo Donation Center said the number could be 1 million. .. ..
^^text contnues ..
Return to the sanctity of human life.
The numbers involved in these decisions are mind-boggling, and should be.
2022:
Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe v. Wade
Posted: Tue Feb 27, 2024 7:20 pm
by Neto
I read this BBC article this morning, about the controversy stirred up by the Alabama ruling.
Global perspectives on the Alabama ruling, IVF and when cells become a person
eccentric_rambler wrote: ↑Thu Feb 15, 2024 2:43 pm
Thanks. I realize now it sounds like I was questioning your position. I was curious whether the cells are used in production or testing, which you answered. Monoclonal? Please don't tell me the biologic I am on for an autoimmune disorder might be suspect.
I’m not offended. I assumed it was a serious question.
Monoclonal therapy doesn’t always use it but the majority of biologics use for some aspect of it, either research such as with the mouse chimera, safety trials or productions. Some are not so it would depend. If you want, I can look for you or you can look yourself and I can offer suggestions as to where you need to look. Or you can not look. I don’t judge you either way.
I’ve made exceptions for my children in regard to life saving measures… a dead child for a living child I can’t make that choice for them…
My conviction is that I would rather die of rabies then receive a compromised vaccine. There is an ethical one in Canada though.
In response to Judas, I won’t administer things produced if I’m aware of it.
There are many fields I cannot work in but this is the direction all medical fields are heading in, abortion derived medicine.
The public is being misled and used on a for-profit grand scale.
The scale of abortions and other wasted human life is mind-boggling.
Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe v. Wade
Posted: Sat Mar 02, 2024 9:51 am
by barnhart
Neto wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2024 7:20 pm
I read this BBC article this morning, about the controversy stirred up by the Alabama ruling.
Global perspectives on the Alabama ruling, IVF and when cells become a person
This is interesting Neto. It reveals some divisions in the prolife community. It seems the value of an embryo is somewhat dependent on the feelings of the parents. If the biological parents destroy an embryo because they don't want to embrace parenthood, this wrong but if multiple embryos are created and destroyed through the IVF process, this is acceptable because the heart of the parents is for parenthood. This seems like an insufficient position on the personhood of the unborn.
This is interesting Neto. It reveals some divisions in the prolife community. It seems the value of an embryo is somewhat dependent on the feelings of the parents. If the biological parents destroy an embryo because they don't want to embrace parenthood, this wrong but if multiple embryos are created and destroyed through the IVF process, this is acceptable because the heart of the parents is for parenthood. This seems like an insufficient position on the personhood of the unborn.
I would agree and that’s why I’m opposed to IVF
Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe v. Wade
Posted: Sat Mar 02, 2024 10:10 am
by Josh
The idea that it's okay to stuff a human baby into a freezer until some day it is unceremoniously tossed in a rubbish tin is one of the more disturbing artefacts of the modern era.
Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe v. Wade
Posted: Sat Mar 02, 2024 10:26 am
by barnhart
Soloist wrote: ↑Sat Mar 02, 2024 9:58 am
I would agree and that’s why I’m opposed to IVF
I have been suspicious as well. If carried to logical conclusions, this train of reasoning may have other implications. If the destruction of un-implanted embryos is the termination of human life, what does that mean for sexual intercourse where many (most?) embryos do not implant.
Soloist wrote: ↑Sat Mar 02, 2024 9:58 am
I would agree and that’s why I’m opposed to IVF
I have been suspicious as well. If carried to logical conclusions, this train of reasoning may have other implications. If the destruction of un-implanted embryos is the termination of human life, what does that mean for sexual intercourse where many (most?) embryos do not implant.
The different is that one process was designed and ordained by God and nature to work that way, and the other works against nature.
Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe v. Wade
Posted: Sat Mar 02, 2024 10:35 am
by Szdfan
Neto wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2024 7:20 pm
I read this BBC article this morning, about the controversy stirred up by the Alabama ruling.
Global perspectives on the Alabama ruling, IVF and when cells become a person