Proposed bill on IVF regulations

Casey Palmer5 said:Honey, I really think it’s high time you took a deeper look at your faith—because clearly, you haven't quite grasped it yet.

The Church prohibits the use of contraceptive pills; those medications aren't intended for tracking fertile and infertile windows. For that purpose, the Church advocates for the Billingsov method.

I realize you might not be an expert on what contraceptive pills actually are or how they function—since that isn't your field—but as a practicing Catholic, you really ought to know which methods the Church permits and which it doesn't.

Look, the Church doesn't approve of using contraception if the goal is to end or prevent conception.
Two years ago, my cousin was struggling to get pregnant, and her doctor prescribed her some medication because her cycle was completely irregular.
And those were contraceptives. She asked me to check with a priest...
So, I went to our local friar to see what the deal was, and he told me it's perfectly acceptable if the intention is specifically that—regulating the cycle so the couple can be more active during their fertile windows to actually conceive a child...

Well, two years later, we have a beautiful boy. His name is Ante.
I understand that contraception is against preventing pregnancy, but it's also used to establish a regular cycle.
So, maybe go do some digging yourself.

ruggedcanyon8 said:

Look, no offense intended, but judging by your contributions to this thread, none of those points actually hold water. Everything you’re putting out there just sounds like religious fanaticism to me—nothing more, nothing less. Ende

They aren't—it's just that you're looking at what you call my "religious fanaticism" through a pretty narrow lens. Maybe some things are getting lost in translation...
If there's something you don't quite grasp, just ask instead of jumping to conclusions...

There might be things you're unaware of, and frankly, it's about time you learned them.

slyscout192 said:What exactly is supposed to be this assisted reproduction thing?

Look, that’s exactly where your whole argument falls apart. You don't actually understand the medical implications of IVF. And honestly, that isn't even the biggest issue, because there are plenty of resources out there explaining both the science and how this Law impacts the IVF process. The real issue is that you're acting like you're an expert on it, throwing around arguments as if our only struggle here is marriage or some legal paperwork...

See, it's a complicated procedure where a woman is stimulated with hormones to produce eggs. It isn't easy, it's incredibly painful, and it can lead to serious health complications. When you have to undergo this multiple times—which is exactly what this law will force people to do—it directly harms women's health. Why? Because the law explicitly forbids using the standard methods used in most of the developed world. Basically, the law mandates an experimental and currently ineffective method. So, despite all the pain, the physical risks, and the massive financial hit, you're left with an inefficient process. Under the laws from the last century, all of this would have been permitted...

slyscout192 said:The only thing I see bothering people is that it prevents those who aren't married—or in domestic partnerships—from using assisted conception.

Well, if that's such a huge deal, and if marriage is just a piece of paper (which some think, though to me it's much more), why don't you just get married and call it a day? Problem solved, right?

Isn't it in the interest of the state and every community to protect little ones?
Aren't they being protected by ensuring they are born into a marriage?
Who exactly are you trying to protect in this scenario?

I agree that marital status doesn't determine what kind of person a child will grow up to be, but if you choose to marry specifically for the sake of a child, you aren't going to become a bad person just because of that marriage...

It is the government's job to protect the interests of all its citizens, especially children. But this law undermines the protection of its citizens, and not for the benefit of any living being—it's purely harmful. A child doesn't care which specific IVF method is used; they will either be born or they won't. And we shouldn't let someone like Milinović turn Americans into lab rats for his experiments...

Personally, I have absolutely no issue with adoption or raising children who don't share my DNA... Honestly, I see it as an incredibly compassionate thing to do, and it's something I truly intend to do. I am fully prepared to embrace and love an adopted child just as much as if they were my own flesh and blood. BUT, at the same time, I also want my own biological child—a child that carries my genetic legacy and is a literal part of me.

slyscout192 said:The church doesn't approve of using contraception if the goal is to prevent conception.
About two years ago, my cousin was having a really hard time getting pregnant, so her doctor prescribed some pills. Her cycle had just completely disappeared.
Turns out, those were contraceptives. She asked me to check with a priest to see what the deal was...
So, I went and talked to our local priest about the specifics, and he told me it’s actually allowed if the whole point is to regulate her cycle—essentially helping the couple time things better so they can actually conceive...

And look at him now, a beautiful boy. His name is Ante.
I know people say birth control is meant to stop pregnancy, but sometimes it’s used just to get a regular cycle back on track.
You should really go check for yourself.

I really hope your cousin wasn't being intimate while she was on those pills. If she was, that's considered a mortal sin. Beyond just stopping ovulation, birth control pills are thought to destroy an embryo in its earliest stages. I'm sure the priest mentioned that to you, too.

I don't even need to double-check; I've got an A in OB-GYN written right in my transcript.

slyscout192 said:It's me, the husband here.
....
We all understand what IVF entails and the deep emotional toll it can take on a woman. Forcing such a process is certainly not an option I would support, nor do I believe it should be encouraged.

I suspect the greater trauma actually lies with the woman who desperately wants children but cannot conceive—whether due to biological hurdles, being single, or any other circumstance—rather than the woman who has the opportunity but must endure the rigors of assisted reproduction. I truly hope that, in the end, she finds success.🙂

slyscout192 said:Regarding gay couples, I feel that adoption is a wonderful path for them, especially since they won't be attempting to alter the sexual orientation of the child they raise.
It seems much better for a child to have two fathers or two mothers than to grow up without a stable family structure.

Regarding this point, I can say quite freely that I am in complete agreement.

Carol Scott98 said:you have to realize that not all women are cut out for adoption. I’m definitely on board with it, but many aren't. It isn't just because they want to, as you put it, "feel that little miracle in their womb"—it's also because they're afraid of what they might get, or they're wary of someone else's genes... it sounds a bit ugly, but everyone wants to have a child, and primarily, their own...
and you can't go attacking others just because they think differently. No one was attacking you, yet here you are, already acting defensive... I don't see the point. 🤷 State your opinion, sure, but there's no reason for a fight. If you don't support the law, then it doesn't really affect you since you aren't planning on having biological children anyway—you're looking at adoption. So don't lecture others on what they should or shouldn't support. Everyone is entitled to their own view.
Personally, I find the law repulsive and I don't support it; I believe one single individual in this country shouldn't have the power to decide the fate of thousands of people(primarily the women struggling with infertility and their partners)!!!

And there it is—the perfect answer and proof for everything I've ever written...
You say it sounds "ugly"... You know what it actually sounds like?

It sounds fascist and racist...
And I support the law. Precisely because of people who think the way you do.
I mean, if we were all only about having our own biological kids, wouldn't we all just be hermaphrodites?

Good grief, if they want children, let them get married (civilly, not in a church—are you even reading what I'm writing?) What does a piece of paper mean to a kid when they're more worried about the church anyway...

How can anyone find a law "repulsive"? It's just words on a page.
It's something else you're repulsed by, you just can't admit it to yourself.
Milinović didn't just invent this law out of thin air... He simply gave it form. He isn't deciding everything on his own, either. So how do you justify that logic? If these were actual dictatorships, would the American people still be voting them in?

And as for what you said regarding women and their partners...

Now I finally see through to the bottom of this...

You people just want to hand-pick who the father will be...
Are you all out of your minds?
What kind of sickness is this, being unable to accept what nature provides...
You clearly lack the strength or the luck in life to just accept a tiny human, no matter where they came from...

But no, according to you, that child has to be some kind of Superman, right?
My God, the mindset... 👎

I have a colleague whose mother picked his father out for him; he fathered a child with her, and then she married someone else...

And look at her now—sipping beer, lying naked on the bed while guests arrive, her husband is doing the dishes while she yells at everyone...
And with that second guy, she can't even have kids.

slyscout192 said:Good grief, if they’re actually serious about having kids, they should just go ahead and get married—and I mean a civil ceremony, not some big church wedding. Are you even listening to what I'm saying? What does that piece of paper really matter to a kid when their parents clearly care more about church traditions than anything else...

Look, I think you’re missing the point entirely. You seem to think our issue is with the marriage itself, or the fact that they aren't legally wed... but that's not it at all. That isn't even the core of the problem...

The real issue here is that this new law basically bans us from performing IVF the way we always have—the way it’s done in every other developed nation out there. The current method actually works; it gives people a real fighting chance. But the experimental approach they’re forcing on us now? It just leads to lower success rates, more physical pain, higher health risks, and much higher costs...

Look, everyone knows about Mengele and those horrific experiments he ran on people. I think we can all agree that performing medical procedures that yield subpar results is just wrong. If we're going to rely on medicine and pay for these services, shouldn't we expect access to all the top-tier breakthroughs available in the world today?...

Casey Palmer5 said:I just hope your cousin wasn't being active while she was on birth control. If she was—well, we’re talking about a mortal sin here. Beyond just stopping ovulation, those pills essentially destroy an embryo in its earliest stages. I assume her priest made sure to mention that.

I don't even need to double-check—it's right there in the textbook, a solid A grade in OB-GYN.

Here is how a priest explained it to me...

The truth is, people originally developed these "contraceptive" pills primarily to regulate menstrual cycles.
But then they turned out to be effective for contraception too, so that became their label and their main use.

One thing is certain, though: without them, she wouldn't have gotten pregnant, but with them, she did.
It's pretty simple, really.

slyscout192 said:The priest told me it’s like this...

Birth control pills were originally developed specifically to help regulate cycles.
But they turned out to be effective at preventing pregnancy too, so that's how they got their name and their main reputation.

One thing is for sure: without them, she wouldn't have gotten pregnant, but with them, she did.
That should be enough common sense for anyone...

Look, just listen to your priest and everything will be fine. It's like something straight out of a TV show.

Why don't we let the people who actually went to medical school do their jobs?

Because if priests start trying to dictate medical professions, things are going to go south fast. Not for Catholics, not for non-Catholics. Honestly, just let us non-Catholics handle our own healthcare, and you guys can go see your priests for your medical advice if you want...

Casey Palmer5 said:Look, that’s where you’re fundamentally missing the point. You seem to think our issue is with the marriage itself—or the lack thereof. It isn't. That’s not the core of it at all.

The real issue is that this specific law effectively bans performing IVF in the way it has always been done—the way it's done in every other functional country. The old way actually works. The experimental method they’ve mandated here produces subpar results while simultaneously increasing pain, health risks, and costs.

I mean, come on—Mengele was infamous for his horrific human experimentation. Surely you can agree that subjecting people to medical procedures that yield inferior outcomes is wrong? If we are paying for medical services, shouldn't we expect access to the same standard of care and advancements available anywhere else in the world?

Can you actually back this up with anything substantive, rather than just throwing around empty platitudes that sound deep but lack substance?
Because you haven't proven a single thing here.

If you're such an expert, have you actually tried anything? Please—give me a legitimate source instead of more rhetoric—something backed by actual physician statements.
Otherwise, this is just public manipulation. Or maybe you're just being manipulated yourself.

Casey Palmer5 said:Just listen to your priest and everything will turn out fine. It’ll be just like some TV show.

Just let the people who actually spent years studying medicine do their jobs.

Because if priests start dictating how we practice a profession, things aren't going to end well—not for Catholics, and certainly not for non-Catholics. Or, better yet, just let us non-Catholics handle our own medical care while you lot go see the priest for your healing.

And what, there aren't any doctors who are believers? Or priests who are doctors? Or nurses who are religious?
Don't they know how to read just as well as you do?
Are there really no scientist-priests out there?

Throughout all of history, they were the ones founding schools and universities...
And here you are, questioning their knowledge...

What exactly are you talking about?
Are you actually studying medicine, or are you just pretending to know something?

slyscout192 said:I find myself in agreement with the legislation.

First, let me offer an apology—I really should have phrased that as "if you support the law, then it doesn't apply to you." That was my mistake, and I certainly didn't mean to come across as being overly defensive. It’s just that my reaction was somewhat reflexive, mostly because I personally do not support this legislation at all.

slyscout192 said:I sometimes find myself wondering how one could possibly feel such deep resentment toward the law. It is merely ink on a page.

You really have to learn how to read between the lines.
I truly believe in the sanctity of marriage. However, I realize that not everyone shares that conviction, and to some, a marriage certificate is nothing more than a legal formality, much like how some view the law itself. Ultimately, we cannot impose our own definitions of right and wrong onto others.

slyscout192 said:And how would you say that women and their partners typically describe things?
I think I finally understand everything now...
I sometimes find myself wondering if you all would actually have a preference when it comes to choosing who the father should be...
I have to wonder if everyone here has truly lost their sense of reason.
I find myself wondering what kind of sickness must possess a person to be unable to accept the simple gifts that nature provides us.
It seems you simply lack the inner strength or perhaps even the luck required to embrace even the smallest gesture, no matter how insignificant it might appear to others.

It’s only natural that you would want to choose your own partner. From an evolutionary standpoint, we are fundamentally wired to be selective if we want our lineage to survive. Historically, women have gravitated toward strong men who can provide security and stability, while men tend to seek out young, healthy partners as a sign of fertility.
Please, try not to get hung up on my every single word; instead, I wish you would just look at the broader context of what I am saying. It feels as though you have become so preoccupied with defending yourself that you are twisting every little thing I say to suit your own narrative. You’ve written such an exhaustive amount of text that I suspect even you have lost the thread, and frankly, I doubt anyone else is reading these posts anymore because the core message has been buried under so much noise. It seems you came here looking for a fight rather than simply sharing an opinion.

slyscout192 said:I have this colleague of mine whose mother essentially handpicked his father for her; she had a child with one man, only to end up marrying someone else entirely.
There she is, just lounging around naked on the bed while her guests arrive, while her husband is stuck doing all the dishes and she’s just there shouting orders at him.
And even with that other individual, having children just isn't an option.

It’s impossible to make broad generalizations. These things can happen to anyone, really. I’ve even seen couples who seemed to function perfectly together only to eventually drift apart. There is no sense in trying to predict anyone's fate.

Check this out It's pretty eye-opening...

I feel like this has drifted quite a bit from our original topic... 🙂

slyscout192 said:Wait, aren't there doctors who are believers? Or priests who are doctors? Or nurses who are doctors?
Don't they know how to read just as well as you do?
Aren't there scientist priests out there too?

There are plenty of people like that. It’s just that they don't undergo IVF. My faith won't allow it.

Other people do it. And if they're going to go through with it—they should do it right, instead of experimenting on the health of American women.

Or is it that it doesn't matter if we aren't Catholic? Is it our fault for choosing such an ungodly path...

Personally, I don't feel the need to force anything in my life. And if we're being honest, lately, I've just been leaning into being a widow...

Carol Scott98 said:First off, my apologies—I should have specified that IF you support the law, then it doesn't apply to you. That was my mistake; I was being a bit too impulsive. It’s obvious why I reacted that way—because I DO NOT SUPPORT THIS LAW!!!!!

Read between the lines, for heaven's sake!!!!!!!!!!!

Of course you want to choose your own partner!!!!!!! It’s hardwired into our DNA for the sake of species survival!!! Women gravitate toward strong men who can provide protection and resources, while men look for young, attractive women who signal fertility!
And please, stop nitpicking every single word I say and try looking at the context instead!! You seem so preoccupied with defending yourself that you twist every sentence to suit your own narrative!! You've written such a massive wall of text that even you probably lost the thread, and frankly, nobody else is reading it anymore because there's just no point... you came here to pick a fight, not to actually share an opinion.

You can't make sweeping generalizations. Life happens to everyone. There are plenty of couples who functioned perfectly fine and yet... they fell apart. We won't get into individual destinies here....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFQlZht2DU4

It seems like Sparta was the pinnacle of civilization to you people, given how they used to toss their infants off cliffs...

Casey Palmer5 said:http://www.fda.gov/publications/mpo_information.pdf

http://www.nytimes.com/news/medical_updates/article_link

👍

Honestly, I think everyone on this forum is a bit of a masochist for spending so much energy dissecting arguments and bickering with an idiot. It’s exhausting. We’re all sitting here wading through these rambling, endless walls of text instead of actually having a productive conversation about that new tax reform bill.

Casey Palmer5 said:

The point here isn't whether IVF is essentially synonymous with abortion—we aren't debating that. I’m trying to actually stay on topic.

"If the current proposed legislation regarding assisted reproduction were to be passed, it would inflict massive damage on America—on its entire population, the medical community, and especially on couples who rely on medicine to fulfill their desire to have children, according to American experts. They are convinced this approach will undermine the success rates of medically assisted fertility treatments in the US, forcing couples facing infertility to seek help at foreign clinics instead. More details here..."

And there we go again with the empty platitudes... just because something is in bold doesn't make it an empirical fact.
What a "stellar" scientific article this turned out to be.
Except it’s not even a real article, let alone a scientific one.