Proposed bill on IVF regulations

Angela Wright · 2009-07-13T13:00:35+00:00

This might be more suited for a legal forum or a pregnancy group, but it hits right at the heart of women’s healthcare. I just can't sit here by myself without…

Casey Palmer5 Regular

470 messages
joined Jan 2016

#101 · Jul 20, 2009

That’s irrelevant to what we’re actually talking about here.
Goodnight, everyone. I’m seriously heading out now—I mean, who’s actually going to get up and get to work tomorrow if I stay up? Go head to bed with your loved one and just enjoy the fact that you have each other... Live in the moment and don't waste your precious time on arguments that aren't going anywhere.

feralwolf30 Newcomer

1 message
joined Jul 2009

#102 · Jul 20, 2009

Was God busy making love to Mary in bed when Jesus was conceived? Is that really what some random slut is looking for?

I honestly feel sick reading these comments—people offering their "advice" while someone else is suffering.

feralwolf30 Newcomer

1 message
joined Jul 2009

#103 · Jul 20, 2009

Carol Scott98 said:Okay, look... at this point, we aren't even talking about the actual law anymore. It’s just turned into a contest of who can throw more arguments—smart or stupid—at the other person to try and shut them down. Honestly, it feels like it’s becoming more about personal attacks than anything else.
Defense mechanisms have always been the ultimate weapon in these debates. Just look at slyscout192; they’re the perfect example. Anyway, I’m tapping out... my psychologist is on vacation and deserves a break from my nonsense. Please direct all further inquiries to the person on call.... 😉

👍

Angela Wright RegularOP

731 messages
joined Feb 2007

#104 · Jul 20, 2009

slyscout192 said:Where is all this intense, built-up hatred coming from?

Hatred? No, what those of us with a healthy perspective call tuning out. Tuning out is a beautiful thing; it's a pure expression of a free spirit. It’s actually essential if you want to prevent actual hatred from festering. There’s this incredibly honest song by N/A that hits right on this note. I highly recommend it—maybe it would help you step away from that sacred, God-centered contemplation for a second and realize that secular, grounded reality is a completely different beast.

Right now, I’m just feeling utterly exhausted by how you’re flooding this entire thread with religious dogma that has zero relevance to the issue at hand. Honestly, I’m even surprised by my own stubbornness and the sheer audacity I have to jump into a debate about something you clearly don't understand at all.

Douglas Green31 Member

36 messages
joined Apr 2008

#105 · Jul 20, 2009

Man, this discussion has gone completely off the rails.
If someone is religious, they should just live by their own principles and leave it at that.
Laws shouldn't be based on church interpretations, and what does God or the Church have to do with whether a specific law is actually good or not?
The topic here is a specific piece of legislation, not IVF.
You can't force your views on people just because we live in a "Christian nation."
People are conflating things that have absolutely nothing to do with one another.

Besides, this law wasn't even passed based on church doctrine, because if it were, IVF would be banned entirely.
In my opinion, this whole mess regarding the marriage certificate is some kind of compromise since they can't fully ban it.
That makes the entire law a massive exercise in hypocrisy and discrimination.

I honestly don't get people who feel the need to shove their beliefs down everyone else's throats; you see it on both sides of the aisle.

What do Bible quotes or mentions of God and the Church mean to me when I'm not a believer? And why force those views on people who simply don't hold them—which they have every right to do?
Then there's Spike's comment about "you'll see when you can't have kids... etc."

To be clear, I personally would never undergo assisted reproduction and would rather not have children at all, but that is my own choice alone. To me, a child isn't worth going through that kind of torture.
However, I absolutely support couples who want to have a child through those methods.
What's wrong with that stance? At least I'm being fair and I'm not imposing anything on anyone.

feralwolf30 Newcomer

1 message
joined Jul 2009

#106 · Jul 20, 2009

Personally, I would never subject myself to IVF. I’d honestly rather not have kids at all, but that’s just my own personal choice. To me, a child simply isn't worth going through that kind of torture.
OTE]

...what on earth are you talking about at the end there? What "torture" is a child undergoing???
You probably meant to say that a child isn't worth the torture *you* might have to endure. 😕😕

Kyle Lee7 Active Member

149 messages
joined Nov 2007

#107 · Jul 20, 2009

feralwolf30 said:It honestly feels like everyone on this forum is some kind of masochist if you enjoy dissecting arguments and fighting with an idiot, especially when we have to wade through these rambling, mile-long posts instead of actually having a decent discussion about that ridiculous bill.

That is exactly my point. Honestly, just ignore her; she’s just posting nonsense to feed off your attention and replies. Don't we all have better things to do than try to outsmart someone who is capable of writing something like that in the first place?

She seems genuinely unwell herself—I wouldn't be surprised if she's on medication—so perhaps she should consider whether her twisted version of "logic" is actually stepping into God's business. Based on her reasoning, "if God wanted you to have children, you'd be fertile," so by that logic: if God wanted you to be healthy, you would be, and we could just skip the doctors and all medical treatment entirely. Just stay home and wait for divine will, right?

Kyle Lee7 Active Member

149 messages
joined Nov 2007

#108 · Jul 20, 2009

And we just found out that the famous sea slug—which, let's be honest, nobody can even pronounce correctly—is actually... slyscout192And just like that, he’s claiming to be a man. Honestly, if this were just some attempt at trolling, I could at least find it funny, but as it stands, it’s just plain pathetic.

Douglas Green31 Member

36 messages
joined Apr 2008

#109 · Jul 20, 2009

feralwolf30;21648684 said:
You probably meant to say that a child isn't worth whatever torture you might end up going through. 😕😕

Exactly.
And just like I said, that’s my personal stance, not some universal rule.

Yeah, I'm selfish. So be it. At least I'm honest enough to admit it to myself and everyone else.

feralwolf30 Newcomer

1 message
joined Jul 2009

#110 · Jul 20, 2009

Carol Brooks41;21649048 said:
feralwolf30 said:Exactly.
And just to be crystal clear, I was talking about my own personal stance here, not making some sweeping generalization about everyone else.

Look, if being selfish is what it takes, then fine—call me selfish. I’m not going to sit here and feel ashamed about owning up to it, whether it's to myself or to you guys.

That's the point. It's your stance, your body, and your life. You have the right to live it how you choose.👍

feralmaker7 Member

22 messages
joined Oct 2010

#111 · Jul 20, 2009

slyscout192 said:Oh, please—stop with this nonsense! I’m actually totally on board with the law. I personally live with Lupus, I'm 27, and there's an 80% chance I'll never conceive—and even if I did, the odds of a healthy baby are slim—so it never even crossed my mind to try and play God with my life.If God doesn't grant me a child, then there's a reason for it.Plus, there are far too many abandoned kids in foster care just waiting for someone to notice them, let alone adopt them. I truly feel for what you guys are going through, but I can't agree with any part of your argument. By that logic, should gay couples be allowed to raise children too, so kids grow up thinking having two dads or two moms is the norm? To me, that's similar to cohabitation outside of marriage—it's just natural for a child to grow up in a marriage with a man and a woman, providing that foundational support in life. And as for how many abortions our Secretary Milinovic facilitated (if he even did)—well, everyone answers for their own sins, including him.

Regarding the bolded part—are you suggesting that God is punishing you by withholding a child?😲Has it ever occurred to you that all these medical advancements allowing infertile people to have children might actually be gifts from God? Don't get me wrong, it's science, but believers could see it as something God enabled. And if He made it possible, then it isn't a sin like the Church claims (🙄). Have you never heard the saying "God helps those who help themselves"? By that logic, we shouldn't even seek medical treatment—we should just pray and wait to be healed? That's just silly.
How, exactly, is someone "playing God" by helping people conceive when nature doesn't take its course? If you really want to go there, God (or luck) is the one deciding if an embryo takes hold. So, are doctors playing God too? Honestly, I can't believe some people have such narrow perspectives.
For people who think like you, laws aren't even necessary because they won't use them anyway. But in this country, you know, there are people who aren't religious or Catholic, and they need to be able to have children with as little struggle and pain as possible—especially for the women. Making an already difficult process harder for women is just inhumane.
I truly believe God has nothing against IVF. Besides, the Church is run by people, after all.
I'm not even going to comment on the rest of the post.👎👎👎

feralmaker7 Member

22 messages
joined Oct 2010

#112 · Jul 20, 2009

slyscout192 said:And this law—well, it’s just another example. It’s really the responsibility of the church and people of faith—because when this happens, it hits right at the heart of marriage and family life.

It’s not about silencing them—they have every right to their own opinions—but they shouldn't be forcing those views on every single citizen in America. The Church really has no business meddling in state affairs, especially since that goes against everything our Constitution stands for. Our ministers can't just pass laws based on religious faith—that would be straight-up discrimination—and at the end of the day, we have to look out for the common good.
How does this actually tear at marriage and family life? Well—it’s pretty simple—by stripping away people's ability to have children, which is essentially the foundation of starting a family. This law basically stands in direct opposition to building a household. As for marriage itself? It doesn't really touch that part at all.

feralmaker7 Member

22 messages
joined Oct 2010

#113 · Jul 20, 2009

slyscout192 said:As far as I'm concerned—everyone should be free to chase whatever they want. But... Then it'll just be a free-for-all—pedophiles and rapists getting exactly whatever they want.Honestly—those ideas are just plain nonsense...
Will they ever just reach an agreement and finally meet in the middle...?

Oh, sure—because that’s a perfectly fair comparison to make.🙄🙄🙄

slyscout192 said:Some people argue that the biggest threat to a democracy is when a small minority ends up pulling all the strings over the majority—it’s like a single passenger trying to steer the whole bus.
It turns out a single non-Catholic vote carries about as much weight as a hundred Catholic ones...—it’s just how the math works out.So, what kind of logic are we actually looking at here—and does this even count as democracy or real voting?

The total number of votes doesn't actually matter—because at the end of the day, everyone is equal regardless of gender, age, nationality, or faith. That one single vote carries just as much weight as the other hundred combined. To deny one person the right to something that benefits them—without hurting anyone else—just because a hundred others are against it? That’s a straight-up violation of human rights. It's pure oppression. It reminds me of how Jews were persecuted back in the day simply because they were a minority in Catholic countries.

feralmaker7 Member

22 messages
joined Oct 2010

#114 · Jul 20, 2009

slyscout192 said:We were talking about rights... I feel the exact same way.
So—should we really be talking about letting pedophiles adopt children? It’s a question that honestly feels like it shouldn't even need asking.

Your comparisons are just absurd—I mean, really. You wouldn't hand a child over to anyone without considering what’s actually best for them, and obviously, that doesn't include someone like a pedophile—or an alcoholic, or a drug addict, or even a member of the Ku Klux Klan. Personally, I wouldn't trust people with your mindset to raise a kid—not because I'm against anyone, but because having such limited thinking just isn't a healthy environment for a child to grow up in. Honestly? I'd much rather have a stable, normal gay couple raising a child than someone with your perspective.

feralmaker7 Member

22 messages
joined Oct 2010

#115 · Jul 20, 2009

slyscout192 said:Under Church law, using birth control pills to regulate a cycle—basically just to track fertile days and help with conception—is actually permitted—but artificial insemination? That’s an entirely different story altogether...

😲😲😲 What are you even talking about? The Church doesn't permit birth control pills—period. I remember back when I was just a kid in middle school, I actually got a flyer sent straight to my house that framed that kind of contraception as murder. Even as a little girl, it just infuriated me how people can be so incredibly dense. Like, how do you even track fertile days or try to help conception using the pill when the entire point of the pill is to prevent exactly that?! Honestly, the things people believe...😲

feralwolf30 Newcomer

1 message
joined Jul 2009

#116 · Jul 20, 2009

Even Mesić has stepped up to say this whole legal farce is unconstitutional!!!
Question: Who exactly are the people advising Milanović?

slyscout192 Newcomer

2 messages
joined Aug 2009

#117 · Jul 20, 2009

Does it even matter what I think—or what any of us think, really? Even President Mesić is against this law! In the end, they’ll just repeal it, everyone will act like everything is perfect, and the handful of us who actually supported the law won't be asked for our opinion either—just like you guys aren't being heard right now. But what truly gets under my skin is how people immediately start bashing the church and faith the second something goes wrong.

Regarding the connection between IVF and treating other medical conditions:
After I was discharged from the hospital, a priest actually told me that it's a sin *not* to seek treatment. It's a sin to act against your own health, so there's clearly a link between all of these things. Personally, I look at doctors as an extension of God's hand—and if they are actual professionals rather than total hacks, they’ll do everything in their power to help the patient. I assume the same logic applies to the Chicago Symphony Orchestra.

I know I’m basically contradicting most of what my husband and I wrote earlier.
But look, if I decide I don't want to undergo IVF, nobody has the right to force my hand. And by that same token, if anyone else here decides to go through with it, I believe they have the exact same right to freedom that I do.

Casey Palmer5 Regular

470 messages
joined Jan 2016

#118 · Jul 20, 2009

Amen.

In that case, I really hope everything works out naturally for you and that it all goes smoothly...

feralmaker7 Member

22 messages
joined Oct 2010

#119 · Jul 20, 2009

slyscout192 said:Look, if I don't want to go see the Chicago Symphony Orchestra, nobody has the right to force me—but at the same time, I think anyone else who decides to go has that same right to their own freedom.

Why would anyone force you to see the Chicago Symphony Orchestra? It’s all about choice. But the real issue arises when that choice isn't actually there—or when the options are set up in a way that actively harms women's health.

Thomas Roberts9 Active Member

151 messages
joined Aug 2017

#120 · Jul 20, 2009

Melissa James70 said:And now we find out that the famous little troll—who clearly doesn't even know how to spell troll correctly—is suddenly male. If this was just some attempt at trolling, I could handle it, but honestly, it’s just a bit pathetic.

It wasn't a troll, it was slyscout192 😉
and as for the whole gender confusion thing... it turns out a woman was originally posting, and then her husband joined in, so it's really just a whole family affair 😁

Proposed bill on IVF regulations

🔗 Similar threads