Pasayten's Methow Valley Bulletin Board

https://www.rawstory.com/oklahoma-law-ban-ivf-iud/

Birth control is now in the mix to be banned and IVF is on a razor's edge

Nonsense! You are the extremist, and you’ve accused me of every heinous position you can think of. I’m simply pointing out a principle that should be worked towards as much as possible because of the truth of life and death.

Don't shoot the messengers. The new laws being proposed right now are what is extreme. Legislators are contemplating using the 'moment of conception' as well as charging women who have had miscarriages with homicide, ectopic pregnancies are also included in the abortion ban.

And you all accuse me of extreme rhetoric!

Rideback, effing unbelieveble and Mickey too.
Women have to absolutely rise up an take charge of these situations and there are more to come. All women for choice need to really wake up, WAKE THE F UP, and get going on this. We were told at the Women's March that this is the first of many.
Oklahoma signing into law life begins at conception. I see many women not going to the doctor for their pregnancies, to even have the kid, as who knows what sicko might think, do to the woman.
Vote. Look up Okanogan Action Coalition as they are contacting everyone they can to vote. We can do that by talking to five people and having those five people pass it on. This is imperative.
Is this question a religious question and should this topic really be in Religion? LIfe is sacred, yes.
Maybe it should be under a Science heading.

Good lord, a Rep CongressMAN actually posited this in questioning:

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/morning-m ... orn-babies

Congresswoman's response in a hearing on abortion:

https://crooksandliars.com/2022/05/lucy ... age-prison

Projection, just stop.

Returning the decision to the states...translates into an end of a Constitutional right. 26 states have already set in play the laws that will deny ALL access to women to abortions. They are doing this without the vote of their constituents. They have denied Medicaid expansion to care for for women's health.

What part of that are you in agreement with?

Mirror.

You’re babbling Mickey, might be time to return to the magic kingdom.

I thought thought the ‘vax’ was for my protection and I did wear masks, don’t accuse me of things you know nothing of!

Women have a constitutional ‘right’ to kill their children? Where is that stated? All the way until the child is 18? Do enlighten us all of these ‘rights’!

No, you guys “entirely miss the point”, government isn’t “controlling female bodies”, point of fact SCOTUS is realizing their one size fits all ‘right’ to abortion doesn’t work so they are proposing returning this complex issue to states, they aren’t outlawing abortion what so ever! However, when it comes to what humans may be killed and/or receive constitutional protection that IS in SCOTUS’s purview.

You must be apoplectic about Speaker Nan, she uses the “for the children” line regularly to justify her nonsense!

If “viability” is our only measurement couldn’t we kill off all the geriatrics who need full-time care? Didn’t think so.

So if government control of everything is generally bad, why is government control of female reproduction okay? And you are in remarkably violent
agreement on why letting government run amok and control female bodies is a horrible idea.

And before you say, "because of the children" you can justify almost anything by arguing you are protecting children. It is one of the last refuges of knaves, scoundrels, and poltroons in a debate.

Seriously, I don't think this is that hard. I'd say that before the conceptus/fetus is viable it is a no-brainer that a potential mother's choice wins. Beyond that it gets more complicated, but in general I'd say if the life or health of the mother is threatened it is still a no-brainer, but how we interpret "life or health of the mother" should be interpreted less generously as the pregnancy progresses.

You entirely miss the point, which is not surprising when you also comment that no one gets denied care.
The majority of women who get abortions live below the poverty line. That same poverty line limits their abilities to get medical care. Medicaid is often not an option for them, just like using an emergency room center is not equal to having regular doctor's care. Planned Parenthood and other women's care clinics have been closed down in multiple states or so severely restricted that there are few left to serve women's care.

Planned Parenthood is not nor has it ever restricted its services solely to abortion. They offer full spectrum women's care from birth control through the gamut...not something an emergency room is built to conduct...and since they are privately funded (look at the Hyde Amendment) that accepts no govt subsidies, they do a whole lot of heavy lifting. For the 12 year old girls who were raped or subjects of incest and find themselves without resources they have been a lifeline.

For a woman under the poverty line who does not have a car, has children at home to tend to, has a low paying job that will not give her a couple of days paid leave so that she can travel the hundreds of miles to get care and cannot afford the $ to find a hotel to stay over at, there are great hurdles before her. This is a world of challenges much less impossibilities that women are facing every day and they are factors in the abortion discussion. https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org ... -amendment

Yes, government control of everyone and everything! Genius, because government does such a good job managing complex issues and never imposes one size fits all draconian craziness. I’ll take personal freedom BUT of course personal responsibility is required too.

A friend of mind commented on another thread with worthwhile points:

'I think we would be looking at a different debate if the proposed change in law was also accompanied by a GREAT EMBRACE across society for the complex reality of bringing another child into the world, if this intent to overturn Roe v. Wade was accompanied by:
- universal health care (cradle to grave)
- extended, paid (full-time salary) maternity leave of a minimum of 1 year with a guarantee a woman could get her job back at the same level of advancement
- low-cost, high quality government subsidized daycare, starting at age 2
- universal public full-day pre-school, starting at age 3
- college tuition of at least 2 years picked up by society as a whole
I am not saying that such an environment would or should work like a bartering in this debate, i.e. "you will be getting lots of help, lots of support, therefore no need to worry about having a baby, so just give up your right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy".
However, IF all of this were in place, I do think that a sizable number of women might go ahead with unexpected pregnancies.
And I have seen, but rarely, a position expressed by some on the "pro-life" side that is called "whole life". As I understand it, that includes benefits such as I list above.
In countries where such a solid, universal social safety net exists for women and their children, you do find many more single mothers. From my own experience, I'd cite both Sweden and Quebec, where women often choose not to marry, but do also often go ahead with unplanned pregnancies (though abortion is legal in both areas). There is also little societal stigma for a woman who makes these choices, and they lose little ground economically.
Now THAT environment might be common ground. But in my own experience on social media (in conversations with "pro-choice" Americans), this kind of "whole life" support is practically laughed at, denigrated, not taken at all seriously.
If women fight ferociously against "pro-life" arguments, what lies under much of that ferocity is the stark and clear EXPERIENCED reality of knowing the supposed "pro-life" movement is quite willing to put 100% of the burden on HER and on HER ONLY.

No one is NOT provided care! I have never had a patient who died because this country wouldn’t provide care, help and food. That is ridiculous.

I doubt anyone, including mothers that are having abortions, would argue with you that they are not in favor of saving the life of both the mothers and babies. But circumstances are overwhelming sometimes and just don't favor a woman carrying to term a fetus. A govt that is allowed to override the decision of a woman and her doctor to get healthcare to save her own life means we all lose the right to life. A govt that tells a woman she must carry a baby to term without offering any financial aid, without necessary healthcare and more is a lopsided and cruel predicament that should not be tolerated by anyone. Where's the justice, where's the balance or it that care just something that shall remain unspoken of?

Actually, at the end of the day I’m advocating for lives to be saved (mother and child) and you all are making up nonsense and calling people names! Pretending your smart while killing things is nothing to be proud of, but believe what you will.

Of course if we put everything on pause while we wait for definitive answers there's an element of laziness creeping into our abilities to exercise our intellectual capacities. Just as in all scientific theories and processes, the element of growth of a theory is an open door as more data, observations and technology are put on the table.

In the meantime, we work with what we have and acknowledge that it's important to accommodate the civil rights aspect of the questions.

Fantastically intelligent and thoughtful reply David.

Like all philosophical discussions, this one involves great clouds of fog, great blasts of hot air, and poorly considered terminology.

Actually defining "life" is not trivial. Certain seeds can be dormant for many years (in one known case over 1300 years). Are those seeds "alive"?

The trivial answer to the question "When does life begin?" is "Life began over 4 billion years ago and has never really stopped."

Individual cells are also alive. Obviously unfertilized human eggs and sperm are alive.

More precise questions include: (1) when does a conceptus (a fertilized egg) become a human? and (2) what rights do we grant a conceptus and unborn human?

Those aren't simple questions, and it is unlikely that one-sized-fits-all answers on either side of the discussion are going to produce results that are tolerable to anyone.

Shouln't, should, judging. One size fits all to you Ken.

You all are entitled to your opinion as am I but you might not get your way (and you very well may be incorrect and shouldn’t get your way). I imagine your wailing and gnashing of teeth will continue on more than this issue!