Posted on 08/29/2024 2:23:42 PM PDT by mooncoin
Former President Trump tells NBC News that if he’s re-elected, his administration would not only protect access to IVF, but would have either the government or insurance companies cover the cost of it.
Yes, it is accurate. I’ve actually spoke to doctors who’ve done this, and couples that have done this.
The problem is that pro-lifers are always the ones who are expected to put up with this stuff. Trump sometimes governs better than his rhetoric. But I don’t want to be complicit in something like this. I’ll vote for Hayworth, but I cannot defend Trump’s position on this.
Takin’ the ‘L’ on that one.
Well played, b1.
(2) IVF is designed and intended to PRODUCE life.
(3) Natural pregnancies very frequently result in natural miscarriages (medically these are referred to as abortions, although they are not intended) like in 1.
- - - - -
(3) is not evil at all, it's life in God's hands;
(2) is FOR life,
... it's not acceptable for many,
... some view it as saving their babies to the extent that can from a burning house,
... some don't care;
(1) is evil.
- - - - -
I do have a family member born from IVF (a grandchild) and we and the parents are SO blessed by that child that it is hard for me to think that God did not intend for that child to be born in that way to the parents.
And at least ONE child was rescued from their "burning house," even though their children they naturally miscarried while "trying" for a long time, and their other children in IVF, were lost.
Blessings,
W
I saw the quote from Trump about IVF and I don’t think he said it was free for all. He said he would support it to make it easier for people who are really trying to have a children to be able to have access to it.
The soul is infused at fertilization.
God creates. Humans only procreate.
How many lost souls are we talking here?
Soul defined how?
I agree, and that’s why I would propose only one egg should be fertilized at a time rather than multiples stored in the freezer.
Why?
Perfection.
It's a nice thing, but not going to happen.
The only way to get your perfect candidate is to run yourself.
Otherwise, by throwing away your vote, you are helping to elect the total opposite of what you want.
Let me answer by asking you two questions - Did you support the ‘right to try’ law Trump signed that circumvented the FDA red tape and wait lists to allow terminal patients to access experimental/investigational drugs more quickly? Could individuals have done the same all by themselves? Same as ‘right to try,’ IVF is right to try giving life a chance. Hard to find anything negative about that.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3650450/
One of a gazillion links that could have been picked.... IVF results in a significantly higher rate of children with birth defects.
If this is fake news, it will be repudiated soon.
It’s on video.
There absolutely is destruction of embryos happening in IVF. It may not show up in the statistics of “selective reduction” because it happens before the embryos are implanted. Now they just call it “discarding” embryos, which sounds a little less abhorrent than “destroying” them, although the result is the same.
Selective reduction used to be more common because the technology to grade the embryos early in development wasn’t available. They just implanted a bunch and waited to see how many survived. If more than 2 or 3 survived then selective reduction (AKA abortion) would often be done.
There may be some IVF providers that only fertilize one or 2 eggs at a time, but that is not the routine because it is an expensive procedure and if you only create a few embryos, the chance of not getting “high quality” embryos is very high.
Now embryos are graded shortly after they are created in the lab, and any embryo not in the top 2 tiers is routinely destroyed. Being able to implant fewer embryos at a time because they know the higher tier embryos are more likely to survive reduces the need for post-implantation selective reduction, but it doesn’t reduce the number of embryos created then destroyed.
According to this site- https://www.remembryo.com/grade-c-embryo-success-rates/ -, even the lowest grade(C) embryos have a 25% chance of making it to birth without risk of complications or genetic issues any higher than the highest grade(A).
The parents get to decide how many of the higher grade embryos they will use at one time. Extras are frozen. The parents can also elect to have any of these “good” embryos destroyed or frozen if they get more than they want, so not only non-viable embryos are being destroyed, and many viable embryos are being frozen.
These are unique human beings with their own genetic code. For anyone who believes that life begins at conception, destroying an embryo is an abortion. Also, the idea of creating a human being and then keeping it frozen until someone decides if they want it or not is fairly horrific.
An aquaintance of mine recently described the process in detail. They have 2 IVF children and 1 “A” embryo left, having elected to also destroy all of the “B”s and “C”s since they had enough “A”s. I’m not sure what will become of that last A. They said they “don’t want any more children”. Sad that they don’t realize that they already have another one, and that they lost several more.
There’s a lot of info online in addition the the website I included. Just look up “grading embryos for IVF” or “what happens to embryos in IVF?”. Perusing those sites was very depressing.
Love,
O2
I am not familiar with that “right to try” law, I don’t ever remember hearing about it. But it kind of sounds like the opposite of IVF. IVF doesn’t save any lives, but it usually takes lives.
The Hyde Amendment prevents federal funds from being used for for abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or pregnancies that endanger the life of the mother.
I think the devil is in the details. There are fertilized eggs that do not appear healthy enough and are discarded. That is as another poster has detailed. It depends on how you define abortion. It doesn’t fit my definition but yours may vary.
I said that the federal government might offer insurance companies some savings such as reduced red tape that would compensate for extra cost in expanding coverage.
Since IVF is covvered in 16 states already, expanding in other states shouldn’t be that much of a reach. If I gave any impression that coverage should be a mandate or that it was not a state issue that was not my intent.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.