OK
@Soaring Eagle 74 gonna now wrap up my analysis of what you termed creepy Joe's "accomplishments" in post #16.
So you said creepy Joe Biden:
Protect IVF access for American families
Reality:
I find that curious because he hardly mentioned the issue before the recent decision by the Alabama State Supreme Court to classify fertilized Embryos "in vitro" as essentially children who deserve protection under that State's wrongful death act. I actually seriously doubt you totally understand the ruling, much less what creepy Joe Biden's done to protect the rights of fertilized embryos which biological "science" ironically does recognize as human Life? However it ultimately goes back to the question of when Life actually begins, and more importantly when should it be protected? To your knowledge has creepy Joe Biden made
any definitive or declarative statements on that question (short of favoring unrestricted abortion at any time, for anyone, for any reason, funded by the taxpayers?
Ans:
No!
FYI here is the Alabama Supreme court ruling:
"The
Alabama Supreme Court ruled last week that couples who were trying in vitro fertilization and lost frozen embryos in an accident at a south Alabama storage facility
can sue under the state’s wrongful death law. The ruling is the first of its kind and extends a theory championed by some anti-
abortion groups — that embryos and fetuses should be considered children and be afforded legal protections."
...more
"The Alabama Supreme Court said three Alabama couples who lost frozen embryos during an accident at a storage facility could sue the fertility clinic and hospital for wrongful death of a minor child. Justices reversed a lower court ruling that dismissed the wrongful death claim on the grounds that the embryos were not a person or child."
Source:
Alabama's IVF embryo ruling
The real question creepy Joe cannot and will not answer is when does Human Life begin and deserve protection? Clearly the Alabama Supreme Court thinks Life is present once an embryo is fertilized "in vitro" and its ruling opens the door for similar consideration of natural conception under the same wrongful death Law. All creepy Joe has done is try to seize on the controversy to shore up his kook fringe radical Left base, which doesn't "follow the science" of IVF, but instead pushes for the random slaughter at any time of innocent children either "in vitro" or in the womb!
The unanswered question the Alabama Court also raises is what happens to frozen embryos that are
not brought to full term? There is a real concern among bioethicists that without some sort of guidelines which the Alabama Supreme court attempted to define by stating those embryos were children, that the entire process could lead to illegal Human organ harvesting and/or "cloning" which again creepy Joe has been absolutely silent on. You and your Godless heathen brothers on the Left who have no respect or affinity for either human Life or its Creator have no compunction if IVF services lead to harvesting of humans or their organs. You sick Soulless ghouls also do not believe those embryos are actually human Life, and therefore deserve no protection! 😲
What about the couples who believed they were expecting children using this (IVF) process? Do they have no rights along with the developing babies? You wouldn't know that by asking creepy Joe Biden:
(excerpted from article below)
Biden's defense of IVF treatments was a shift in the messaging he had been delivering on reproductive rights for nearly two years, During his recent State of the Union address, he merely affirmed his commitment to keep IVF services available, but they weren't under any actual threat of being taken away!
"President Biden spoke forcefully about reproductive rights in his State of the Union address, “Guarantee the right to IVF. Guarantee it nationwide,”
Source:
“Guarantee the right to IVF. Guarantee it nationwide,” Biden said in a State of the Union that also hammered Trump on a national abortion ban.
time.com
Again, no one was "threatening" access to IVF services! Creepy Joe completely missed the main controversy after the Alabama ruling, dishonestly accusing Republicans of restricting access for women who wish to utilize these services. That was NOT what the Alabama Supreme court ruled nor what the GOP position on the service is. Now either you and creepy Joe are too absent minded to know the difference, or stupid to understand it?
The larger issue here in my opinion is at what point do we step in and protect the rights of BOTH the expectant mother and the gestating child? The Alabama ruling did not answer that question, however it affirmed that the frozen embryos do deserve at least some protections, as well as Mothers do have some rights to expect their developing children to be protected from wrongful death!
Instead, creepy Joe remains stuck in a time warp over the entire abortion issue:
(from above linked article)
Biden highlighted two guests of First Lady Jill Biden to hammer home the issue, including Kate Cox, a mother from Texas who had to travel out of state for a medically necessary abortion. Cox was seated with First Lady Jill Biden. “Her own life and ability to have children in the future were at risk,” Biden said.
He warned that many Republicans in the room were promising voters that they would pass a national abortion ban. “My God what freedom else will you take away?” Biden said, fumbling his words slightly.
THAT WAS A BALD FACED LIE, No Republicans are proposing an outright "ban" on abortions. where the issue has come up for discussion in various State Legislatures, Republicans have favored limits and restrictions on when abortion services should be made legal...IVF services are included in this discussion. Creepy Joe Biden wasn't having any of
that discussion though.
(again from linked article):
"Biden also introduced Latorya Beasley, a woman from Alabama, who had to stop her IVF treatment after the court decision. “Let’s stand up for families like her,” Biden said. Biden said that he believed
Roe V. Wade “got it right” in securing access to abortion in the country, and emphasized that if voters elect Democratic majorities in the House and Senate in November, he would push for a law enshrining nationwide the same protections to abortion access that
Roe had guaranteed."
Which totally misses the point! As I mentioned earlier inside the thread, the US Supreme Court ruled THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO ABORTION. Roe v Wade
did not get it right! The issue was left to the individual States to decide, and many have voted for restrictions and in a few cases total bans on abortions after a number of weeks. Creepy Joe is stuck on the far fringe Left of his party calling for totally unrestricted abortions, and for IVF services with absolutely no regard for the rights of Mothers or their frozen embryos being developed by IVF services which "Science" affirms is in reality human Life.
In fact he's so desperate trying to use the issue to help his losing, sinking campaign, he's resorted to outright lying about GOP's position on abortion:
(from WH website)
Fact sheet: WH continues fight for reproductive Freedom
"Republicans’ extreme out-of-touch agenda has put access to fertility treatments at risk for families who are desperately trying to get pregnant"
That is a flat out lie, and has zero to do with what the Alabama Supreme court ruled on IVF, or what the US Supreme Court has ruled on Abortions rights!
So tell me
@Soaring Eagle 74 , what in contrast has the Biden-Harris administration called for to "fight for reproductive Freedom"? Do you know besides their incessant whining for unrestricted unlimited abortions on demand at any time for any reason funded by taxpayers? What about the issue of Parental rights for couples who cannot conceive naturally and instead rely on IVF services? What protections have creepy Joe or Kamala Harris offered for them? How about the entire issue of human harvesting of organs, or "cloning" babies? What's the creep-in-chief and his cackling partner had to say about any of that? 🤔
Ans: Zero
This is not some academic classroom discussion. These are real issues, and real questions the Alabama ruling has opened up. During his State of the Union address trying to capitalize on the issue, creepy Joe couldn't even bring himself to mention the word "abortion".
excerpt
During the segment of his address about abortion, Biden did not actually utter the word, instead referring to “reproductive freedom”. Biden, a devout Catholic who has previously said he is “not big” on abortion, has been criticized by reproductive rights advocates for shying away from using the word.
Biden sought to capitalize on the passions stirred by GOP threats to reproductive freedom, while avoiding the word ‘abortion’
www.theguardian.com
...more
The recent cases and legislation addressing the destruction of IVF embryos prompts revisiting past cases involving “child murder” in a medical context. Some cases turn on what is in the best interests of the child, while others pivot on the importance of preserving a child’s life, even if it...
www.acsh.org
excerpt:
Alabama’s recent decision holding that embryos are considered children (albeit undone by the state’s legislature, but still regarded as valid in other states) reflects the current views of some legislatures, judges, and portions of society. Sorely contested by those who view human life as beginning at birth (not at conception), the IVF decision derives more from personal beliefs and outdated law rather than current legal modes of analysis.
Using a hard, legal approach, two schools of thought might apply:
- What is in the best interests of the child (whenever that status is achieved)?
- Should we give primacy to preserving life - any life, versus focusing on the interdiction regarding terminating life?
"I fear the attitude of our profession is sanctioning infanticide and in moving inexorably down the road from abortion to infanticide, to the destruction of a child who is socially embarrassing….." -Dr. Everett Koop.
...more
Similar issues emerge in the IVF dilemma - on a societal level. Because creating extra embryos is required so that at least one embryo can have a life, the reasoning is applicable. Without creating the extra embryos, a necessary component of the IVF procedure, there would be little possibility of
any IVF births. By ruling that destroying unused (or unhealthy) embryos is unacceptable, the entire procedure is in peril, depriving unfertile parents of the possibility of having genetically related children. These cases graphically illustrate that while various legal routes of analysis yielded the same result, the religious approaches produced different outcomes. We should be ever mindful.
Once again, creepy joe has had ZERO to say about any of this! where is his leadership? Where is his morality? How should we consider his position of unrestricted access with no limits or rules for expectant Mothers or children to either abortion or IVF services? You called it an "accomplishment" over his mere rhetoric. I call it a failure of leadership and absence of ethical foundation because he's offering nothing to voters except tired, outdated, ineffective campaign sloganeering over what arguably is THE question before us in this next election.