▲ 1060 ▼ Brought to you by RFK Jr. (sopuli.xyz) submitted 2 weeks ago by Gork@sopuli.xyz to c/lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world 108 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] IAMgROOT@lemmy.wtf 2 points 2 weeks ago (3 children) a bacterium is not equivalent to a human being permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] ExtremeDullard@piefed.social 13 points 2 weeks ago (1 child) A non-viable fetus is not equivalent to a baby. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] IAMgROOT@lemmy.wtf -4 points 2 weeks ago (2 children) define "non viable" permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] don@lemmy.ca 17 points 2 weeks ago (1 child) Nonviable: Not capable of living or developing. ”a nonviable fetus.” Not workable or practicable. "a nonviable idea." Not viable: not capable of independent life; not practicable. Source: The American Heritage Dictionary, 5th Edition permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] IAMgROOT@lemmy.wtf -3 points 2 weeks ago (1 child) Thanks for the definition I think abortion is wholly different from getting a nonviable fetus removed as it cannot develop nor live permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Hacksaw@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 weeks ago (2 children) All fetuses are non-viable without being allowed parasitic access to the mother's bodily resources. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] NewSocialWhoDis@lemmy.zip 4 points 2 weeks ago This is really the whole thing, regardless of how developed the baby is. Imagine a fully formed child or adult with a liver problem. Science comes up with some way that someone of similar genetics can be physically connected to them and filter their blood for them and keep them alive while they wait for a transplant. Should the person who can physically sustain another person's body be legally required to do so? So far, less invasive versions of this say no: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McFall_v._Shimp You can't even force dead bodies to donate organs. permalink fedilink source parent [–] IAMgROOT@lemmy.wtf -1 points 2 weeks ago (2 children) all children are non viable without being allowed parasitic access to the parents resources even the ones that are born permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] FistingEnthusiast@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago I wish you had dribbled down your mother's thigh You're so boring permalink fedilink source parent [–] Hacksaw@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 weeks ago (1 child) That's stupid. We have foster systems, adoption, orphanages, children have even survived living in the wild or with wolves. There are many non parent ways for born children to survive. God what a stupid, el obviously false statement. If you spent half the time thinking about it as you did typing it you would have deleted it in shame. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] IAMgROOT@lemmy.wtf 0 points 2 weeks ago* even in an orphanage, they have parasitic access to someone ELSE's resources, right? a child cannot possibly live completely alone and independent from birth. You have a duty to care for him/her as you brought them into the world. Does that not also apply to children in the womb? permalink fedilink source parent [–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago Non viable: adjective: permalink fedilink source parent [–] ickplant@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago (2 children) I am curious, how do you feel about IVF? Should infertile people get to do it? It destroys embryos in the process. And it’s “playing god.” permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] imadethis@fedinsfw.app 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 child) As to the "playing god" thing, I was actually quite amazed at how touchy the IVF doctors were about that issue. They had some interesting rules about what they would and wouldn't tell the parents about the offspring options. I'd have to go ask my friends about it again for all of them, but I remember one of the rules was the doctors wouldn't tell them the color of the eyes before choosing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ickplant@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago I believe that ethical doctors do this. I also believe there are some unethical doctors out there who don’t give a shit and allow their patients to select for all kinds of traits. Ultimately, there is no way to know unless someone talks about it. permalink fedilink source parent [–] IAMgROOT@lemmy.wtf 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 child) https://ewtnvatican.com/articles/church-ivf-teaching-catholic-belief permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ickplant@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago (2 children) My first challenge to you would be to go look into the eyes of infertile people and tell them that “not everyone deserves a child, it’s not a right, it’s a gift.” It’s easy to argue on the internet behind your keyboard. Much much harder to say your shitty beliefs out loud in front of people. Here is my second question for you. A hypothetical. You are at a fertility clinic, and a fire breaks out. You run past a room almost engulfed by flames, and see a little 4-year-old child in there, screaming for help. As you go to rescue this child, you notice that the other side of the room has hundreds of embryos in Petri dishes. Babies, according to your beliefs. You only have time to save one of those things. A 4-year-old child or hundreds of babies. Who do you save? Be honest. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] FistingEnthusiast@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago You'll never get a decent response from them They're stupid, and deep in their cult I think they just come here because they have a humiliation fetish permalink fedilink source parent [–] IAMgROOT@lemmy.wtf 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 child) I could and would say "Hey, I don't think IVF is moral. I don't think murder is justifiable." I do not have time to save hundreds of petri dishes at once. IVF is also immoral as it creates so many human persons and only chooses one to live. I call the fire department after saving the child and pocketing as many petri dishes as I can permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ickplant@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 child) You could and would, but have you? I can assure you you’ve met many people who were conceived via IVF. Have you told them their parents are murderers to their face? Again, it’s super easy to hold these beliefs behind a keyboard. The hypothetical only allows you to save one of these things. The 4-year-old child or hundreds of embryos. Which do you save? I will say that I actually have more respect for anti-choice people when they are also anti-IVF. At least you’re consistent, so there’s that. What are your views on capital punishment? I hope they are consistent there too. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] IAMgROOT@lemmy.wtf 0 points 2 weeks ago I really haven't. No one walks around telling people how they were conceived If I only have two choices, I would choose the embryos, and keep them frozen until someone is ready to adopt them. thanks Capital Punishment and the overall construct of "punishment over rehabilitation" are bad. permalink fedilink source parent [–] FistingEnthusiast@lemmy.world 1 point 2 weeks ago Fuck off Pushing your stupid superstition ain't changing anyone's minds permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ExtremeDullard@piefed.social 13 points 2 weeks ago (1 child) A non-viable fetus is not equivalent to a baby. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] IAMgROOT@lemmy.wtf -4 points 2 weeks ago (2 children) define "non viable" permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] don@lemmy.ca 17 points 2 weeks ago (1 child) Nonviable: Not capable of living or developing. ”a nonviable fetus.” Not workable or practicable. "a nonviable idea." Not viable: not capable of independent life; not practicable. Source: The American Heritage Dictionary, 5th Edition permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] IAMgROOT@lemmy.wtf -3 points 2 weeks ago (1 child) Thanks for the definition I think abortion is wholly different from getting a nonviable fetus removed as it cannot develop nor live permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Hacksaw@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 weeks ago (2 children) All fetuses are non-viable without being allowed parasitic access to the mother's bodily resources. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] NewSocialWhoDis@lemmy.zip 4 points 2 weeks ago This is really the whole thing, regardless of how developed the baby is. Imagine a fully formed child or adult with a liver problem. Science comes up with some way that someone of similar genetics can be physically connected to them and filter their blood for them and keep them alive while they wait for a transplant. Should the person who can physically sustain another person's body be legally required to do so? So far, less invasive versions of this say no: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McFall_v._Shimp You can't even force dead bodies to donate organs. permalink fedilink source parent [–] IAMgROOT@lemmy.wtf -1 points 2 weeks ago (2 children) all children are non viable without being allowed parasitic access to the parents resources even the ones that are born permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] FistingEnthusiast@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago I wish you had dribbled down your mother's thigh You're so boring permalink fedilink source parent [–] Hacksaw@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 weeks ago (1 child) That's stupid. We have foster systems, adoption, orphanages, children have even survived living in the wild or with wolves. There are many non parent ways for born children to survive. God what a stupid, el obviously false statement. If you spent half the time thinking about it as you did typing it you would have deleted it in shame. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] IAMgROOT@lemmy.wtf 0 points 2 weeks ago* even in an orphanage, they have parasitic access to someone ELSE's resources, right? a child cannot possibly live completely alone and independent from birth. You have a duty to care for him/her as you brought them into the world. Does that not also apply to children in the womb? permalink fedilink source parent [–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago Non viable: adjective: permalink fedilink source parent
[–] IAMgROOT@lemmy.wtf -4 points 2 weeks ago (2 children) define "non viable" permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] don@lemmy.ca 17 points 2 weeks ago (1 child) Nonviable: Not capable of living or developing. ”a nonviable fetus.” Not workable or practicable. "a nonviable idea." Not viable: not capable of independent life; not practicable. Source: The American Heritage Dictionary, 5th Edition permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] IAMgROOT@lemmy.wtf -3 points 2 weeks ago (1 child) Thanks for the definition I think abortion is wholly different from getting a nonviable fetus removed as it cannot develop nor live permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Hacksaw@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 weeks ago (2 children) All fetuses are non-viable without being allowed parasitic access to the mother's bodily resources. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] NewSocialWhoDis@lemmy.zip 4 points 2 weeks ago This is really the whole thing, regardless of how developed the baby is. Imagine a fully formed child or adult with a liver problem. Science comes up with some way that someone of similar genetics can be physically connected to them and filter their blood for them and keep them alive while they wait for a transplant. Should the person who can physically sustain another person's body be legally required to do so? So far, less invasive versions of this say no: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McFall_v._Shimp You can't even force dead bodies to donate organs. permalink fedilink source parent [–] IAMgROOT@lemmy.wtf -1 points 2 weeks ago (2 children) all children are non viable without being allowed parasitic access to the parents resources even the ones that are born permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] FistingEnthusiast@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago I wish you had dribbled down your mother's thigh You're so boring permalink fedilink source parent [–] Hacksaw@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 weeks ago (1 child) That's stupid. We have foster systems, adoption, orphanages, children have even survived living in the wild or with wolves. There are many non parent ways for born children to survive. God what a stupid, el obviously false statement. If you spent half the time thinking about it as you did typing it you would have deleted it in shame. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] IAMgROOT@lemmy.wtf 0 points 2 weeks ago* even in an orphanage, they have parasitic access to someone ELSE's resources, right? a child cannot possibly live completely alone and independent from birth. You have a duty to care for him/her as you brought them into the world. Does that not also apply to children in the womb? permalink fedilink source parent [–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago Non viable: adjective: permalink fedilink source parent
[–] don@lemmy.ca 17 points 2 weeks ago (1 child) Nonviable: Not capable of living or developing. ”a nonviable fetus.” Not workable or practicable. "a nonviable idea." Not viable: not capable of independent life; not practicable. Source: The American Heritage Dictionary, 5th Edition permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] IAMgROOT@lemmy.wtf -3 points 2 weeks ago (1 child) Thanks for the definition I think abortion is wholly different from getting a nonviable fetus removed as it cannot develop nor live permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Hacksaw@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 weeks ago (2 children) All fetuses are non-viable without being allowed parasitic access to the mother's bodily resources. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] NewSocialWhoDis@lemmy.zip 4 points 2 weeks ago This is really the whole thing, regardless of how developed the baby is. Imagine a fully formed child or adult with a liver problem. Science comes up with some way that someone of similar genetics can be physically connected to them and filter their blood for them and keep them alive while they wait for a transplant. Should the person who can physically sustain another person's body be legally required to do so? So far, less invasive versions of this say no: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McFall_v._Shimp You can't even force dead bodies to donate organs. permalink fedilink source parent [–] IAMgROOT@lemmy.wtf -1 points 2 weeks ago (2 children) all children are non viable without being allowed parasitic access to the parents resources even the ones that are born permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] FistingEnthusiast@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago I wish you had dribbled down your mother's thigh You're so boring permalink fedilink source parent [–] Hacksaw@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 weeks ago (1 child) That's stupid. We have foster systems, adoption, orphanages, children have even survived living in the wild or with wolves. There are many non parent ways for born children to survive. God what a stupid, el obviously false statement. If you spent half the time thinking about it as you did typing it you would have deleted it in shame. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] IAMgROOT@lemmy.wtf 0 points 2 weeks ago* even in an orphanage, they have parasitic access to someone ELSE's resources, right? a child cannot possibly live completely alone and independent from birth. You have a duty to care for him/her as you brought them into the world. Does that not also apply to children in the womb? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] IAMgROOT@lemmy.wtf -3 points 2 weeks ago (1 child) Thanks for the definition I think abortion is wholly different from getting a nonviable fetus removed as it cannot develop nor live permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Hacksaw@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 weeks ago (2 children) All fetuses are non-viable without being allowed parasitic access to the mother's bodily resources. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] NewSocialWhoDis@lemmy.zip 4 points 2 weeks ago This is really the whole thing, regardless of how developed the baby is. Imagine a fully formed child or adult with a liver problem. Science comes up with some way that someone of similar genetics can be physically connected to them and filter their blood for them and keep them alive while they wait for a transplant. Should the person who can physically sustain another person's body be legally required to do so? So far, less invasive versions of this say no: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McFall_v._Shimp You can't even force dead bodies to donate organs. permalink fedilink source parent [–] IAMgROOT@lemmy.wtf -1 points 2 weeks ago (2 children) all children are non viable without being allowed parasitic access to the parents resources even the ones that are born permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] FistingEnthusiast@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago I wish you had dribbled down your mother's thigh You're so boring permalink fedilink source parent [–] Hacksaw@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 weeks ago (1 child) That's stupid. We have foster systems, adoption, orphanages, children have even survived living in the wild or with wolves. There are many non parent ways for born children to survive. God what a stupid, el obviously false statement. If you spent half the time thinking about it as you did typing it you would have deleted it in shame. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] IAMgROOT@lemmy.wtf 0 points 2 weeks ago* even in an orphanage, they have parasitic access to someone ELSE's resources, right? a child cannot possibly live completely alone and independent from birth. You have a duty to care for him/her as you brought them into the world. Does that not also apply to children in the womb? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Hacksaw@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 weeks ago (2 children) All fetuses are non-viable without being allowed parasitic access to the mother's bodily resources. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] NewSocialWhoDis@lemmy.zip 4 points 2 weeks ago This is really the whole thing, regardless of how developed the baby is. Imagine a fully formed child or adult with a liver problem. Science comes up with some way that someone of similar genetics can be physically connected to them and filter their blood for them and keep them alive while they wait for a transplant. Should the person who can physically sustain another person's body be legally required to do so? So far, less invasive versions of this say no: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McFall_v._Shimp You can't even force dead bodies to donate organs. permalink fedilink source parent [–] IAMgROOT@lemmy.wtf -1 points 2 weeks ago (2 children) all children are non viable without being allowed parasitic access to the parents resources even the ones that are born permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] FistingEnthusiast@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago I wish you had dribbled down your mother's thigh You're so boring permalink fedilink source parent [–] Hacksaw@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 weeks ago (1 child) That's stupid. We have foster systems, adoption, orphanages, children have even survived living in the wild or with wolves. There are many non parent ways for born children to survive. God what a stupid, el obviously false statement. If you spent half the time thinking about it as you did typing it you would have deleted it in shame. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] IAMgROOT@lemmy.wtf 0 points 2 weeks ago* even in an orphanage, they have parasitic access to someone ELSE's resources, right? a child cannot possibly live completely alone and independent from birth. You have a duty to care for him/her as you brought them into the world. Does that not also apply to children in the womb? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] NewSocialWhoDis@lemmy.zip 4 points 2 weeks ago This is really the whole thing, regardless of how developed the baby is. Imagine a fully formed child or adult with a liver problem. Science comes up with some way that someone of similar genetics can be physically connected to them and filter their blood for them and keep them alive while they wait for a transplant. Should the person who can physically sustain another person's body be legally required to do so? So far, less invasive versions of this say no: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McFall_v._Shimp You can't even force dead bodies to donate organs. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] IAMgROOT@lemmy.wtf -1 points 2 weeks ago (2 children) all children are non viable without being allowed parasitic access to the parents resources even the ones that are born permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] FistingEnthusiast@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago I wish you had dribbled down your mother's thigh You're so boring permalink fedilink source parent [–] Hacksaw@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 weeks ago (1 child) That's stupid. We have foster systems, adoption, orphanages, children have even survived living in the wild or with wolves. There are many non parent ways for born children to survive. God what a stupid, el obviously false statement. If you spent half the time thinking about it as you did typing it you would have deleted it in shame. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] IAMgROOT@lemmy.wtf 0 points 2 weeks ago* even in an orphanage, they have parasitic access to someone ELSE's resources, right? a child cannot possibly live completely alone and independent from birth. You have a duty to care for him/her as you brought them into the world. Does that not also apply to children in the womb? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] FistingEnthusiast@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago I wish you had dribbled down your mother's thigh You're so boring permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Hacksaw@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 weeks ago (1 child) That's stupid. We have foster systems, adoption, orphanages, children have even survived living in the wild or with wolves. There are many non parent ways for born children to survive. God what a stupid, el obviously false statement. If you spent half the time thinking about it as you did typing it you would have deleted it in shame. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] IAMgROOT@lemmy.wtf 0 points 2 weeks ago* even in an orphanage, they have parasitic access to someone ELSE's resources, right? a child cannot possibly live completely alone and independent from birth. You have a duty to care for him/her as you brought them into the world. Does that not also apply to children in the womb? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] IAMgROOT@lemmy.wtf 0 points 2 weeks ago* even in an orphanage, they have parasitic access to someone ELSE's resources, right? a child cannot possibly live completely alone and independent from birth. You have a duty to care for him/her as you brought them into the world. Does that not also apply to children in the womb? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago Non viable: adjective: permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ickplant@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago (2 children) I am curious, how do you feel about IVF? Should infertile people get to do it? It destroys embryos in the process. And it’s “playing god.” permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] imadethis@fedinsfw.app 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 child) As to the "playing god" thing, I was actually quite amazed at how touchy the IVF doctors were about that issue. They had some interesting rules about what they would and wouldn't tell the parents about the offspring options. I'd have to go ask my friends about it again for all of them, but I remember one of the rules was the doctors wouldn't tell them the color of the eyes before choosing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ickplant@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago I believe that ethical doctors do this. I also believe there are some unethical doctors out there who don’t give a shit and allow their patients to select for all kinds of traits. Ultimately, there is no way to know unless someone talks about it. permalink fedilink source parent [–] IAMgROOT@lemmy.wtf 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 child) https://ewtnvatican.com/articles/church-ivf-teaching-catholic-belief permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ickplant@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago (2 children) My first challenge to you would be to go look into the eyes of infertile people and tell them that “not everyone deserves a child, it’s not a right, it’s a gift.” It’s easy to argue on the internet behind your keyboard. Much much harder to say your shitty beliefs out loud in front of people. Here is my second question for you. A hypothetical. You are at a fertility clinic, and a fire breaks out. You run past a room almost engulfed by flames, and see a little 4-year-old child in there, screaming for help. As you go to rescue this child, you notice that the other side of the room has hundreds of embryos in Petri dishes. Babies, according to your beliefs. You only have time to save one of those things. A 4-year-old child or hundreds of babies. Who do you save? Be honest. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] FistingEnthusiast@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago You'll never get a decent response from them They're stupid, and deep in their cult I think they just come here because they have a humiliation fetish permalink fedilink source parent [–] IAMgROOT@lemmy.wtf 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 child) I could and would say "Hey, I don't think IVF is moral. I don't think murder is justifiable." I do not have time to save hundreds of petri dishes at once. IVF is also immoral as it creates so many human persons and only chooses one to live. I call the fire department after saving the child and pocketing as many petri dishes as I can permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ickplant@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 child) You could and would, but have you? I can assure you you’ve met many people who were conceived via IVF. Have you told them their parents are murderers to their face? Again, it’s super easy to hold these beliefs behind a keyboard. The hypothetical only allows you to save one of these things. The 4-year-old child or hundreds of embryos. Which do you save? I will say that I actually have more respect for anti-choice people when they are also anti-IVF. At least you’re consistent, so there’s that. What are your views on capital punishment? I hope they are consistent there too. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] IAMgROOT@lemmy.wtf 0 points 2 weeks ago I really haven't. No one walks around telling people how they were conceived If I only have two choices, I would choose the embryos, and keep them frozen until someone is ready to adopt them. thanks Capital Punishment and the overall construct of "punishment over rehabilitation" are bad. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] imadethis@fedinsfw.app 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 child) As to the "playing god" thing, I was actually quite amazed at how touchy the IVF doctors were about that issue. They had some interesting rules about what they would and wouldn't tell the parents about the offspring options. I'd have to go ask my friends about it again for all of them, but I remember one of the rules was the doctors wouldn't tell them the color of the eyes before choosing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ickplant@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago I believe that ethical doctors do this. I also believe there are some unethical doctors out there who don’t give a shit and allow their patients to select for all kinds of traits. Ultimately, there is no way to know unless someone talks about it. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ickplant@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago I believe that ethical doctors do this. I also believe there are some unethical doctors out there who don’t give a shit and allow their patients to select for all kinds of traits. Ultimately, there is no way to know unless someone talks about it. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] IAMgROOT@lemmy.wtf 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 child) https://ewtnvatican.com/articles/church-ivf-teaching-catholic-belief permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ickplant@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago (2 children) My first challenge to you would be to go look into the eyes of infertile people and tell them that “not everyone deserves a child, it’s not a right, it’s a gift.” It’s easy to argue on the internet behind your keyboard. Much much harder to say your shitty beliefs out loud in front of people. Here is my second question for you. A hypothetical. You are at a fertility clinic, and a fire breaks out. You run past a room almost engulfed by flames, and see a little 4-year-old child in there, screaming for help. As you go to rescue this child, you notice that the other side of the room has hundreds of embryos in Petri dishes. Babies, according to your beliefs. You only have time to save one of those things. A 4-year-old child or hundreds of babies. Who do you save? Be honest. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] FistingEnthusiast@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago You'll never get a decent response from them They're stupid, and deep in their cult I think they just come here because they have a humiliation fetish permalink fedilink source parent [–] IAMgROOT@lemmy.wtf 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 child) I could and would say "Hey, I don't think IVF is moral. I don't think murder is justifiable." I do not have time to save hundreds of petri dishes at once. IVF is also immoral as it creates so many human persons and only chooses one to live. I call the fire department after saving the child and pocketing as many petri dishes as I can permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ickplant@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 child) You could and would, but have you? I can assure you you’ve met many people who were conceived via IVF. Have you told them their parents are murderers to their face? Again, it’s super easy to hold these beliefs behind a keyboard. The hypothetical only allows you to save one of these things. The 4-year-old child or hundreds of embryos. Which do you save? I will say that I actually have more respect for anti-choice people when they are also anti-IVF. At least you’re consistent, so there’s that. What are your views on capital punishment? I hope they are consistent there too. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] IAMgROOT@lemmy.wtf 0 points 2 weeks ago I really haven't. No one walks around telling people how they were conceived If I only have two choices, I would choose the embryos, and keep them frozen until someone is ready to adopt them. thanks Capital Punishment and the overall construct of "punishment over rehabilitation" are bad. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ickplant@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago (2 children) My first challenge to you would be to go look into the eyes of infertile people and tell them that “not everyone deserves a child, it’s not a right, it’s a gift.” It’s easy to argue on the internet behind your keyboard. Much much harder to say your shitty beliefs out loud in front of people. Here is my second question for you. A hypothetical. You are at a fertility clinic, and a fire breaks out. You run past a room almost engulfed by flames, and see a little 4-year-old child in there, screaming for help. As you go to rescue this child, you notice that the other side of the room has hundreds of embryos in Petri dishes. Babies, according to your beliefs. You only have time to save one of those things. A 4-year-old child or hundreds of babies. Who do you save? Be honest. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] FistingEnthusiast@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago You'll never get a decent response from them They're stupid, and deep in their cult I think they just come here because they have a humiliation fetish permalink fedilink source parent [–] IAMgROOT@lemmy.wtf 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 child) I could and would say "Hey, I don't think IVF is moral. I don't think murder is justifiable." I do not have time to save hundreds of petri dishes at once. IVF is also immoral as it creates so many human persons and only chooses one to live. I call the fire department after saving the child and pocketing as many petri dishes as I can permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ickplant@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 child) You could and would, but have you? I can assure you you’ve met many people who were conceived via IVF. Have you told them their parents are murderers to their face? Again, it’s super easy to hold these beliefs behind a keyboard. The hypothetical only allows you to save one of these things. The 4-year-old child or hundreds of embryos. Which do you save? I will say that I actually have more respect for anti-choice people when they are also anti-IVF. At least you’re consistent, so there’s that. What are your views on capital punishment? I hope they are consistent there too. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] IAMgROOT@lemmy.wtf 0 points 2 weeks ago I really haven't. No one walks around telling people how they were conceived If I only have two choices, I would choose the embryos, and keep them frozen until someone is ready to adopt them. thanks Capital Punishment and the overall construct of "punishment over rehabilitation" are bad. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] FistingEnthusiast@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago You'll never get a decent response from them They're stupid, and deep in their cult I think they just come here because they have a humiliation fetish permalink fedilink source parent
[–] IAMgROOT@lemmy.wtf 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 child) I could and would say "Hey, I don't think IVF is moral. I don't think murder is justifiable." I do not have time to save hundreds of petri dishes at once. IVF is also immoral as it creates so many human persons and only chooses one to live. I call the fire department after saving the child and pocketing as many petri dishes as I can permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ickplant@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 child) You could and would, but have you? I can assure you you’ve met many people who were conceived via IVF. Have you told them their parents are murderers to their face? Again, it’s super easy to hold these beliefs behind a keyboard. The hypothetical only allows you to save one of these things. The 4-year-old child or hundreds of embryos. Which do you save? I will say that I actually have more respect for anti-choice people when they are also anti-IVF. At least you’re consistent, so there’s that. What are your views on capital punishment? I hope they are consistent there too. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] IAMgROOT@lemmy.wtf 0 points 2 weeks ago I really haven't. No one walks around telling people how they were conceived If I only have two choices, I would choose the embryos, and keep them frozen until someone is ready to adopt them. thanks Capital Punishment and the overall construct of "punishment over rehabilitation" are bad. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ickplant@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 child) You could and would, but have you? I can assure you you’ve met many people who were conceived via IVF. Have you told them their parents are murderers to their face? Again, it’s super easy to hold these beliefs behind a keyboard. The hypothetical only allows you to save one of these things. The 4-year-old child or hundreds of embryos. Which do you save? I will say that I actually have more respect for anti-choice people when they are also anti-IVF. At least you’re consistent, so there’s that. What are your views on capital punishment? I hope they are consistent there too. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] IAMgROOT@lemmy.wtf 0 points 2 weeks ago I really haven't. No one walks around telling people how they were conceived If I only have two choices, I would choose the embryos, and keep them frozen until someone is ready to adopt them. thanks Capital Punishment and the overall construct of "punishment over rehabilitation" are bad. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] IAMgROOT@lemmy.wtf 0 points 2 weeks ago I really haven't. No one walks around telling people how they were conceived If I only have two choices, I would choose the embryos, and keep them frozen until someone is ready to adopt them. thanks Capital Punishment and the overall construct of "punishment over rehabilitation" are bad. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] FistingEnthusiast@lemmy.world 1 point 2 weeks ago Fuck off Pushing your stupid superstition ain't changing anyone's minds permalink fedilink source parent