re: Bad news for the “you do you” IVF crowd. Gay surrogate father is a tier 1 sex offender.

quote:

---

And is forcing the public to go along with a lie

---

Go along with what exactly? I would prefer the government not be involved in marriage at all. But I'm not sure what two dudes doing in one home and what they would call that arrangement has "forced" me to do. I don't go along with lies, including that women can become men and vise versa.

What has gay marriage forced you to do?

quote:

---

But even if you don’t agree with me on that point, your argument was that guns cause murder, there for they are bad? And then you said IVF is like guns?

My rebuttal is that IVF is not the tool, it is the result of using certain tools, just like murder could be the result of using a gun or other tools like a knife, etc

How is this logic/comparison not understood? Seems pretty clear and logical

---

No, my argument about guns was two-fold.
1. Someone can make the argument that using guns is like playing God
2. Why should someone have their rights to use certain things be taken away becuase of the abuse of someone else. That's how I'd compare the IVF in the OP to guns.

quote:

---

Has the concept of "grooming" sunk in yet? You shouldn't find it odd at all.

---

I don’t think he found it odd. I think he wrote that as a wink and a nudge.

quote:

---

being a particular brand of crazy extremist

---

Is he really though? I mean statistically his position could be considered an outlier but it seems pretty consistent as far as being pro life and those that claim to be staunchly pro life and favor IVF are the ones being inconsistent.

quote:

---

The faces of Tylenol.

---

I shouldn’t have laughed at this.

But I did

SFP, I’m mostly taking your part in this thread, even though burger bearcat is doing a good job making his case. But I think you must supply more than a laughing emoji to the charge, which bb could make clearer, that the discarded fertilized embryos from IVF represent murders.

If you don’t think so you should say why. And as a clarification you should say whether you think a first week abortion is murder, because that is similar.

For my part, I’d say that the first week abortion is murder, but discarding embryos is not because those are not viable without human intervention.

quote:

---

That conclusion wasn't even about IVF. It was drawn from his hand-waving about overturning Roe v Wade. Which turned out to be an epic fail all on its own, btw. Unless you are claiming that supporting the overturning of Roe v Wade is "too radical," you're not even responding to the correct association. And if you are claiming that supporting the overturning of Roe v Wade is "too radical," then I refer you to the election results in 2024 just like I did him.

---

No, no, no. In this thread, he said that opposition to IVF was crazy. YOU reflected on his Roe v Wade election consequences, which are beside the point. He might very well have been wrong there; idk. But if he said that, in his defense, Trump triangulated admirably on the issue, swearing that he was in favor of about a 12 week abortion window.

As to your #2, I refer you to my penultimate post above, which a) addresses #2 and b) addresses the rest of your post when I wrote that you are doing an admirable job defending your position. It was your equation of discarded IVF embryos to recently conceived fetuses which inspired it.

quote:

---

So exactly how is me bringing up the fact that the argument failed

---

The thing is, it didn't.

quote:

---

It's what he argued regarding R v W and it's what he's arguing now. It's the same argument against the same action for the same reason.

---

This is wrong, too.

I only brought up how crazy people feel emboldened when their team has enough time in power, start thinking they have a soap box for their crazy, and then turn off moderates and cause their team to lose. That's IVF.

The abortion stuff is just a loser, overall, and the 2022 midterms proved that.

You're trying to focus on the wrong data point (2024 elections), which is ironic, given this thread and my actual argument ITT (see above)

*ETA: if Trump thought that extreme abortion positions were good positions, politically, he would have adopted them? Why, then, has he rejected the extreme positions and, instead, promotes a moderate policy of a ban after 12 weeks?

My wife and I do not have any embryos that will not be transferred but when we were doing preliminary paperwork and had to state our intention if we did have extra embryos, we really wrestled. Morally, we would love to donate them for adoption. However, the evilness in the world would now keep us from choosing that option. It would keep me up at night wondering if my biological baby was born into something like this.

This will keep many families from choosing this option as well therefore creating many more embryos being discarded which is a moral issue in itself.

quote:

---

The thing is, it didn't.

---

Didn't you say just yesterday that the idea that you will not admit you were wrong is a myth?

What a fricking liar.

You posted about 100 times before the 2024 election that overturning Roe was going to tank the election.

quote:

---

I only brought up how crazy people feel emboldened when their team has enough time in power, start thinking they have a soap box for their crazy, and then turn off moderates and cause their team to lose. That's IVF.

---

Is it IVF? I can't conclude that because you still have not answered the questions I asked you about it. We both know why.

And no, that's not ONLY what you have posted. Maybe it is on this thread, but I remember too many posts from the past.

quote:

---

The abortion stuff is just a loser, overall, and the 2022 midterms proved that.

---

You're like an idiot who claims that a team running the ball on first down (all game) is proven to be a losing strategy because that team got outscored in the 3rd quarter of a game, but won the game.

Now is a time you'd look much better if you just admitted you were wrong instead of trying to float this nonsense.

quote:

---

You're trying to focus on the wrong data point (2024 elections

---

I'm not trying to do anything. I'm reminding you what YOU said. I'm sure you predicted we'd lose the 2022 midterms because of abortion (and before I finish this post, let me get it in there that you have absolutely no data to back up the fact that the reason Republicans lost seats is because of abortion), but you also predicted the same before the 2024 election. For the same reason. You predict it constantly, every time the topic comes up.

When you do that, sometimes what you predict is going to come true. And then you just claim that the reason you predicted it is the reason it happened.

"Hey SFP, why are you walking around with no pants wearing a lobster hanging off your dick?"

"It keeps the elephants away."

"We live in Louisiana. There are no elephants here."

"See how well it works?"

quote:

---

Why, then, has he rejected the extreme positions and, instead, promotes a moderate policy of a ban after 12 weeks?

---

Because I think that policy reflects his personal leftist feelings about the matter. Why would he implement controversial tariffs that many in his own party didn't want him to implement?