Why do Republicans feel it is fine to destroy embryos from IVF, but emergency contraception is abortion?

Question

The embryos in In-Vitro Fertilization are more developed than the zygotes destroyed in emergency contraception. So why all the fuss about emergency contraception. Is it because you have to be very rich to use IVF, and ethical matters don't apply to the very rich?

Answer 1

Republicans are not the only ones implicated in this mess, which they wouldn't be in if they had not relied on those who traffic in such issues for support.

I'm sure they will try to get around the contradiction by saying that as a whole procedure, IVF results in a birth that would not otherwise take place, so it's unavoidable "collateral damage" in service to a higher cause.

Of course, let's not try to use these cast-offs for stem cell research, that would be bad, because it would be a way around their opposition to stem cell research.

Answer 2

BudaBelly: "Reported" ...?!

Why? This is actually a pretty fair question.

--

Well, you've pointed out a nice inconsistency on the part of the general Republican platform on the "human life" issue.

I don't think many people are very well educated on IVF, to start with. You're right in that many cannot afford it, nor realize that many viable embroyos are being created in the process of hoping that at least one will "take."

But I do agree that -- from the technical standpoint -- discarding a days-old embroyo is the same (maybe even worse, considering it is older) than "aborting" a day-old zygote.

[And what about the sheer act of freezing thousands upon thousands of these embryos? If they are human beings, you have basically created them, then placed them in a "prison" of some sort, never allowing them to experience the full human existence they were promised by being created in the first place.]

Now, that all being said, I think the Republican position is this: We don't want people looking at human embryos as "raw parts" or "biological material" to be experimented on. We only have three choices on what to do with the embryos: (1) throw them out, (2) freeze them indefinitely [which is in the end the same as #1] or (3) use them as biological material to improve the health of the current populace.

[Note: We can also say, "Adopt" the embryo -- but from what I know, only 125 embryos have ever been "adopted" by non-biological parents, while hundreds of thousands go undesired and must either be discarded or destroyed. "Embroyo adoption," thus, in reality, seems to be little more than a philosophical pipe dream meant to avoid dealing with the hard realities of current IVF practices.]

In any case, barring adoption -- which doesn't happen much at all -- the embryo dies no matter what. Facing that choice, the Republicans see it better for the embryo just to die, rather than to die AND be scavenged for parts. That's the choice they are making, I think.

But they should really be tackling and changing the IVF process, which is creating a bunch of embryos many of which will never see the light of day and, according to their definition of human life, are thus suffering the same effects as an abortion would cause them. There's an inconsistency in the stance.

Answer 3

I think this is a valid question. However you have to realize that its not just republicans. Every individual has their own beleifs on what is abortion and what is not.
As far as IVF goes, most women who go through this are usually much older women. They have more chance for babies with severe deformities and birth defects.. I can't say where I stand on such an issue because if I am not in the shoes of one of those women.. Clearly they would not go through IVF if they could conceive a baby naturally.. And I think that someone at an older age would clearly not abort for just any reason when they are trying so hard to get pregnant to begin with...
I can understand why you are asking "why all the fuss about emergency contraceptive"? A lot of people aren't educated on the facts on how it is used, and then again some are..Making it a moral issue for the most part.. Emergency contraceptive has to taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex and only has an 89% chance of working.. Its not foolproof and a lot of young women use it as a form of birth control rather than take the time to be careful to begin with. I think its a moral issue rather than an abortion issue.. Clearly with an 89% chance of it working, still leaves an 11% chance for conception.... Which tosses another unwanted child into our world, or adds another abortion to the list...(There is also a law trying to be passed that is making this Plan B emergency contraceptive available over the counter)
I have to add, I work in a pharmacy, every Sunday morning there is always 3 to 5 young ladies (in my slow pharmacy alone) that are getting EC because they had a long night of making bad choices.. It is so common now, that Doctors are prescribing plan B emergency contraceptives to young women and allowing refills. I think there is a lot to be said about the EC and a lot of fuss to be raised morally on the subject...I think it should be available for very specific type emergencies only , not just because someone doesn't want to use protection to begin with.

Answer 4

WHere did you get your information. Last time I checked which was recently,, destroying embryos to republicans is a big no no. Unfortunately we get into the ethics of the situation. Are embryos a person or not? Part of the point behind going against emergency contraception(which I agree with by the way) is that you are then going to have people use that as birth control. Just as you have had people in the past use abortion as birth control. It was available, maybe a little more expensive than those pills, but you only needed it if you got caught. And oh dear, condoms just aren't comfortable. PLEASE!! These people need to spend some time in a third world country, then we can discuss birth control, and more importantly diseases.

Answer 5

"Guess that's the new politically correct term
for dealing with the potential consequences of
not having enough sense of responsibility to
use the proper precautions to avoid unwanted
pregnancy before actually having unmarried sex."

What the hell is wrong with using emergency contraception to avoid unwanted pregnancy? How is using emergency contraception not responsible? How do you know they didn't try to use a condom (that broke, for instance)? How do you know it's "unmarried sex" - what, condoms can't break if you're married? And haven't you ever heard of rape? And do you realize even married women can be raped?

Why do Republicans seem to believe that life begins at penetration?

Gah, so many stupids in the world.

Answer 6

It is because the Republicans are after the fundamentalist Christian vote. In the political power play vote getting is more important than making sense.

Answer 7

"EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION" ????

Guess that's the new politically correct term
for dealing with the potential consequences of
not having enough sense of responsibility to
use the proper precautions to avoid unwanted
pregnancy before actually having unmarried sex.

Answer 8

I don't know anything about Republicans. But I keep asking Why are Democrats such whining p ussies about everything? and no one has been able to tell me.

Love, Jack.

Answer 9

Why do you expect politicians to make rational, logical decisions in medical issues?
Ethics from politicians. Talk about oxymorons!

Answer 10

I'm Independent and against both.