Ah yes, the “Fuck you, got mine” the Boomer Conservatives are so famous for.
AKA the “tree house ladder”-principe: when you are in it, pulling up the ladder so noone else can follow
Aptly named because while they think they are living in the clouds the house sits on a rotting branch that is just waiting to snap under the weight.
Also they forget people can climb trees. And have saws.
Don’t forget fire!
people have been refusing to climb and use saws for so long they forgot it exists.
we should remind them.
Then Lindsay Graham puts out the sign that says
“No girlz allowed!”
I believe he has that tattooed on a body part.
Of course it is his hypocrisy and hatred of everyone else that makes him worthy of ridicule not his sexuality but that joke was just on a platter.
“No women allowed”
-Matt Gaetz, probably
- no one
“Fuck you, got mine” is pretty much a cornerstone of their platform…
“Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.”
– Frank Wilhoit
“The King can do no wrong” bit also lays up really nicely with “The President must have absolute immunity”. It’s an insightful commentary all around.
https://crookedtimber.org/2018/03/21/liberals-against-progressives/#comment-729288
Omfg that’s spot on
I feel like we’re REALLY seeing the consequences of leaded gasoline on a generation or something…
Have you ever thought about the crazy stupid things people did in the past? From using lead pipes in ancient Rome while knowing it was toxic, to blood letting, to witch trials? I used to think, “Man, we humans sure used to be stupid.”
No. We still are and have always been collectively stupid. Now, the stupidest of us just have the same potential platform as the rest of us to reach out to the other stupid people via the internet.
That said, the leaded gasoline certainly did us no favours…
Well it quiet the valves…
/s
Wait, why are they banning IVF? I thought their primary goal was to get as many women to give birth and all that jazz… wouldn’t IVF be something forced-birth supporters want?
You see, your first mistake was expecting a logically-consistent platform from conservatives.
I know that conservatives tend to go backwards with their ideology construction; instead of starting from axioms to construct their position, they just reach their position from their preconceived notions of what is desirable and good without actual logic behind it… But this is bizarre since their religion (the primary source of their ideology) says to reproduce and have many children as a goal, so wouldn’t a party of Christian values be pro-IVF?
Maybe I’m expecting too much of them, and there are more Jesse Lobotomy Peterson than I thought…
Their religion also says, essentially, to be a socialist, like Jesus was. It’s literally all about forgiveness and making sure the least among us have everything they need. The facts about their religion are only relevant if they support what they were going to do anyway.
I see your confusion. You expected them to actually read the Bible instead of just using it as an excuse to hurt their opposition.
Well, they like genocide which is presented as a good thing in the bible if I remember correctly (I’m not Christian, so I might be misremembering), they like treating women and children as property like in the bible… I just assumed they read it often for inspiration. But you’re right, they cherry pick the stuff that helps push their agenda.
It’s sort of an unintended side effect in my interpretation. Their goal was to get every possible fetus legally defined as a child (so that any and all abortions can be considered child murder and outlawed) but got IVF caught in the crossfire, because they handle fertilized eggs, which are then considered viable fetuses under this definition by the christofascists.
Sounds like you might be right… It’s kinda hard to tell sometimes.
idk dude, I’d personally be more surprised if that was their platform because while it would still be a horrific violation of human rights, it would be too consistent with itself. I’d probably accuse them of using ChatGPT to write it or something.
You’re probably right, I just remembered Jesse Lobotomy Peterson, and I realise there are enough people on his level, otherwise he wouldn’t have a platform.
The ironic part is that he’s probably actually intelligent and just a malefactor. You need to be at least more intelligent than the people you’re grifting to successfully grift them.
Wait, so that’s an act? How can someone say the things he is saying with a straight face? That’s just Oscar level acting if that’s the case. I just assumed he had 3 brain cells…
I mean perhaps I’m just too cynical, but I expect a lot of these pundits don’t get high off their own supply if you catch my drift. In Peterson’s case, his Wikipedia page has a couple things that smell like grift to me:
- he used to be a Democrat, claimed that religion made him Republican - looks like pandering
- he started a business at one point (janitorial services; that’s an essential service, so an entrepreneur can do well in that space)
- he founded a non-profit with a religious slant that has other conservative pundits on the board - this reeks of a conspiracy to sap money from ignorant people, a.k.a., grift
- meetings with Toyota executives for some undisclosed reason; I feel like it’s pretty hard to rub shoulders with the big dogs like that if you’re an idiot and didn’t have rich parents, and it doesn’t seem like Peterson came from substantial means
- multiple publications - the titles read like self-help and “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” drivel with an added dash of racism
All of that to me reads as a cunning individual that’s using gullible and ignorant people to line his own pockets.
Their real goal is control.
They don’t give a shit about children, or birth. They think that women who have sex for fun deserve punishment, and that childbirth is just punishment for “immoral” sexual behavior.
Also that children who were raped should be forced to carry to term and that it’s a gift from god.
they only want unwanted children, daaa!
Makes sense… and they only want them before they are born; once they are born, they don’t care about them either…
I’m a little out of the loop, but I’d guess they’re trying to build precedent such that if an IVF embryo has ‘fetal rights’ or whatever they term it, then the same will apply to pregnancy at the earliest stages. And they can say: No abortions 1 day after pregnancy or something like that.
The attack on reproductive rights is unconscionable
Makes sense. It just seems like an unwise move, because they would be losing support from any voters with fertility issues who are trying for kids who might otherwise be anti abortion and generally conservative.
they’ve probably ran polls and figured out it would be worth it
Nah, the GOP isn’t that smart anymore. They were before Trump ate their brains.
Not that they made decisions with the best interests of the people in mind before that, but they used to be much more strategic about their evil. They’re now shooting from the hip.
The Goidels were on track to freeze embryos later this month, and they planned to only store the ones that were genetically normal.
But on Friday, the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that frozen embryos created through IVF are considered children under state law, meaning that people could theoretically be sued for destroying an embryo.
Because their idea of abortion is so fucking inanely stupid they think this counts. I mean, not for rich people or Republicans. That’s why the DA Steve Marshall said he wouldn’t prosecute IVF families. Which has no legal weight behind it at all so he can feel free to prosecute anyone who can’t defend themselves, which is 99%.
Idiocracy was a documentary after all…
Control. It’s about nothing more than control.
This particular person is doing the general Republican thing where they say they support something but their actions make the thing impossible to do. Like treating IVF in a way that makes hospitals cancel IVF services because of the threat of legal action when it doesn’t go perfectly.
They think the embryos used for IVF are the equivalent to children birthed from the womb and therefore it’s child abuse. Mind you, these are the same morons who are pushing to remove any recreation from sex. Their goal is for sex to be only for procreation. They’re actively trying to push us into their weird world of having sex through a hole in a bedsheet only for the purpose of bearing children. They want to outlaw all forms of contraceptives. Hell, Maggy Taylor Greene wants to push legislation so that women stop tempting Christian men. We’re regressing as a country
Conservatives must be so self-conscious about their poor skills in the bedroom that they create this “sex is for procreation, not for pleasure” type message…
P.S. MTG must be so insecure about her partner cheating on her or something…
Oh I know this one… 1984!
Alabama supreme court recently ruled that any IVF embryos are actual human beings. That means if you use IVF and dispose of embryos you are a murderer. Since it’s almost impossible to do IVF with no ‘lost’ embryos they just want to ban it for everyone.
Also, some religious folks were already against it because it involves men ejcaculating into cups, and that’s against the Bible.
Many think that artificial insemination is “subverting God’s will”. If they were meant to have kids, they could do it naturally. It’s the same line of thinking that they didn’t need a vaccine and could just pray their way to COVID immunity.
God likes to watch, he needs some PIV action, IVF action is just not the same thrill.
They overreached in their anti abortion crusade by getting embryos declared persons in Alabama
It’s an ’unnatural’ conception made possible by use of embryos which these GOP lunatics would prefer be recognized as actual children, just in embryo form. Ergo, all embryos must be ‘protected’ which translates no more science with embryos.
Many of them have simply lost the plot.
It’s ultimately about control, but that’s how they’ve gotten so many people to go along with it.
In this episode of Rules for Thee not Me…
Headline is an outright lie. The article literally quotes her saying she supports IVF. The author speculates that a bill she is co-sponsoring (that does not mention IVF) may accidentally ban IVF (if it passes and Biden signs it).
Certainly you could denigrate her intelligence, performative politics, or the logical incoherence between her abortion and IVF positions. But you cannot say she wants to do something contrary to her actual explicitly stated desire.
This is how it always happens, lip service doesn’t mean anything. They will be QUOTED as being in support of “women’s health and safety” and “emergency exceptions” all day long as they vote to overturn Roe and strip down exceptions to meaningless inactionable jargon
They’re not going to say (I guess some of the house bombastic ones might) “I’m a Republican in support of preventing your wife from bearing children”
But you cannot say she wants to do something contrary to her actual explicitly stated desire.
If she doesn’t want to do it, then why is she co-sponsoring it?
That’s an affirmation that she wants the thing that she sponsoring to be done.
He litterally said the bill doesn’t mention IVF. It is just one authors opinion that the bill could possibly be corrupted to ban IVF. The reality is is that one can never predict all the side effects a bill might have when it is intentionally misinterpreted.
He litterally said the bill doesn’t mention IVF.
He? Where?Never mind, went back and read through the whole article, instead of just depending on the summary.
My question still stands though.
What you’re mentioning was that there’s no carve out, also known as an exclusion of, for IVF. Not that it doesn’t mention IVF.
From the article…
And as Rubashkin points out, there is no carveout in the bill for in vitro fertilization. Oops!
Curiosity question, if we are saying embryos are children, would it not be illegal to buy and sell them?
Can’t wait for women to declare 300 dependents on their taxes.
You need TINs for each dependent unfortunately, for the IRS doesn’t believe in personhood before birth.
Pretty sure it would be illegal to keep them in freezers as well
That’s fine— just throw your tainted IVF kids in the trash to show your conviction.
THEN we’ll talk.
Of course this happens. The exact same bullshit happens with abortions as well, they just call the procedure something else (I forget what, basically sounded like cleaning out the lining?). When asked why they go “my case was a special case, it was the only legitimate abortion ever”.
My case was special because I cheated on my husband and didn’t want him to find out. But the 14 year old who was raped by her uncle and the pregnancy went ectopic and threatens the life of the underage mother…that should be illegal!!!
(I forget what, basically sounded like cleaning out the lining?)
You may be thinking of a D&C
deleted by creator
So, another Sarah Palin…
I mean, what sane woman would be a Republican?
Just grifters. Like the rest of the party.
Andrea Dworkin literally wrote a whole book on that.
“Apres moi le deluge” might as well just be the GOP’s official slogan at this point.
They’d honestly get away with it too if they did it in French. The average MAGA voter doesn’t exactly strike me as multilingual.
Unilingual would be a stretch.
Can someone explain why this bill prevents IVF? So OK it says that the embryo in the petri dish or whatever is a human. Is the point that therefore other various laws apply to it and so it can’t be implanted? Or is it other parts of the process are now forbidden like the freezing others have mentioned?
During IVF, you don’t prepare a single embryo. You prepare dozens at once.
IVF is used when for whatever reason the natural process fails. This can be due to had sperm, bad eggs, trouble with the path to the womb, hormonal imbalances, and a large number of illnesses that fuck up this delicate process. So IVF has to fight a steep uphill battle, and you want multiple fighters in the ring to increase the odds. Why do it all at once and not over after the other? Extraction of the eggs requires intense, weeks to months of hormonal therapy. The extraction is also a surgical procedure, requiring a surgeon to access the ovaries. This is painful and has health risks, you don’t want to this every week. Less time and less procedures also help reduce costs. IVF is expensive, quickly costing many thousands of dollars. Last but not least, IVF is an intensely stress- and painful time for the couple on a psychological level alone. Every failed attempt weighs heavy, every miscarriage is a huge loss. Those emotions should not be toyed with and it’s clearly ethical to follow the medical process with the highest success chance and least suffering.
Explaining the process: You extract many eggs and fertilize them with sperm at once. Then you wait for them to do their first couple cell divisions, usually until they are a count of 4, 8 or 16 cells, varies by nation and its laws. The more splits, the easier to qualify the health and success chance of the embryo.
Even during this early stage, multiple of the embryos typically fail to divide properly and are then discarded.
Then, the most vital and hopeful embryos are selected and implanted during another surgical procedure directly into the womb. Again, always multiple. This is because some embryos will die during the process, others will not attach. In the end, you only need one embryo to attach and get supplied by the womb, then you’re on track to getting pregnant.
All the other good candidates are frozen, so you have them ready for possible future implantation attempts. It’s common that the attachment process doesn’t work at first try.
Once your pregnancy is carried out (miscarriage is always a big risk up until the end during IVF) and you are certain you don’t want more kids, the rest of the frozen embryos are discarded.
With this new interpretation of the law, doctors and lab techs would be mass murderers.
If the embryos are people, just ask them if they don’t mind being thrown out. If they say nothing, then it’s fine.
Since they’re underage, the mother would have the authority to make medical decisions on their behalf. If she decides that they wouldn’t want to be kept alive by machines like an industrial freezer, surely that’s her choice, right?
I’m not a lawyer but I’d love to see how something like this pans out. It feels like another one of those situations where an idiot makes a sweeping ruling that doesn’t consider the many many ways it affects society.
All makes perfect sense, thanks for explaining!
As a bonus fact: because multiple embryos are implanted at once, IVF has a much higher chance of having multiple embryos take hold at once. So while getting pregnant is hard on the first place, if it works, there’s a higher than usual chance to get twins ( or even more, though much less likely).
This “risk” is clearly communicated in the preparation phase and the potential parents have to ok and accept this for IVF to go ahead at all.
IVF isn’t always successful. Nobody is going to perform it if an expected failure is going to result in a murder charge.
I agree.
Also, more embryos may be created than needed. So after a couple conceives, if those embryos are considered to be people, what can the fertility clinic reasonably do with them that won’t be considered murder?
With IVF, multiple embryos are grown and then analyzed - the best are implanted, the rest are usually either destroyed or (with the donors’ permission) used for research. You literally can’t conduct IVF without destroying some of the embryos.
Take the kids back
Duh
