‘Michael and I struggled to have children of our own. I had many challenges as a teenager, and in my college years. I went through numerous surgeries. When Michael and I were married, I couldn’t wait to be a mom. But what happened so easily for many of my friends, was not my family. We went through countless sessions of fertility treatments,’ she said.
In 2005, she voted for a bill granting constitutional rights of due process and equal protection to a zygote, the fertilized egg cell that forms after conception. And four years later, she co-sponsored legislation mandating that a “right to life” begins at the point when a sperm cell fertilizes an egg, several weeks before a pregnancy can generally be detected.
So the question is, has Nikki Haley elaborated anywhere on what sort of fertility treatments she undertook?
While there are some fertility treatments that don’t result in excess zygotes, most of the (successful) ones do. I’m curious how she squares that (and IVF in general) with her legislative stance.
What’s the likelihood that she and her ilk will push for frozen embryos to be able to accrue credit for “aging” while still frozen, and from there, granting proxy voting rights to the contributors of the genetic material?
Can you connect the dots here? What would the treatment resulting in excess zygotes mean to you? I get that you think it contradicts the things she voted for, and I’m just wondering how or why you think it does that.
Depending on what her fertility problems were, she may not have had any excess zygotes. In theory, one could just keep going and implant all the zygotes produced. For many women with fertility issues, that would even be feasible. (And for others it would not be, of course.)
I can’t remember who, but one “pro-life” legislator was asked directly how he squared his radical stance against abortion with the fact that excess zygotes were being disposed of by fertility clinics everyday, and he didn’t show any interest in them.
His reply was a little longer, but the memorable part of it was they phrase “they’re not in women,” and I’m not taking it out of context to explain that yes, in fact, he was saying that it wasn’t the stage of development, or the fact of being genetically H. sapiens that imbued a zygote/embryo/fetus, whatever, with humanity and constitutional rights, is was the fact of it’s having latched onto the insides of a woman in some way.
I’m sure he stated it all kinds of wrong but couldn’t the comment be interpreted as he views it as not OK to take steps to interfere with the development of a fetus/zygote/whatever but OK to take no action and allow a zygote to die off? If so that’s not the most unreasonable position I’ve heard.
If he advocated for abortions for women carrying dead fetuses, maybe, but he was one of the “total ban; no exceptions” types, and claimed it was because a zygote has constitutional rights, or something.
He spouted a lot of nonsense, because he didn’t even know the right terms for the different stages of development in utero, but it pretty much came down to controlling women.
I’ve trying to Google up the full quote and the name of the legislator, and I’m not having any luck.
As people have mentioned, this is not necessarily true. People do allow others to use their excess zygotes. (Some people call it donation, some others, with a particular ideology, I think, refer to it as zygote adoption.)
In addition, there are ways to minimize the chances of excess zygotes. Or, with a cooperative doctor, completely eliminate the possibility.
I don’t know that she did any of these things, but no one here even knows if she did IVF either.
As a way to reason your way to a gotcha, I think it doesn’t really work.
You’d likely come up with a bunch of hits for people who expressed all or parts of that position or something close to it, especially when not really knowing the details of the physiology — A lot of antichoicers do tend to hew to “magical” notions of reproduction (remember “the body shuts that down”?) but in many cases it’s really that what they are is pro- pregnancy (with the entailed consequences for the woman) and don’t bother them with details.
And as slicedalone said, when it’s the Right Kind of People doing it, We Don’t Talk About That.
Is she Pro-Life because isn’t getting pregnant a gift from God or something like that? Any thought to if God wanted you to have babies he would have made you fertile?