Frozen embryos are ‘children,’ Alabama Supreme Court rules in couples’ wrongful death suits

[Tinker Grey]

Who is "we"?

Whoever holds power

 

[Hans Blaster]

Have you read the U.S. Constitution lately? "... they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life ..."

Don't need to read the Constitution to know that that deistic line isn't in the constitution, but is in the Declaration of Independence. It's also not relevant to anything in this thread.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You tell me. The whole of IVF technology is an anathema.

Huh? What have you got against couples making babies?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Right. And where did it come from, if it has been part of every society back to the beginning? Maybe someone told Noah, when he came off the ark, that murder needs to be dealt with, and why:
[Gen 9:6 KJV] Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

So, if man is made in the image of God, and that's why you can't murder a man (including women and children), isn't that why you can't murder any human being, including those who haven't yet reached full maturity?

This just religion, not law, nor history. Laws long pre-existed the stories in Genesis.

Seems like you just affirmed that Alabama is heading in the right direction!

Hardly. Try again.

 

[Derf]

Whoever holds power

Then it's OK to prosecute the death of an embryo, at least when the religious are in power?

 

[Derf]

This just religion, not law, nor history. Laws long pre-existed the stories in Genesis.

That's funny that you would tell a whole people group that their history is not history, especially when it's repeated by one of the foremost historians of the Roman Empire.

"When Noah had made these supplications, God, who loved the man for his righteousness, granted entire success to his prayers, and said, that it was not he who brought the destruction on a polluted world, but that they underwent that vengeance on account of their own wickedness; and that he had not brought men into the world if he had himself determined to destroy them, it being an instance of greater wisdom not to have granted them life at all, than, after it was granted, to procure their destruction; "But the injuries," said he, "they offered to my holiness and virtue, forced me to bring this punishment upon them. But I will leave off for the time to come to require such punishments, the effects of so great wrath, for their future wicked actions, and especially on account of thy prayers. But if I shall at any time send tempests of rain, in an extraordinary manner, be not affrighted at the largeness of the showers; for the water shall no more overspread the earth. However, I require you to abstain from shedding the blood of men, and to keep yourselves pure from murder; and to punish those that commit any such thing. I permit you to make use of all the other living creatures at your pleasure, and as your appetites lead you; for I have made you lords of them all, both of those that walk on the land, and those that swim in the waters, and of those that fly in the regions of the air on high, excepting their blood, for therein is the life. But I will give you a sign that I have left off my anger by my bow [whereby is meant the rainbow, for they determined that the rainbow was the bow of God]. And when God had said and promised thus, he went away."

Not only that, but Josephus was writing under the auspices of the Roman's, from the line of Japheth (Noah's firstborn), as a Jew from the line of Shem (another of Noah's sons), about Noah, who is recognized by the descendants of Ham (Noah's other son) as an ancestor. Are you seriously going to argue that the history of all three of the sons of Noah, from which the whole world is descended, is incorrect, based on your own opinion?

Hardly. Try again.

Another poorly derived and held opinion?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Then it's OK to prosecute the death of an embryo, at least when the religious are in power?

This was a discussion on the concept of outlawing murder. It's useless because those in power decide. I don't have to like it or agree with it.

 

[childeye 2]

This was a discussion on the concept of outlawing murder. It's useless because those in power decide. I don't have to like it or agree with it.

According to scripture, it is the woman that conceives a child. This necessarily means that a blastocyst must form and then embed itself in the uterus wall for a woman to become pregnant, otherwise she has not conceived a child if a blastocyst is rejected.

 

[IceJad]

If I were benevolent dictator of the Earth, it would seem easy enough for the IVF facility to whip up some more embryos from the parents at no cost to them.



Not as a wrongful death suit.

There are many reasons why people get their embryos frozen. It is not up to you do decide how to reproduce the embryos and how many times they can do it. I hope you know the women have to undergo medication for procedures like this. It is very unhealthy in the long term to be medicate for this procedure. You think you can get ovum anytime you wanted? You can guarantee the quality of the ovum in every extraction? You can endure the embarrassment of doctors extracting the ovum from your womb? All these have a toll on a person. A toll you seem to not consider.

I know of a couple who married later in life. The guy told me that they leave it up to chance if they would have a child. I suggested invitro. Both of them agree to not undergo any medication for invitro. The health risk is real. Imagine these couples had went thru to get their embryos only to be destroyed later.

Easy is when you don't have to go thru it while dictating things from behind a cold emotionless room.

And yes it can be consider wrongful death. The reason is these couples might not have another chance to get their child. It might be the embryos were their last chance for it. the accident might have kill off their family line. You won't know. You can't see the future. How severe of a punishment for the wrongful death should be left to the courts to decide.

 

[childeye 2]

Then it's OK to prosecute the death of an embryo, at least when the religious are in power?

According to scripture, it is the woman that conceives a child. This necessarily means that a blastocyst must form and then embed itself in the uterus wall for a woman to become pregnant, otherwise she has not conceived a child if a blastocyst is rejected.

 

[Bradskii]

Nope. The enlightened Alabamians understand when human life begins.

One would have to be pretty ignorant of biology to think otherwise. Is a sperm or an egg alive? Well, yes. Are they human? Well, if they are from a man and a woman then...yes.

Is a blastocyst a person? Obviously not. And a fertilized egg isn't even that. It's a zygote. It's a human zygote. And it's alive. But it's just a zygote. Not a child.

Which would you save from the burning building. A couple of zygotes or the child?

 

[IceJad]

They are suing. That's what this case is. They are using the "unborn child" extension of the existing fetal extension to the states "wrongful death of a minor" act, rather than treating the embryos as destroyed property.

Like I replied in another post, you won't know what the value of the embryos are to the couples. It might be their last chance for children. If that is true then yes you have kill off their children. The embryos are alive in scientific definition so they are not just property. You might not like how they define a child but those embryos will definitely grow to be humans therefore a life. This accident just snuffed out these lives.

Let the courts decide the outcome.

 

[Bradskii]

Like I replied in another post, you won't know what the value of the embryos are to the couples. It might be their last chance for children. If that is true then yes you have kill off their children.

No, you have prevented them having children.

 

[IceJad]

No, you have prevented them having children.

Kill off or Prevent. Besides semantics wouldn't the outcome be the same? Chance of a child gone.

 

[Mayzoo]

So, if the couple decides they no longer want the embryos that are stored, are they allowed to have them "destroyed" or do they have to pay storage fees until both the father and mother are dead? Then after their death, who continues to pay the fees thereafter, their heirs or does the IVF facility need to store them for free indefinitely?

 

[Bradskii]

Kill off or Prevent. Besides semantics wouldn't the outcome be the same? Chance of a child gone.

Your last statement is correct. It's not a child killed. It's the chance of a child gone.

 

[IceJad]

So, if the couple decides they no longer want the embryos that are stored, are they allowed to have them "destroyed" or do they have to pay storage fees until both the father and mother are dead? Then after their death, who continues to pay the fees thereafter, their heirs or does the IVF facility need to store them for free indefinitely?

Quite sure the contract would have spelt out the conditions. Any moral stipulations would also be in the contract. But rather I don't think it has any bearings on the lawsuit. The couples would have agreed to the conditions regardless. What they wouldn't have agreed on is the accident.

 

[Hans Blaster]

That's funny that you would tell a whole people group that their history is not history, especially when it's repeated by one of the foremost historians of the Roman Empire.

Do you mean the Jews? You should go ask some Rabbis of various Jewish traditions to see if they treat the text of the Torah as literal and historical. The fraction who do is smaller than you seem to assume.

"When Noah had made these supplications, God, who loved the man for his righteousness, granted entire success to his prayers, and said, that it was not he who brought the destruction on a polluted world, but that they underwent that vengeance on account of their own wickedness; and that he had not brought men into the world if he had himself determined to destroy them, it being an instance of greater wisdom not to have granted them life at all, than, after it was granted, to procure their destruction; "But the injuries," said he, "they offered to my holiness and virtue, forced me to bring this punishment upon them. But I will leave off for the time to come to require such punishments, the effects of so great wrath, for their future wicked actions, and especially on account of thy prayers. But if I shall at any time send tempests of rain, in an extraordinary manner, be not affrighted at the largeness of the showers; for the water shall no more overspread the earth. However, I require you to abstain from shedding the blood of men, and to keep yourselves pure from murder; and to punish those that commit any such thing. I permit you to make use of all the other living creatures at your pleasure, and as your appetites lead you; for I have made you lords of them all, both of those that walk on the land, and those that swim in the waters, and of those that fly in the regions of the air on high, excepting their blood, for therein is the life. But I will give you a sign that I have left off my anger by my bow [whereby is meant the rainbow, for they determined that the rainbow was the bow of God]. And when God had said and promised thus, he went away."

He recycled stuff from the Torah hundreds of years later. That doesn't improve the historicity of it.

Not only that, but Josephus was writing under the auspices of the Roman's, from the line of Japheth (Noah's firstborn), as a Jew from the line of Shem (another of Noah's sons), about Noah, who is recognized by the descendants of Ham (Noah's other son) as an ancestor.

Unlike anonymous ancient writers, we actually know the motivations of Josephus in writing about Jewish history and recent events. Josephus was a Jewish leader during the revolt who turned to the Romans and joined their side. His self-chosen mission was to put his own people into the best light for the Romans while sucking up the the Romans at the same time. This doesn't give him authority of the Romans (or the line of his ancestors), but it does allow modern historians to understand the motivations of his writing and peel back his personal biases.

Are you seriously going to argue that the history of all three of the sons of Noah, from which the whole world is descended, is incorrect, based on your own opinion?

How could I not argue against it. It is completely conflicted by the genetic data. Humanity has never been restricted to a genetic bottle neck of one man (Noah), his wife, the the wives of his three sons. And that's all without considering that the flood event which limits all of mankind to decent from the sons of Noah is clearly excluded by geology and there is continuity of societies and genetic populations across any alleged date for this flood.

Another poorly derived and held opinion?

You haven't even come close to demonstrating that I am wrong.

 

[IceJad]

Which would you save from the burning building. A couple of zygotes or the child?

Both if possible. There is not a moral conundrum here. If you can't save both then the one which is safest to retrieve. You can't safe the impossible no matter how cruel it may seem to be. Being killed in the process of saving is the same as not saving. You would have died more honourable than most but the outcome would be the same.

The trolley problem don't apply here. Common sense should.

 

[IceJad]

Your last statement is correct. It's not a child killed. It's the chance of a child gone.

Then wrongful killing is applicable. The embryos were fertilized. Wrongful doesn't always equate purposeful. It was an accident after all. But a price will still have to be paid.

You can't go through what the couples are going through. How they feel about the situation. You may not call it child but what about them? If a pregnant women in her first trimester miscarried, would you say to her it's not a child its just a fetus? You think scientific labels compensate for the emotional damage?

Science is important to law but so is emotional state. There is a balance to it. The laws are to ensure a just society not a scientific one.