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

[Bradskii]

Mobs chase righteous people down the street fairly regularly. If I'm supposed to determine my morals based on whether a mob might chase me down the street, I'll be the most immoral man ever.

We aren't discussing your various failings. We're discussing you rescuing a test tube instead of a child.

Focus.

 

[jayem]

Don't know about anyone still around from 1861. But...

More than 8,000 Alabamians sign petition to secede from the U.S.

President Obama's re-election has prompted a wide variety of reactions in Alabama including several thousand people who say they want the state to secede from the union.

www.wbrc.com

President Obama's re-election has prompted a wide variety of reactions in Alabama including several thousand people who say they want the state to secede from the union. And before you dismiss this as just a fringe movement, the petition seeking Alabama's independence has more than 8,000 signatures so far.

My post is off topic. But just for the record, SCOTUS ruled way back in 1869 that unilateral secession by any state is unconstitutional. The case is Texas v. White, ET AL. The reconstruction government of TX sued to reclaim some federal government bonds that were sold when TX was part of the CSA. The Court ruled that TX retained the right to obtain the bonds because the state never legally left the USA. The Court decided that secession was illegal because it violated the very first clause of the Preamble:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union...

How can the Union be more perfect if states can decide--on their own--to secede? Admittedly, SCOTUS's reasoning is kinda sketchy. But it's still the law. However, this decision only applies to unilateral secession. It remains possible that a state can secede if the other states give consent. Though how exactly this would proceed is an open question.

TEXAS v. WHITE ET AL.

 

[Belk]

The question as posed in this thread is addressing a moral issue regarding whether preborn life is human. The false dichotomy presupposes that one of the two human lives is less valuable than the other, and asks me to tell the questioner which one it is, without the option to say, "They are equally valuable." That third option is the one that makes the dichotomy false.

I see. So then in the classic trolley problem if 5 vials containing cells were on the track you would pull the switch to kill a single child? Well, that is not how I would see it but you do have a valid point, that is a third option.

 

[truthpls]

No you can't make up definitions. A zygote is not a child.

Says who?? You do not set the rules as to the processes God uses for life. It is all part of it, from the egg and sperm on. If the egg and sperm have already come together and are fertilized, in what way is that NOT part of the process God set up? God said we are wonderfully made in the womb. Formed. Fashioned. He says He is with us there.

By definition. An abortion is not murder.

Whose definition? Not mine. When a little one is killed that is murder. You can call it a tomato if you prefer.

By definition. Change the definitions to suit your argument and your argument immediately becomes worthless.

False. God defines, man obfuscates and tries to cover murders.

 

[Bradskii]

Says who?? You do not set the rules as to the processes God uses for life. It is all part of it, from the egg and sperm on. If the egg and sperm have already come together and are fertilized, in what way is that NOT part of the process God set up? God said we are wonderfully made in the womb. Formed. Fashioned. He says He is with us there.

Whose definition? Not mine. When a little one is killed that is murder. You can call it a tomato if you prefer.

False. God defines, man obfuscates and tries to cover murders.

We have nothing to to talk about.

 

[Whyayeman]

I'm not familiar with every law in Alabama. But my point is that a word meaning one thing in one law doesn't mean it means the same thing in every other law.

I don't think that can be quite right.

 

[JustOneWay]

Or in a Petri dish as was the case here. No wombs were involved at any point in this case.

No heartbeat or brain function either.

This will only hurt women who want to have children and can't conceive under normal circumstances.

Good job Alabama. Tuberville agrees, disagrees, agrees, disagrees, and agrees....

 

[BCP1928]

Says who?? You do not set the rules as to the processes God uses for life.

And you are not in a position to dictate them to us.

 

[JustOneWay]

Sounds like a windfall for women who are of childbearing age. Now that embryos are children, they get to be counted as dependents on tax returns, receive welfare, can have life insurance taken out on them, can be gifted appreciated stocks and mutual funds whose tax basis will be reset when they die and the assets are "inherited" back by their parents.

Plus if it is a child as soon as it is conceived, there's going to be lots more "birth"right citizens of illegal immigrants, which I'm sure will make the far-right totally happy they supported this nonsense.

I'm sure there's lots of other benefits that can be dreamed up.

The only problem will be to find a lab which will decide if a power outage or mechanical breakdown with their equipment is worth the price of mass murder

 

[JustOneWay]

I am waiting for the next logical lawsuit where freezing a child is torture and assault.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Third Ala. IVF clinic halts operation after state high court ruling​

The Center for Reproductive Medicine in Mobile, one of just seven IVF clinics statewide, announced Thursday that it had paused IVF procedures in light of the court ruling. Mark Nix, president and CEO of the clinic’s parent company, Infirmary Health, said in a Thursday statement the court decision “has sadly left us with no choice.”

“We understand the burden this places on deserving families who want to bring babies into this world and who have no alternative options for conceiving,” he added.

 

[Hans Blaster]

One of the Justices said
""In summary, the theologically based view of the sanctity of life adopted by the People of Alabama encompasses the following:
(1) God made every person in His image;
(2) each person therefore has a value that far exceeds the ability of human beings to calculate; and
(3) human life cannot be wrongfully destroyed without incurring the wrath of a holy God, who views the destruction of His image as an affront to Himself.""


How is any of this allowed in a judgement by a justice?
Shouldn't there be a separation of Church and State?
Isn't this showing the desire by that Justice to force Christianity onto people?

Is there a process to punish, by sanction or firing of this judge?

If it happened he wouldn't be the first Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court to be removed for theocracy:

Roy Moore - Wikipedia

 

[truthpls]

We have nothing to to talk about.

Correct. God sets the rules for life and babies. Man tinkers

 

[essentialsaltes]

If legislators don't clarify things soon, it looks like the IVF industry in Alabama really will be altered unrecognizably or vanish.

Alabama lawmakers are planning legislation to ‘protect’ IVF after state Supreme Court ruling, sources say. Here’s the latest​

A bipartisan effort is underway in the Alabama House and Senate to draft “clarifying” legislation that would “protect” in vitro fertilization treatments following the court’s ruling, state legislative sources told CNN.

Alabama House Democrats introduced a bill Thursday that would establish fertilized human eggs stored outside of a uterus are not considered human beings under state law.

Republican state senators are soon expected to file similar legislation, one source said, but they were unsure of the exact timing.

Amid the legal uncertainty, the Alabama Attorney General’s Office hasn’t issued guidance on the matter.

“It’s not our case,” spokesperson Amanda Priest told CNN Thursday. “We have not been involved at all.”

Priest declined to say whether the office has received questions from clinics. She also didn’t immediately respond to questions about whether the state would criminally charge people who destroy embryos.

If that's the answer clinics are getting, it's no wonder some are hitting pause.

 

[BCP1928]

Correct. God sets the rules for life and babies. Man tinkers

The problem with that is that you are not in a position to tell us definitively what those rules are.

 

[truthpls]

And you are not in a position to dictate them to us.

The process of life is no secret and God is with it all the way. If anyone tinkers, freezes and delays or whatever, the process is still there.

 

[o_mlly]

Then why bring it up. It's inconsequential to any argument I use.

You're confusing what you think is my emotionalism with what the mother exhibits when she considers the difference between a frozen embryo and a baby. You are still determined to ignore the basic fact that everyone treats them completely differently. Even if, in your case, you are determined to deny it. Note the recent refusal to answer the hypothetical about which should be saved if it could only be one or the other.

I cannot argue with how you feel about yourself or about others. I can argue with how you think -- I'm still waiting for your argument. So, spare us the deflections of an imaginary trolley gone wild, childcare fires and all the rest and simply give us a principled argument from science and logic as to exactly when the child obtains its right to life.

I'm listening.

 

[o_mlly]

Nowhere does the Constitution state, or even imply, that the unborn are "persons" in the legal sense, as that term is used in the 14th Amendment. If that's wrong, then the proper, and most secure way to grant such rights to the unborn nationwide will require a Constitutional amendment. And as regards abortion, 6 states have already held referendums. In every one, access to elective abortion was upheld by the voters. About 13 states will hold similar referendums later this year. To be on your way to an abortion-free nation, I suspect you'll have to change a lot of hearts and minds.

Stay tuned: "a journey of thousand miles begins with a small step".

 

[essentialsaltes]

After Alabama ruling, Nikki Haley says ‘embryos, to me, are babies’​

GOP presidential candidate Nikki Haley said Wednesday that she agreed with the Alabama Supreme Court’s ruling that frozen embryos are people

GOP lawmakers and candidates [who are not Nikki Haley] race to distance themselves from Alabama court decision​

A number of congressional Republicans running in 2024 are swiftly distancing themselves from a controversial Alabama Supreme Court ruling seen as infringing on IVF, the latest obstacle for GOP candidates in the post-Roe era.

The [National Republican Senatorial Campaign] also sent a memo to their GOP candidates Friday and obtained by CNN that encourages candidates to “clearly and concisely reject efforts by the government to restrict IVF.” The memo also outlines a recent poll showing the popularity of the procedural even among conservatives.

The memo tells candidates to “express support for IVF” and “oppose restrictions” on the procedure.

Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan, who is running for US Senate, wrote on X this week, “IVF helps give many Americans the chance to experience the joy of parenthood and government should never stand in the way of that. The Alabama ruling should be overturned.”

some in Congress have struggled to clearly articulate their position, including Sen. Tommy Tuberville of Alabama, who seemed to tell an NBC reporter he backed the decision before appearing to backtrack

 

[essentialsaltes]

Pauses on embryo transfers out of Alabama leave IVF patients with few options​

Some fertility clinics and transport services are worried about shipping embryos following the Alabama Supreme Court's ruling that embryos are children.

RESOLVE: The National Infertility Association announced Friday that nationwide embryo shipping services have indicated that they will stop transporting embryos to and from Alabama.

--

They can't do that! It infringes the children's right to freedom of movement.

In Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. 168 (1869), the court defined freedom of movement as "right of free ingress into other States, and egress from them."