Frozen Embryos Are 'Children,' According To Alabama's Supreme Court (arstechnica.com) 557
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: The Alabama Supreme Court on Friday ruled that frozen embryos are "children," entitled to full personhood rights, and anyone who destroys them could be liable in a wrongful death case. The first-of-its-kind ruling throws into question the future use of assisted reproductive technology (ART) involving in vitro fertilization for patients in Alabama -- and beyond. For this technology, people who want children but face challenges to conceiving can create embryos in clinical settings, which may or may not go on to be implanted in a uterus.
In the Alabama case, a hospital patient wandered through an unlocked door, removed frozen, preserved embryos from subzero storage and, suffering an ice burn, dropped the embryos, killing them. Affected IVF patients filed wrongful-death lawsuits against the IVF clinic under the state's Wrongful Death of a Minor Act. The case was initially dismissed in a lower court, which ruled the embryos did not meet the definition of a child. But the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that "it applies to all children, born and unborn, without limitation." In a concurring opinion, Chief Justice Tom Parker cited his religious beliefs and quoted the Bible to support the stance.
"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," Parker wrote. "Even before birth, all human beings bear the image of God, and their lives cannot be destroyed without effacing his glory." In 2020, the US Department of Health and Human Services estimated that there were over 600,000 embryos frozen in storage around the country, a significant percentage of which will likely never result in a live birth. The result of this ruling "could mean that any embryos that are destroyed or discarded in the process of IVF or afterward could be the subject of wrongful death lawsuits," notes Ars. [According to national ART data collected by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the percentage of egg retrievals that fail to result in a live birth ranges from 46 percent to 91 percent, depending on the patient's age. Meanwhile, the percentage of fertilized egg or embryo transfers that fail to result in a live birth range from 51 percent to 76 percent, depending on age.]
"The ruling creates potentially paralyzing liability for ART clinics and patients who use them. Doctors may choose to only attempt creating embryos one at a time to avoid liability attached to creating extras, or they may decline to provide IVF altogether to avoid liability when embryos do not survive the process. This could exacerbate the already financially draining and emotionally exhausting process of IVF, potentially putting it entirely out of reach for those who want to use the technology and putting clinics out of business."
In the Alabama case, a hospital patient wandered through an unlocked door, removed frozen, preserved embryos from subzero storage and, suffering an ice burn, dropped the embryos, killing them. Affected IVF patients filed wrongful-death lawsuits against the IVF clinic under the state's Wrongful Death of a Minor Act. The case was initially dismissed in a lower court, which ruled the embryos did not meet the definition of a child. But the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that "it applies to all children, born and unborn, without limitation." In a concurring opinion, Chief Justice Tom Parker cited his religious beliefs and quoted the Bible to support the stance.
"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," Parker wrote. "Even before birth, all human beings bear the image of God, and their lives cannot be destroyed without effacing his glory." In 2020, the US Department of Health and Human Services estimated that there were over 600,000 embryos frozen in storage around the country, a significant percentage of which will likely never result in a live birth. The result of this ruling "could mean that any embryos that are destroyed or discarded in the process of IVF or afterward could be the subject of wrongful death lawsuits," notes Ars. [According to national ART data collected by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the percentage of egg retrievals that fail to result in a live birth ranges from 46 percent to 91 percent, depending on the patient's age. Meanwhile, the percentage of fertilized egg or embryo transfers that fail to result in a live birth range from 51 percent to 76 percent, depending on age.]
"The ruling creates potentially paralyzing liability for ART clinics and patients who use them. Doctors may choose to only attempt creating embryos one at a time to avoid liability attached to creating extras, or they may decline to provide IVF altogether to avoid liability when embryos do not survive the process. This could exacerbate the already financially draining and emotionally exhausting process of IVF, potentially putting it entirely out of reach for those who want to use the technology and putting clinics out of business."
WINNING! (Score:5, Insightful)
Separation of church and state no longer exists! Christianity has won! Praise Jeebus!
Re:WINNING! (Score:5, Insightful)
The extra scary part is that make it obvious that they don't actually believe their own religion.
If the act invokes the wrath of God, then why do we have to worry about it? Do they not trust God to be able to exact his own vengeance?
Or are they like chihuahuas running in a dog pack - utterly useless, but with an inferiority complex ten times their size that makes them try to start shit with anyone and everyone, while the real dogs are just chilling?
Re:WINNING! (Score:5, Interesting)
I figure you already know the answer to your questions, but I feel the need to expound on the obvious.
These evangelicals are apostates. They're heretics.
For them Jesus isn't a lamb. He doesn't turn the other cheek. He doesn't forgive, he condemns. He isn't the fulfillment of the mercy of Yahweh, he is the vengeance.
See a pattern yet?
At some point it becomes a different religion and I think we're well past that point. They no longer believe in the same fundamentals which underlay the religion they claim.
Re: (Score:3)
That's the reason why they don't love but fear god. They're afraid that he, and even more Jesus, could actually be real and show them what he thinks of what they did out of his message.
Re:WINNING! (Score:5, Insightful)
Well only Jesus. The god of the old testament is a dickhead.
Re:WINNING! (Score:5, Insightful)
The god of the old testament doesn't come across like some omnipotent being but rather like some kid in the terrible twos throwing temper tantrums. That doesn't need worship but rather a sound spanking.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:WINNING! (Score:5, Insightful)
Almost no group of religious fuckups tries to actually understand their religion. To most it is just being part of a group with power.
Re:WINNING! (Score:5, Interesting)
That view of Jesus comes directly from The Apocalypse. The whiny evangelicals read that and presume it is talking about now. Every few centuries, the reigning evangelicals think it is talking about their time. The Apocalypse is a member of a genre of literature, there are many of them and some are from the same time frame. The Apocalypse is actually talking about the Roman Empire sometime after the Jewish temple was destroyed circa 70 AD. The Jesus of the Apocalypse bears no resemblance to the Jesus of the three synoptic Gospels (Mathew, Mark, and Luke). The gospel according to John came to us after the writer had a tour through the Land of Funny Mushrooms.
For a good time, take the synoptic Gospels and read them side by side rather than from front to back. Compare what goes on, the contradictions are particularly striking. And they are filled with...well, let's just say literary license. They are the biopics of their time, and biopics of that time were not historically accurate. Writers would frequently make stuff up to fill in what they thought the life of the subject was like. In that sense, they were not lying, but gaps in the stories are spackelled over. The writers were writing (Mark: circa 75 AD, Mathew: circa 80 AD, Luke: circa 90 AD, John: in Mushroom Land, so they were not even disciples or one of the 12 apostles of Jesus) about stories they had heard. And the versions we have are not the originals, but copies of copies of copies, and scribes would alter the text frequently because they could make no sense of the copy they were working with. So they'd alter it to fit their own understanding.
Jesus himself was an apocalyptic preacher who thought the End-O-World was nigh, and one needed to repent lest it catches one in a flagrante delicto. The Essenes were also apocalypticists...it was a rather popular view back then. He also never claimed to be the Son-O-G-d. And being a good Jewish boy, that would have been heresy and would have been stoned to death if he had claimed to be THE Son-O-G-d. The Son-O-G-d label was used at that time and before to claim someone was "of G-d" to whom G-d spoke personally. Hell, even David and Solomon were called sons of G-d. Evangelicals read that Son-O-G-d label in the Bible and repeat the same misconception that the writers had. And the texts were originally written in Greek by people who had little understanding of Jewish culture (except for Paul). Jesus likely spoke Aramaic and he and his followers were illiterate rubes from Galilee.
Re:WINNING! (Score:5, Informative)
The extra scary part is that make it obvious that they don't actually believe their own religion.
They consider Jesus "too woke" now. https://newrepublic.com/post/1... [newrepublic.com]
Re:WINNING! (Score:5, Informative)
The extra scary part is that make it obvious that they don't actually believe their own religion.
They consider Jesus "too woke" now. https://newrepublic.com/post/1... [newrepublic.com]
This is not a new thing. I was involved with the evangelical church back in the 2000s when the big thing was hating on gay people. Apparently gay people, and gay marriage specifically, was going to cause the downfall of western society. One church leader blamed them for causing a devastating earthquake (the loving God's judgement of course).
The way all the 'hate' was justified was with the concept that they were hating the 'sin' not the person. So when the church was telling gay people how they were an abomination and would burn in hell, it was because the church loved them so much. A similar thing happened before that with the whole 'tough love' thing for raising children where you basically emotionally abused them but it was actually because you 'loved' them so much - just talk to any child of the 90s who had deeply religious parents and they will be able to explain the trauma.
I actually think the evangelical church is full of many very good, well meaning people, but most of them are emotionally dysfunctional and have a lot of personal issues. The big problem is that the leaders of these churches are almost always sociopaths and having masses of vulnerable people under their control is basically a wolf running a support group for troubled sheep. I find it really sad, but without a formal regulatory structure I don't see how you prevent this. The hierarchal nature of the church attracts sociopathic leaders, and these people are extremely skilled at attracting, isolating and manipulating vulnerable members of society.
There are some good churches out there that support the vulnerable in their local communities. If I could get past the suspension of intellect required to believe in the sky god who has to kill himself to save us, then I wouldn't mind being involved in one again, but ironically, this aspect of church means that emotionally balanced and rational people are generally driven away.
Re: (Score:3)
I lived in Oklahoma- Tornado Alley. It's quite clear what part of the country God hates.
Re: (Score:3)
Back in the day, Disney had a rainbow celebration day at their theme park in Orlando FL. One of the Virginia-based evangelicals, either Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson, said God would punish Disney for such sin, with tornadoes, or earthquakes, or hurricanes. The very next hurricane headed ashore in Virginia. I took that to indicate divine displeasure with self-serving leaders of Evangelical churches.
Re: (Score:3)
This is easy to get around when you understand the story is a metaphor used to help us understand what it is to be good, not meant at all literally.
Could you accept that perhaps the teaching of that metaphor is more harmful than finding less sky-god ways of teaching what it is to be good?
It still does require some faith, however, that we are a part of something larger and mysterious, and that thing, whatever it is, has, if not intentionality, at least potentiality. Potentiality, in the sense that a battery has a “draw” for the ions from one node to the other. So the universe has a “draw” toward goodness (not to be confused with order).
A battery doesn't really have a draw at all. What it has is a potential, and basic physics that make it a lot harder for electrons to move than protons.
I think that basic misunderstanding is perhaps both an explanation for, and symptom of, your susceptibility to religious thinking.
Why, after all, does it require faith? Why must be be "part" of something larger and m
Re:WINNING! (Score:5, Insightful)
Jesus is way too woke for any organized religion that sells shit in their temples, because he literally would give them a beating. And I don't think there is a Christian church that doesn't sell shit nowadays.
Re:WINNING! (Score:4, Informative)
But it is nice to see a Christian shit-peddler downmodding. What line are you in, candles or good feelings for 10% of the income?
Re:WINNING! (Score:5, Insightful)
The extra scary part is that make it obvious that they don't actually believe their own religion.
I know it sounds trite, but the bible is essentially a huge document full of abstract allegories. Other than being quite consistently homophobic, it is a massive tangle of contradictions. This means you can pretty much make it say whatever you want. Especially once you accept that you cannot take most of what it say literally because it is so falsifiably wrong (except, apparently the creation story...). The fundamental tenets of christianity are basically like believing in the tooth fairy, and pretty much inconsequential on a practical level (sky god exists, came up with the plan to make us kill himself to save us). The rest of the religious practices comes from the historical way in which the bible has been interpreted by various 'leaders' starting with Paul.
If the act invokes the wrath of God, then why do we have to worry about it? Do they not trust God to be able to exact his own vengeance?
When I was involved in the church the basis for trying to do something about it was that we were supposed to be the 'salt' of the earth and the bring god's kingdom to earth. I guess you need something like that, or it just becomes a death cult and you might as well get killed as soon as you convert so you can immediately go to heaven. A similar theological problem crops up around grace (if god forgives you then just keep sinning). This technical problem is likely where calvinism came from.
Re:WINNING! (Score:5, Funny)
Chief Justice Tom Parker cited his religious beliefs and quoted the Bible to support the stance.
Presumably quoting from the appendix to the apocrypha, in which Jesus gives his opinions on frozen embryos, nanotechnology, and plasma physics.
Re:WINNING! (Score:5, Insightful)
"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," Parker wrote.
Yep, nothin' godly or religious there, that's fer sure. No siree, not one bit. Now y'all git along, I got a date with muh 1st cousin and it's legal here so mind y'own bisiness ya daym godless liberul!
Re: (Score:3)
Parker tries this game where he tries to attribute everything he writes to voter intent, but of course, voters never said anything of the sort. What voters approved was that the state of Alabama "acknowledges, declares, and affirms that it is the public policy of this state to ensure the protection of the rights of the unborn child in all manners and measures lawful and appropriate." Everything beyond that is purely is Parker, who goes at length citing from the King James Bible and invoking people like Jo
Re: (Score:3)
Biggest mistake America ever made was asking, much less fighting, for the South to remain. Lincoln should've built a bigly wall instead.
Re:WINNING! (Score:5, Funny)
You'll go to Hell for lying.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, if you start using religious dogma as a basis of actual case law (which will be used as precedent in future cases), is it that different from Sharia?
Re: (Score:3)
Letting states do it instead doesn't make it any better. To base a law on a specifically on it being a religious teaching violates others' 1st amendment rights.
If an embryo is a child (Score:2)
"...then an acorn is an oak tree." --Judith Jarvis Johnson
Re: (Score:3)
A lot of religious people (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:A lot of religious people (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll never completely trust a religious person - they are irrational. The whole basis of their worldview is believing things an authority figure told them were true, and denying any evidence that those things aren't actually true... and there's a lot of evidence, combined with a complete lack of evidence supporting their beliefs, yet they persist in them. Across generations.
If there weren't so many religious folks, we'd consider religion a sign of mental illness and urge them to get treatment.
Re:A lot of religious people (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that most of today's atheists don't realise that they have inherited their view of right and wrong from Christianity with relatively few changes
Yeah... no.
A bunch is innate, and the rest has evolved through various societies through various religions, thinkers, philosophers, the enlightenment and so on.
A bunch (not stealing, murdering etc) predates Christianity in written form. The actual teachings of Jesus, you know about not being a dickwad appear to have been completely lost in a lot of Christianity, enough that it's fair to say it's not a tenet of the religion.
at least compared with the massive changes that Christianity imposed on its pagan predecessors. Infanticide, paedophilia and murderous gladiator shows, along with a level of oppression of women worthy of the Taliban, were the order of the day in pagan Rome...
That's a unique take on history: there were two things, modern Christians (excluding most of them) and Rome.
Re:A lot of religious people (Score:5, Insightful)
What you don't seem to realise is that there has been rampaging by Christian hoards.
That's more or less exactly what the crusades were.
Then there was that Christian country which managed to invade almost every country in the world.
your take isn't new, but it is stupid. Christians were as responsible for running the transatlantic slave trade as they were for abolishing it. You can't have one without the other. The abolitionist movement in England came from a mix of somewhat niche Christian sects and the secular enlightenment inspired philosophers, and was pitted against the very much Christian establishment.
The first binding ruling against slavery in England was not done on religious grounds but because England's just too awesome for slaves (in Elizabethan speak).
And when it comes to human sacrifice, Christianity doesn't exactly have a clean slate there with all the burning alive of heretics, witches and etc that happened in God's name.
It's almost like the prevailing ideas in Christianity have at any one time reflected the prevailing ideas of the society in which it is present. And that's why doing evangelicals think Jesus is too weak and liberal right now.
Re:A lot of religious people (Score:5, Informative)
This is ridiculous. All you have to do to prove that inaccurate is to point to any of the many examples of pre-Christian folks whose teachings are still with us today. Drawing a line in the sand and suggesting that Christianity bequeathed us morality is just fucking stupid
Societies needed basic decency to function. This is true with or without religiosity. You don't need a belief in God to conclude killing each other is bad for the collective. And being religious in no way prevents you from doing it anyway.
Re: (Score:3)
Christianity does not teach "the universalisation of morality". Throughout the vast majority of their history, and into today, christians held and hold slaves. The religion specifically allows for slavery and for treating people differently based on their ethnicity.
This is something which secularists and humanists have managed to alter, and yes, many of them are atheists.
You're arguing completely backwards. The changes you're trying to ascribe to a bronze age mythology which holds women inferior and that sl
Re: (Score:3)
And one of the biggest proponents of continuing slavery - the American South, justified their continued use of slavery using the very same book.
There's a lot of cultural stuff, not explicitly tied into Christianity, that enabled the ending of legal slavery nearly world-wide.
Re:A lot of religious people (Score:4, Informative)
Yeah, no, Christianity did not invent the concept of good and evil. Christianity didn't even invent most of Christianity - most of it drew from Judaism, Zoroastianism and even from European pagan traditions.
Infanticide
Infanticide did not stop with the advent of Christianity.
paedophilia
I really shouldn't need to point that out, but paedophilia very very definitely did not stop with the advent of Christianity
murderous gladiator shows
To be fair that did stop with the advent of Christianity but it was mostly a Roman thing. There isn't much evidence of anything like that existing in other non-Christian cultures. Also, on the scale of terrible things that humans did to each other over the centuries, I don't think that ranks all that high.
along with a level of oppression of women worthy of the Taliban
You can argue about the definition of "worthy of Taliban" but let's just say unequal treatment of women very definitely did not stop with the advent of Christianity. There are some other cultures and religions that look definitely worse in that respect but most others look pretty similar. If you look at the treatment of women as compared to men in the pre-Christian Roman empire, for example, it doesn't look that much different than their treatment in the post-Roman Christian world.
Some adherents of Abrahamic religions see their particular religion as totally different and unique, but I'd say these religions have far more in common than they have differences. They even share some prophets and holy places.
Re:A lot of religious people (Score:5, Funny)
The problem is that most of today's atheists don't realise that they have inherited their view of right and wrong from Christianity with relatively few changes
Typical Christian, stealing from the Jews and then claiming it's their own.
Re: A lot of religious people (Score:3)
I learned long ago that going along with religious nutters doesn't satisfy them for long. They will always be one step ahead of you on the insanity.
Re: (Score:3)
nothing to do with religious people. a human is born entirely without any other help other than requisite nutrients out of the first singular cell - at that point that code is the same and exactly the dna that you have in the billions of cells in your body. the entirety of the person is defined this way. you can take a cells from the day two and clone it into 100000 exactly similar persons.
You could also take any given cell from your anal sphincter and use its DNA to clone 100000 exactly similar persons.
Does that make your asshole a child?
Re: (Score:3)
See my sig, It's been the same for a few years now. It is my sincere opinion that religious people should be segregated from modern society, treated as people who cannot answer for their actions and therefore cannot live without adult supervision. And the most fanatical of them should be treated like the irrational, wild animals they are, and locked up forever in a cage so they can't put anyone at risk.
Harsh, bro. I'm far from religious myself, but see religion as a sign of mental trauma, turned in most cases to lifetime mental illness. I would suggest that if we segregate the religious away, it be to provide them with the mental health care they deserve until they start to reclaim reality as their place of existence. Perhaps in extreme cases it can't be done, but treating every mental illness as another excuse to treat people like shit is, well, it sounds very Christian of you.
Tax shelter (Score:5, Interesting)
If embryos are people, and entitled to "full person rights", then can I claim them as dependants?
Re: (Score:3)
Raises a lot of questions - can they start driving 16 years after they were fertilized?
Re:Tax shelter (Score:5, Funny)
No, but if they're in a dewar flask of liquid nitrogen sitting in the passenger seat, you can use the HOV lane.
Re:Tax shelter (Score:5, Interesting)
If a couple begin the process of IVF and then suffer a financial setback, can they get medicaid to pay the storage fees on their un-implanted embryos? They are after all apparently children and entitled to aid. Does the state have the courage (and wallet) of it's convictions?
Will the state mandate that all frozen embryos must be implanted sooner or later? Will it find foster mothers and pay for the implantation if the egg donor dies?
Re: Tax shelter (Score:4, Interesting)
There are, sadly, weird charities that will pay for embryo storage. My Dad used to work in a fertility clinic that had to walk a fine line in a religious community. The company made a point of having very prolife marketing literature. And to their credit they rarely had an terminations. But they also implant some nonviable embryos with viable ones in order not to destroy the embryos.
As if God is only powerful enough to work in a uterus. Religion makes people do some wacky mental gymnastics in order to satisfy the gap between belief and reality.
Re:Tax shelter (Score:4, Funny)
The parents can drop the cryogenic flask in a "safe haven" box at any fire station in Alabama.
Then they are wards of the state.
Re: (Score:3)
If embryos are people, and entitled to "full person rights", then can I claim them as dependants?
In Georgia you can. Presumably you can take out life insurance on them too in case they miscarry? Waiting to see about that one.
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
Re:Tax shelter (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Tax shelter (Score:5, Insightful)
This has got to be overruled. It establishes fertilization centers as carrying massive amounts of alleged frozen, living humans with full legal rights. The legal complications aren't worth thinking about. They're inane and insane.
Re: (Score:3)
It establishes fertilization centers as carrying massive amounts of alleged frozen, living humans with full legal rights.
Almost like a mini concentration camp!
Re: (Score:3)
Take a wild guess how the current Supreme Court will rule once the case makes it there.
Why is anyone surprised? (Score:2, Informative)
Re: Why is anyone surprised? (Score:5, Interesting)
The center right is economic, really a difference of macroeconomic philosophy while still holding classically liberal ideas like democracy and the holding elected officials accountable. Taxing and spending with agreeable returns, such as having roads or an educated workforce.
The far right is obsessed with control and heirarchy to the point of overlapping with theocracy. And don't have any long term plans that could be described as rational. Most of them want to wait around for Judgement Day, many start it a little early.
The far left wants to tear down the current mainstream economic system and rebuild a different kind of society.
The center left, like the center right, has a variant of macroeconomic philosophy. And support democracy, classical liberalism, and capitalism. Generally a flavor capitalism that can be described as Western welfare capitalism. Frequently agrees to compromises with the center right in order to keep day to day business going. Like hammering out a budget to keep the government funded.
Re: (Score:3)
The Christians and the Taliban are two sides of the same coin.
God don't care 'bout that (Score:3)
What do Lawyers and Sperm have in common? (Score:5, Funny)
What do Lawyers and Sperm have in common?
1 in 3,000,000 have a chance of becoming a human being.
Straight out of a dystopian novel (Score:5, Interesting)
So if corporations are people, and embryos are children, does that mean that corporations can have children if they purchase unused embryos from IVF clinics?
Re: (Score:3)
If you purchase a person would that not make you a slave trader?
They think they can make up their own reality. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Please try to keep up. Eunomion [slashdot.org] says that it is a physical fact that these human beings are not people.
Physical fact [encyclopedia.com] is defined thus:
So, what is the visible, audible or tangible thing that distinguishes people from not-people? What chemical assay do you perform to decide
So... (Score:5, Funny)
On the up side ... (Score:3)
People can now claim these "children" on their tax returns and the state of Alabama can get a bump in their census and more Representatives in Congress.
Alabama (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the key word here is "Alabama." Best policy is not to ever go there. If you find yourself in Alabama, GTFO.
Re: (Score:3)
Judging by their results in the average IQ tests [zippia.com], I'd say the people with the brains to do so already left a long, long time ago.
Yep, sure (Score:5, Informative)
And a fertilized egg is too! As 80% of all fertilized eggs are aborted by the body naturally, everybody having unprotected sex is obviously real (80%) or attempted (20%) responsible for a wrongful death and needs to go behind bars for a long, long time!
In other news, the religous fuckups are getting even more stupid and disconnected from reality. Having a religious state is a throwback to the dark ages and having a judge quote the bible is about as bad as it gets in failure. Next up: Religious police that likes to beat people to death if they do not follow some arbitrary ridiculous rules.
In other news ⦠(Score:3)
⦠people in Alabama have started celebrating their birthday the day their parents got frisky after that barbecue
Re: (Score:3)
This is a joke that ends in the punchline "Kid, just be glad you ain't barking".
What's next? (Score:3)
What's next, classing surgery as Assault with a Deadly Weapon?
Goddam Talibanjelicals! (Score:3)
Let them secede. If somebody tries to pull a Lincoln 2.0 to stop them, I'll make them eat their tall hat.
A 'Christian' (Score:5, Interesting)
"... lives cannot be destroyed without effacing his glory."
So, he objects to the death-penalty?
Nope, in 2006, he publicly complained when a child was excused from the death-penalty.
Murder is wrong only before the child is born, obviously: His anti-abortion stance is well-known. And his "states rights" stance, claiming in 2006, the US supreme court doesn't overrule state precedents.
Just another 'Christian' preaching moral values he doesn't believe.
Re:A 'Christian' (Score:5, Insightful)
“Boy, these conservatives are really something, aren't they? They're all in favor of the unborn. They will do anything for the unborn. But once you're born, you're on your own. Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that, they don't want to know about you. They don't want to hear from you. No nothing. No neonatal care, no day care, no head start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you're preborn, you're fine; if you're preschool, you're fucked.”
-- George Carlin
AL has answered one question in philosophy (Score:4, Insightful)
The question goes like this ...
You're in the middle of a fertility clinic when a fire breaks out. Two long corridors stretch out on either side of you.
Down one corridor is a 7 year old child screaming at you to save her. Down the other corridor is a tray of 100 frozen embryos.
You only have the time to run down one corridor and get out safely. Which corridor do you run down?
I guess politicians in Alabama would grab the tray of frozen embryos and let the kid die. I mean, 100 to 1, am I right?
The fact that they quoted any one religious text to make this decision means they do not understand law.
Unconstitutional (Score:3)
It's time to impeach those Justices for gross violation of their duties. This ruling violations section 7 of the Alabama Constitution:
"Section 7. There shall be no establishment of religion by law; no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious sect, society, denomination, or mode of worship; and no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under this State."
IVF has been a blind spot until this ruling (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Christ the US is becoming a truly fucked up place
Yeah, it's so bad even people who are critical of religious insanity start their sentences with "Christ..."
Re: (Score:3)
Christ the US is becoming a truly fucked up place
Some parts of the US.
Just like some parts of Europe.
Abortion rights are more restricted in Poland and Malta than anyplace in America.
Abortion in Europe [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Give Poland a little time, they just got rid of their populist right-wing government.
And it ain't easy, they're clinging to the power as if they know that the new government will find some of their skeletons...
Re: (Score:3)
Places in the USA have already effectively banned abortion , Poland hasn't - nor has Malta ...
You are wrong and obviously didn't read the link.
The restrictions in Malta are more severe than any American state. Abortion is illegal even for rape and incest.
The restrictions in Poland are only slightly less severe and just as severe as the most severe American states (Idaho and Alabama).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Classic. When people realize "my side is crazy" they have two options:
* Admit that their side is crazy, and try to fix things (or move to the sane side), or
* Make up shit about the other side, then claim "both sides are crazy so it's okay if i support the crazy"
One is honest, but it means you have to admit to being wrong, so most folks go for option 2 and happily make up shit.
Re: (Score:3)
Or the "abortion at any moment for any reason, right up until the moment of birth" crowd.
I'm personally pro-choice, like most people, but there are loonies on both sides.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Late term abortions, contrary to what lunatics say and appear in some cases to actually think, are rare and get rarer the further along. Very late term abortions are almost never performed except in the case that the fetus is revealed to have some awful genetic defect or deformity or the mother's life is in danger, and the least harmful option is to end the pregnancy.
What the hell business do
Re: (Score:3)
Again, I'm reasonably pro-choice, and I'm very glad abortions happen almost entirely in that first trimester, because we should err on the side of caution when potentially causing harm.
No one denies that late term abortions get rarer the later in pregnancy. That obvious on the face of it, so that's a bit of a straw man I think.
The fact that the left advocates for it to happen for any reason (namely, pure convenience) and right up until moments before birth is what scares people. A lot. Maybe you can clai
Re:Which extemists scare you more? (Score:5, Informative)
There is not a single state where so called late-term abortions are legal without medical justification.
This is absolutely false. There are seven states (and the District of Columbia) who have no restrictions on abortion whatsoever, up to and including abortion on the date of delivery [usnews.com].
The idea of "Democrats want to allow abortions up till the moment of birth" is a complete lie manufactured by Republicans.
"Abortion, On Demand, Without Apology"? Is it the Whigs carrying those signs?
Also, the "health of the mother" justification became a complete wash, untethered from any real medical justification when courts made the legal definition of "medical necessity" so loose that you could sail the Titanic through it [bostonglobe.com]:
The proposed Women’s Health Protection Act, the legislation to “codify Roe” backed by most congressional Democrats, would establish a nationwide right to abortion, overriding all state laws banning abortion at any stage. The bill provides that abortion would be lawful even after fetal viability, so long as a “health care provider” — which need not be a doctor — determines that ending the pregnancy is necessary to preserve the “life or health” of the mother. That was the standard created under Roe v. Wade. But in the companion case of Doe v. Bolton decided the same day, the justices ruled that “health” could refer to any consideration — “physical, emotional, psychological, familial.” Under such a limitless definition, the exception swallowed the rule, making abortion lawful at any stage of pregnancy.
Re:Like it or Not (Score:4, Interesting)
Keep your religious beliefs out of my government and my life.
human cells are alive too....and a has human DNA...
Fact is 80% of the clumps of cells naturally DIE and don't become a real human and they shouldn't. You nuts will be demanding everything be saved no matter how defective -- what is going to be the limit?
If your god wanted them, then your all powerful god would do something about it or punish those who displease god. What gives you the right to decide?
Re: (Score:3)
Eve was the first slut and every woman thereafter is just as evil. This thinking is built into the system. It's consistent with not allowing women priests, which is true for the majority of christian sects.
So now that the Supreme Court has taken away body autonomy from women, how long will it take for Alabama to remove the rest of their civil rights and
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
What definition of "organism" are you using here?
Re: (Score:3)
So, you made it up and call it "standard" on your own authority? Not exactly persuasive.
Re: Like it or Not (Score:3)
Science does not make moral judgements like you just did.
Re: (Score:3)
An embryo is an organism in and of itself.
As well as a bacterium is. Yet you are killing thousands of them when you wash your hands.
It is alive and it is human in a very scientific sense of the word. ... We can reason that this is morally wrong just based on science itself and some very basic philosophical axioms like murder being wrong.
We can't because terminating an embryo is not defined as murder in many jurisdictions. Also whether you define embryo as a human is only a matter of definition. It is not somehow magically scientifically given. It is also questionable whether it is morally wrong. Are woman also morally wrong when they miscarriage most of their fertilized eggs? Is life morally wrong because one organism is killing another one all the ti
Re: (Score:3)
All multicellular species have an embryo stage of development. We are not talking about most of them, we are talking specifically about human embryos. So, yes, by definition these embryos are human.
Also, miscarriage is not a voluntary act, generally speaking. We don't say that people commit suicide if a cancer develops in their body. Nature does what it does, and the law very rarely has anything to say about the actions of nature.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh but it is human. It has human DNA. Scientifically and in all other respects it is human.
Blades of grass don't have human DNA. There is no superstition involved here. We are speaking purely scientifically. There is no such thing as scientific truth. Facts are data. Truth is meaning. Science produces facts, not meanings. Stay in your lane.
An embryo is a living human organism.
If you're going to question other people's educations you would do well to get the basics right at least.
Re: (Score:3)
That is a scientific fact no matter how hard or how fast you wave your hands.
Science makes no such claim. Indeed, science has yet to fully encapsulate what it means to be “alive” in the first place.
So stop claiming that science says what you want it to say, just because that’s the result you desire. That in and of itself is not science.
Yaz
Re: (Score:3)
An embryo in the stage we are talking about here (basically "fertilized egg") is not a human organism any more than the skin-cells everybody sheds all the time. And, pro-tip!, about 80% of all fertilized eggs are naturally aborted. Hence about 80% of sex that results in a fertilized egg is at the very least causing "wrongful death". That means, by your argument, all unprotected sex must be outlawed and those that practice it need to be jailed.
See how stupid your statement is? Well, probably not. You religio
Re: (Score:3)
Your skin cells are part of your body, but not the whole thing. The embryo is not a "part" of a different person. It has distinct, unique DNA, making it the entire body of a distinct, unique human being.
But, of course you know that, because you have a working mind and you live in the real world where facts matter.
Re:Like it or Not (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd expect an omnipotent god who wants this to be true to do something about it. Since he doesn't, there's basically two possibilities. Either he just doesn't give as much a fuck about it as his fanboys or he just plain doesn't exist.
Which is it?
Re:Like it or Not (Score:4, Interesting)
An embryo is a potential human organism. It's not a human being yet. Embryos at the stage which the article is talking about aren't independent beings. They can't survive unless under controlled conditions in a freezer, or implanted in an uterus (and even then, their survival is uncertain). Both IVF freezers and uteri are in limited supply. Therefore, these embryos can't be granted human rights, even the most important of them, which is the right to life. That's what the science says.
Re: (Score:3)
According to a poster above, killing embryos is the same as spraying for roaches. Are you sure you're preaching to the right crowd?
Re: (Score:3)
You are lacking a fact: 80% of all fertilized eggs (or "children" by this decision) are aborted by the female body naturally. So having unprotected sex is a about 80% likely to cause death and that is way high enough for a "wrongful death" claim, because it was almost sure to happen and basically expected.
With that, this "ruling" becomes obviously ridiculous and disconnected.
Re:Separation of church and state (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed. It is also a sign of deep corruption of that judge, because he surrendered his independence. Despicable and repulsive and a sign of dark times ahead. Secular states are a very important _achievement_, not something to casually throw away.
You prefer Mill or Kant to Jesus? (Score:3)
All criminal law is the imposition of someone's morality. The only issue is: 'which do you choose?' On the issue of when does a foetus become a person, all choices from 'at conception' to 'three months after birth' are totally reasonable positions. Which do you prefer, and why?
Re: (Score:3)
I've seen burned toast that looked more like Jesus.