Post New

Alabama Supreme Court rules frozen embryos are children, imperiling IVF

OK, this is one of the whackier rulings to come out of a state supreme court.

The Alabama Supreme Court ruled Friday that frozen embryos are people and someone can be held liable for destroying them, a decision that reproductive rights advocates say could imperil in vitro fertilization (IVF) and affect the hundreds of thousands of patients who depend on treatments like it each year.
...
The Alabama case focused on whether a patient who mistakenly dropped and destroyed other couples’ frozen embryos could be held liable in a wrongful-death lawsuit. The court ruled the patient could, writing that it had long held that “unborn children are ‘children’” and that that was also true for frozen embryos, affording the fertilized eggs the same protection as babies under the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act.

And here is the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court taking the decision way out to far right whacko land:

In a concurring opinion that echoed that view but drew criticism, Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Tom Parker quoted the Bible as he examined the “sanctity of unborn life.”

“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.”

Let us recall... THIS is the atheist board. Whatever happened to separation of church and state?

From comments on the article:

This just in, frozen embryos in Alabama are now being issued concealed carry permits. But they shouldn't be required to have a permit!

ges: “Human life cannot be wrongfully destroyed without incurring the wrath of a holy God...

Huh.

If a holy God is so upset by wrongfully destroyed human life, what's with all the spontaneous abortions, which occur in at least 10-15% of all pregnancies? Is God incurring the wrath of himself/herself for all those miscarriages?

Is God incurring the wrath of himself/herself for all those miscarriages?

"God works in mysterious ways."

If those embryo's donors are killed in a mass shooting, and the embryos fail to pay their rent, do I sue the embryos singly or as a class? ?

"4 KILLED, 32 INJURED IN MASS SHOOTING AT SWEET 16 BIRTHDAY PARTY"
-.....in rural Dadeville Alabama. Star high school athlete killed in shooting.

LOL... from dadeville to deadville. That's the way the cookie crumbles in 'bamy.

No need to bring a God into this. Alabama's constitution recognizes an unborn child's right to life. That's what the Alabama voters approved. They surely knew they were banishing IVF clinics when they voted. Some contraceptives might also need to be banished. I will add Alabama to my do-not-visit list.

Fetuses are not U.S. or Alabama citizens. The U.S. Constitution 14th amendment says "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." I suppose the USSC could say a fetus is a person. States with IVF clinics would then get more Representatives in Congress. Weird.

Alabama Article I Sec. 36.06 Sanctity of unborn life.
(a) This state acknowledges, declares, and affirms that it is the public policy of this state to recognize and support the sanctity of unborn life and the rights of unborn children, including the right to life.
https://alison.legislature.state.al.us/constitutio...

child /chīld/
noun -- A person between birth and puberty.

Alabama redefined 'child' to suit the thumpers.

'Spose they'll bring me a fried egg if I order fried chicken in alabama? How's a chef to know???

lizgdal: No need to bring a God into this.

I didn't bring God into this, Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Tom Parker brought God into this. And I was asking a serious question: if God is so outraged by the unnecessary destruction of human embryos, why is s/he allowing so many miscarriages? You know, do the God thing and prevent them. Should be a snap. And while s/he is at it, please end pediatric cancer and other fatal childhood diseases.

If a holy God is so upset by wrongfully destroyed human life, what's with all the spontaneous abortions, which occur in at least 10-15% of all pregnancies? Is God incurring the wrath of himself/herself for all those miscarriages?

No talking sense to somebody who is so deeply deluded and lost in magical thinking and superstition.

And I was asking a serious question: if God is so outraged by the unnecessary destruction of human embryos, why is s/he allowing so many miscarriages?


You know how the Q'uran has all them 'Hadiths For All Occasions'?

.....well, the Bibles need TLWIMW* glossaries enumerating all the caveats that explain and/or excuse those things like childhood cancer, miscarriages, drunk drivers, mass shootings in elementary school, the KKK, "lynching coloreds", and denying people the pleasures of slurping raw oysters.

Bumper sticker seen on the way home from the beach today:

"Dear Lord, protect me from your followers."

No need to bring a God into this. Alabama's constitution recognizes an unborn child's right to life.

But the judge quoted the Bible in making the decision:

<snip>In Friday’s ruling, Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Tom Parker invoked a 2018 “Sanctity of Life” amendment to the state’s constitution, ratified by voters, that requires courts to “recognize and support the sanctity of unborn life and the rights of unborn children, including the right to life.” Parker raised the amendment with religious fervor, citing biblical verse. “It is as if the People of Alabama took what was spoken of the prophet Jeremiah and applied it to every unborn person in this state: ‘Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, Before you were born I sanctified you.’ Jeremiah 1:5,” the judge wrote.

In one of numerous citations from the book of Genesis included in his opinion, Parker noted, “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.” <snip>- Intercept

for in the image of God made he man.”

Fundamentalist Christianity indulges so much crazy nonsense. This idea that we are made in the 'image of God'. Just pure bullshit. Did this (nonexistent) God have vestigial organs of no use and that's why we got them? And why? Does God have the same clearly evolved anatomy? It's just so plainly idiotic.

Most modern monotheistic religions want to put man at the center of the universe. How do people still hold to such weird ideas? Youthful indoctrination I suppose.

I'm willing to go with an amorphous spirituality because this universe we occupy still holds much that is mysterious. But the fundamentalist crap...no.

And here we have a state supreme court justice spouting childish nonsense.

for in the image of God made he man.”

I guess George Santos invented the vagina then? 'he woman'?

"In his image" gives us a special place in God's eyes. I think spirituality is fine, but religions are nothing more than mainstream cults, and the focus of some churches on end times, left behind, rapture, and all that bunk is a death cult.

The Evangelicals started out in Northern Pennsylvania and spread south. It was a new type of preaching that took over the old fire and brimstone. Nowadays we have prosperity gospel and they eschew Jesus being poor, saying he was middle class, and as long as they give to the church and support the church charities, they're in with God.

But Alabama has a government run by whites and white republicans control the legislature on a pro family platform. May have been inroads lately as I see the redistricting court fights. But I don't see much changing.

That decision is so stunningly, awfully crazy it defies all reason.

The phrase "not even wrong" comes to mind.

If it wasn't trying to LEGISLATIVELY INVENT A DEFINITION OF HUMAN LIFE, it might even be as funny as

V: There are ways of telling whether she is a witch.
P1: Are there? Well then tell us! (tell us)
V: Tell me... what do you do with witches?
P3: Burn'em! Burn them up! (burn burn burn)
V: What do you burn apart from witches?
(pause)
P3: Wood!
V: So, why do witches burn?
(long pause)
P2: Cuz they're made of... wood?
V: Gooood.
V: So, how do we tell if she is made of wood?
she floats .... what else floats... etc
King: A Duck!
V: Exactly! So, logically...
P1(thinking): If she weighs the same as a duck... she's made of wood!
V: And therefore,
P3: A witch!


But it's not at all funny, not even close.

A wish that every woman in Alabama could move out.

FCA wish that every woman in Alabama could move out.

Alabam was the first state where I read the new bill and said that it's considered murder to get an abortion and it reads such that if you left the state, got an abortion and came back, its still considered murder. That sounded like an infringement on the right to travel, but who wants to find out?

Women get such bad deals with the Southern Baptists.

.....well, the Bibles need TLWIMW* glossaries

What's TLWIMW?

.....well, the Bibles need TLWIMW* glossaries

What's TLWIMW?

No asterix footnote? Heavens!
I suppose that's evidence, but not proof, The Lord Works In Mysterious Ways.

Analogous to assigning numbers to bar jokes, a TLWIMW glossary would save time over hunting down the relevant Psalm that covers common woes. Simply flip to the TLWIMW glossary to see why you can keep the faith in the Father and The Son, and yes, even that wacky Holy Ghost.

Alabama Supreme Court rules frozen embryos are children, imperiling IVF

Just remember ges, you and everyone here were an embryos in the very beginning first stages of your life, not “just” a blob of cells. You were allowed to develop in the womb (thanks to your mother)
and given the gift of life. Think about it.

Women who have problems conceiving will turn to frozen embryos or a single women who want the
gift of having a child of her own.

Women who have problems conceiving will turn to frozen embryos or a single women who want the gift of having a child of her own.

Pretty unlikely, at least in Alabama.

If the frozen embryos are treated as if they are human children under the law in Alabama, that's going to pose an insurmountable barrier for operating an IVF facility there. The standard of care for handling and preserving something that's considered a human child is much, much higher than the standard of care for something that's treated like any other tissue sample. It's hard to see how any facility could stay in business under that legal framework.

It's early days, and the legislature may intervene. But under the current legal system, it's unlikely that there will be many (if any) frozen embryos in Alabama in the near future.

LurkerMom: Women who have problems conceiving will turn to frozen embryos or a single women who want the
gift of having a child of her own.

You're misunderstanding this absurd ruling as well as IVF. In vitro fertilization extracts as many eggs as possible from a woman, fertilizes them to create embryos, and then freezes them. But can doctors still freeze them now? You can't freeze a "living human," after all.

Generally, only one embryo is transferred at a time into the uterus in order to maximize the chances of successful implantation and a full-term pregnancy. Now, with the new ruling, it would seem to be illegal to destroy the remaining embryos, so what is to be done with them?

And what happens when a physician implants an embryo that days or weeks later results in a miscarriage? Is the physician responsible? Can the physician or woman be indicted?

In short, this ruling would seem to end IVF in Alabama.

What's TLWIMW?

No asterix footnote? Heavens!
I suppose that's evidence, but not proof, The Lord Works In Mysterious Ways.

Thx. I should have been able to guess that, considering I wrote "God works in mysterious ways" in my post upthread! Humans work in mysterious ways too. 😊

Just remember ges, you and everyone here were an embryos in the very beginning first stages of your life, not “just” a blob of cells. You were allowed to develop in the womb (thanks to your mother)
and given the gift of life. Think about it.

Just remember LM that you are no longer property, can sign contracts, have a career, opinions, run for office. We don't have to strain credulity by pretending embryos are children, but we aid pregnancy, and once someone is born, we want to help that person by eliminating lead from its environment, making sure the REAL child gets good nutrition in the first three years, avoid wasting throughout childhood, get them vaxxed for good survival chances, an education, and try to leave them a better society with a framework for a good life.

Chief Justice Parker misquoted his God. This is a pet peeve of mine, often news articles only give a snip of a person's statement. A full sentence should always be quoted. Chief Justice Parker is twisting his God's words and misleading people. But Chief Justice Parker gets regularly elected by the people of Alabama who must like his comforting words.

Of course, I think words written almost 3000 years ago have no place in a modern legal argument. The Bible is not the law. Judges should stick to interpreting actual law as it applies to actual cases today. Judges should not use science fiction or hypotheticals to support their rulings. Give the legislature a chance to write laws if needed to address new technologies like the imagined babies brought to term in a test tube.

=== links ===

Chief Justice Parker wrote "It is as if the People of Alabama took what was spoken of the prophet Jeremiah and applied it to every unborn person in this state: "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, Before you were born I sanctified you." Jeremiah 1:5 (NKJV 1982)"
https://publicportal-api.alappeals.gov/courts/68f0...

But Jeremiah 1:4 1:5 King James Version (KJV) only applies to one person, Jeremiah: “Then the word of the Lord came unto me, saying, 'Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.'”

Taking God's words about one person and applying them to everyone seems like blasphemy. Is Chief Justice Parker really saying everyone is the same as Jeremiah in God's eyes?

The Science Fiction argument:
"For instance, one latent implication of the defendants' position -- though not one that the defendants seem to have anticipated -- is that, under the defendants' test, even a full-term infant or toddler conceived through IVF and gestated to term in an in vitro environment would not qualify as a "child" or "person," because such a child would both be (1) "unborn" (having never been delivered from a biological womb) and (2) not "in utero.""
https://publicportal-api.alappeals.gov/courts/68f0...

Putting GOD into the Alabama constitution, but not saying which GOD.
"At the time § 36.06 was adopted, "sanctity" was defined as: "1. holiness of life and character: GODLINESS"
https://publicportal-api.alappeals.gov/courts/68f0...

we want to help that person by eliminating lead from its environment

A major factor in Trumpian anti-science calculus: more lead = more MAGAts.

No surprise Trump's SCOTUS will likely knee-cap the EPA, eliminating "Good Neighbor" regulations. TLWIMW !

US Supreme Court considers challenge to EPA's 'Good Neighbor' rule"

"The U.S. Supreme Court is set on Wednesday to hear a bid by three Republican-led states and several energy companies to block an Environmental Protection Agency regulation aimed at reducing ozone emissions that may worsen air pollution in neighboring states.

Ohio, Indiana and West Virginia, as well as pipeline operators including Kinder Morgan, power producers and U.S. Steel Corp, are seeking to avoid complying with the EPA's "Good Neighbor" plan restricting ozone pollution from upwind states

The challenge comes after a major 2022 ruling powered by the court's conservative majority imposing limits on the EPA's authority to issue sweeping regulations to reduce carbon emissions from coal- and gas-fired power plants under the Clean Air Act anti-pollution law.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-supreme-court-...

sano: Ohio, Indiana and West Virginia, as well as pipeline operators including Kinder Morgan, power producers and U.S. Steel Corp, are seeking to avoid complying with the EPA's "Good Neighbor" plan restricting ozone pollution from upwind states

Well, this enables me to bring this back on topic by way of Randy Newman:

Now the Lord can make you tumble
And the Lord can make you turn
And the Lord can make you overflow
But the Lord can't make you burn
Burn on, big river, burn on
Burn on, big river, burn on

Just remember ges, you and everyone here were an embryos in the very beginning first stages of your life, not “just” a blob of cells. You were allowed to develop in the womb (thanks to your mother)
and given the gift of life. Think about it.

No, you're wrong, just plain wrong. An embryo is NOT a child. This is silly gut/emotional thinking, not rational thinking.

Back in the 1960s I remember seeing a an anti-abortion billboard in our town that read: "Never to laugh, nor love, nor taste the summer sun" with a picture of a beautiful baby. Even back then I remember thinking that they were confusing undeveloped early pregnancy embryos with babies. And it also bothered me that while there was all this emotional "Oh, we MUST save the babies!" stuff, there seemed to be much less concern about the suffering of those already born into this world and about the problems of overpopulation.

We are regressing.

Even back then I remember thinking that they were confusing undeveloped early pregnancy embryos with babies

So what then did that undeveloped embryos in the womb become?

there seemed to be much less concern about the suffering of those already born into this world and about the problems of overpopulation.

Interesting isn’t it those who made it out of the womb alive complain about over population.

So what then did that undeveloped embryos in the womb become?

It became a baby. In the same way that an acorn can become an oak tree....while an acorn is not an oak tree, and an oak tree is not an acorn.

This is always a source of different viewpoints in the abortion debate - a difference of opinion over whether the fact that an embryo can develop into a baby means that the embryo is a baby. Many (most?) supporters of abortion rights will argue that the answer is no: that just like an apple seed is not an apple tree, an embryo is not a baby.

LM: ‘So what then did that undeveloped embryos in the womb become?’

Albaby:’It became a baby.’

Thank you, that’s my point.

Albaby:’It became a baby.’

Thank you, that’s my point.

What was your point? That an embryo is not a baby, but can become one?

LurkerMom: Thank you, that’s my point.

Actually, here's the point: the University of Alabama Birmingham hospital system has paused all future IVF treatments, issuing this statement:

“We are saddened that this will impact our patients’ attempt to have a baby through IVF, but we must evaluate the potential that our patients and our physicians could be prosecuted criminally or face punitive damages for following the standard of care for IVF treatments."

So those embryos are not going to become anything more than embryos.

What was your point? That an embryo is not a baby, but can become one?

My point is an embryo is a human life.

SNIP
“Where does conception occur?
Sperm usually fertilizes the egg in the fallopian tube. This is a pathway from the ovary to a woman’s uterus.

An egg takes about 30 hours to travel from the ovary down the fallopian tube, according to the University of California San Francisco.

As the egg travels down the fallopian tube, it lodges in a specific portion called the ampullar-isthmic junction. It’s here that sperm usually fertilize the egg.

If the egg is fertilized, it will usually rapidly travel into the uterus and implant. Doctors call the fertilized egg an embryo.”

https://www.healthline.com/health/womens-health/wh....

SNIP
“Embryos are whole human beings, at the early stage of their maturation. The term 'embryo', similar to the terms 'infant' and 'adolescent', refers to a determinate and enduring organism at a particular stage of development.”

“Conception occurs when sperm fertilizes an egg found in the fallopian tube, creating a zygote that can eventually become an embryo.”

A. Basic human embryological facts

:To begin with, scientifically something very radical occurs between the processes of gametogenesis and fertilization�the change from a simple part of one human being (i.e., a sperm) and a simple part of another human being (i.e., an oocyte�usually referred to as an "ovum" or "egg"), which simply possess "human life", to a new, genetically unique, newly existing, individual, whole living human being (a single-cell embryonic human zygote). That is, upon fertilization, parts of human beings have actually been transformed into something very different from what they were before; they have been changed into a single, whole human being. During the process of fertilization, the sperm and the oocyte cease to exist as such, and a new human being is produced.:

https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb....

You all believe though however you want. Don’t matter to me.

LurkerMom: You all believe though however you want. Don’t matter to me.

I believe you left out anything that doesn't fit your narrative, such as:

Unfortunately, just because an egg is fertilized, it doesn’t mean that a pregnancy will occur.

Wait wut? I thought you said it was a baby.

It’s possible to have damaged fallopian tubes due to a history of pelvic infections or other disorders. As a result, the embryo could implant in the fallopian tube (improper location), which would cause a condition called an ectopic pregnancy. This can be a medical emergency because the pregnancy cannot continue and can cause fallopian tube rupture.

Gee, weren't physicians refusing to do D&C procedures in some states?

For other women, the blastocyst of fertilized cells may not implant at all, even if it reaches the uterus.

In some cases, a woman’s uterine lining isn’t thick enough for implantation. In other cases, the egg, sperm, or portion of the embryo may not be high quality enough to successfully implant.

So evidently not all embryos are babies.

Unfortunately, just because an egg is fertilized, it doesn’t mean that a pregnancy will occur.

Yeah, well, probably the male sperm was for shIT, it happens. :)

...seem to end IVF in Alabama

Which, it started to within 24 hours - news tonight highlighted one IVF clinic that has suspended operations.

Which, it started to within 24 hours - news tonight highlighted one IVF clinic that has suspended operations.

I wonder how you handle the embryos? Give notice to come get them? Whoever doesn't come get them you give notice you are shipping them to a state that won't accuse you of murder if there's a mistake?

IIRC 80-90 years ago priests and preachers were still advising women to get abortions because it wasn't a problem till the quickening. Then science pointed to the sperm hitting the egg. Why is it that they accept science there? Why not keep up the old timey ways? Because the abortion issue filled coffers.

So now its come down to where they are interfering with conception in a great way and telling lies to justify it. The will accept science where the sperm hits the egg, but not the scientific explanation for plan B. Nor do they make allowances for very real medical problems. Women are just screwed because of this. Not fair.

Technically they are not embryos until they are implanted. They are correctly referred to gametes or perhaps blastulas if allowed to
divide through a few cycles.

OK, then: blastulas and gametes are children! They are made in the image of GOD!

Technically they are not embryos until they are implanted. They are correctly referred to gametes or perhaps blastulas if allowed to
divide through a few cycles.

When does blood develop in an embryo? I'll bet not when it's a blastula, which is the stage at which they are frozen.

So the judge's justification is even more flawed that originally thought.

This is a lawyerly question...

Does a decision that appears to rely heavily on a religious tome (not just the bible, but any religion) have any validity? Or would it violate the separation of Church and State (i.e. make no law honoring the establishment of religion)? I would think it would appealable on those grounds.

Does a decision that appears to rely heavily on a religious tome (not just the bible, but any religion) have any validity? Or would it violate the separation of Church and State (i.e. make no law honoring the establishment of religion)? I would think it would appealable on those grounds.

A decision that actually relied on religious precepts as a basis for the ruling might run afoul of the Establishment Clause. However, I don't think this decision does. The legal reasoning of the majority opinion does not appear to have a religious basis, but instead is one of statutory construction. Having previously construed Alabama's wrongful death statute as covering "unborn children," the Court declined to draw a distinction between frozen embryos and any other "unborn children." The majority opinion does not appear to have cited any religious tomes or texts - only the concurring opinion written by the Chief Justice. I think it would be extremely difficult to raise that in a federal appeal.

https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttool...

OK. So the AL court wasn't THAT stupid as to give cause for an easy appeal.

Do you think it is appealable at all? Sounds like they would have to attack the notion that a blastula (nod to the flightdoc) is a "baby". Which would be difficult. With Kitzmiller they were able to bring forth scientists to refute (point by point) the creationist stand, and therefore win the argument (and ruling). I recall at one point the judge called court into session saying "science class it starting" (or words to that effect). But with the blastula, it's not as cut-and-dried. It has the DNA of a human, but is it "human"? Per flightdoc, it isn't yet a baby by current definitions.

I'm still against legislating any of this. It's the woman's body, not the state's. But it is interesting how it may be argued.

Do you think it is appealable at all? Sounds like they would have to attack the notion that a blastula (nod to the flightdoc) is a "baby".

No, I don't think it's appealable at all. This was the Alabama Supreme Court - the last court of appeal for state issues. I don't think there's a federal issue.

Nor do I think the argument you outline would work, because the decision of the court wasn't that a frozen embryo was a "baby." The Court based its decision on two things: i) it had previously ruled (consistently it says) that "unborn children" are covered by the state's wrongful death statute; and ii) there was no basis for distinguishing between an "unborn child" in a womb vs. one frozen in a tank for the purpose of the wrongful death statute.

There are counter-arguments to that latter point (which the Court disagreed with), but arguing over whether a frozen embryo is a baby isn't one of them. The question of whether an "unborn child" (at any stage of development after conception) qualifies as a "child" under the wrongful death statute was treated by the Court as settled law in the case, and not contested by any of the parties.

In fact, if we take as correct the Court's descriptions of its past rulings (I can't be bothered to check), this decision - however terrible the outcome - is probably legally correct. If people can recover damages for the wrongful death of an "unborn child," and "unborn child" isn't defined in a way that would exclude frozen embryos or blastulas, then people whose embryos are wrongfully destroyed probably do have a cause of action under the wrongful death statute. The practical consequence is that IVF can't operate in the state the way it has previously done so, but that's probably a legally sound end result from the starting principles.

Interesting.

So, what is "wrongfully destroyed"? Let's suppose an IVF couple are successful, they get a baby. What about the 10 blastulas/gametes still on ice? Can the couple decide to have them destroyed? Is that "wrongfully"? I only frame it that way because you said "people can recover damages", which implies the IVF couple. But if they want them destroyed, there would be no cause for recovery of "damages".

Technically they are not embryos until they are implanted. They are correctly referred to gametes or perhaps blastulas if allowed to divide through a few cycles.

I've been searching for a SINGLE chart/diagram that shows ALL the named stages of human embryonic development, along with where they happen and at what times, from gametogenesis to fertilization through the start of notochord differentiation. But, nothing I've found has covered everything all in a single chart. Surely there must be one for this extremely important topic. Can anyone find one? Wikipedia has it all of course, but it's spread out among multiple pages and images.

This comes close I think, but I want more detail:

https://www.scientificanimations.com/wp-content/up...

I have in mind something like one of those anatomy charts, such as this one for the gastrointestinal system:

https://www.universalmedicalinc.com/media/catalog/...

So, what is "wrongfully destroyed"? Let's suppose an IVF couple are successful, they get a baby. What about the 10 blastulas/gametes still on ice? Can the couple decide to have them destroyed? Is that "wrongfully"? I only frame it that way because you said "people can recover damages", which implies the IVF couple. But if they want them destroyed, there would be no cause for recovery of "damages".

I don't know. I don't think anyone knows. The legal posturing of the wrongful death claim is the deceased bringing the claim against the person(s) who did them wrong, with the proceeds to be distributed through the estate of the deceased to the beneficiaries (just checked - yes, that's how it's done in Florida). If the IVF couple says, "I want them destroyed," it's hard to see how they would be able to prove up the pain and suffering damages that normally would be the only damages for death of a minor child (there's no loss of support or earnings). But the court obviously didn't address that, so who knows how that works out? Or what happens if the couple disagrees, or they change their mind?

I'm still against legislating any of this. It's the woman's body, not the state's. But it is interesting how it may be argued. - 1pg

---------------

That is how I feel about it. Debating the minutiae of the definition of the various stages an egg goes through after conception implies that it matters and thus concedes the argument that the dividing line between OK and NOT OK lies in these definitions. It does not.

The country had reached an uneasy, but basically stable, equilibrium under Roe and we would be better off if the Supreme Court had left it alone. But since they didn't here we are with states operating at each end of the spectrum.

If the line is drawn any later than the nanosecond of conception, then the religious zealots will still see immorality and infanticide in any voluntary termination. Since the sanctity of life is at stake, politicians so inclined like Alabama and Texas will pass excessive, burdensome and even dangerous restrictions on women in the name of God.

So despite my conservative nature, this is one thing I disagree with Trump and most Republicans about. If the republicans were to accept a moderate affirmation of a woman's right to choose, it would take away the biggest issue the Dems have over Republicans. For the republicans, a reasonable stance on abortion would go a long ways towards attracting the suburban mom demographic. It would not only be the right thing to do but it would be the smart thing to do politically.

For the republicans, a reasonable stance on abortion would go a long ways towards attracting the suburban mom demographic. It would not only be the right thing to do but it would be the smart thing to do politically.

I don't know. I'm not sure that the achievable suburban mom demographic delta is bigger than the potential damage to the party among the hardcore anti-abortion faction among the "religious right." Hardline opposition to abortion, based on the simple moral argument that human life begins at conception, has been such an overwhelming part of the GOP "brand" for so long, I'm not sure they can pivot away from it without doing massive harm.

The GOP never had to reconcile their philosophy of abortion with the real-world consequences that can happen in hard cases before - they were always protected by Roe. Now that it's gone, grappling with how to set policy on those hard cases is going to be wrenching for them. And having told the anti-abortion hardliners for so long and so consistently that their....well, hardline position is not just the right policy, but the only just and moral policy, there will be considerable political consequences if they try to walk that back. They've invested far too much in raising the salience of abortion as a moral issue, not a political one.

Ok, searching for "embryo chart" got me much better results.

Politically, it would be a smart move in that respect. But, as albaby mentioned, it would inflame a large portion of their base. So, not without political hazards. (On the other hand, where are the vangies gonna go? Join the Dem party? I highly doubt that.) From an election/campaign standpoint, the Reps should probably blunt that weapon that the Dems will used to bludgeon them. But I don't think they can (or will).

It's an intractable morass if you try to legislate when abortion is or is not acceptable. Which is why no one should try. There are thousands, or millions, of scenarios they would have to try to cover. Best to leave it to the woman and her doctor. They know her situation best, and what is her best option.

Although albaby disagrees with me, I still think the 13th Amendment (as written) would apply. While the authors didn't have abortion in mind, they used the phrase "forced servitude". If that's not a woman carrying an unwanted fetus to term, I don't know what is. She is being forced to service the fetus to the advantage of the fetus, and potentially at her peril.

The GOP never had to reconcile their philosophy of abortion with the real-world consequences that can happen in hard cases before - they were always protected by Roe. Now that it's gone, grappling with how to set policy on those hard cases is going to be wrenching for them. And having told the anti-abortion hardliners for so long and so consistently that their....well, hardline position is not just the right policy, but the only just and moral policy, there will be considerable political consequences if they try to walk that back. They've invested far too much in raising the salience of abortion as a moral issue, not a political one.

GOP is the dog that caught the car.

So despite my conservative nature, this is one thing I disagree with Trump and most Republicans about. If the republicans were to accept a moderate affirmation of a woman's right to choose, it would take away the biggest issue the Dems have over Republicans. For the republicans, a reasonable stance on abortion would go a long ways towards attracting the suburban mom demographic. It would not only be the right thing to do but it would be the smart thing to do politically.

I think this is a slight misstatement of the general Republican position. Most lefties conflate the Evangelical, strongly Pro-life, life begins at conception group with the rest of the party. Forgive me if that's not what you're doing.

The majority of the party is actually positionally very well aligned with the broader population. That position is as follows:

*The morning after pill is fine
*If a state allows abortion, that's maybe not something they're personally comfortable with, but that's the law of the land now.
*Abortions before 12 weeks are generally not too bad
*Late term and partial birth abortions, however, should be off the table.

Contrast the above to the democrat legislative position, where ANY abortion, for any reason, is allowed at any point during the pregnancy. When you look at what policies they're pushing, you can see quite quickly who is aligned with the mainstream and who the outliers are.

And it ain't us.

Cue the really loud - and inaccurate - denials from the usual suspects.

The majority of the party is actually positionally very well aligned with the broader population. That position is as follows:

*The morning after pill is fine
*If a state allows abortion, that's maybe not something they're personally comfortable with, but that's the law of the land now.
*Abortions before 12 weeks are generally not too bad
*Late term and partial birth abortions, however, should be off the table.

Contrast the above to the democrat legislative position, where ANY abortion, for any reason, is allowed at any point during the pregnancy. When you look at what policies they're pushing, you can see quite quickly who is aligned with the mainstream and who the outliers are.

I'm not sure why you switched from "the majority of the party" for defining where the GOP is at to the "legislative position" when defining where the Democrats are at. If you reverse that, you end up with the opposite point - regardless of where the majority of the GOP is, the legislative position of the party is that abortions at 12 weeks are terrible and should be barred. And the majority of the Democratic party is comfortable with restrictions in the second and third trimesters, even if that's not the legislative position.

Per polling, only about 19% of the population believes that abortion should be legal regardless of the time of pregnancy, compared to about 22% of the population who believes that the earliness of abortion should not justify legality (though they allow for rape/incest/health exceptions).

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/05/06/am...

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/05/06/am...

OK...let's talk "late term". So a woman carries a fetus for -let's say- seven months. Did she just suddenly decide "nah, don't want it after all"?? A woman who carries it that long and then opts for abortion has other things going on. And a doctor who agrees with that decision? Clearly a situation has arisen that forced that decision, and you could not possibly legislate all the "what ifs" that this could be.

Which is why you shouldn't legislate any of it. The woman and her doctor should be making that decision. No one else.

I think this is a slight misstatement of the general Republican position. Most lefties conflate the Evangelical, strongly Pro-life, life begins at conception group with the rest of the party. Forgive me if that's not what you're doing. - Dope

---------------

OK, I admit painting with too broad a brush there. Maybe I am too influenced by the extreme restrictions gleefully implemented here in Texas.

To the extent most republicans accept a more moderate position along the lines you list, those moderate republicans sure do keep it a secret. A few of them should be speaking out against the more extreme measures such as those found in Alabama and Texas.

Which is why you shouldn't legislate any of it. The woman and her doctor should be making that decision. No one else.

Developmentally, what's the difference between a full term baby and an 8.9 month term baby?

To the extent most republicans accept a more moderate position along the lines you list, those moderate republicans sure do keep it a secret. A few of them should be speaking out against the more extreme measures such as those found in Alabama and Texas.

I don't disagree. If a woman chooses to cross a state line and have an abortion, that's clearly her business and no one else's. The state can't regulate her movements nor ask what medical treatments she chose to have while doing so. Those laws are gross overreaches.

The legislation side of things is terrible with an emphasis on terror. The count starts at the day before the period before the pregnancy. I think it's ~ 2.5 weeks after the period is the ovulation zone best for pregnancy. This is rough now - per memory. So the period is delayed and it might take a month before a woman realizes she's pregnant. But the count's not at 4 weeks, it's 6.5 weeks. So the count is deceptive as a lot of people (including me at one point) don't realize the count starts 2-3 weeks before conception.

I realize many of these bills are for show, but if they pass, what seems a reasonable count actually denies nearly all women abortions except a lucky few.

Which is why you shouldn't legislate any of it. The woman and her doctor should be making that decision. No one else.

Agreed. And I don't want any legislation that makes caveats leaving the Doctor in a quandary as to whether he's exposed to liability or more. No liability. No exposure.

Most lefties conflate the Evangelical, strongly Pro-life, life begins at conception group with the rest of the party. Forgive me if that's not what you're doing. - Dope

You're forgiven. :) No I don't. I realize the Republican party has different factions, but 1/3 of Republicans are Evangelicals, they vote as a block mostly, and have significant enough influence to have completed a drive to overturn Roe, and bolster support for Israel because of end times prophesy. Also, I've met very few liberals who espouse no limits on abortions, but I don't think a woman should have to travel out of state if her health is in danger. Carrying a non-viable fetus to term is cruel.

BTW, what exactly are your views on abortion (in general)?

What about the 10 blastulas/gametes still on ice? Can the couple decide to have them destroyed?

Is there any legal difference between the embryo they succesfully implant vs the 9 others that were created as backup for a 'difficult to implant' situation?

Would not the satisfied couple be guilty of murder if, having successfully birthed the desired number of embryos, ordered the destruction of the others?

Could they sell them to desirous couples to recoup the cost of storage?

Or would they be required to maintain the remaining embryos at all costs, forever, lest they be prosecuted for child abandonment?

For the republicans, a reasonable stance on abortion would go a long ways towards attracting the suburban mom demographic. It would not only be the right thing to do but it would be the smart thing to do politically.

The religious right cannot allow autonomy for women. To cede control would be a huge blow to the religiosity power structure.

What about Trans embryos.

<Alabama Supreme Court rules frozen embryos are children, imperiling IVF>

Holy Handmaids Tale! Is there a single republican left who doesn't hate women? Unreal.

"Nolite te bastardes carborundorum." ― Margaret Atwood

Holy Handmaids Tale! Is there a single republican left who doesn't hate women? Unreal.

I'm pretty sure there are many. I guess we'll see come election time.

Post New

Berkshire Hathaway FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.