Alabama court rules frozen embryos are children, chilling IVF advocates

a reply to: Dandandat3

I don't see anywhere in the linked article that says that. The two claimants sued because the lab incorrectly disposed of their frozen embryos.

Frozen embryos are generally considered property of the donors. So the lab destroyed the claimants' property. Property that they were paying the lab a lot of money to keep. They were well within their right to sue for damages.

It appears it was the judge who decided to go a step further and apply personhood laws to the embryos.

a reply to: Dandandat3

The mothers involved have chosen to believe their fertilized embryos are in fact human children.

So has every pregnant woman looking forward to her very wanted baby to be born. But obviously, not all pregnant women feel the same way, thus the whole pro-choice thingy.

But we don’t eat humans. It’s not an unnaturally high esteem for ourselves, it’s the nature of nature.

a reply to: Hecate666

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: DBCowboy

The 14th Amendment established that the US Constitution also applies to the states.

In this ruling, the judge has established that Christianity is the state religion of Alabama and its beliefs supersede those of all other religions.

What religion endorses the deliberate ending of life of the unborn?

The Church of Genocidal Self Loathing .

"So wait...if my wife and I choose to freeze three embryos we can claim three new dependents on our taxes?"

Saw this on a discussion board, and thought the question does have merit. I mean, it costs money to store those embryos on ice.

If they're children by law, then IVF costs, can they be deducted as childcare expenses, medical expense? If they're children, will insurance cover the costs of their frozen survival? Can parents obtain life insurance for them?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Maybe these IVF labs should start looking into getting tax breaks for also operating as day cares.

a reply to: Threadbarer

Or maybe, "special needs" assisted living facilities for the pre-pre-born, under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Wouldn't they also be liable for child support (or someother entity) for the x tends to infinity time they remain frozen/in stasis?

Not sure how things work in the US but was raised Roman Catholic in the UK and every unborn/born person was to be tortured in hell for all eternity until baptised under original sin so can't wrap my head around why people magically give a # about the same people they celebrate being tortured for all eternity for no fauly or choice of their own. If they want to beleive that, good for them; but trying to impose such standard on others and claimung to be moral leaves a bitter taste in my mouth.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Another fun knock on effect. If life starts at conception, does that mean that an illegal immigrant the gets pregnant on US soil can't be deported because they're carrying a US citizen?

a reply to: Threadbarer

Citizenship starts at birth... Life starts at inplantation...

Ez

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I believe you have to be a citizen to be claimed on taxes

While the unborn are people they are not citizens

a reply to: Another_Nut

I believe you have to be a citizen to be claimed on taxes

While the unborn are people they are not citizens

I agree that embryos are not citizens. But if you insist on them being "people", what is their legal status then, a resident alien? Legally, they have to have some national classification for them to be under the jurisdiction of the United States, according to the 14th Amendment.

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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Threadbarer

Or maybe, "special needs" assisted living facilities for the pre-pre-born, under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

All I can say is -- maybe we do need a Civil War.

This is insane.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

False

If they are in the u.s. then they are under the protection of the constitution...

Just like the 14th states...its that last sentence there..but in sure you didnt read that far so ill reiterate

nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

An unborn child definitely falls within the u.s. jurisdiction

a reply to: Another_Nut

If they are in the u.s. then they are under the protection of the constitution...

But, they don't have citizenship. So, are they aliens? Can they be deported? What about their due process? Do they have the right to a womb? What rights do they have and who is legally responsible for them?

nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It says

nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

That means that the state can't force an abortion on an embryo or order them destroyed, if they're children.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

They have all the rights of a person under the jurisdiction of the u.s.

what you call them is meaningless...

a reply to: Another_Nut

They have all the rights of a person under the jurisdiction of the u.s.

Does an embryo, have a right to a womb?

Also. I think you missed this:
It says

nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

That means that the state can't force an abortion on an embryo or order them destroyed, if they're "people".

Does an embryo, have a right to a womb?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Yes.

That means that the state can't force an abortion on an embryo or order them destroyed, if they're "people".

...ok...

I mean ... Im not arguing that an embryo is a person...soooo....

A viable human is created at inplantation.

a reply to: Another_Nut

I mean ... Im not arguing that an embryo is a person...soooo....

You're not?

A viable human is created at inplantation.

Okay, so you've changed your mind and updated your posts to reflect "implantation" instead of "conception", which is what you said earlier.

Now, you DON'T agree with the Alabama Supreme Court that frozen embryos are people, after all.

LOL Now, it's all about Location, Location, Location!

a reply to: Another_Nut

Where you gonna find all those extra surrogate wombs?

www.geneticsandsociety.org...

In that 12 year old article they state half of the embryos are thrown away. 1.7 million. Many for genetic abnormalities.

"Sorry, the genetic defect isn't enough. It must be indefinitely stored until someone is willing to carry an embryo with known aneuploidy (like trisomy 13, 18, or 21). Otherwise it's murder."

It's what happens when religiosity clouds logistics. Now they gotta flesh that out, because IT'S F*CKING CRUEL all around to force an embryo with trisomy to be stored and developed for religious feels.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Okay, so you've changed your mind and updated your posts to reflect "implantation" instead of "conception", which is what you said earlier.

Please ... Post where i said anything about conception....

Since page ...1 or 2.. my stance hasnet changed ... Nor has it over the past two years ..


And its not about "location, location,location"

Its a out viability and non viability

I know your talking ooints ... Or critical thinking skills... Dont cover this kind of discussion

Eta

I have no religion and religion has no impact on what i say...

...you however need that strawman ...

You are a silly person