Alabama court rules frozen embryos are children, chilling IVF advocates

a reply to: Dandandat3

Embryo Eggs are not children, like breakfast eggs are not chickens.

a reply to: Another_Nut

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.

they didnt have to make unborn people some special type of person ALL people born or unborn...are protected.

No state of the Union had any declaration that an embryo was a person, or even that a fetus was a person, at the time of the ratification of the 14th Amendment. It's a miracle that they were able to declare that black people were 100% human people. It's laughable to think that they were thinking of an embryo's equal rights, when at that time women didn't even have equal rights. AND THEY STILL DON'T!
LOL

Over the years, people have tried to claim certain sympathetic animals are "persons" too, to protect them from experimentation, abuse and preserve their rights to live in peace, and even to marry them. Just because religious zealots have declared a fertilized egg is a person, that doesn't mean that that is what the framers of the 14 Amendment intended. The just didn't. You can call a potato a person too, if you get enough agreement, but that doesn't mean that the framers of the 14 Amendment intended the federal government to protect them as if they were whole, animated, conscience, breathing human beings.

a reply to: Vermilion

Apparently the crowd didn't get it. They didn't laugh. All he got for his comment was an Amen from Bannon.

Dude is also on the "birth control is biological warfare" kick too.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Thank you for proving me correct...

Id say never change.... But you really need to think about it

Its ok ve be wrong... It ok to be hoodwinked and lied to....

...whats not ok is killing kids... That makes you ....well....

a reply to: Another_Nut

Dude, your post is incoherent.
Besides the fact that it has nothing to do with the post to which you replied. LOL

But hey! Thanks for proving me correct!

a reply to: Sookiechacha

... Ohhh i gwt it.... You cant follow logic or english....that tracks .


...and it was direct response to your statement... Its actually quoted in in ny post

You are a silly, if very sad, person

a reply to: WeMustCare

..you do realize "breakfast eggs" are unfertilized , right?

A fertilized chicken egg is, absolutely, a viable chicken

From the world of, "Are we really about to do this?

www.nbcnews.com...

Alabama justice who ruled embryos are people says American law should be rooted in the Bible

Alabama justice who ruled embryos are people says American law should be rooted in the Bible
Tom Parker, chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, expressed his support for the Seven Mountains Mandate, a once-fringe philosophy that calls on evangelical Christians to reshape American law and society based on their beliefs.

Really? That's your role as a judge? To encourage Ametica to reshape itself to evangelical christianity? You wanna make prayer to Jesus compulsory while you're at it?

I want to go with the flow, but when I read things like that I can see myself going the malcontent self-immolation route.

Like, where is Doug Mesner at? I need to make a donation to his "Liberal Action Church".

I think this one works. It's angry and screaming about this sorta thing. Their songs are all pretty much interchangeable.

a reply to: Degradation33

From the world of, "Are we really about to do this?

The Alabama Attorney General is saying that he, absolutely, has no intention of prosecuting anyone, not a family undergoing treatment, not a doctor, not a clinic worker...

So that's what happens now? ..attorneys general can just give their states' supreme courts the finger, during an election year?

Who has standing to take this to SCOTUS? The Alabama Supreme Court ruled within their state constitution and laws. Would SCOTUS even take the case? Not right now, I don't think so.

It seems that there is a pretty powerful minority that wants to rip reproduction rights from The People, Under His Eye, and they're not shy about taking aim at contraception, recreational sex and marriage equality.

From what I understand the woman who is filing a lawsuit against the technician who accidentally damaged the embryos under this new statute wants a financial payout for the loss of life.

This sets a dangerous precedent for when the Hens on chicken farms become sentient and want payback.

a reply to: GENERAL EYES

Why?
Hen farms (where supermarket eggs come from) are unfertilized and carry no viable chicken embryo

Thats like saying a woman has an abortion every month.

Its hust not true

Oh, why won't you think about the CHILDREN!

“The unborn” are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don’t resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don’t ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don’t need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn.

You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus, but actually dislike people who breathe. Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn.”
― Methodist Pastor David Barnhart
www.goodreads.com...

Amen, Brother Pastor!

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I really like The Methodists. But they're woke now because they fly rainbow flags and make the notification boards on their signs say "love is love" during pride.

Or give a regional twist, like this one in Georgia.

It seems that there is a pretty powerful minority that wants to rip reproduction rights from The People, Under His Eye, and they're not shy about taking aim at contraception, recreational sex and marriage equality.

And they are called... drumroll...

THE FAMILY



Their influence anyway.
Their influence is Trump, he is their pony.
They are lobbying puppeteers of the strings behind the new GOP.
They may even be pushing the "woke takeover narrative" to gain support for their pieces in place.

The scary thing is, they have the GOP. Kicked out the moderates. They don't have the populace, but they have the pieces in place to take on all the 'evils' listed.

This is the writing on the wall there, after the national ban, of course.

His head is somewhere lost in a time of sexual repression and heteronormative gender roles. Using "side-effects" of rulings because religiously homophobic jurors get struck by an attourney during selection. He is also a pony. I want to put him in a go-go cage underground.

And he hasn't been paying attention and doesn't realize the best athlete on earth is a woman right now. That equality trend might speak louder than the evangelicals in November. As it has in recent red state referenda.

Keep adding to this...

So that's what happens now? ..attorneys general can just give their states' supreme courts the finger, during an election year?

Who has standing to take this to SCOTUS? The Alabama Supreme Court ruled within their state constitution and laws. Would SCOTUS even take the case? Not right now, I don't think so.

That's the ultimate goal in the coming years. They have the court majority for the foreseeable future. A law, a challenge, a new reason to rule in affirmation of traditional evangelical values 6-3 or 5-4.

I was not aware that the Congressional House GOP has just introduced H.R.431Life at Conception Act.

This bill declares that the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being at all stages of life, including the moment of fertilization, cloning, or other moment at which an individual comes into being.

Congress.gov

Sigh.

a reply to: Degradation33
a reply to: frogs453

And then there's this!

Missouri law says pregnant women can’t get divorced

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. – As it stands, Missouri judges cannot legally finalize a divorce if a woman is pregnant.

Three other states have similar laws: Texas, Arizona, and Arkansas. While a couple can still file for divorce in Missouri, the court must wait until after a woman gives birth in order to finalize child custody and child support.

When it comes to domestic violence, there’s no exceptions.

Of course pregnant women are chattel, with no right to autonomy, in the most Jesus-y states! I'm sure Alabama will get on board with that any day now.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Missouri law says men can’t divorce their pregnant wives

Even when the baby isn’t his.
Many such cases.

Are you going to reeeeeeee about that too?

a reply to: Vermilion

that would destroy the narrative, so no.

a reply to: Vermilion

So you believe that a pregnant woman should be required to stay in an abusive relationship until the child is born?

originally posted by: Vermilion
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Missouri law says men can’t divorce their pregnant wives

Even when the baby isn’t his.
Many such cases.

Are you going to reeeeeeee about that too?

YES! Absolutely! Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't children born during a marriage automatically assigned the mother's husband as the birth father on the birth certificate? Doesn't parenthood in that case have to be challenged in family court?

What if the couple broke up because of a love affair, and the kid's without a doubt the lovers' kid. They're living together, and just waiting for a divorce to get married?

Yeah, it's a modern-day problem for men too. But it's rooted in the pre 1970 ideology, when wives were property, owned by their husbands.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Of course pregnant women are chattel, with no right to autonomy, in the most Jesus-y states! I'm sure Alabama will get on board with that any day now.

We'll see about that. They reddest states will get on board, but a large portion of their women voters will not. Could piss off women everywhere.

Because what's happened is simple, from a sociological standpoint:

This:



Was replaced by this:



Subservience was replaced by empowerment.

I feel laws like (all these recent ones) seek to return the gender roles to the bygone era. The one before the era of woman's sports attendance records. And that second add realized. It's lumped in as an extension of the woke and fought one in the same.