• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

NWRatCon said:
The whole problem with this "personhood" movement is that it hasn't been thought through. They want a result and will do virtually anything to achieve it, but implications are never a consideration.

I do think there is a constitutional basis to reverse it, but that would be contrary to the Supreme Court majority's religious beliefs. And we know their loyalty lies there, not with fidelity to the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Imagine a woman immigrant being deported, can she claim that she can't be deported since she might be carrying a US citizen?
 
KingLeo said:
So in Alabama do the husband and wife of the frozen embryos get to claim them as dependents on their income tax?
If the husband and wife are on EBT or other welfare programs do they get to claim the frozen embryos as additional dependents and therefore receive more benefits?
If this were a census year who they be required to claim the frozen embryos as US citizens?
And the Alabama Supreme Court justice quoting the bible as some kind of legal precedence was theocracy at it's worse.
Click to expand...

Why stop there, we can't really detect if conception has occurred for weeks. Can any sexually active woman who has had sex within two weeks of filing their taxes just go ahead and claim a couple of dependents?
 
BlueTex said:
Imagine a woman immigrant being deported, can she claim that she can't be deported since she might be carrying a US citizen?
Click to expand...
As soon as she crosses the border, her ova are citizens.
 
Here's a sobering thought: there have been over 8 million IVF children born in the US, with nearly as many parents. Who do you think they'll vote for now?
 
samiam5211 said:
Alabama is only a couple of steps away from requiring unmarried women of childbearing years to carry abandoned frozen embryos and give birth.
Click to expand...
OMG now you've done it. Some ijit in Alabama is, right now, saying, "Hey, let's do that"
 
Stealers Wheel said:
An embryo is a fertilized egg. Conception has occurred. Just waiting to be implanted in a suitable uterus.

So, with this ruling, what becomes of the embryos that are not implanted? When the parents die, who is on the hook for taking care of these 'unborn children' in perpetuity? Obviously, the state cannot allow these unborn children to be destroyed. Therefore, the cryogenics folks will have a claim against someone . . . the parent's estate? The state welfare departments? Who's gonna take care of the kids?
Click to expand...
Excellent point. Other questions would be should the embryos be Baptized? If they die should they be buried on consecrated soil? This after last rites of course. Does an embryo ever reach the accountability. If an embryo dies without being baptized does it go hell. Is it a boy or a girl. Heaven forbid that it gets labeled gender unknown or undetermined. Are the considered handicapped as they age with all of the benefits of such. Maybe the parents of the embryos should get handicapped parking rites if they have them in car. Can they vote when the turn 18. Can they go to public school or do they have to be home schooled. Does an Embryo have to be named or do we just call all of them baby Doe. Can an embryo be neglected and if so how and would the parents be held responsible. The previous writer already asked about the states duties if the embryo is orphaned or deserted.

It boggles the mind as to the possibilities that will exist just because some right wing nut jobs wanted to make a political point.

I'm sure there are very many other possible complexities.
 
Mike1950 said:
Excellent point. Other questions would be should the embryos be Baptized? If they die should they be buried on consecrated soil? This after last rites of course. Does an embryo ever reach the accountability. If an embryo dies without being baptized does it go hell. Is it a boy or a girl. Heaven forbid that it gets labeled gender unknown or undetermined. Are the considered handicapped as they age with all of the benefits of such. Maybe the parents of the embryos should get handicapped parking rites if they have them in car. Can they vote when the turn 18. Can they go to public school or do they have to be home schooled. Does an Embryo have to be named or do we just call all of them baby Doe. Can an embryo be neglected and if so how and would the parents be held responsible. The previous writer already asked about the states duties if the embryo is orphaned or deserted.

It boggles the mind as to the possibilities that will exist just because some right wing nut jobs wanted to make a political point.

I'm sure there are very many other possible complexities.
Click to expand...
How about this? Can the parents get a Social Security number for each 'unborn child' and claim them as a dependent?
 
I don't think that most legislators in Alabama (or the US) understand the sweep of the Alabama Supreme Court's interpretation of "personhood". Their efforts to create a legislative fix will be thwarted by this Supreme Court majority, which ruled:

"Article I, § 36.06(b), of the Constitution of 2022 "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." That section, which is titled "Sanctity of Unborn Life," operates in this context as a constitutionally imposed canon of construction, directing courts to construe ambiguous statutes in a way that "protects … the rights of the unborn child" equally with the rights of born children, whenever such construction is "lawful and appropriate."

There is no limitation on this, and the Court has created a new class of "persons" - "extrauterine children". Indeed, they projected how they would apply this rationale to future litigation. "nothing in this Court's precedents requires one-to-one congruity between the classes of people protected by Alabama's criminal-homicide laws and our civil wrongful-death laws."

"the defendants and their amicus devote large portions of their briefs to emphasizing undesirable public-policy outcomes that, they say, will arise if this Court does not create an exception to wrongful-death liability for extrauterine children."
....
"While we appreciate the defendants' concerns, these types of policy focused arguments belong before the Legislature, not this Court. Judges are required to conform our rulings "to the expressions of the legislature, to the letter of the statute," and to the Constitution, "without indulging a speculation, either upon the impolicy, or the hardship, of the law." In short, we're about ideology, not reality.
....
" It is not the role of this Court to craft a new limitation based on our own view of what is or is not wise public policy. That is especially true where, as here, the People of this State have adopted a Constitutional amendment directly aimed at stopping courts from excluding "unborn life" from legal protection."

What does that mean? It means that if the legislature were to try to recraft the statute supposedly interpreted by this Court, they couldn't, despite the majority's assertions to the contrary. (Yeah, they're lying.) That's because the Court is asserting that their authority is constitutional and, of course, the legislature can't override the Alabama Constitution. If, for example, the legislature would try to exclude "extrauterine children" from coverage by statute, the Court could/would strike down that legislation as contrary to the Constitution. It would be "discriminatory" and not "equal protection". They've already signaled that.

"So even if it is true, as the defendants argue, that individuals cannot be convicted of criminal homicide for causing the death of extrauterine embryos (a question we have no occasion to reach), it would not follow that they must also be immune from civil liability for the same conduct."

They've already shown us what their intention is. We should believe them.
 
Stealers Wheel said:
How about this? Can the parents get a Social Security number for each 'unborn child' and claim them as a dependent?
Click to expand...
That's brilliant. Of course they would be the source of all kinds of deductions. Just the medical deduction they would afford would be huge. Maybe all this embryo thing is just about reducing taxes and since most of the people doing this are wealthy it's a perfect fit for the GOP.
 
NWRatCon said:
I don't think that most legislators in Alabama (or the US) understand the sweep of the Alabama Supreme Court's interpretation of "personhood".
Click to expand...
I forgot to point out the monumental hypocrisy contained in the actual Opinion - and it's breathtaking.

In footnote 10, the Court states "we do not see how any hypothetical plaintiffs who attempt to sue over the consensual removal of an ectopic pregnancy could establish the core elements of a wrongful-death claim...."

Yet, they spent several pages spinning out ludicrous scenarios (pp. 8-11) of "discrimination" against "extrauterine children" that are not only hypothetical, but pure fantasy, starting with, "The defendants argue that this Court should recognize such an exception because, they say, an unborn child ceases to qualify as a "child or "person" if that child is not contained within a biological womb" and asserting, "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." ..."These are weighty concerns." (Emphases mine).

Yes, they completely dismiss the problem of ectopic pregnancy, which is real, and are overly concerned with test tube baby technology which doesn't even exist, but might, possibly, at sometime in the future, come into being.

I also forgot to post the most disturbing quote related to my previous post: "Accordingly, any legislative (or executive) act that contravenes the sanctity of unborn life is potentially subject to a constitutional challenge under the Alabama Constitution." In other words, "we invite you to bring cases to strike down any other laws we might find offensive."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom