• 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:
Error of reality. But, then, SCOTUS has the same problem.
Click to expand...
Anytime it gets to SCOTUS it's a toss of the dice, but I can't imagine they would lie that hard.
 
mrjurrs said:
Perhaps.
Click to expand...
Right to Life has stated that this is their strategy. I heard it on the radio the day after reproductive rights were enshrined in the Michigan constitution. They are done with democracy and will go to the courts.
 
highroller said:
Right to Life has stated that this is their strategy. I heard it on the radio the day after reproductive rights were enshrined in the Michigan constitution. They are done with democracy and will go to the courts.
Click to expand...
In 2022, SCOTUS declined to hear a case on embryo personhood. They're going to have take this one.
 
mrjurrs said:
Anytime it gets to SCOTUS it's a toss of the dice, but I can't imagine they would lie that hard.
Click to expand...
I can. To undo Roe, they had to overlook our own country's colonial history of allowing abortions until "quickening" in order to find an earlier British guy who said what they wanted.
 
Someone who knows they are in the late stages of a terminal illness with a substantial estate and frozen embryos needs to bequeathe it all to "embryo #6" and snub all of the rest to force the issue and underscore the absurdity of this ruling.
 
marduc said:
Someone who knows they are in the late stages of a terminal illness with a substantial estate and frozen embryos needs to bequeathe it all to "embryo #6" and snub all of the rest to force the issue and underscore the absurdity of this ruling.
Click to expand...
Mr. Pickles is going to be pissed.
 
highroller said:
Trump's judges will say they are.

You are being ruled by the Catholic Church. Have fun.
Click to expand...
I think even the Pope would have trouble with this one. Then again, he does oppose surrogacy as "commodifying" children.

I have to take that back: the Catholic Church condemns IVF. That's a big swing and miss on my part. You're completely right, my friend.
 
Last edited:
Why now?

Seven months before the national election, on the heels of voter rejection in Kansas and then again in Ohio; why kick the hornet’s nest over now? If Trump wins, this would have been much easier, imo.
 
Rexedgar said:
Why now?

Seven months before the national election, on the heels of voter rejection in Kansas and then again in Ohio; why kick the hornet’s nest over now? If Trump wins, this would have been much easier, imo.
Click to expand...
Maybe because they don't think Trump is gonna win?
 
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.
 
Rexedgar said:
Why now?

Seven months before the national election, on the heels of voter rejection in Kansas and then again in Ohio; why kick the hornet’s nest over now? If Trump wins, this would have been much easier, imo.
Click to expand...
They think in terms of generations, not one election. They have the courts, so they are going to use them.

Now is their moment. They aren't going to wait. They must move quickly as the American People are rejecting them pretty hard.
 
Alabama HOV lanes are going to be crowded……..
 
BirdinHand said:
Holy mother of cheese balls - who the hell wrote that lawsuit that way?

Everything about it is just such a plea to emotions it makes my skin crawl.

“Cryogenic nursery”? (Just one of the terms making me silent rage currently)

Well….next up is the end of IVF in certain states.

Well done Alabama. In the race to stupid, you all are leading the charge.


(And as someone with frozen embryos - this situation SUCKS for those families and they are entitled to compensation for those damages at really high rates for negligence on the part of the clinic. But this was NOT the angle to take. Not at all)
Click to expand...
They absolutely deserve compensation, but not based on wrongful death. This ruling infuriates me as it is so emotionally based and ridiculous. Unborn are not persons. If they were, they would be added to the census count.
 
Loulit01 said:
All this skips the part about people stupid enough to grab cryogenic cylinders with their bare hands. I wonder how much skin they lost. I think grafts would be in order.
Click to expand...
Theres a large possibility that it was someone having a mental health crisis. Otherwise, proper procedures were definitely not being adhered to in that hospital. Either way, I think the hospital and/or company does hold some responsibility for loss of the embryos, just not under the standard of the law they are using. They would basically be property. Important property to them, but not persons.
 
Jason Warfield said:
Ok, well...here's the slippery slope...

Based on this ruling, using birth control could be taken to court if the woman uses it without the man's knowledge and the man wants a child from the woman.

A religious zealot could sue to say all forms of contraceptives kills potential unborn children. Like the Catholic Chruch.

When a woman is raped, the embryo that could result via the rapist's actions is protected under law...forcing the victim to carry to term the child and be forced to undergo the expensive pre-natal care and hospital bills. Odds are the rapist won't be able to afford the care....so who pays for it? The people of the state via increased taxation? Given how MAGA-mites don't want to pay for anything, that could be an issue. And we haven't even started on incest....

I could go on as there are a multitude of situation that can occur, but I think everyone gets the point. While some of this is unlikely, some of it isn't. And as usual, there's a lot that these people don't think about and are blissfully ignorant...until it happens to them....
Click to expand...
More than that, any pregnant woman, including those who want their baby, could be found guilty of wreckless endangerment by doing things that doctors say could potentially harm the unborn baby, or really that anyone is able to simply show some research that supports them in a lawsuit. Especially if there is a miscarriage or just a problem come up, even like a learning disability. Fathers and potentially family or the government could sue or bring charges claiming things were the fault of the pregnant woman and what she did during gestation. This could be used against women to keep them from working, driving, doing certain activities, while pregnant or potentially pregnant.

If a woman drinks alcohol without knowing she's pregnant or even just a drink after she knows, this is saying that any problems that could potentially come, including miscarriage, even if family history, medical history, just the fact that about 20-30% of pregnancies end in miscarriage could lead to lawsuits or charges. Being around smokers, not just smoking themselves, could bring potential charges. Eating unpasteurized foods, sushi, fish (only allowed so much during pregnancy), using a hot tub, and so many other things could lead to potential charges based off this ruling, basically saying that the mother could be putting her "child" in danger.

There are huge lists. And they can vary based on source.

www.healthline.com

17 Pregnancy Do’s and Don’ts That May Surprise You

There are a lot of do’s and don’ts that come along with pregnancy. Learn which ones you should follow for a healthy pregnancy and baby.
www.healthline.com www.healthline.com
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom