Alabama court - "Embryos are people"

[StringJunky]

I'd like to see what these people would do if a  room with a baby in a box and a portable canister of 12  frozen embryos* were trapped in a room with a blazing fire and only has time to get one of either  out. If they grabbed the canister  instead of the baby, do they honestly think they saved  12 children and only lost one?

The law is clearly asinine, They  are talking about a blastocyst having equal rights to a living person. *They aren't even embryos, which is from 3- 8 weeks.  

'Blastocyst' doesn't have that nice, cuddly sound to it, does it?

People playing fast and loose with scientifically defined words, with specific chronological ranges, to suit their political agendas.

 

 

[TheVat]

With apologies to Lynyrd Skynyrd...

Sweet theocracy, Alabama. 
Where the judges all sniff glue
Sweet theocracy, Alabama
Lord I wiped the Constitution with my poo.

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

People playing fast and loose with scientifically defined words,

Issue is that science as such does not play a big role. Or at least, it cannot solve the fundamental question underpinning the issue. We  (humans) want to define things with clear delineation. Nature does not care much for that. And this opens up things for interpretation. Nature (and therefore science) does not define what people are so it is on society to decide on things. And as we see here, this particular interpretation is clearly morally and religiously motivated, with severe implications.

 

[Sensei]

Have you heard that there are people who hold funerals for their sanitary napkins.. ?

https://www.google.com/search?q=sanitary+napkins+funeral

 

[swansont]

SCOTUS once ruled (Nix v Hedden) that tomatoes were to be classified as vegetables, so it’s not like the courts feel beholden to science when they want a certain result.

[npts2020]

What happens if scientists bring an individual to life using only an egg or sperm? Will females then be required to attempt pregnancy every time they ovulate? Will it be a serious crime for a male to ejaculate anywhere other than a fertile womb? Seems to me, the whole notion of when life "begins" (I look at as more of a continuum) or when you become a person leaves plenty of room for interpretation or debate and therefore should be up to individuals to decide for themselves. It is interesting that the supposedly "small government" types seem to be the ones most eager to have the government settle the question so they can enforce their (often hypocritical) views on everyone.

[CharonY]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

SCOTUS once ruled (Nix v Hedden) that tomatoes were to be classified as vegetables, so it’s not like the courts feel beholden to science when they want a certain result.

That is true. But some folks think it adds validity to their argument if they invoke science (in a poorly understood way) similarly as they would invoke god.

13 minutes ago, npts2020 said:

What happens if scientists bring an individual to life using only an egg or sperm?

You do not even need to go that far. Even overturning Roe v Wade, women were subject related to pregnancy loss. Many states have fetal harm laws, which presumably were intended to protect pregnant women. Studies found about 400 cases between the 70s and 2005 which increased to about 1400 just before the Dobbs ruling. Often times, these convictions were linked to substance abuse by the pregnant mother, though in cases that were investigated, there was often insufficient evidence to clearly link the abuse to loss of pregnancy. Perhaps unsurprisingly, low income folks who are generally at higher risk of miscarriages or other adverse health events anyway, were disproportionately affected, whereas healthy rich folks probably can enjoy their occasional Chianti without risking jail.

Now, the mask is starting to fall off and women are charged even without the pretense of bad behavior. Just recently a woman was charged with abusing a corpse, because she miscarried the toilet. Heck, probably about half of pregnancies are unsuccessful, including cases where after fertilization the ovum is just lost without the person knowing they were pregnant. I.e. the only protection against prosecution based on such interpretation of law is really just obfuscation (i.e. having no evidence and knowledge of pregnancy). The first time they are tested positive, their options going forward narrows significantly.

The way these laws are enforced make it very, very, very clear that protection of unborn children is not really on top of the agenda. Or middle. Or somewhere near.

[J.C.MacSwell]

7 hours ago, npts2020 said:

What happens if scientists bring an individual to life using only an egg or sperm? Will females then be required to attempt pregnancy every time they ovulate? Will it be a serious crime for a male to ejaculate anywhere other than a fertile womb? Seems to me, the whole notion of when life "begins" (I look at as more of a continuum) or when you become a person leaves plenty of room for interpretation or debate and therefore should be up to individuals to decide for themselves. It is interesting that the supposedly "small government" types seem to be the ones most eager to have the government settle the question so they can enforce their (often hypocritical) views on everyone.

I can see it now..."High sperm count men in the lifeboats first!"

[dimreepr]

6 hours ago, CharonY said:

That is true. But some folks think it adds validity to their argument if they invoke science (in a poorly understood way) similarly as they would invoke god.

You do not even need to go that far. Even overturning Roe v Wade, women were subject related to pregnancy loss. Many states have fetal harm laws, which presumably were intended to protect pregnant women. Studies found about 400 cases between the 70s and 2005 which increased to about 1400 just before the Dobbs ruling. Often times, these convictions were linked to substance abuse by the pregnant mother, though in cases that were investigated, there was often insufficient evidence to clearly link the abuse to loss of pregnancy. Perhaps unsurprisingly, low income folks who are generally at higher risk of miscarriages or other adverse health events anyway, were disproportionately affected, whereas healthy rich folks probably can enjoy their occasional Chianti without risking jail.

Now, the mask is starting to fall off and women are charged even without the pretense of bad behavior. Just recently a woman was charged with abusing a corpse, because she miscarried the toilet. Heck, probably about half of pregnancies are unsuccessful, including cases where after fertilization the ovum is just lost without the person knowing they were pregnant. I.e. the only protection against prosecution based on such interpretation of law is really just obfuscation (i.e. having no evidence and knowledge of pregnancy). The first time they are tested positive, their options going forward narrows significantly.

The way these laws are enforced make it very, very, very clear that protection of unborn children is not really on top of the agenda. Or middle. Or somewhere near.

Indeed, religious thinking is available for all of those with an agenda, scientist's are such an easy target, bc one of them made a laughable mistake once (probably for money)...

Delicious irony, if one doesn't like people... 

[joigus]

Reminds me of this priceless piece of comedy:

Quote

 

“Boy these Conservatives are really something aren’t they? They are all in favor of the unborn! They’ll do anything for the unborn but once you’re born, you’re on your own!

Pro- life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that they don’t want to know about you! They don’t want to hear from you! No nothing!

No neo-natal care, no day care, no head start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing!

If you’re pre-birth you’re fine! if you’re pre-school, you’re fucked!”

-George Carlin

 

Sigh

[StringJunky]

From the Alabama chief justice: "Human life, Parker wrote, “cannot be wrongfully destroyed without incurring the wrath of a holy God, who views the destruction of His image as an affront to Himself.” -  AP

What can you say to that?

 

Edited February 23 by StringJunky

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, StringJunky said:

From the Alabama chief justice: "Human life, Parker wrote, “cannot be wrongfully destroyed without incurring the wrath of a holy God, who views the destruction of His image as an affront to Himself.” -  AP

What can you say to that?

God has some very human attributes... 

[geordief]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I can see it now..."High sperm count men in the lifeboats first!"

Woody Allen might need some kind of a disclaimer before screenings of his "All you Wanted to Know about Sex but were Afraid to Ask."

"No human beings were massacred or demeaned in the  making of this movie"

[StringJunky]

911: Hello, how can I help you?

Caller: Some murderous bitch has dumped a little person down the toilet. I can see evidence of them on the sanitary towel they left without flushing.

911: An officer will be down shortly. Stay calm and can you stop anyone using that bathroom until they come? Forensics are coming down as we speak.

[TheVat]

A classic take on the reductio ad absurdum.

[dimreepr]

Blazing saddles, seems more appropriate in this thread...

Edited February 23 by dimreepr

[MigL]

16 hours ago, StringJunky said:

The law is clearly asinine, They  are talking about a blastocyst having equal rights to a living person.

This has nothing to do with science, or even common sense.
It is nothing but politically ( with religious basis in Southern States ) motivated agenda.

In Canada, every once in a while, a conservative MP brings up the abortion issue, but is quickly slapped down by the rest of his/her caucus. There is an 'understanding' where none of the parties, nor the courts, will touch the issue.

I don't know how American political has gotten to the point where the people elected to make laws have given up that responsibility to unelected courts, who are, in no way, beholden to the wishes of the electorate.
American politics suck !

[iNow]

4 minutes ago, MigL said:

In Canada, every once in a while, a conservative MP brings up the abortion issue, but is quickly slapped down by the rest of his/her caucus

I’d make a friendly wager with you that this changes within the next 9-12 months. It’s being actively pushed around the globe, suggesting support is greater than it is, with IMO the express intention of wedging people apart. 

6 minutes ago, MigL said:

I don't know how American political has gotten to the point where the people elected to make laws have given up that responsibility to unelected courts

Same things appear to be happening in Israel, India, and probably a few other countries that don’t start with the letter “I.”

[StringJunky]

@MigL Elected judges is not a good idea because then popularity wins. We rarely get this stuff in the UK legal system. A naked political stance by its judicial members is the problem with the US system. How can that be amenable to upholding a consistently applied neutral principle of law?

Edited February 23 by StringJunky

[swansont]

39 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

@MigL Elected judges is not a good idea because then popularity wins. We rarely get this stuff in the UK legal system. A naked political stance by its judicial members is the problem with the US system. How can that be amenable to upholding a consistently applied neutral principle of law?

We get it a lot in the US

“Partisan elections are held to select most or all judges in 13 States and for some judges in an additional 8 States. Nonpartisan elections are held to select most or all judges in 17 States and for some judges in an additional 3 States. One-half of the States hold elections for State supreme court judges. Seventeen States out of the 32 which have intermediate appellate courts elect judges to these courts.”

https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/judicial-selection-united-states-special-report

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

@MigL Elected judges is not a good idea because then popularity wins. We rarely get this stuff in the UK legal system. A naked political stance by its judicial members is the problem with the US system. How can that be amenable to upholding a consistently applied neutral principle of law?

Don't forget many of our prisons are run by private concerns, where every cell filled means profit. Corporations get tax credits to use prison labor that exceeds what they pay the prisoners. There are so many private interests involved that justice always takes a back seat to profit. Neutrality hasn't been a concern in US courts since the Civil War. 

[Endy0816]

4 hours ago, MigL said:

This has nothing to do with science, or even common sense.
It is nothing but politically ( with religious basis in Southern States ) motivated agenda.

In Canada, every once in a while, a conservative MP brings up the abortion issue, but is quickly slapped down by the rest of his/her caucus. There is an 'understanding' where none of the parties, nor the courts, will touch the issue.

I don't know how American political has gotten to the point where the people elected to make laws have given up that responsibility to unelected courts, who are, in no way, beholden to the wishes of the electorate.
American politics suck !

We elect many judges here... How are they picked in Canada?

Do need lawmakers more willing to amend the relevant Constitution above them or to pass laws that will hold up to challenge.

Creates impermanent law situation times fifty-one.

 

 

Edited February 23 by Endy0816

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

Don't forget many of our prisons are run by private concerns, where every cell filled means profit. Corporations get tax credits to use prison labor that exceeds what they pay the prisoners. There are so many private interests involved that justice always takes a back seat to profit. Neutrality hasn't been a concern in US courts since the Civil War. 

I read about this recently. Profiteering from what is basically systemic slavery is beyond the pale in a civilized society. What better way to reinforce loathing of 'civil society' and resist personal change, given that many prisoners have trod such shitty life paths all their lives already. When you hit someone repeatedly, the less pain they will feel from each subsequent strike. 

Edited February 23 by StringJunky

[J.C.MacSwell]

6 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I read about this recently. Profiteering from what is basically systemic slavery is beyond the pale in a civilized society. What better way to reinforce loathing of 'civil society' and resist personal change, given that many prisoners have trod such shitty life paths all their lives already.

In principle it should be reasonable to have inmates contribute to part of their costs of any just incarceration. From what I've seen in a few documentaries it can be pretty despicable in practice.

[StringJunky]

22 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

In principle it should be reasonable to have inmates contribute to part of their costs of any just incarceration. From what I've seen in a few documentaries it can be pretty despicable in practice.

This is America. Principles be damned, give me the money.

A legal consequence: what will the fertility clinic do with the 'embryos' that fail under that legal principle. There'll have to be  the full due legal process, coroner's report and funeral for every single one. I've read  it's not uncommon for women to have multiple rounds. The dying industry will be elated at all this new work.  There's a dark comedy movie plot in there somewhere.

Edited February 23 by StringJunky