Alabama Supreme Court rules that IVF embryos may be considered unborn children

[Foxi4]

Technically I was Christian before I was an atheist before I was agnostic/vaguely pagan. Point I was trying to make is how Christianity holds humanity on a pedestal above, and separate from nature, but we aren't and we may never be. Without death, life has no meaning, and loss of life at the embryonic/fetal stages is common among all species. As humans we reason that out as somehow "cruel," but there needn't be malice assigned to it. In fact one could make the argument that death before consciousness is a mercy compared to death post-consciousness, especially in circumstances such as a child being born into extreme poverty and then slowly starving to death. It's humanity which can be cruel, and we project that on to the impartial chaos of nature.


I was not understanding what you specifically meant with the term "human life," and considering you acknowledge that it can refer to a single human skin cell, an embryo, or even a full-grown adult, that's still something which remains vague. In my eyes it's preferable to narrow usage of it down to a whole human which has at least demonstrated minimum viability via birth, but I won't fault you for choosing to use it in the broader sense.

My beliefs did not shift during this conversation, but I did struggle a bit to reason out how and where they were applicable to it initially.

I personally don’t like when “human life” is reduced to “the adult human experience” - life is a miraculous thing that only exists, to our knowledge, on this one speck of sand that barrels through the universe at incredible speed. I don’t know who’s going to be the next Einstein, so I find it hard to dismiss the value of any human, “potentially fully-grown” or otherwise. I am capable of it - as I said, we drop enough bombs on each other to show that we do not value all life equally, but it shouldn’t come easy to anyone. Sometimes we take life for convenience, but it deserves some degree of respect because it is, ultimately, a gift. I think there’s nothing wrong with guidelines on how life should be treated, it is in fact a moral good. It would be great if society could collectively agree when it is or is not acceptable to snuff it out, but nobody’s figured it out yet and I feel it’ll be a while longer before we do. Viability is one way of drawing a boundary, I personally like brain development as the cut-off, because as we’ve discussed earlier, we are our brains. I don’t think that’d solve the issue as people would argue *how developed* the brain must be to consider someone a distinct individual, but I feel that it’s a good moment to say “okay, that cluster of cells is beginning to resemble a full-grown human now, we should leave it alone”. Everyone will have different thoughts about this, my broader point is that all of those cut-off points are arbitrary, with science cherrypicked to make us feel better about them after the fact. Even my cutoff is like that, the path of reasoning starts before any actual science begins - I am not immune to this, it’s what makes us human. It simply “sounds right” to me. To other people heartbeat sounded right, which to me is asinine and mostly symbolic, but can I denigrate them for a different and equally arbitrary choice? I don’t know - I can only argue for my own.

…too sappy? I can say something rude to balance things out.

 

[chrisrlink]

cant the DOJ throw out the justice for blaintingly stating "god formed this country" which is the complete oposite of what this country was founded on? or howbout we start splitting off states who go against the constitution (taking any nuclear capability away from them too to prevent a "nuclear" civil war

 

[Xzi]

cant the DOJ throw out the justice for blaintingly stating "god formed this country" which is the complete oposite of what this country was founded on? or howbout we start splitting off states who go against the constitution (taking any nuclear capability away from them too to prevent a "nuclear" civil war

Unfortunately I think that because it's the state supreme court making the ruling, only SCOTUS has the power to toss it out as unconstitutional. If any federal judge could've tossed it, one of them probably would've done so already.

 

[Foxi4]

Unfortunately I think that because it's the state supreme court making the ruling, only SCOTUS has the power to toss it out as unconstitutional. If any federal judge could've tossed it, one of them probably would've done so already.

It can be overruled by SCOTUS, it can overrule *itself* at a later date or new legislative action can be drafted that accounts for the new status quo. This ruling, strictly speaking, concerns how “unborn children” could be treated through the prism of other laws. You don’t have to overturn the decision if the laws themselves already account for that. There are ways to override or skirt such broad and vague decisions, it’s time for the legislative branch to step it up.

 

[Xzi]

It can be overruled by SCOTUS, it can overrule *itself* at a later date or new legislative action can be drafted that accounts for the new status quo. This ruling, strictly speaking, concerns how “unborn children” could be treated through the prism of other laws. You don’t have to overturn the decision if the laws themselves already account for that. There are ways to override or skirt such broad and vague decisions, it’s time for the legislative branch to step it up.

While I disagree with their classification of embryos as "unborn children," I disagree even more with their use of that classification as a cudgel to end IVF clinics altogether. With the right legal framework, that classification becomes less problematic, as it could provide greater support to both IVF clinics and prospective IVF patients/would-be parents. In other words, if the state wants to require insurance for embryonic life, then it should also provide insurance subsidies and tax deductions for the same.

I very much doubt the court put any effort into thinking through the potential ramifications though, the ruling was made with the intent of moral/religious grandstanding and little else. Humorous that Alabama believes they can talk down to the rest of us, given what the state is infamously well-known for throughout past and present. Bottom three by nearly any metric.

 

[EthanB]

We’ve been over this last time. The judge in question posted a legal opinion - he’s entitled to do it. That is not a guilty verdict. Other legal experts can also publish legal opinions which may or may not align with the judge’s - those aren’t a verdict either. Trump was never found guilty of rape, he was found liable for battery involving sexual assault in a civil suit. That is not proof positive that he actually did anything, nor does it carry any criminal penalty - it means at least half of the jury believed he did what was alleged, and as such he was found liable and his accuser was awarded damages. This is not a matter of statute of limitations - first degree rape has no statute of limitations in New York. If his accuser believes that is what happened, she can pursue those charges even now. If you insist on using the term, my recommendation is to use the word alleged, since it is an alleged crime until his guilt is proven. My line of reasoning aligns with what the law professors in the link below have to say:

https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-was-donald-trump-found-guilty-rape-1799935

Now, the thread titles, and why they were changed. *You* are welcome to believe whatever you like, but the title and the main body of articles posted is supposed to use neutral language, as per the style guide. If you want to make a case that what was alleged was in fact true, you can do so in subsequent posts - there are no rules against that. Since your thread titles were purposefully inflammatory and meant to start arguments, even in threads unrelated to that case, one of the team members decided to change them, and I personally concur - that was a correct decision per our style guide. That’s non-negotiable and not subject to debate. In the future you should direct such concerns via PM to a member of staff, in accordance with our TOS. Moderation queries are not meant to be publicly discussed, but since you broached the subject, I’m making an exception. This will be the last post regarding this matter, any further attempts to derail will be deleted. You have your explanation, now we can return to the topic at hand - Alabama and IVF.

I dont know if you are aware or do it on purpose but you can really come across as painfully condescending sometimes.

Anyways, the ruling is beyond stupid. Though an embryo is a living organism it isn't a human and classing it as an unborn child would technically open up a massive can of worms. Ban periods for expelling embryos. No more masturbation because millions of sperm end up in a tissue and they are all unborn children.

 

[Mythrandir]

Anyways, the ruling is beyond stupid. Though an embryo is a living organism it isn't a human

At which point of biological development would an organism qualify being a member of its species?

Ban periods for expelling embryos.

This would be a spontaneous miscarriage...

Why would legally classifying an embryo as an unborn child necessitate criminalizing spontaneous miscarriages? This is the same sort of hyperbole that I observed when the Dobbs v. Jackson decision was publicized. I'm not sure why so many seemed to jump to the idea that women were constantly prosecuted for spontaneous miscarriages before the Roe v. Wade decision.

No more masturbation because millions of sperm end up in a tissue and they are all unborn children.

Are you trying to say that gametes constitute as organisms? If so, please cite your source. I am curious of the rationality behind this deviation from biological convention.

 

[Foxi4]

This would be a spontaneous miscarriage...

I don’t know how “spontaneous” we could call it considering it’s on a (usually) pretty regular schedule, not to mention that in 99.9% of cases it involves an unfertilised egg. I can’t imagine the police going around picking up tampons to see if the egg was fertilised or not, seems like a massive waste of police resources. Jokes aside, the reply was obviously humorous in nature - I don’t think anyone believes any of that would happen in earnest, and it doesn’t logically follow from the court’s decision. That doesn’t make it a good decision, it makes it a bad argument against it.

 

[Mythrandir]

I don’t know how “spontaneous” we could call it considering it’s on a (usually) pretty regular schedule, not to mention that in 99.9% of cases it involves an unfertilised egg. I can’t imagine the police going around picking up tampons to see if the egg was fertilised or not, seems like a massive waste of police resources.

I assumed Ethan was referring to those rare cases where the fertilized egg is shed, hence miscarriage. Why else use the term embryo? Due to the phenomenon being uncommon, I think it would remain accurate to describe the miscarriage as spontaneous because menstruation typically ceases when the embryo attaches to the uterine wall. If the egg is unfertilized, then it would not be accurate to describe the phenomenon as a miscarriage nor the unfertilized egg as an embryo.

 

[Reiten]

So, does this ruling make the electric companies a party to manslaughter(or whatever the definition would be), in case there is a problem with power for an IVF clinic?

 

[Xzi]

So, does this ruling make the electric companies a party to manslaughter(or whatever the definition would be), in case there is a problem with power for an IVF clinic?

One of a thousand questions this ruling raises, and it answers none. That's how you know it's a bad ruling.

 

[EthanB]

At which point of biological development would an organism qualify being a member of its species?



This would be a spontaneous miscarriage...

Why would legally classifying an embryo as an unborn child necessitate criminalizing spontaneous miscarriages? This is the same sort of hyperbole that I observed when the Dobbs v. Jackson decision was publicized. I'm not sure why so many seemed to jump to the idea that women were constantly prosecuted for spontaneous miscarriages before the Roe v. Wade decision.



Are you trying to say that gametes constitute as organisms? If so, please cite your source. I am curious of the rationality behind this deviation from biological convention.

It would qualify at the stage they became a fetus, so the 11th week of pregnancy.
Your whole reply is condescending and I'm not here for it. Clearly what I was saying was based on my opinion.

 

[Mythrandir]

It would qualify at the stage they became a fetus, so the 11th week of pregnancy.
Your whole reply is condescending and I'm not here for it. Clearly what I was saying was based on my opinion.

What of organisms that do not have a fetus stage? Do they ever qualify as members of their species?

It is not an opinion to erroneously equivocate gametes with embryos.

 

[EthanB]

What of organisms that do not have a fetus stage? Do they ever qualify as members of their species?

It is not an opinion to erroneously equivocate gametes with embryos.

That's a strawman argument.

 

[Foxi4]

That's a strawman argument.

Hey, wait a minute now, you’re accusing him of fallacy while sitting on a throne of fallacies. I understand that you were making a joke, but he *is* right - sperm, or eggs for that matter, are not organism. They’re an organism’s reproductive cells. I get that animation like “Once Upon a Life” makes it look like there’s a bunch of worms shooting out of a tube, but that’s made for kids. A sperm is not a worm, it’s a genetic material delivery system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamete

A gamete is no more an organism than a single cell in your toe is. Less so in fact, because it doesn’t even carry a complete DNA sequence - it carries half of one. That’s *nothing like* an embryo or a fetus.

 

[Mythrandir]

That's a strawman argument.

How so? You stated that, although an embryo is a living organism, it is not a member of its species. Is this not what you intended to communicate here:

Though an embryo is a living organism it isn't a human

You did equate gametes with organisms here:

No more masturbation because millions of sperm end up in a tissue and they are all unborn children.

Please state the claim that I am refuting that you did not make.

 

[lolcatzuru]

Alabama continues to remind everyone that they are by far the worst state in every sense of the word

how so? i dont know alot about them but this seems like great news! seems like they are keeping radicals at bay to so whats not to like?

 

[EthanB]

Hey, wait a minute now, you’re accusing him of fallacy while sitting on a throne of fallacies. I understand that you were making a joke, but he *is* right - sperm, or eggs for that matter, are not organism. They’re an organism’s reproductive cells. I get that animation like “Once Upon a Life” makes it look like there’s a bunch of worms shooting out of a tube, but that’s made for kids. A sperm is not a worm, it’s a genetic material delivery system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamete

A gamete is no more an organism than a single cell in your toe is. Less so in fact, because it doesn’t even carry a complete DNA sequence - it carries half of one. That’s *nothing like* an embryo or a fetus.

There's that condescending tone again

How so? You stated that, although an embryo is a living organism, it is not a member of its species. Is this not what you intended to communicate here:


You did equate gametes with organisms here:


Please state the claim that I am refuting that you did not make.

It was obvious that the tone was more joking and playful. You're being obtuse here and it's quite boring just for your "gotcha" moment. In reality there is no universally agreed point for an embryo to be considered a human. I would consider personhood at the time an embryo develops into a fetus. At that point there is a "properly" developed brain. Though brain development begins only a few weeks into fertilisation, it's more of a proof of concept if you will.

Post automatically merged: Feb 25, 2024

how so? i dont know alot about them but this seems like great news! seems like they are keeping radicals at bay to so whats not to like?

What do you mean "radicals"?

 

[Dark_Ansem]

What do you mean "radicals"?

Nothing coherent, as usual

 

[Foxi4]

There's that condescending tone again

I don’t particularly care how you feel about it, you have no rebuttal. If you go pointing out that people have specks in their eyes, don’t be surprised if someone points out a log in yours.