Alabama Supreme court rules embryos are children

[BrightShinyGirl]

The anti-choice people claim they’re against abortion because it’s literally killing a human being, but if they really believed that they wouldn’t make exceptions for early-term abortions.

No, it’s about controlling and punishing women.

When I wrote this a few weeks ago I didn’t realize it would be so prescient. Banning IVF follows logically from the claim that human life begins at conception. The fact that Republicans have quickly abandoned that position shows that opposing abortion has ALWAYS been about controlling and punishing women, not the sanctity of human life.

 

[Rick345]

They can try. Just like the many many many other things which have been tried in the past which also failed.

You see, it comes down to a simple fact that the world is larger and more complex than your simpleton view of it. You can say anything you wish but doing so doesn't make it true. Repeating that failure changes nothing and this is just another attempt at it. With the same inevitable result.

It's been the law for almost twenty years (2006) and has put hundreds in prison and so far this has not been overturned.. Someday it might be overturned, but so far it has not been challenged, and that is just in Alabama, and doesn't consider the other 31 states with similar laws have withstood the test of time. This is not a hypothetical it is real law with real consequences. It's the reality of living in a red state.

My views and beliefs are irrelevant to the way the law functions, that is how law works. The laws you believe in are not the only laws that apply to you ask Trump..

 

[God_Above]

The evil of this demon exceeds that of Demon Moore.

https://www.npr.org/2024/02/27/1233968467/alabama-supreme-court-ivf-treatment-christian-nationalist

 

[Fuzzy1975]

You see, it comes down to a simple fact that the world is larger and more complex than your simpleton view of it. You can say anything you wish but doing so doesn't make it true. Repeating that failure changes nothing and this is just another attempt at it. With the same inevitable result.

LOL nice self own

 

[HisArpy]

It's been the law for almost twenty years (2006) and has put hundreds in prison and so far this has not been overturned.. Someday it might be overturned, but so far it has not been challenged, and that is just in Alabama, and doesn't consider the other 31 states with similar laws have withstood the test of time. This is not a hypothetical it is real law with real consequences. It's the reality of living in a red state.

My views and beliefs are irrelevant to the way the law functions, that is how law works. The laws you believe in are not the only laws that apply to you ask Trump..

Wow, 20 years versus a few thousand years. Given that, why would anyone believe that the new law isn't the one true way? I mean it's not like Roe was "the law" for ~50 years before it ran headlong into reality. Right?

Basically your thoughts here are just more of your lack of understanding about how things really work. You "want" it to be that way, but the truth is that it isn't. And you refuse to see or accept that reality.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Wow, 20 years versus a few thousand years. Given that, why would anyone believe that the new law isn't the one true way? I mean it's not like Roe was "the law" for ~50 years before it ran headlong into reality. Right?

Basically your thoughts here are just more of your lack of understanding about how things really work. You "want" it to be that way, but the truth is that it isn't. And you refuse to see or accept that reality.

Tell us again, Barrister HisArpy, that the law is whatever you say it is until a judge overrules you.

#DerpDerpDerp

 

[Rick345]

When I wrote this a few weeks ago I didn’t realize it would be so prescient. Banning IVF follows logically from the claim that human life begins at conception. The fact that Republicans have quickly abandoned that position shows that opposing abortion has ALWAYS been about controlling and punishing women, not the sanctity of human life.

IVF has not been banned in Alabama, or anywhere else as far as I know. Alabama law does say life begins at conception however, that wasn't the sole basis of the Alabama SC decision. People seem utterly confused about how and more importantly why the Alabama SC decided why embryos are children. And what that actually means going forward in the state of Alabama..

It all started in 2005 with a law is named for Brody, the unborn baby of murder victim Brandy Parker.

Parker, 23, Albertville, was found dead in her pickup truck on Buchanan Road early on the morning of July 27, 2005. She had been shot in the head after leaving her job at TS Tech in Boaz, AL.

The young woman was divorced and the mother of a three-year-old boy. She was eight months pregnant from another relationship. That baby was scheduled to be born by Cesarean section August 9, 2005. No arrest has been made in Parker’s death.

Whoever killed Parker will not be prosecuted for killing the fetus that died inside her. At the time of her death, Alabama law did not recognize the fetus as a life for purposes of prosecution. Since the murder of their daughter and grandson, The Rev. Roger Parker and his wife, Pamela, have lobbied state officials to get the Brody Bill passed.

In 2005 Alabama pass a law which states “an unborn child in utero at any stage of development, regardless of viability” is a “person” for purposes of state laws dealing with murder, manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide, and assault, according to the press release. The federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which President Bush signed in April 2004, covers unborn victims of federal crimes.

In Alabama there is no legal way that leads to tort recovery from the death of a child due to negligence. If some is texting on their cellphone and runs over my prized hunting dog I can recover damages in the form of money for the momentary value of my dog.. If the same scenario happens to my infant child there is no way to recover money for that due to negligence alone. However, you can recover monetary punitive damages under Alabama “Wrongful Death of a Child Act (1872)”.

Fast forward to 2013 Mobile Infirmary Hospital had an IVF lab. There were no guards or security of any kind at the hospital. There were no locks on the doors of the lab. There were no locks on cabinets the cryogenic tanks that embryos stored in. There were no locks on the tanks themselves.. A patient of the hospital entered the lab and opened the tanks and took out several tubes of embryos. There dropped the tubes destroying the embryos.

Obviously there was negligence, there should have been locks on the doors to the lab, locks on the tanks, locks on the storage cabinets and maybe even a security guard to repeat there were none of these safeguards. However, the couples whose embryos were destroyed couldn’t recovery any damages due to negligence due to Alabama law.. In the meantime a similar indecent happened in California in which five plaintiffs recovered $15 million.

These women spent something in the neighborhood of $200K and they couldn’t recover a dime they were just out $200K. They had under gone very painful medical procedures for nothing. They risked death in the hopes of becoming pregnant and due to the hospital’s negligence there couldn’t recover a dime. Yet due to the hospital negligence these women were robbed of motherhood something they were willing to risk death to achieve, However, they could recover punitive damages under the Wrongful Death of a Child Act. So their lawyers decided to try to persuade the court the embryos were children. Five judges three men and two women herd the case from three lawyers from Infirmary Hospital and two lawyers acting on behalf of the embryos and the parents of the embryos..

The key points in the case was the contract the couples signed in order to receive artificial insemination, one of the lines in the contract said, “the death of you baby can occur during the procedure” to which the lawyer for the plaintiff argued, “in order for death to occur something has to be alive to begin with, the opposite of death is life.. “

While the Brody Law did define a criminal act resulting in the death of a fetus as murder it was general considered valid only for an embryo or fetus in utero however, one of the female judges asked this question, “While the Brody Act is thought to apply to fetuses in the womb if a fetus is temporarily removed from the womb to preform an operation on it to save its life does it lose all its rights when it is temporarily out of the womb?”

Another key question asked by the judges was, “Once an embryo is in the womb it has the all the protections afforded to by the law yet 5 seconds before it is implanted in to womb it doesn’t have any legal protections?”

That was the ah ha moment.. That moment the court had to decide of an embryo had the some protection in the womb as out of the womb. It took the judges 6 months to decide embryos have the same right to life in or out of the womb.. The judges also said if the people of Alabama don’t like out decision its up to the states legislature to fix it, we can’t make law from thr bench. Anyhow, the case had nothing to do with controlling women, it has to due with allowing couples to receive compensation for a grievous wrong done to them by a hospital within the construct of the Alabama legal system… More importantly to teach hospitals to put locks on the IVF labs..

So they passed the ball back to the state legislature..

 

[schism666]

View attachment 2322071

 

[Rick345]

Wow, 20 years versus a few thousand years. Given that, why would anyone believe that the new law isn't the one true way? I mean it's not like Roe was "the law" for ~50 years before it ran headlong into reality. Right?

Basically your thoughts here are just more of your lack of understanding about how things really work. You "want" it to be that way, but the truth is that it isn't. And you refuse to see or accept that reality.

Once again my thoughts on if the law is good or bad is irrelevant.. A law can be protested, a law can be changed but if you break it while the law when it is in effect you still are punished regardless if you believe in the law or not.. That is my point my only point.

I don't want unjust laws on the books I have fought against several and have been able to change two I felt were unjust. And Roe v Wade maybe changed again inlue of Alabama's recent ruling. My personal feeling is the law is an ass.. Some laws I agree with, some I don't, but since I don't like being in jail I obey even those I don't fully agree with while trying to change them.

Back to Roe v Wade, I assume you feel overturning it was the right thing to do.. Yet every state has different rules as to when and how abortions can be done and when life begins none take the position life begins at birth.. Some say life begins at conception, some at 6 weeks, other 12 weeks others a 24 weeks or any times within those periods. So which of those times is the one true way?

My own personal feeling abortion is up to the woman and her doctor, it's not like woman haven't been finding way to abort pregnancies for 5K years.. I assume you are for abortion since its a medical procedure that has been done since Egypt's old kingdom 2700 BCE?

 

[HisArpy]

Once again my thoughts on if the law is good or bad is irrelevant.. A law can be protested, a law can be changed but if you break it while the law when it is in effect you still are punished regardless if you believe in the law or not.. That is my point my only point.

I don't want unjust laws on the books I have fought against several and have been able to change two I felt were unjust. And Roe v Wade maybe changed again inlue of Alabama's recent ruling. My personal feeling is the law is an ass.. Some laws I agree with, some I don't, but since I don't like being in jail I obey even those I don't fully agree with while trying to change them.

Back to Roe v Wade, I assume you feel overturning it was the right thing to do.. Yet every state has different rules as to when and how abortions can be done and when life begins none take the position life begins at birth.. Some say life begins at conception, some at 6 weeks, other 12 weeks others a 24 weeks or any times within those periods. So which of those times is the one true way?

My own personal feeling abortion is up to the woman and her doctor, it's not like woman haven't been finding way to abort pregnancies for 5K years.. I assume you are for abortion since its a medical procedure that has been done since Egypt's old kingdom 2700 BCE?

Once again you're inserting your beliefs in place of facts. ANYONE with half the available wit of the human brain can search and discover my position on abortion. Fuck, you can even ask me and I'll tell you because it's not exactly a secret here.

Except maybe to you. You know the guy who uses his feelings and beliefs in place of facts and then ascribes motives to others based on the results.

For the record (AGAIN!): If abortion is legal where you are, and you're good with killing your progeny, then I have no objection to you doing whatever you believe is best for you because eventually you will remove your genetics from the gene pool and the world will be free of your insanity FOREVER.

Conversely, if it's not legal wherever you are, and you still insist on the above course of genetic removal, then move to where it is legal and continue your course of self elimination.

So, whatever you think your counter argument to my supposed position on abortion is, it, like EVERYTHING ELSE you expound upon here, is wrong because your beliefs are counter to the facts. Something which is a daily occurrence with you, has been pointed out quite frequently, which you cannot seem to understand, thereby underscoring your continual and ongoing stupidity.

 

[TastySuckToy]

For the record (AGAIN!): If abortion is legal where you are, and you're good with killing your progeny, then I have no objection to you doing whatever you believe is best for you because eventually you will remove your genetics from the gene pool and the world will be free of your insanity FOREVER.

Why do you conclude a pro abortion stance means anyone who has or supports an abortion will never have kids? Couldn't a woman have an abortion after already having multiple kids, or before? Can't people support abortion without actually having one?

 

[HisArpy]

Why do you conclude a pro abortion stance means anyone who has or supports an abortion will never have kids? Couldn't a woman have an abortion after already having multiple kids, or before? Can't people support abortion without actually having one?

Because I can. Because it happens. Because it's the truth instead of fantasy or fallacy.
Yes. Which eliminates that genetic combination from evolution for eternity.
Yes. That doesn't change a thing.
Yes. After all I do and cannot.

 

[TastySuckToy]

Because I can. Because it happens. Because it's the truth instead of fantasy or fallacy.
Yes. Which eliminates that genetic combination from evolution for eternity.
Yes. That doesn't change a thing.
Yes. After all I do and cannot.

So then by your own logic you are removing your own genetics from the gene pool and therefore your beliefs/ideology as well?

 

[HisArpy]

So then by your own logic you are removing your own genetics from the gene pool and therefore your beliefs/ideology as well?

Since I'm not female, nor am I role playing one in my fantasies, what you say can only happen in the possible case where someone would abort a child of mine she was carrying. Since I follow the rule that you don't stick your dick in crazy, nor do I go around flogging my dick in public as if it's all I am, that's a low risk scenario.

 

[TastySuckToy]

Since I'm not female, nor am I role playing one in my fantasies, what you say can only happen in the possible case where someone would abort a child of mine she was carrying. Since I follow the rule that you don't stick your dick in crazy, nor do I go around flogging my dick in public as if it's all I am, that's a low risk scenario.

So to clarify, you support abortion choices for others, but won't directly support an abortion choice when it comes to your own potential children?

If so, seems like a logically consistent position to me.

 

[HisArpy]

So to clarify, you support abortion choices for others, but won't directly support an abortion choice when it comes to your own potential children?

If so, seems like a logically consistent position to me.

You insert you own beliefs in place of mine and then ascribe the result to me.

Not smart on your part.

 

[TastySuckToy]

You insert you own beliefs in place of mine and then ascribe the result to me.

Not smart on your part.

What part of you support abortion for others but won't make choices (ie: risk a relationship with pro abortion woman) isn't consistent with your argument here?

All I was doing was saying your position was logically consistent.

 

[HisArpy]

What part of you support abortion for others but won't make choices (ie: risk a relationship with pro abortion woman) isn't consistent with your argument here?

All I was doing was saying your position was logically consistent.

What you're doing is playing gotcha games and thinking you've got the upper hand in a nonsensical argument you've created with yourself.

I support abortion. Period. If that results in a child of mine being aborted despite my best efforts to find a sane mother to fully gestate and rear that child, then so be it. HER genetics are on the line too and if she aborts the child that's on her because I have NO SAY in the matter beyond the procreation other than a refusal to repeat that experience with the same female.

 

[TastySuckToy]

What you're doing is playing gotcha games and thinking you've got the upper hand in a nonsensical argument you've created with yourself.

All I'm doing is trying to understand your position.

I get that the typical hostility and irrational nature of many here can put you on the defensive, but I'm not trying for any kind of 'gotcha'.

I support abortion. Period. If that results in a child of mine being aborted despite my best efforts to find a sane mother to fully gestate and rear that child, then so be it. HER genetics are on the line too and if she aborts the child that's on her because I have NO SAY in the matter beyond the procreation other than a refusal to repeat that experience with the same female.

Alrighty, you've further clarified your position, but it sounds like I was absolutely correct in concluding you would do everything possible to avoid a pro abortion woman when dealing with your own potential children.

I'm not judging or arguing your position, just establishing it and saying I find it logically consistent.

 

[Rick345]

Conversely, if it's not legal wherever you are, and you still insist on the above course of genetic removal, then move to where it is legal and continue your course of self elimination.

Let's start at the beginning you said the charge of murder only comes into play if the person has already been born, I replied in Alabama a person can be charged and convicted of murder for ending the life of an unborn human. The law in Alabama defines life as being at the moment of conception.. I repeat this is black-letter law in the State of Alabama.. My beliefs have nothing to do with it, it is black letter law.

If you are in Bama and you mug a pregnant woman and in the process of mugging her you cause an injury that causes her to miscarry you will be charged with first degree murder. Causing the death of someone in the commission of a crime is defined as first degree murder in Alabama..

If that happens to you, the fact you believe murder can only occur on a person out of the womb will not help you, it is not a defense in Alabama.. You will eventually be asked to sit in Big Yella Mama (Electric Chair) and they will send enough electricity through you to light up Birmingham.. Even if your last words are "I didn't murder, because the fetus wasn't born."

I’m trying my best to teach you Alabama law but I don’t have a degree in special education so I’ve failed.

But for one last time, the law is implemented regardless of how someone feels about it.. You may feel you should be allowed to go 60mph through a school zone, during school hours, but if you do and are caught odds are you will have a hefty fine to pay and a few weeks in jail to contemplate your recklessness. Even if you believe you should be allowed to do 60 in a school zone..

 

[TastySuckToy]

The law in Alabama defines life as being at the moment of conception.. I repeat this is black-letter law in the State of Alabama.

And this is where written laws are bringing either vague or intentionally misleading terminology to the argument. Life doesn't automatically mean human or human being.

Ants are life. My heart is alive and human. Neither are human beings.

 

[Bn2f]

What part of you support abortion for others but won't make choices (ie: risk a relationship with pro abortion woman) isn't consistent with your argument here?

All I was doing was saying your position was logically consistent.

You insert you own beliefs in place of mine and then ascribe the result to me.

Not smart on your part.

One of these 2 members touts having a legal background.
Scrolling through this above back and forth exchange -
Can YOU guess which one???

 

[Rick345]

And this is where written laws are bringing either vague or intentionally misleading terminology to the argument. Life doesn't automatically mean human or human being.

Ants are life. My heart is alive and human. Neither are human bei

 

[Rick345]

And this is where written laws are bringing either vague or intentionally misleading terminology to the argument. Life doesn't automatically mean human or human being.

Ants are life. My heart is alive and human. Neither are human beings.

Agreed!

My point is a state can use the law to define life as whatever it wishes and whatever construct it uses is valid with in the law, it may not agree with religious, philosophical, scientific, or your or my definition but within in the law of that state and in respect to the laws of that state it is valid.. In fact one of the few things I remember from 10th grade biology class is life is undefined. We know when we see it but like art we can’t define it..

One of the biggest problems with the law is written down and defined but socity is often ten steps ahead of it..

 

[HisArpy]

And this is where written laws are bringing either vague or intentionally misleading terminology to the argument. Life doesn't automatically mean human or human being.

Ants are life. My heart is alive and human. Neither are human beings.

You cannot murder an ant. Or a tree. Yet both are undeniably life. Therefore in order to commit murder, one must take the life of a human being. That requires, under acknowledged laws dating back to the dawn of time, that the one being murdered be "born alive."

Because if the one supposedly murdered isn't "alive" to begin with, you can't commit murder and if that victim hasn't been born they are not yet a human being.

This is basic logic. Twist it all you wish to but it is basic logic and cannot be denied.