Alabama Supreme Court Cites the Bible in Terrifying Embryo Ruling

We all know why

To make room for the 700th layoff thread of course!
Or maybe to allow room for what trump said in a speech. Only the most important topics are allowed in CE

 

I argued to protect children and women. Why are you talking about hurting women and even killing women?

 

This will have ripple effects for IVF

 

The difference is the bond...so it is easier to kill human life if we haven't bonded to it.

 

There are a couple of them on my other forum who hold that position. They feel that even if the embryo is no longer in their body, say in an external artificial womb, they still have the right to choose to terminate it, prior to birth. If I can manage to unbury one of the threads, I'll provide quotes. Problem is the last time was a while ago, and of course there have been a ton of posts since.

 

I believe Lee's claim is since they used this case to classify the embryos as children, then that means the ones in the woman are also children and as such a woman can't abort any any time, and that there will be laws made on that basis.

 

There are probably already plenty of Alabama Supreme Court decisions on abortion as well as a body of law that would cover that. This was kind of a unique situation.

 

Why are you avoiding the question?

 

And. here we go, as predicted:

https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/21/us/alabama-ruling-frozen-embryos-facility-pauses-ivf/index.html

Another freedom being thrown by the wayside by the religious extremists. Of course, they probably believe that people needing IVF are undesirable anyway, because God is punishing them for something by preventing them from having children the natural way.

But, that's really how the self-proclaimed "freedom lovers" work. Freedom for me, but not for thee is really their motto.

 

These people keep grabbing the third rail with both hands, there is no reasoning with them. People, men and women, get out in Nov 2024 and let your voice through vote be heard. You cannot reason with zealots, and it even harder with religious zealots. VOTE and take a non voting citizen to the polls.

 

The funny thing is that these same people complain about the Taliban..... I won't say more, or I'll get banned.

 

Okay once one wades through the verbiage what one sees is a ruling in a lawsuit over damage caused inadvertently to stored property. Note the same sort of lawsuits happen against storage units of any sort. In this case the stored items are embryos. rather than say clothes, or collectors items. And they were destroyed and this case before the court is mainly about whether the people whose embryos they were can sue the clinic for the loss of those embryos. Is it going to harm those clinics? To the extent, that they'll have to install better security yes. In fact, right now all this ruling means is that the lawsuit can go ahead.

 

To call it much ado about nothing is an overstatement. It is a civil statute (not criminal) that allows people to sue for an amount greater than just the medical cost of the procedure. This is very similar to how in some states one can sue for wrongful death of a pet which allows a judgment to reflect damages that go beyond just the replacement cost of the dog.

Additionally, this wasn't inadvertent damage at all. It was an intruder that purposefully destroyed these samples. There isn't even a reason for IVF clinics to dislike this ruling. The outrage is nothing more than election-year theater.

 

I could see an argument that harm was done to the expecting mother, and that she should sue and be entitled to some sort of compensation in civil court. I can't see any argument that the fertilized cell was a person, that this is murder of it, etc.

 

Nobody said this is murder. It is not a criminal determination in any way. It is a civil statute that enables suing for damages that go beyond just the cost of the medical procedure. Nothing more, and nothing less.

 

The law has been interpreted that an unborn child is still a child for such civil litigation. For example, if you're pregnant and someone attacks you and kills your unborn baby can they be both criminally and civilly liable? Many states say yes.

In this case, the plaintiffs argue negligence which allowed a random person access to the frozen embryos who dropped them on the floor. They're being sued civilly for the negligence and the court approved the lawsuit.

 

I do. That is a poorly conceived law in need of abortion. Has it been upheld by your Supreme Court?

 

Pro-lifers won't let it stay civil.

 

If that's it, then I agree with you that this is much ado about nothing. If car accident victims can sue for pain and suffering and psychological trauma (and they can), then expecting parents should be allowed to sue for the pain and suffering and psychological trauma caused by this. And dog owners should be allowed to sue for more than the market value of their beloved dog.

 

If you can show me ANYWHERE that a civil statute has transferred over to and been enforced in criminal courts, I will give your belief some credence. Until that time however, it is a figment of an overactive imagination.

Civil court does not direct criminal in any fashion. For that matter, the concept of wrongful death is not criminal in any fashion. There is just not a comparison to be drawn.

 

Many dog owners would save their dogs over a human stranger, while recognizing that humans are valued more than dogs by society.

 

It does matter how the court words this sort of decision. Did they at any point refer to the embryos as persons or children who have rights? Or was this framed entirely as a property damage claim with a psychological trauma component?

 

The plaintiffs and defendants agreed that precedent would allow the plaintiffs' right to sue if the embryo was in utero. The question was whether or not the law makes a distinction for an embryo that is not in utero. That is the primary question they had to determine. Based on my short reading of the decision, the defendants admit the law doesn't specify the distinction but said it should be assumed.

They both cited the same law for the AL SCOTUS to determine liability.
https://law.justia.com/codes/alabama/2022/title-6/chapter-5/article-22/section-6-5-391/
https://law.justia.com/codes/alabama/2022/title-6/chapter-5/article-23/section-6-5-410/

 

If dog owners saved their dogs over human stranger, they do NOT recognize humans are valued more.