Alabama Supreme Court Cites the Bible in Terrifying Embryo Ruling

They may recognize the general principle but be particularly attached to their particular dogs. There are also people who would save their children over a dozen or even a hundred other children, while recognizing their choice violates the general principle of the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the one.

 

Whitewash.

The court ruled that embryos are "children".

There needs to be a lineup of doctors, obgyn, pediatricians, law professionals, and judges to state whether the law and biology say embryos are "children" or not. Then demand all law referencing the subject must comply with the majority view on the law and the science.

 

Another question. If the frozen embryos are children—aka dependents, they’re a tax deduction, right?

 

just wait to Democrat vote harvesters try to get them ballots!

 

My point was that the damage was not the fault of the clinic in any case.

 

It is a civil not criminal case almost anything flies in a civil lawsuit they've done wrongful death with pets. Way too many lawyers make way to much money off this sort of clap trap for the courts to find it any other way.

 

Nope it is possible that daddy could sue. This is about a civil case not a criminal one. In things like this the only differences between left and right are the excuses they use to allow such a civil case to go forward.

 

I don't know what the question is, but given your history, it likely has nothing to do with the thread.

 

Your hyperbole and ballyhooing not withstanding, the single case you cite is, in my opinion as a conservative "right winger" (whatever that is), completely ridiculous. I don't know what verse was cited, but it is instructive to note that in biblical times a woman wasn't deemed really pregnant with child until quickening, about 4 to 5 months after conception.

 

The courts have already held that unborn children are children in Alabama.
See: Mack v. Carmack 2011 and Hamilton v. Scott 2012

Additionally, the dictionary has already made this classification for the definition of child. When the bill was passed in 1872 this was the understood meaning.
https://www.oed.com/dictionary/child_n
I.1.a. An unborn or newly born human being; a fetus, an infant

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/child
3a: an unborn or recently born person

Hope Elisabeth Ankrom v. State of Alabama 2013

The law says nothing about narrowing this definition and precedent to only account for children in utero.

 

Actually in Georgia... they can now.

 

Thats because Taliban ( and all muslims for that matter ) are part of the WRONG religion.

Christians are just fine enforcing religious doctrine... As long as its their own and no one elses.

 

IVF clinics in the state are already looking at if they need to close. The women that depend on such procedures will likely disagree with you that this isn’t a real issue.

As to the theocracy imposed by the court — religious people ignoring other biblical verses while trying to push others — that’s a typical evangelical for you.

 

Its still precedent.

 

Or they could secure their freezers and release themselves of negligent claims. Medical freezers with locks are used in every hospital and pharmacy in the United States.

Tell us you didn't read the ruling without telling us you didn't read the ruling. The Alabama Constitution includes language about the state policy to "recognize and support the sanctity of unborn life." The only portion of the ruling that I can find using ctrl-f searches for words like Bible, God, etc, is limited to only the small portion of the ruling that was required to define what was meant by "sanctity" in this Amendment. The ruling does not rely on "theocracy." The precedent and the law are pretty clear absent this amendment.

The defendants admitted the precedent exists and didn't contest that fact. Everyone agreed with the cases that provided precedent and what the precedent was. They just asked for an exception to the law, despite it not being written into law, to provide protections to the IVF industry that their legislature did not provide them with.

 

They are not looking, they are closing.

Two Alabama clinics pauses IVF services after court rules that embryos are children
A decision by the Alabama Supreme Court has left providers and patients unsure of whether parts of the in vitro fertilization process put them at legal risk.
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/heal...es-court-rules-embryos-are-childre-rcna139846

 

The word "closing" tends to imply more permanence than the word "pause". I suspect that is why you chose it.

In order to clear up any potential confusion from your choice of wording, it says "pause", which most people tend to infer means temporary.


How much do you want to bet that the pause will be over within a week or two at most? After the headline has disappeared, so too will their "pause". Surely the end of this pause will not get as much fanfare. By not as much, I mean little to no coverage.

 

For a one of a kind civil trial and only in Alabama

 

And the order to enforce the beliefs of that cult can be violent at times.

"When you hear any layman speak ill of the Christian faith, defend it not with words but with the sword, which you should thrust into their belly as far as it will go."

- Pope Gregory IX (1227-1241) instructions to his clergy; Chronicles of the Crusade, G. de Villehardouin, p. 148"

 

Yeah, the Catholic Church was not exactly a bastion of virtue back then (and for a few hundred years).

 

I wonder if it was a cult for pedophiles back then as well.

 

Good point. You could create dozens of "babies" on petri dishes, and collect the tax benefits without having any expenses.

 

What is so terrifying in making sure that after paying thousands and thousands of dollars to create an embryo, that the couple should expect that embryo to be handled with care? Couples should be happy about the law.

 

Seeing that IFV clinics are already looking at closing over this ruling is one of the most obvious examples

That the court ruled such by including Bible verses is a different level of concern though.

 

It's the dimwit lefties trying to scare everyone with false claims. This law actually protects the embryos for the couples who paid thousands and thousands of dollars for them. Don't you think that after shelling out all this money for an embryo, couples don't want accidents happening to it? It's nothing more than Democrats running around screaming that Republicans will take seniors social security away.