Alabama Supreme Court declares frozen embryos are legally children

[Heyo]

Again, good, imo. Adopt children instead of demanding you get your own, just because it's your genetic material. I thought we were against that kind of thing now. IVF has long been controversial and I believe people ought be more open to adoption. There are millions of children who need it.

Maybe when adoption becomes as easy as getting an IVF, people will adopt more children.

 

[Rival]

We *do* IVF on non-human animals. Like routinely. Not just in farming and competitive fields but in almost all conservation efforts where it's an available option, particularly in those with low birthrates like pandas. I've yet to see an animal welfare group be mad at the practice, we're too busy caring about the ones that are actually experience pain and suffering right now.

If certain animals won't reproduce that's their problem

Yes, we do that kind of thing. I don't agree with it. It's wrong imo.

 

[Polymath257]

Again, good, imo. Adopt children instead of demanding you get your own, just because it's your genetic material. I thought we were against that kind of thing now. IVF has long been controversial and I believe people ought be more open to adoption. There are millions of children who need it.

Who said I was against that sort of thing? I would prefer that fewer people have kids, but that isn't something I want the government to be dictating. I support IVF for those who want it.

 

[Rival]

Maybe when adoption becomes as easy as getting an IVF, people will adopt more children.

I wouldn't say IVF is easy. It's also extremely expensive.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

This is not really the same thing though.

These embryos have been conceived on purpose, with others which were able to grow into fully developed babies and yet these were not.

This is the problem, from my point of view. You are selecting who lives and who dies, lives which haven't even done anything yet, so they're innocent.

I don't grasp how people are comfortable with this.

I would also be conceiving those embryos on purpose. Because someone in the state decided they're equivalent to children even though they cannot think, feel or experience anything, so I'm going to benefit off it because I have absolutely no incentive to be thinking embryos are the equivalent of neonates. Which is like just eliminating growth categories like 'legal age' because they're all 'life' without even bothering to consider the implications of those consequences.

 

[Rival]

though they cannot think, feel or experience anything

This is a bold statement and not one I'm comfortable with.

And you know what I mean by purpose here. Your purpose would be evil, imo, in the hypothetical you gave.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

If certain animals won't reproduce that's their problem

Yes, we do that kind of thing. I don't agree with it. It's wrong imo.

They won't reproduce because we've removed their access to healthy spaces to do so, it's literally a problem we made. You wouldn't have access to the animal resources we have without it. You'd literally be shooting yourself in the foot by getting rid of it, because you're more worried about what happens to the part of animals that can't think or feel than the parts that can. Lol.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This is not really a sensible question. What are 'all purposes?'

Is a baby the same kind of a child as a 10 year old?

We are talking about an embryo. Stop hiding your cards and use your common sense. It's not walking around or talking to anyone. What a shock.

I'm talking about the issues like the ones I raised earlier. Children - including newborns - but not embryos or fetuses:

- are entitled to a nationality
- can be beneficiaries on insurance policies
- can be named as a person's heirs
- count as part of the population for various things (e.g. electoral districting)
- count as passengers in HOV lanes, etc. etc.

But it was conceived. What's the point of conceiving it only to let it die? This is cruel.

The steps involved in IVF all have varying rates of success.

To have a reasonable chance of 1 live birth, they'll typically implant 2 blastocysts.

To have a reasonable chance of 2 good-quality blastocysts, they'll typically harvest and fertilize 5-6 eggs.

... but it's fairly common to do better than average, so it's not unheard of to harvest 6 eggs and have all of them end up viable blastocysts. It's dangerous to implant too many, so even if there are lots of viable blastocysts, they'll generally only implant 2, leaving however many left.

The remaining blastocysts can either be frozen for future implantation or disposed of... or at least they could until this ruling (in Alabama at least).

If we did that to animals the animal welfare groups would be straight on us. I don't see why this is acceptable. Creating life just to let it die.

IVF is commonly used for domesticated animals.

And ethically, I think IVF works better than the "pro-life" approach I was advised to follow by a doctor in a Catholic hospital.

Too much science, not enough humanity.

What aspect of "humanity" do you think is missing?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

This is a bold statement and not one I'm comfortable with.

And you know what I mean by purpose here. Your purpose would be evil, imo, in the hypothetical you gave.

I would sooner mandate vegetarianism than restrict abortion, for the measurable impact the two have. Not just implacable virtues or, in the words of conservatives in the states, feelings over facts.

Edit: This deserves more expansion. You said you thought what I proposed was evil. I don't really care about that because to me limiting reproductive choices is evil, being a billionaire is evil, pushing authoritarian governments including theocratic ones which try to posit 'souls' in political bills is evil, we all have ideas of what are evil.

But more importantly, this legislation wouldn't even stop what YOU think is evil. Because nothing in my suggestion would be illegal. Because treating blastocytes as children would absolutely mean giving parents with blastocytes, including extrauterine ones like this bill suggests, access to all the legal rights of having those children. Which, as I said, makes about as much sense as treating children like legal adults just because they're both human lives. Being a human life doesn't mean we shouldn't have legal restriction on developmental groups.

In trying to make a bill that focuses on increased humanity it really just made a bill with a lack of sense.

 

[SkepticThinker]

This is not really a sensible question. What are 'all purposes?'

Is a baby the same kind of a child as a 10 year old?

We are talking about an embryo. Stop hiding your cards and use your common sense. It's not walking around or talking to anyone. What a shock.

But it was conceived. What's the point of conceiving it only to let it die? This is cruel. If we did that to animals the animal welfare groups would be straight on us. I don't see why this is acceptable. Creating life just to let it die.

Too much science, not enough humanity.

Are you under the impression that embryos have thoughts and feelings?

 

[Copernicus]

though they cannot think, feel or experience anything

This is a bold statement and not one I'm comfortable with.

And you know what I mean by purpose here. Your purpose would be evil, imo, in the hypothetical you gave.

It was factual, not hypothetical. You need to have a brain in order to think, feel, or experience anything. Embryos do not have brains. I'm pretty sure that you know this.

 

[Eddi]

I'm so glad I don't live in the USA

 

[Rival]

There are far too many people quoting me for me to respond especially with the lag.

I think my views are understood enough.

I wish there were more folks who shared my views on this forum, because the atmosphere here is suffocating.

 

[Copernicus]

People may be missing the irony of the Alabama Supreme Court ruling. The original case had to do with a lawsuit against a clinic by potential parents that owned the embryos. The Alabama Supreme Court actually ruled that they can go ahead with the lawsuit to claim damages. However, they then decided to rule that both the clinic and the parents could no longer actually use IVF as a means of conceiving children, because it would always inevitably result in the deaths of human beings. It's impossible to conceive children that way without the loss of some embryos, making doctors essentially risk criminal liability for offering the service. Hence, both parties in the lawsuit that the court approved going forward can no longer even do what they are arguing over.

 

[Revoltingest]

It was factual, not hypothetical. You need to have a brain in order to think, feel, or experience anything. Embryos do not have brains. I'm pretty sure that you know this.

As I understand a common Christian perspective,
the embryo has a "soul". So it's not about having
brain function.
Note that Christian scientists have yet to verify
that this "soul" exists, nor even to objectively
define it.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

This is not really a sensible question. What are 'all purposes?'

Is a baby the same kind of a child as a 10 year old?

We are talking about an embryo. Stop hiding your cards and use your common sense. It's not walking around or talking to anyone. What a shock.

But it was conceived. What's the point of conceiving it only to let it die? This is cruel. If we did that to animals the animal welfare groups would be straight on us. I don't see why this is acceptable. Creating life just to let it die.

Too much science, not enough humanity.

About half of all conceptions terminate with the death of the embryo perfectly naturally.

"As many as 50 percent of all pregnancies may end in miscarriage, according to the March of Dimes, an Arlington, Va.-based nonprofit group focused on improving the health of mothers and babies. The term “miscarriage” refers to the unexpected loss of a fetus before the 20th week of pregnancy and is considered a naturally occurring event. From the 20th week on, loss of the baby is identified as a stillbirth. Most miscarriages occur because the fetus is not developing normally. This can be the result of the fetus having too many or too few chromosomes, which are the cell structures that hold genes, the National Institutes of Health says."

 

[Rival]

About half of all conceptions terminate with the death of the embryo perfectly naturally.

"As many as 50 percent of all pregnancies may end in miscarriage, according to the March of Dimes, an Arlington, Va.-based nonprofit group focused on improving the health of mothers and babies. The term “miscarriage” refers to the unexpected loss of a fetus before the 20th week of pregnancy and is considered a naturally occurring event. From the 20th week on, loss of the baby is identified as a stillbirth. Most miscarriages occur because the fetus is not developing normally. This can be the result of the fetus having too many or too few chromosomes, which are the cell structures that hold genes, the National Institutes of Health says."

Nobody is saying this is a good thing. We mourn over this.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I wish there were more folks who shared my views on this forum, because the atmosphere here is suffocating.

I think a lot of members probably share your views on this, going by their strongly conservative views on certain other issues, but many of them seem to post much more often in threads focused on subjects that differ from this one (e.g., evolution and creationism, scriptural debates, etc.).

 

[fantome profane]

I believe life begins at conception, so these embryos are life, they're children.

What is your definition of life? We are talking about frozen embryos. They do not grow, they do not move on their own, they do not eat, they do not excrete, they do not breath, they do not reproduce.

By what definition are they life?

 

[☆Dreamwind☆]

I didn't know Alabama politicians knew such big, sciencey words?