Alabama Supreme Court declares frozen embryos are legally children

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What right?

You don't have the right to have children. There's no such thing.

Let me rephrase, then:

In a free and democratic society, every limitation on liberty must be justified.

If you're just venting online with no intent of trying to change anything, fine, but if this is a cause where you would want to try and make change happen, then I think you should be ready to justify your position.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This is healthcare, not a blanket right to have children. As I said, that doesn't exist. You can be refused IVF and you can be refused children to adopt. If you don't have children and can't have any, the state is under no obligation to give you any.

This isn't about state obligations. We're talking about the US: these are private clinics that are paid with private dollars.

The state isn't approving or rejecting people for IVF; people are getting evaluated by their doctors, who make a medical determination of whether or not IVF is indicated or counter-indicated.

I personally think for-profit healthcare is a messed up system, but we are talking about commerce, ultimately: the ruling of the court has made it effectively impossible for doctors to provide a legal medical service to clients.

 

[Rival]

Let me rephrase, then:

In a free and democratic society, every limitation on liberty must be justified.

If you're just venting online with no intent of trying to change anything, fine, but if this is a cause where you would want to try and make change happen, then I think you should be ready to justify your position.

I'm sorry but what?

This is an obscure online forum. No-one here is changing anything in any significant way. We engage in intellectual discussions and then go back to our daily lives. There are very few issues I realistically care about in real life as my time and resources are limited.

I come on RF to bandy around with others and have debates on topics on interest, not to somehow change national politics. I engage with others here because I learn things and it's a fun hobby. I'm not an activist.

I also don't necessarily believe in democracy or liberalism, so even if I were trying to be an activist I'm not your standard Western Liberal RF democrat. But I'm not trying to demolish my country's voting system either.

This is an online forum, not Parliament.

 

[Rival]

This isn't about state obligations. We're talking about the US: these are private clinics that are paid with private dollars.

The state isn't approving or rejecting people for IVF; people are getting evaluated by their doctors, who make a medical determination of whether or not IVF is indicated or counter-indicated.

I personally think for-profit healthcare is a messed up system, but we are talking about commerce, ultimately: the ruling of the court has made it effectively impossible for doctors to provide a legal medical service to clients.

Just not pinging my radar, I'm afraid.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm sorry but what?

This is an obscure online forum. No-one here is changing anything in any significant way. We engage in intellectual discussions and then go back to our daily lives. There are very few issues I realistically care about in real life as my time and resources are limited.

I come on RF to bandy around with others and have debates on topics on interest, not to somehow change national politics. I engage with others here because I learn things and it's a fun hobby. I'm not an activist.

I also don't necessarily believe in democracy or liberalism, so even if I were trying to be an activist I'm not your standard Western Liberal RF democrat. But I'm not trying to demolish my country's voting system either.

This is an online forum, not Parliament.

Which is why I ask.

You may not be interested in effecting change, but speaking for myself, on a fair number of issues I argue about here, I am doing stuff that - I hope - will either help my preferred option come to fruition or stop it from being taken away: volunteering, voting, donating, etc.

 

[Rival]

Which is why I ask.

You may not be interested in effecting change, but speaking for myself, on a fair number of issues I argue about here, I am doing stuff that - I hope - will either help my preferred option come to fruition or stop it from being taken away: volunteering, voting, donating, etc.

That's you.

You can't treat everyone on here as though we're doing that.

Most of us are engaging in intellectualism so we can refine our views and engage with others.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's you.

You can't treat everyone on here as though we're doing that.

I didn't. Notice the "if" statements in my previous post.

 

[Rival]

I didn't. Notice the "if" statements in my previous post.

I don't see if in the post I replied to?

Unless you mean another post.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't see if in the post I replied to?

Unless you mean another post.

Post 101:

If you're just venting online with no intent of trying to change anything, fine, but if this is a cause where you would want to try and make change happen, then I think you should be ready to justify your position.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

This is healthcare, not a blanket right to have children.

What do you think "having children" entails? Did you think there was a stork involved?

As I said, that doesn't exist.

I literally just linked you to a page explaining reproductive rights. Here it is again:

Reproductive rights - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You can be refused IVF and you can be refused children to adopt.

Within reason, just like all rights. We have the right to do the thing.

If you don't have children and can't have any, the state is under no obligation to give you any.

But it is still within your rights to seek reproductive care or adoption. Obviously the state can't "give you" children, but it cannot put unreasonable limits on your ability to have or adopt children, either.

 

[fantome profane]

If you don't have children and can't have any, the state is under no obligation to give you any.

Whoa whoa whoa! Who said anything about the state having an obligation? That is not what this is about.

This is about the state interfering with private citizens and preventing then from availing themselves of medical treatment. The state should not be involved in this at all!

 

[Revoltingest]

What right?

You don't have the right to have children. There's no such thing.

I didn't see an answer to an earlier question.
Are these alive or dead?
- Sperm
- Unfertilized egg

New question...
- Can a pregnant woman now legally drive
in the High Occupancy lane, even though the
only "persons" are sitting in the driver seat.

 

[Revoltingest]

This is healthcare, not a blanket right to have children. As I said, that doesn't exist. You can be refused IVF and you can be refused children to adopt. If you don't have children and can't have any, the state is under no obligation to give you any.

Is having children to be deemed legally
a privilege, as opposed to a right?
If so, people who've sought damages
for having been forcibly sterilized might
have no case.

This all appears to have far reaching legal
consequences that the lawmakers hadn't
yet considered.

 

[Quintessence]

I'm generally opposed to fertility treatments in humans due to human overpopulation, but as much as humans are in dire need of population control, I err on the side of respecting individual freedoms and liberties. The gods will sort it out one way or another anyway and the reckoning is coming sooner rather than later. No species can ignore the carrying capacity of its environment without consequence.

But the angle that was taken here?

*sigh*

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm generally opposed to fertility treatments in humans due to human overpopulation, but as much as humans are in dire need of population control, I err on the side of respecting individual freedoms and liberties. The gods will sort it out one way or another anyway and the reckoning is coming sooner rather than later. No species can ignore the carrying capacity of its environment without consequence.

But the angle that was taken here?

*sigh*

Aye, rationing reproduction shouldn't be done
based upon whether the couple is fertile or not.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Alabama’s supreme court ruled embryos are ‘extrauterine children’. IVF patients are worried

The state’s sweeping ruling leaves doctors and patients scrambling to untangle its implications for frozen embryos

www.theguardian.com

In a first-of-its-kind decision, the Alabama state supreme court ruled on Friday that embryos are “extrauterine children” – a term that could have widespread implications for anybody who is seeking or provides in vitro fertilization (IVF). The ruling has plunged IVF doctors and patients in Alabama into chaos and uncertainty, as they scramble to untangle the practical implications of the sweeping ruling.

The thing that I note most of all, is that in his concurring opinion, Chief Justice Tom Parker deliberately and explicitly invoked religion, when he said:

"The people of Alabama have declared the public policsy of this state to be that unborn human life is sacred...we believe that each huma being, from the moment of conception, is made in the image of God, created by Him to refelct his likeness."

Guess what, folks -- separation of church and state is definitely on the way out in the U.S., since by Overton, this now becomes a legitimate matter for public, political discussion.

I think the "Christian Nationalists" are winning, because not enough Americans are speaking up to rein them in.

This is wrong and ridiculous. The US supreme court needs to overrule this. Religion strikes again. Does this mean that the frozen embryos must be implanted in women so they can become people?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This is wrong and ridiculous. The US supreme court needs to overrule this. Religion strikes again. Does this mean that the frozen embryos must be implanted in women so they can become people?

No, it means that the frozen embryos can't be implanted because if we consider the embryos to be people, the risk to the embryos would be too high to justify.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

No, it means that the frozen embryos can't be implanted because if we consider the embryos to be people, the risk to the embryos would be too high to justify.

Maybe, I am not arguing here, it is a stupid ruling.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Maybe, I am not arguing here, it is a stupid ruling.

I agree.

 

[fantome profane]

No, it means that the frozen embryos can't be implanted because if we consider the embryos to be people, the risk to the embryos would be too high to justify.

That is a good point, most embryos don't survive the implantation. We can't do that to children.