Alabama Governor Signs Bill Protecting IVF Treatments
After the Alabama Supreme Court ruled in February that frozen embryos were children, legislators scrambled to protect in vitro fertilization clinics.

Less than a month after the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that frozen embryos created for in vitro fertilization treatment are children, Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey has signed a law protecting access to IVF treatment in the state.
In February, the Alabama Supreme Court handed down a controversial ruling, deciding that frozen embryos would count as children under a 19th-century Alabama wrongful death statute. Justice Tom Parker used extensive quotes from the Bible and Christian theology to justify his decision. "The doctrine of the sanctity of life is rooted in the Sixth Commandment," which prohibits murder, Parker wrote. "All human beings bear the image of God," he continued, "and their lives cannot be destroyed without effacing his glory."
IVF is an infertility treatment involving the fertilization of multiple eggs with the goal of inserting them afterward in a woman's uterus, where they may hopefully implant and grow into a healthy baby. As Reason's Ronald Bailey put it shortly after the ruling was released, "Since the implantation of any specific embryo is far from guaranteed, IVF often involves creating several embryos that are stored in liquid nitrogen that could be made available for later attempts at achieving pregnancy." Parents often have to choose whether to leave their remaining frozen embryos in storage (at a cost) or to have the IVF clinic discard them.
The ruling caused near-immediate chaos, with three IVF providers in the state shutting down operations, citing confusion over the legal implications of the court's decision. The ruling quickly garnered widespread outrage, even among many who are avowedly pro-life.
"We want to make it easier for people to be able to have babies, not…make it harder….And the IVF process is a way of giving life to even more babies," Texas Gov. Greg Abbott told CNN in February. "What I think the goal is is to make sure that we can find a pathway to ensure that parents who otherwise may not have the opportunity to have a child will be able to have access to the IVF process."
Soon after the ruling was handed down, Alabama legislators moved quickly to introduce bills that would protect access to IVF treatment in the state. Senate Bill 159, which Ivey signed Wednesday, ultimately passed with a large bipartisan majority.
"No action, suit, or criminal prosecution for the damage to or death of an embryo shall be brought or maintained against any individual or entity when providing or receiving services related to in vitro fertilization," the bill states. "No criminal prosecution may be brought for the damage to or death of an embryo against the manufacturer of goods used to facilitate the in vitro fertilization process or the transport of stored embryos."
"The overwhelming support of [the bill] from the Alabama Legislature proves what we have been saying: Alabama works to foster a culture of life, and that certainly includes IVF," Ivey said in a statement on March 6. "I am confident that this legislation will provide the assurances our IVF clinics need and will lead them to resume services immediately."
After the bill's signing, two of the three closed clinics announced that they would restart IVF treatments.
Alabama's IVF protection bill will likely assuage fears that access to fertility treatments could be seriously impacted by state-level court rulings. Even in a state where abortion is banned from conception, attacks on IVF remain incredibly unpopular—and stridently pro-life legislators still recognize the importance of safeguarding fertility medicine.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
From Article I, Sec. 36.06 of the Alabama Constitution:
"(a) This state acknowledges, declares, and affirms that it is the public policy of this state to recognize and support the sanctity of unborn life and the rights of unborn children, including the right to life.
"(b) This state further acknowledges, declares, and affirms that it is the public policy of this state to ensure the protection of the rights of the unborn child in all manners and measures lawful and appropriate.
"(c) Nothing in this constitution secures or protects a right to abortion or requires the funding of an abortion."
King Solomon: "Divide the baby in half!"
Emma: OMG! Christians want to attack babies and chop them up! [Cheers the passing of legislation that opposes Solomon and puts the baby's life in the hands of the party with selfish disregard for the baby's actual well-being.]
It seriously is this level of stupidity around here.
It's mind-boggling that a state Constitution would have such a nonsensical, arbitrary, and scientifically erroneous phrase like "unborn child" ... oh, it"s Alabama. Never mind.
How dare they!
I know, right? How unscientific can they get?
We all know "children" are hatched out of larva incubated by trans women at the local planned parenthood Eugenics factory.
Biden is already scheduled to push the narrative. So it will live on like Charlottesville.
So it's ok to kill an embryo in furtherance of life but not ok to kill an embryo not in furtherance of life.
Got it.
The state Supreme Court might want to weigh in on this statute, considering the constitutional guarantees I've quoted above.
Incel MAGAt wankers hardest hit!
How come nobody wants to address the question of whether we should be doing stuff like this in the first place?
I get it. Couples who can't conceive is a tragic thing. Science is cool and can do something about that.
But at what cost? "Yes we can" doesn't always equate to "Yes we should." I think American society has completely forgotten that fact in all walks of life, having embraced instead a thoroughly amoral "ends justify means" mentality to try and sate its insatiable narcissism and hedonism.
On top of that, humans have this strange way of conveniently dehumanizing other inconvenient humans they want to destroy; human that are in the way of their ends justify means pursuit. If there's a single constant about human nature throughout all of history, it's that.
I wonder how many supporters of this practice are willing to answer the question: how many tiny humans should be killed so that you can have one that lives?
And no, please spare me the whole "this happens naturally all the time" nonsense. Yes, miscarriages happen. Yes, fertilized embryos don't always take in a woman. This is not that. This is not "natural." This is intentionally killing off those embryos - those tiny humans - because they're no longer needed/wanted.
attacks on IVF remain incredibly unpopular
It doesn't matter whether they're unpopular. It matters whether they're right or wrong.
On top of that, humans have this strange way of conveniently dehumanizing other inconvenient humans they want to destroy; human that are in the way of their ends justify means pursuit. If there’s a single constant about human nature throughout all of history, it’s that.
No no no. You are completely wrong. Dehumanization is a myth, a narrative pushed by leftists. And illegal immigrants really are scum and vermin.
Yes, and they also pollute the Sacred Blood of the Nation! Ass well ass our soil! Blood, Souls, and Soil! Keep them ALL Unsoiled and Unsullied! Don't you DARE soil my Blood and Soil!
CHANT with me now! Unsoiled soil! Unsoiled soil! Unsoiled soil! ...
Point out to me where I said that illegals are scum and vermin.
Oh, you mean you weren't actually replying to anything I said. OK then.
I didn't say that you did. But I am glad that you agree with me that dehumanization is wrong, whether it is applied to babies or whether it is applied to illegal immigrants.
Fair enough.
We cannot have the debate you ask for because you have not defined your terms. Let's start with the most basic one.
Please define "human" and "life". Be precise. Until there is consensus on terms, we cannot even begin to have a rational discussion about abortion and the competing values that it implicates.
Cop out. You will never get a "consensus on terms" from people who want to intentionally ignore reality and redefine terms to suit their narrative.
This is why rainbow cult hates Matt Walsh. He asked the question: what is a woman?
You know, I know, Supreme Court Justice Jackson knows, everyone knows - but the "consensus of terms" folks depend on a forced and disingenuous ambiguity to make their asinine argument.
The same goes for Human and Life. Would you like a genome map of the thing we're talking about? A detailed blueprint of the morphological characteristics during its life stages that traces a clear path from embryo to adult? An anthropological record?
It's a human. And it's a life. Genetically, biologically, anthropologically, and by any other -ically you want to use. Don't use forced, disingenuous ambiguity to try and make a BS argument.
So, what is a woman?
An adult human female.
Really? You have to ask?
are you new? all jeff does is have to ask.
Is that the only definition?
Yes.
Oh I see.
So consider the saying "act like a woman". What does this saying mean, especially when it is directed to people who are not adult human females? How does a person who does not have the XX chromosome act like someone who does? What is the behavior that the XX chromosome causes individuals to exhibit?
>>How does a person who does not have the XX chromosome act like someone who does?
poorly
Correct.
Much like a child might get down on all hands and knees and meow - you'll never mistake them for an actual cat. It's just a poor imitation.
This is the second time in as many posts that I've seen you struggle with the whole similes/metaphors thing.
Really give some serious consideration to those ESL classes, Jeff. They'll make getting your citizenship a lot easier.
So AT... I hope you know that MANY customers of IVF use IVF to avoid horrible genetic defects that they carry in their families... So that they can pick and chose Sacred Fartilized Egg Smells that test out to be FREE of these defects, and the suffering that they bring! For lack of this choice being available, many of these would-be parents would chose NOT to become parents!
Because of the ??? Souls, Natural Rights, Magic Ooga-Booga, or twatever it is.. Would YOU self-righteously chose to use the Long Arms of The Sacred Laws to PUNISH parents and-or Fartility doctors who DELIBERATELY discard these frozen, genetically defective Sacred Fartilized Egg Smells?
Yea, I know why they use it. What's your point?
So anyway, WHICH women shall become the womb-slaves to have ALL of these genetically defective frozen Sacred Fartilized Egg Smells implanted? Because I suspect that there will be NO volunteers! Or must they stay frozen... FOREVER? With penalties for the AC power suppliers that fail from time to time, to keep them frozen for eternity?
Good, you've identified the problem. Now keep going.
Why are we creating tiny humans with the intentional design not to bring them to term? Why are we doing so with the malicious aforethought that we mean to intentionally destroy some/most of them?
Because IVF isn't yet perfect! Ass soon ass they can cum up with a way to infallibly create ONE perfect Sacred Fartilized Egg Smell, and implant it perfectly, they WILL need to run the random crap-shoot and make some defective ones!!! Ass soon ass it is PERFECT, you can BET your sweet-potato-patootie that they WILL do shit perfectly!!!
Hey AT!!! The "technology" of FOOD isn't yet perfect, either!!! People, on a regular basis, get sick and even DIE from food poisoning!!! Go for PERFECTION... And STOP EATING!!!
Food technology doesn't involve the intentional termination of tiny humans.
Food technologists engage in this EVIL "food technology" KNOWING FULLY DAMNED WELL that said "food technology" (with its inevitably associated food poisoning) WILL result in the sporadic DEATHS of babies, adults, children... AND PREGNANT MOTHERS (ass well ass their fartilized egg smells)!!! So EVIL "food technology" DOES involve the intentional termination of tiny humans, ass well ass humans of ALL assorted sizes!!! IF YOU CAN'T DO SHIT PERFECTLY, DON'T DO SHIT AT ALL!!!
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intend
If I'm an Air Farce Ossifer and I drop a nuke, intending to knock out the enemy's military installations, and do NOT intend "collateral damage" (AKA dead, suffering, and dying humans), butt I know fully damned well, twat ALL I am causing... Is this of ANY consolation to the dead, suffering, dying humans, AND their relatives, that I did NOT intend ALL of the effects of twat I did? Split some more hairs, will ya?!?!
Whether or not it's consolation is irrelevant.
Trying to console the billions of ghosts of the dead, in a nuclear holocaust, is irrelevant... ALL that matters is that we must PUNISH-PUNISH-PUNISH the evil-doers, especially the MURDEROUS killers of those Sacred Fartilized Egg Smells!!! Satisfying Our Sacred PUNISHMENT BONERS is FAR more Sacred than ANYTHING else!!! OK, gotcha!!!
ALL that matters is that we must PUNISH-PUNISH-PUNISH the evil-doers
Do you have something against that?
Punish-punish-punish! Personally, I think that punishment should be strictly reserved for only those who cannot otherwise be corrected, and then, “the punishment should fit the crime”. What is needed, and then no more, as far as the severity of the punishment goes. Even criticism is punishment, and it, too, should be carefully rationed.
What have very varied thinkers through the years said about this?
"Beware of all those in whom the urge to punish is strong." - Friedrich Nietzsche
“Mistrust all those in whom the desire to punish is imperative.” Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
"Let he who is without sin, throw the first stone." - Jesus
“How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ while there is still a beam in your own eye? You hypocrite! First take the beam out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.” - Jesus
So, yes?
First, I apologize about sending you down a rabbit hole about “human”. That was unintended and is unnecessary for this discussion.
Having said that, you are the one copping out on the definition of “life”. The definition you imply but do not explicitly state (that it is a strictly genomic concept and therefore begins at conception) is an extraordinarily recent invention. That definition is not based in any historical record or religious tradition. Looking back in time and across multiple cultures, life legally and morally began:
– at adulthood
– at baptism
– at birth.
Only in the late 20th century did anyone even begin to argue that “life” in any legally or practical way might begin before birth. That definition was based on the potential to survive a premature birth, a definition “set” by the Supreme Court based on weeks despite the fact that it is a variable dependent on the current state of technology. “Life begins at conception” was not seriously considered by anyone until very, very late in the abortion debates and that remains a deeply problematic legal and moral standard.
When life begins is the fundamental question on the table. You may not simply assume your conclusion and hope to win the argument. Your refusal to accept that there even are other possible definitions of “life” paints you as the dogmatist denying reality and trying to redefine terms.
Only in the late 20th century did anyone even begin to argue that “life” in any legally or practical way might begin before birth.
Only in the late 20th century did anyone even begin to argue that personal computers could fit inside a room, inside a pocket even.
Human advancement - and the new realizations, revelations, and knowledge that comes from it - is amazing, isn't it.
When life begins is the fundamental question on the table.
It's already answered: conception.
Here's an even more fun one: when does life end?
Answered in your mind, perhaps. Now persuade the rest of society.
Note that a large majority of the US population disagrees with you. Even among the religiously devout, abortion up to 14 weeks or so remains an acceptable standard for most. In other words, they do not agree that it is yet an independent human life.
Argumentum ad populum.
A heliocentric universe was answered in the mind of Copernicus. The rest of society didn't want to be persuaded. They were committed to the falsity because it propped up their related narratives and endpoints.
But they got there eventually. And felt awfully stupid once they did. Assuming they had the integrity to admit they were wrong.
Which few do.
Do you?
Can't fight reality, Ross. It is what it is.
(Interesting that you'd circumscribe your argument to "the US population" though. Global support for abortion is more limited, and tends to be restricted exclusively to the fringe cases.)
Note to Gambian readers: Looks like Allah has picked out a visa applicant eager to emigrate and help practice FGM. First you strip females of rights, then you subject them to involuntary servitude, then you mutilate their genitalia.
It’s already answered: conception.
Answered by who? You have seriously skipped a lot of steps in this and leapt right to your preferred conclusion. How is it decided which embryos are human lives and which are not? Is it any embryo created by human parents regardless of its structure or viability? Is an embryo with 65 chromosomes a human being? Should you face the death penalty for disposing of it instead of implanting it into a woman's uterus where it cannot possibly develop and only puts her at a risk of sepsis? If not 65, then what about embryos with conditions which are only fatal 90% of the time? What about with Down's Syndrome? If a woman miscarries can she be charged with some kind of crime of neglect? These questions are all ridiculous on their face and I pose them only to highlight the frankly ridiculous logical pretzel that anti-abortion maximalists have wound themselves into.
I get it, your real goal here is you don't like frisky profligates having tons of sex and then using the morning after pill like some hilariously expensive condom. Sex should be for the making of babies, etc. But uh oh, someone has pointed out that IVF also destroys embryos on the regular and now just to maintain some kind of ideological consistency you find yourself opposing the making of babies.
I wonder how many supporters of this practice are willing to answer the question: how many tiny humans should be killed so that you can have one that lives?
As someone currently going through IVF and surrogacy I am VERY willing to answer that question: As many as it takes. I would grind up a million day-6 embryos to have just one child that breathes air. If you don't like that answer, frankly, idgaf because it's not your business what I, my wife, and the generous woman we work with do with our bodies. Do I consider each embryo we implant to be my child? Of course, and if my ducts were willing I could fill oceans with tears I've shed over them miscarrying, but if it means just one can live then I would do anything. I think I'm in a far better place to make those moral decisions than anyone in the government. I'm certainly in a better place than anyone in this comment thread. If god himself wants to object to my methods at the pearly gates and damn me straight to hell, even then I'd flip him the bird and say "worth it."
Answered by who?
Biology.
As someone currently going through IVF and surrogacy I am VERY willing to answer that question: As many as it takes. I would grind up a million day-6 embryos to have just one child that breathes air.
Well, at least you admit it. I mean, it's pure evil - but it's honest evil. At least it has that going for it, since it has nothing else. Despite all your rationalizing and crocodile tears.
If "evil" is honest, if "evil" is self-sacrificing for the good of others, if "evil" is to create where nothing existed before, if "evil" asks for nothing but to be left alone, then I'll be the a demon.
Except it's not self-sacrificing, is it. You're actually sacrificing someone else. A lot of them, by your own claims.
Nor is it a matter of being left alone - because you're the one involving others. Asking to be left alone is entirely contingent on what you're doing. If you ask to be left alone to beat your wife, rationalizing it as "just wanting to be left alone" will never fly.
If god himself wants to object to my methods at the pearly gates and damn me straight to hell, even then I’d flip him the bird and say “worth it.”
Y’know, I try really hard to avoid getting into religious discussions at Reason – but I can’t let this pass. Because it is SO stupid.
You realize this is your arrogant narcissism trying to usurp the omniscience of God, right?
Let me guess your counterargument: “But I don’t believe in God.” Or maybe it's "I AM my own God."
Then why bring Him up in the first place? Why acknowledge Him and His clear stance on the subject in your effort to defend evildoing? Unless your only point is to assert the aforementioned arrogant narcissism?
God actually commands us to kill EVERYONE, including the Sacred Fartilized Egg Smells!!!
God COMMANDS us to kill EVERYONE!
Our that them thar VALUES of society outta come from that them thar HOLY BIBLE, and if ya read it right, it actually says that God wants us to KILL EVERYBODY!!! Follow me through now: No one is righteous, NONE (Romans 3:10). Therefore, ALL must have done at least one thing bad, since they’d be righteous, had they never done anything bad. Well, maybe they haven’t actually DONE evil, maybe they THOUGHT something bad (Matt. 5:28, thoughts can be sins). In any case, they must’ve broken SOME commandment, in thinking or acting, or else they'd be righteous. James 2:10 tells us that if we've broken ANY commandment, we broke them ALL. Now we can’t weasel out of this by saying that the New Testament has replaced the Old Testament, because Christ said that he’s come to fulfill the old law, not to destroy it (Matt. 5:17). So we MUST conclude that all are guilty of everything. And the Old Testament lists many capital offenses! There’s working on Sunday. There’s also making sacrifices to, or worshipping, the wrong God (Exodus 22:20, Deut. 17:2-5), or even showing contempt for the Lord’s priests or judges (Deut. 17:12). All are guilty of everything, including the capital offenses. OK, so now we’re finally there... God’s Word COMMANDS us such that we’ve got to kill EVERYBODY!!!
(I am still looking for that special exception clause for me & my friends & family… I am sure that I will find it soon!)
Don’t forget… The above ALSO applies to Sacred Fartilized Egg Smells!!!
The entry point to the above-listed Deep Biblical Analysis is…
No one is righteous, NONE (Romans 3:10).
That means that NOT EVEN THE SACRED FARTILIZED EGG SMELLS are righteous! NO exception was listed for egg smells, fartuses, etc.! And if you follow the rest of the Biblical-literalness LOGICAL argument laid out above, then the Bible actually commands us to KILL said Sacred Fartilized Egg Smells!!!
WHERE are the Biblical literalists when we desperately NEED them?!?!
n00bdragon,
My wife and I recently went through IVF/surrogacy as well, and now have a beautiful baby boy! The fact that his existence is a punch to the balls of the Pope (and the grifters of Conservatism, Inc) is just icing the on the cake. Perfect example of why I’m a libertarian and not a conservative. Best of luck with your journey.
How many people did you kill to get it?
Just asking.
(Heh, that'll be an interesting conversation you'll have to have with Junior some day...)
Yes, I know you think jars of cum are people and fertility clinics are Auschwitz camps. Go jerk off to Michael Knowles,l.
You saintly Christian, you.
I've not said anything remotely to that effect.
But you show your hand by asserting it, don't you. Ends justify means. Rationalize away.
Let me know how that talk with Junior goes.
Christian inbreds are such a clever, pious folk. Just so Christ like. Lol
The Kaiser, Adolf Hitler, Herbert Hoover, Teddy Roosevelt all agree eugenics laws goood. (https://bit.ly/3M6hpDZ)
@Roth - You’re the one who brought religion into the discussion. But I’m guessing that was because you needed a straw man, since you can’t actually justify your position on the subject at hand.
Same reason you won’t be able to explain it to your kid. But hey, you’ll probably just go with “Hate Jesus” with him too, won’t you.
Tsk. I feel sorry for the little guy. Ever wonder if there was a reason you shouldn’t have been breeding?
Ever wonder if there was a reason you shouldn’t have been breeding?
If Stalin, Pol Pot, and Kim Jong Il can have children then anyone is allowed.
It’s perfectly fine to be a self-loathing creep, but doesn’t really convince most folks that your heart bleeds with compassion for jars of cum.
Ahh, I see - you're confused from the outset.
We're talking about embryos here, Roth. Not sperm.
Your fake Virgin Mary (who never existed) takes round after round of cum on her slut face (Holy ghost, Batman!) I haven’t seen any protests it’s a genocide. But you’re free to gather up your backwater friends and protest fertility clinics.
I care more about eating Cheetos than all these fake “ children” being murdered. But I hope billions are killed, just to drive you over the edge, incel. Lol
Interesting. Instead of acknowledging your factual error, you pivot to an attempt to be brazenly insulting. An obvious obfuscation of something you refuse to admit to yourself.
You didn't really think that was going to work, did you?
Heck, you didn't even make sense as you did it. It's the same exact doofus move as when n00b originally brought God into the discussion. Trying to spite the Authority that you acknowledge exists (else, what are you spiting and why???), so that you can then deny said Authority in an irrational act of confused hubris.
But I hope billions are killed, just to drive you over the edge
Well, A) it wouldn't. And B) really step back and think about what you just said there.
I'm suddenly reminded of what Space Man Bad said.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1719398881870356695
Awww po baby, cry to the cum-sneezing Virgin Mary for guidance! And then resorting to quote by Musk, who has had multiple children by IVF/surrogacy!! Lmao, you’re just one bad day away from going full Elliot Rodgers. Lmao
Apparently you do think that'll work.
Huh. I didn't take you for a child. My mistake.
Carry on with your petulant tantrum then. Have a nice day.
Big scary Pro-life wrecking ball radicalized from the Daily Wire! Turned…quivering cuck? Not surprising, loser! Don’t worry, you’ll probably get laid at some point lol
Mary is such a nasty whore, doing ass-to-mouth with the Holy Ghost. Thankfully she has beta males like you to defend her online
Y’know, I was going to leave it alone – but you gave me the opening. Can’t not swing for the fences with that meatball.
“Beta males?”
Bro, you’re the one who couldn’t knock up your lady. And in response, you then apparently take your self-loathing impotency out on a teenage girl from 2000+ years ago.
That’s about as beta as it gets. Aren’t you ashamed of yourself? Show your lady this thread. See how much she respects you for it.
But you won't, will you. Because you equated her ability to have a child with the most crass denigration of a venerated figure across cultures worldwide you could think of.
I didn't do that. You did that. Show your lady. See what she says.
It’s too bad that the Virgin Mary sucks bits of feces and cum off of various dicks. She’s such a nasty whore, but central to your fake religion, run by a pedophile a funny hat, half a world away!
I’m positive you’re an incel and a potential mass shooter. Partly due to low IQ, partly due to cultural or social impotence. You have probably never kissed a girl before, or perhaps masturbate with sandpaper. Otherwise, I find your stupidity and utter irrelevance somewhat fascinating.
You didn't have the guts to show your lady, did you.
Hahahaha. Chicken.
"It’s already answered: conception."
In the most basic and limited way, perhaps. But that has nothing to do with when a potential human being obtains rights. That's where the dishonesty of the anti-abortion folks really becomes obvious.
"Here’s an even more fun one: when does life end?"
Brain death. Which is why brain function is a reasonable and logical factor when forming an opinion about when life begins. Without sufficient brain function, an organism can't sustain itself.
Agreed!
"We" (whoever the "we" are in any given case) have the "rights" that we have earned and defended for ourselves. If fartilized egg cells (of ANY species!) want some "rights", they need to...
'A) Go out and get themselves a JOB (and also a haircut, but that one's just a nice-to-have side option), selling goods and services to willing customers!
...and...
'B) Buy themselves some up-to-date and tastefully-designed weapons with the proceeds of said job! It is NOT all that hard to do!!! (Unless you're a slacker).
Beyond that, “rights” is just fancy talk for “y’all should be obeying MEEE and MY Opinions on what YOU should and should not be doing!”
Go to North Korea and tell all of the oppressed over there, ALL about their “rights”, and see how much good comes out of it! But be sure to pay ALL of your own expenses, for this utterly futile effort!
A right is a moral claim to freedom of action. (Moral Rights and Political Freedom, by Tara Smith). Note the word moral, rooted in life and eudaimonia. Note also the word "freedom" as in the absence of coercion initiating force against an individual Constitutional "person born."
In the most basic and limited way, perhaps. But that has nothing to do with when a potential human being obtains rights.
The answer is: conception.
Because that's when they go from "potential human being" to actual human being. With rights.
Also, nobody "obtains" rights. The only people who say stuff like that are those who think that rights are government dispensations based on qualifying criteria.
Does that accurately describe you?
Brain death. Which is why brain function is a reasonable and logical factor when forming an opinion about when life begins. Without sufficient brain function, an organism can’t sustain itself.
Yea, but you know what's weird? Humans have rights after that point. Like, for example, all their property isn't suddenly up for grabs because they died. And there's a whole litany of gross stuff you're not allowed to do to their corpses. Also, a lot of times there are instructions on what to do - for things that don't even involve their actual body - that we respect and follow after they're dead.
Weird right? Why would we do that if we didn't understand and acknowledge something about them beyond mere brain function?
http://www.churchofsqrls.com/Jesus_Validated/#_Toc117957741
QUESTIONS THAT THE FANATICS WON’T EVER ANSWER: What do YOU think that the punishment should be for deliberately killing a fertilized human egg cell? Ditto the punishments for likewise killing a fertilized egg of an ape... A monkey... A rat... An insect... If your Righteous Punishments From on High are DIFFERENT in these cases, then WHY? WHERE do the differences come from? And what gives YOU (or the 51% of the voters) the right to punish the rest of us?
Never, ever, have I gotten any serious answers, when I pose these questions, about what the PUNISHMENTS should be! (Could it be that the fanatics don’t want us to focus on THEIR obsession, which is their smug and self-righteous “punishment boners”?). Also, the unwillingness to answer questions is strongly indicative of authoritarianism. At the root here is the unmistakable attitude of “Because I said so, peons! Do NOT question your Rulers!”
So when advanced space aliens come here, you're ready to blast them to smithereens, obliterate them at will... Because they have no human DNA? Are not now, will never be, human? Or at the very least, you're not willing to codify punishment for any alien-murderers?
Murdering a space alien should be placed in the law books as a crime, pro-actively. And also to make a point to the troglodytes, about this "sacred human DNA" crap! WHERE does the sacredness come from, for cryin' out loud to Government Almighty? (Sensible people often believe that it comes from consciousness or sentience, which animals apparently have to varying degrees, but is beyond our ability to precisely measure or quantify.)
What do YOU think that the punishment should be for deliberately killing a fertilized human egg cell?
*shrug* I don't know. But I do know that in most US jurisdictions, we already recognize a difference between murder, child murder, and elderly murder - often with separate statutes and different sentences that are much harsher for the latter two than they are the former. This is usually due to children/elderly being recognized as especially vulnerable and thus their murder as much more heinous necessitating/justifying a higher degree of severity in its punishment.
So, do I have a specific punishment in mind for those who target tiny humans? No. But I think the existing legal framework that takes a victim's stage of life into consideration for determining said punishments would make sense to apply here.
Ditto the punishments for likewise killing a fertilized egg of an ape… A monkey… A rat… An insect…
Those don't deprive anyone of any rights (well, a property right maybe... but not any right in the context of this conversation) - so why would there be a punishment?
WHERE do the differences come from?
You don't know? It's the namesake of this very website.
See, humans aren't like monkeys or rats or insects. Our survival isn't instinctual by nature. Even social animals, or animals with higher order behavior are instinctual. Like, say, birds and nests. There's no bird school that chicks go to to learn how to build nests - it's innate. They're born with programming that gives them impulses and behaviors that provide for their survival. Now, they might improve on that programming throughout their life (aka "adaptation") but it's not by a process of reason, rather one of experience and repetitive behavior. We see this illustrated by how rats can complete mazes in shorter times based on how many times they've run it. They haven't reasoned out some kind of trick to completing a faster runtime - they just adapted to the best way of getting from A to B.
Humans, on the other hand, engage inreasoning in order to develop the knowledge needed to produce, and to therefore survive. We don't pick the apple off the tree. We cultivate the trees. We don't chase the gazelles around the savanna and eat them raw, we bang rocks together to create tools and then we control fire and by compounding knowledge upon knowledge (which we pass down generationally) soon enough we're controlling - and then creating - the food source entirely.
Also unique is that we're entirely dependent on our progenitors for early survival. Leave a newborn puppy out in a rainstorm and its instincts will quickly kick in to tell it what to do. Leave a newborn human out in a rainstorm and it will quickly die of exposure. We don't just reason for our own survival, but for that of our progeny as well. All the more reason humans give special respect to that parent/offspring link, and find it particularly loathsome when other humans neglect/abuse it. Or, in your case, advocate openly for doing so.
And what gives YOU (or the 51% of the voters) the right to punish the rest of us?
Well, that's kind of a societal thing these days ("days" meaning the last 5,000 years or so) - but if you want to get back to nature, it's borne of an understanding of our own rights - what we require as our most basic means of employing reason for our survival. Namely - life, liberty, and property. Deprive a human of any one of those things, and his individual means of survival is directly threatened. That's why they're inherent rights.
All the law and sociology that exists today (at least in a free, individualist society) is derived directly from that. Which becomes its basis for punishment. If you and I grow our own food and cooperate willingly to maximize effort/product and mutual benefit, that's how a society is eventually built. If I grow the food and you try to steal it, that's when you start interfering with my means of survival - at which point, you're dealt with (meaning: punished) either by me individually, or by society, as an assertion of my inherent, individual rights.
Now - I gave you serious answers. I wonder if you'll reciprocate with a serious reply, as opposed to this histrionic, kinda bigoted tomfoolery you've engaged in to date.
"Our survival isn’t instinctual by nature." Humans have no survival instinct? You are UTTERLY full of shit! You vastly exaggerate the differences between advanced animals and humans. You gave me a BUNCH of blather, and never really spelled out what the punishments for killing the human v/s various other Sacred Fartilized Egg Smells should be. At least you had the humility to admit that you don't know exactly what the punishments should be... I'll give you credit for that much, at least.
The punishment-lusting authoritarians here either 'A) Get their answers from "God" about what the punishments should be, even when they won't say so... Or... 'B) They just randomly pull these particular answers out of their self-righteous asses!!!
“Our survival isn’t instinctual by nature.” Humans have no survival instinct?
It's hilarious how you literally quote me, but then immediately rewrite it to something else completely.
And then, for icing on the cake, you ignore everything completely to baselessly reassert the exact same bigotry you started with. You made this big fuss about nobody giving you serious answers to your question - but then when you got them, you rejected them out of hand and went back to your default position having refused to consider what you specifically asked for even slightly.
Serious question - are you just here to troll the conversation?
Take just ONE section of your long-assed blather...
"Well, that’s kind of a societal thing these days (“days” meaning the last 5,000 years or so) – but if you want to get back to nature, it’s borne of an understanding of our own rights – what we require as our most basic means of employing reason for our survival. Namely – life, liberty, and property. Deprive a human of any one of those things, and his individual means of survival is directly threatened. That’s why they’re inherent rights."
There is NOTHING in there (or the rest of shit) about twat makes HUMANS so utterly special!!! WHY (fer crying out loud!) is a HUMAN Fartilized Egg Smell SOOO Sacred, and a chimp's NOT sacred?!?! Other advanced animals have culture, use tools, suss out the states of each others' minds, and PRACTICE POLITICS!!! See this: We keep track of each other, and how each of us treat others, and act accordingly! Politically, even! See https://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/22/science/22angi.html Political Animals (Yes, Animals) By Natalie Angier “Researchers who study highly gregarious and relatively brainy species like rhesus monkeys, baboons, dolphins, sperm whales, elephants and wolves have lately uncovered evidence that the creatures engage in extraordinarily sophisticated forms of politicking, often across large and far-flung social networks.”
So your "answer" about how special HUMANS are, is just blather. Your shit can be reduced to "stuff and stuff is stuffy, except when it isn't." Humans say humans are special, and the other animals don't matter. Each of the other species say the same things about all of the other not-them species!!! WTF?!?! It's just plain selfishness!!!!
Language.
Other advanced animals have culture, use tools, suss out the states of each others’ minds, and PRACTICE POLITICS!!!
Not like humans do. Not even close. Because they don't have to. It's not a prerequisite for their survival. Don't confuse adaptation with reasoning. (Also, don't anthropomorphize them.)
The saying is, "Monkey see, monkey do" for a reason.
Each of the other species say the same things about all of the other not-them species!!!
They do huh? You be sure to let me know when the treatise on the subject written by the sperm whales and elephants is published.
Also, you didn't answer the question.
Look, plain and simple, an amoeba (a live one) demonstrates more life and ability to respond to good and bad stimuli (to experience pleasure and pain) than your Precious HUMAN Sacred Fartilized Egg Smell does!!! You have ZERO logical, rational, or data-driven basis for taking this Worshitting of the Precious HUMAN Sacred Fartilized Egg Smell to this utterly ridiculous and fanatical extreme! Especially a Precious HUMAN Sacred Fartilized Egg Smell outside of the human body, to boot! You know, for thousands of years, humans have been eating fartilized bird and reptile eggs, and even bird fartuses (called “baluts”; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balut_(food) ). Should this be outlawed, or not? Did God give you any inputs on this? Or did AT blather give you any inputs? Can I steal the fartilized egg smells of highly intelligent, advanced space aliens, and eat them? Since the aliens have no HUMAN DNA, that would be OK? Twat about PROPERTY RIGHTS and the DEVELOPMENT STAGE (or lack thereof) of a FROZEN egg cell, fer chrissakes, and about the STAGES AND DEGREES of sentience of a creature? The latter being TOTES absent, especially in a frozen egg cell?
Can you really NOT see your own fanaticism?
"You know what makes babies, right?"
You know what makes tooth decay, right? For those SINNERS who eat SUGAR, and do NOT brush their teeth quite right... And since God told me that tooth-decay bacteria have souls... We must PUNISH you AND your dentist, you irresponsible sluts you, who get tooth decay!!! ('Cause I have a YUUUUGE punishment boner, is the REAL root cause here.)
I have just as much evidence that God told me that tooth-decay bacteria have souls... As you do with respect to fartilized HUMAN egg smells! From then on in, it is just a contest of how many dogs you can get to join you on YOUR populist dog-pile! Woof-woof, bow-wow!
Look, plain and simple, an amoeba (a live one) demonstrates more life and ability to respond to good and bad stimuli (to experience pleasure and pain)
Yes, I explained the difference between the human reason-based existence and rest of the animal kingdom's instinctive existence. Maybe you should go back and re-read it?
Should this be outlawed, or not?
Eating food? No. Don't be silly.
“You know what makes babies, right?”
Why did you put that in quotes like it's a question I asked. Are...are you talking to yourself at this point?
I've also never mentioned souls.
Who are you talking to?
Who am I talking to? The voices and vices in YOUR head that want to PUNISH-PUNISH-PUNISH those who disagree with Your Perfect Conceptions of Reality, and who ACT on said beliefs of theirs, and REFUSE to be YOUR womb-slaves! By, for example, NOT implanting and bringing to term, GENETICALLY HIGHLY DEFECTIVE fartilized egg smells, whose rejection is why they they chose IVF in the first place! You are a FANATIC womb-slave-driver!!!
See, that's you doing all the talking. (And none of the listening.)
Go back to the very very top of this discussion. I'll even simplify it for you.
Human A wants to do Task Z. Task Z involves the creation of Humans B, C, and D. Task Z is accomplished to Human A's satisfaction with the use of Human B. Humans C and D as now regarded as "unwanted" and pose the problem of what to do with them.
Why should "intentional termination" be on the table for such a thing? And if it's regarded as the "only/best" option, then what does it say about whether Human A should be engaged in Task Z?
AT, please adopt ALL of the unwanted Sacred Fartilized Egg Smells, of cats, dogs, protozoa, amoebas, paramecia, tooth-decay bacteria, and Greater AND Lesser Southern AND Northern Yellow-Bellied Slime Toads, and take the logs out of YOUR eyes, You Greater (and Nerve-Grater) Self-Righteous Nit-Picker You... And THEN You just MIGHT be able to see clearly enough, to pick those TINY-TINY Sacred Fartilized Egg Smells out of your bothers' and sisters' eyes! TRY shit sometime, it just MIGHT work!
You didn't answer the question.
You didn't ask a sensible question. Why is stuff and stuff SOOOO stuffy, and have you stopped torturing the English language yet?
You've asked several nonsensical questions, and I've made an effort to respond to them. It's time for reciprocity.
Unless you're admitting to discussing this matter in bad faith. Which would be really easy to accept.
You arrogant nonsensical twit! I know arguing with you is like arguing with a brick wall, but who knows, more sensible people just MIGHT take a clue from the below:
Case A: Theoretical (COULDA-WOULDA-SHOULDA) harm to some fartilized HUMAN egg smells, caused by NOT implanting the tested-and-genetically defective said "Sacred" fartilized HUMAN egg smells, which are known to, at BEST case, if "successfully" brought to term, would suffer and die in hours or days at the most. There ARE these cases, you know! AND THE KICKER IS, THE FUCKING EGG SMELL IS FROZEN, OUTSIDE THE HUMAN BODY, AND SHOWS ZERO SIGNS OF LIFE, ABILITY TO FEEL PAIN, OR SENTIENCE!!!!
Case B: A thirsty human wants to drink pond water, 'cause he has no other water source. So, not liking diseases either, he BOILS the water first, KILLING innocent, motile, swimming, pain-feeling paramecia and water bears!!!
Now WHO has done more harm, and who, if anyone, should be PUNISHED?
AND WHO IS AN ARROGANT PUNISHMENT-LUSTING ASSHOLE MICRO-MANAGING, POWER-PIG AUTHORITARIAN?!?!?
Case A: Theoretical (COULDA-WOULDA-SHOULDA) harm
It's not theoretical. In fact, it's a necessary admission on your part. The tiny human WILL be killed by what you're adovcating. The whole point of your defense is TO defend doing precisely that.
if “successfully” brought to term, would suffer and die in hours or days at the most. There ARE these cases, you know!
Of course they're are. But they're 100% irrelevant to the discussion. Again, I started the conversation anticipating this asinine counterargument.
You having a low life-expectancy isn't an argument that supports your intentional termination decided and committed exlusively by another.
IS FROZEN, OUTSIDE THE HUMAN BODY, AND SHOWS ZERO SIGNS OF LIFE, ABILITY TO FEEL PAIN, OR SENTIENCE!!!!
But is still human life all the same.
he BOILS the water first, KILLING innocent, motile, swimming, pain-feeling paramecia and water bears!!!
So what. The only issue there would be whether he's trespassing on whoever the pond's property owner is.
If he shot the guy's dog and ate it, the only issue on the table still would be the deprivation of property rights. At which point the apporopriate remedy would be valuation of the dog and financial restitution.
Which is something you can't do with humans, incidentally.
Now WHO has done more harm, and who, if anyone, should be PUNISHED?
The one who kills the tiny human. Duh. We've been over this.
So SOME property rights ARE valued by you... But NOT the property rights of the womb-slaves, who MUST be tied down and forcibly implanted with the KNOWN GENETICALLY DEFECTIVE stored (frozen), Sacred Fartilized Egg Smells? HER bodily property rights do NOT matter, but those of the pond-water-owner DO matter?
Jesus described YOU perfectly... You "strain at the gnat, and swallow the camel"! https://www.gotquestions.org/strain-gnat-swallow-camel.html
Power pig! Punishment whore!
If you ever come around to wanting to work on your affliction, EvilBahnFuhrer, start here: M. Scott Peck, The People of the Lie, the Hope for Healing Human Evil
https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0684848597/reasonmagazinea-20/
People who are evil attack others instead of facing their own failures. Peck demonstrates the havoc these “people of the lie” work in the lives of those around them.
So SOME property rights ARE valued by you
Actually, they're all valued by me. But I don't think you understand "property rights" even slightly.
Totes obvious to the casual observer, you have ZERO respect for the owners of private property, when the private property is a woman's womb, or the (to YOU) Sacred Fartilized Egg Smells, even when they are genetically defective, and not even inside a human body!
The woman's womb, AND the Sacred Fartilized Egg Smells, are ALL the Common Property of the Collective Hive! Especially if YOU and your dog-pile can get 51% of the voters... Or Der TrumpfenFarter-Fuhrer... to dog-pile on, to say so!!! Bark-bark-bark, woof-woof-woof!!! Might makes right, and dog-bites make right! "The Collective Hive" owns women's wombs now, right... MARXIST?!?!?
are ALL the Common Property of the Collective Hive!
And there it is. Scratch a Leftist, find a Marxist. Every time.
For the life of me, I will never understand why a demographic so obviously anti-existence persists. Hypocrisy, I guess. Or maybe they live for the sole purpose of eliminating as many people as possible. Good for the gander, and not for the goose.
Kind of like literally every environmentalist activist ever (and moreso for those in the celebrity/political class).
Life may begin at conception, but the real question is, when does intelligent life begin? Because obviously, it's OK to kill dumb life -- no-one's objecting to killing plants or fungi, for example.
I think abortion should be legal until the first sign of brain activity.
Because obviously, it’s OK to kill dumb life
Not dumb human life. (Also, careful - you're veering into eugenics territory.) If you collapse in the street clutching your heart, and I run over and (by my own determination) detect no brain activity - could I say, put a bullet through your heart for fun? Heck, let's not even get violent. Could I relieve you of your wallet, and start combing through your cellphone to access/drain your bank accounts? Why not?
No, in fact, we'll probably try to resuscitate you. Even in abject futility.
And it's funny - because this is also illustrative of how in every single regard and aspect we'll happily give human life the benefit of the doubt. Heck, we do it by default without even consciously appreciating it. When in doubt, we err on the side of life. The only time we refuse to do that is when we're trying to rationalize the intentional killing of... let's call them, "undesirables." Be they tiny humans or anyone else.
Which pretty clearly illustrates that it's an effort to rationalize that which obviously can't be justified. (That's why people go to such effort to dehumanize them.)
"And it’s funny – because this is also illustrative of how in every single regard and aspect we’ll happily give human life the benefit of the doubt. Heck, we do it by default without even consciously appreciating it. When in doubt, we err on the side of life. The only time we refuse to do that is when we’re trying to rationalize the intentional killing of… let’s call them, “undesirables.” Be they tiny humans or anyone else."
Oh, fucking total BULLSHIT!!! You deliberately IGNORE the 154,678-mile-wide EXCEPTION to your so-called "rules"... Which is WARFARE!!! When we make WAR upon the infidels (such ass those who do NOT respect the Sacred Fartilized HUMAN Egg Smells), then, ALL of Your Sacred Human-Life-Worshitting RULES fall by the wayside!!! In WAR against the WRONG Tribe, AT's Tribe for the WIN!!! Always!!! At ANY price!!!!
You deliberately IGNORE the 154,678-mile-wide EXCEPTION to your so-called “rules”… Which is WARFARE!!!
Warfare is different. Justified warfare involves clear enemy combatants who present a persistent ideological threat requiring use of force to subdue. Said enemy is an existential threat to continued peaceful existence, and cannot - and will not - be stopped by any means but force. HOWEVER, that force also needs to be righteous (as opposed to opportunistic).
Unjustified warfare, on the other hand, is using ones position of power to subjugate, if not eliminate, a population of undesirables.
A very contemporary example is Haiti. Haiti has completely fallen. There will be no way to set Haiti right absent force. The only alternative at this point is abandonment and blockade (which comes with a whole other set of problems).
Tiny humans, on the other hand - especially the ones we're talking about specifically - are not enemy combatants or ANY kind of persistent threat. They do not jeopardize peaceful existence, nor do they wantonly and belligerently antagonize anyone in any way that warrants response. They simply exist.
Which you may find inconvenient - but your inconvenience doesn't warrant their indiscriminate, intentional termination.
If anything, the wholly oppressive and destructive attacks upon them is more an act of warfare (as you use the term) than anything they have ever done to anyone. Think about what you're advocating: a destructive and pernicious aggressor against the most helpless of targets that have zero means of defending themselves.
It's extremely unwise of you to invoke "warfare" when you're trying to defend your wanton genocide of tiny humans. You're the one waging unjustified war here.
"You will never get a “consensus on terms” from people who want to intentionally ignore reality and redefine terms to suit their narrative."
Which is why Republicans can't be trusted on abortion. Their entire position is based on a rejection of reality and requires redefinition of multiple terms and concepts.
"Life begins at conception ... except in IVF and other fertility treatments, but it still counts in stem cell treatments and some (but not all) medical research. We also reserve the right to modify our principles based on future developments or public opinion polling" is as feckless and dishonest as most anti-abortion arguments.
"The same goes for Human and Life. Would you like a genome map of the thing we’re talking about?"
Agreed. "Human being" and "life" include the ability to exist independently (cue disingenuous claim that a one-year-old isn't independent, despite the clear meaning of the word).
Your position requires the word "potential" to be placed in front of "human being" and "life".
"It’s a human. And it’s a life."
No, it's a potential human and a potential life, with roughly a 27% chance of becoming an independent human/independent life at conception.
"Don’t use forced, disingenuous ambiguity to try and make a BS argument."
You mean like the way anti-abortionists attack the word "independent" as if it isn't a synonym for "separate"? Like that?
Which is why Republicans can’t be trusted on abortion.
Why would you try to pivot to politics on this subject?
Agreed. “Human being” and “life” include the ability to exist independently (cue disingenuous claim that a one-year-old isn’t independent, despite the clear meaning of the word).
You're one of those weirdos who thinks that we should be able to have abortions at 60 months, aren't you.
And for me, the debate about when life begins is interesting, but ultimately not relevant *as a legal matter*.
The real questions IMO, when it comes to the law, is when should the law recognize the rights of an embryo/fetus/blastocyst, and what should those rights be? Should an embryo have the same rights as an adult human?
AT, very well said!
“Please define “human” and “life”. Be precise.”
THAT IS NOT THE SUBJECT.
The Subject is Gov-Guns of Force. How does a ‘gun’ ‘protect’ any ‘human’ entity of ‘life’ when that so-called right-to-life isn’t ‘inherent’??????????????????
They have to poke ‘guns’ at innocent people to ‘provide’ life-support for them … Enslavement.
That is the ‘preciseness’ of the discussion.
It’s no different than Universal Healthcare BS.
Only difference being a personal body-tax instead of financial-tax.
Spermatozoa are human and alive. But that fact murders and enslaves no women and is therefore irrelevant to girl-bulliers. The legal question is: A woman has individual rights BEFORE she is pregnant (19A, 14A, 13A), so where in the Constitution does it say that a pregnant woman becomes a Siamese Twin or somehow loses individual rights? Nowhere. 14A starts with All persons born" and goes on with "having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof." Do you start to see the connection here with Trumpanzee Begins At Erection? ... (http://bit.ly/41l2c8t)
Spermatozoa are human and alive.
That’s a clever little twist you tried to get away with. I’ll bet you thought nobody would catch it.
A woman has individual rights BEFORE she is pregnant (19A, 14A, 13A)
Ahh, see – you did it again. You’re very subtly swapping terms out that better favor your position. In this case, you’re (intentionally?) confusing civil rights with inherent rights, using “individual rights” is a catchall to conflate one with that other. (Well, that, or you’re like that other dude who thinks rights are dispensations of government based on qualifying criteria.)
Want to know something that’ll really blow your mind? A woman has inherent rights before she’s even born. Men too. And nothing any government says or does changes that.
>>This is intentionally killing off those embryos
are there adoption options? (what's that function lol)
If there aren't, then that brings us right back to the original question, doesn't it.
I have been led to believe there are embryo-adoption centers ... so nothing has to die
Cool. That is the correct outcome.
agreed. someone will use it for evil eventually though.
Well, that's always the case with anything isn't it.
The point is that we don't tolerate said evildoing. We do something about it. About them. Drastic things, if need be.
We can't even get all our living children out of orphanages and foster homes and you want to make the problem worse. Yes, embryo adoption exists but it is a fringe practice that is not even close to capable of handling the total volume of embryos out there. And adding more centers won't solve the problem - the shortage is in willing parents.
Which brings us back to the original question.
Ceausescu's Romania had a similar problem. Their papally-anointed Christian Communist dictator insisted on the male exercise of deadly force to coerce females into often-deadly reproduction. The Statistician who wrote Freakonomics derived how this breeds additional criminal violence. Sho 'nuff, that initiation of force generated unequal yet apposite reprisal force. (http://bit.ly/3kxniQM)
Yes, we could argue that IVF should be outlawed, in the name of the “rights” of the discarded frozen Sacred Fartilized Egg Smells. After all, couples desiring IVF (to pass on their own genes) could adopt instead, and support the genes (reproduction) of other people, instead of their own.
I personally think that cats and dogs have sacred souls ass well!!! Accordingly, deliberately breeding fancy breeds and pure-breeds should be OUTLAWED, until EVERY SINGLE ONE of the unwanted dogs and cats (diseased and crippled mongrels and mangy curs) is adopted into a Happy Forever Home!
To be more serious, adoption is a commendable thing. Some folks aren’t up to it, and would prefer to pass on their own genes when at all possible. Pure saints among us are few and precious! The rest of us (short of being utter assholes) don’t deserve to be punished, condemned, or chastised for not being utterly saintly.
adoption of the un"wanted" embyos ...
Whoa!!! Now THAT is one HELL of a tough row to hoe!!!
I swear one of my other cats still haunts the end of our bed.
Yeah... I've had freaky feelings or senses along similar lines; I am and have been close to my cats. The little purr-bugs have some sort of soul; I am convinced! (Surely other animals as well.) But I have no way of proving ANYTHING under the harsh glare of laboratory lights... If I did, I could be on my way to a Nobel Prize or two, I suppose!
Squirrel, sometimes you make rational posts.
>>I am convinced!
absolutely.
https://news.yahoo.com/most-human-embryos-naturally-die-122452286.html
Keyword: "naturally."
I already addressed this. But thank you for the courage to admit your illiteracy.
Watching the Daily Wire has turned you into one heck of an embryologist.
Fortunately, nobody cares that social conservatives are against such treatments.
Apparently they do, otherwise we wouldn't have this article.
Women voters have lately learned to take an interest in the protection of their individual rights. Observe the change in campaign funding donations and votes handed to candidates who do NOT seek to enslave women in a War on Race Suicide.
No, you did not. You simply assumed away the problem by inserting an undefined term ("naturally") into the equation.
No, I anticipated the bogus counterargument that human biology not always resulting in embryonic humans reaching full term somehow justifies intentionally destroying embryonic humans.
And that is precisely why we cannot have a useful discussion - because you have already assumed the conclusion that these embryos are legal humans. That is not a settled conclusion - that is in fact the fundamental question we're trying to answer.
If they're not legal humans, what are they?
Illegal non-humans? Go ahead and make that argument. I'll wait.
The counter-argument is that they are not-yet-humans. They are fetuses/embryos/blastulae/ovum/gametes with the potential to be born and become independent humans but that potential is not yet realized. Until they become independent, they are part of the parent, morally and legally equivalent to an appendix, finger or heart.
The counter-argument I just laid out is the standard that applied universally for thousands of years and was (and mostly remains) the accepted standard of all major religions. It is a somewhat arbitrary choice but given its universality, the practical reasons for that legal and moral choice should be obvious. The practical implications of 'life begins at conception' present a raft of troubles, of which the debate above is a tiny example.
They are fetuses/embryos/blastulae/ovum/gametes with the potential to be born and become independent humans but that potential is not yet realized.
So many qualifying terms. Why do you need those, do you think? Trying to rationalize something?
The counter-argument I just laid out is the standard that applied universally for thousands of years and was (and mostly remains) the accepted standard of all major religions.
And it's still argumentum ad populum. May as well be defending your geocentric universe. Derp.
The practical implications of ‘life begins at conception’ present a raft of troubles, of which the debate above is a tiny example.
Oh gosh, well we wouldn't want trouble would we. So let's just kill some tiny humans and avoid that.
That's the position you're taking?
I give up. You've locked yourself into a dogmatic position based on nothing more than a tautology. You cannot even admit that other people can, in good faith, disagree with you. Further debate is pointless.
I accept your surrender.
Now, if you'll do me a kindness, please try to find the integrity to admit how and why you're wrong, and adapt your newfound knowledge to better application than the pre-existing narratives you now know are total garbage.
Strike that last. I'm not done yet.
Yes, argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy, in that it alone is not sufficient to prove your thesis. It is, however, a useful heuristic. When everyone disagrees with you, it suggests that you perhaps should reconsider your cocksure attitude. This is particularly true when I note that you have so far offered no defense of your own position beyond 'I believe it to be so'.
Yea, shut up Copernicus.
See Rossami? Mystical bigots have orders from GOD to send men with guns to put the Fear of The Lawerd into them recalcitrant bitches, by Dad! Try to refute THEM apples with facts and cogency!
Um, Adorer of Trump is exactly the mentality of Robert Dear, the baby-saving, gun-waving wanker that killed a Colorado Springs cop shooting up a women's clinic. Any sorites or series that fail to converge on the presumptuous assumption that translations of lost-language scrolls from the Bronze age aver that Mohammed's Allah orders males to send men with weapons to coerce doctors and force women to squeeze out cannon fodder or die trying is by Act of Superstitious Credulity transubstantiated into immutable Truth. You doubt, you die and burn forever, Q.E.D.. My statement is falsifiable by experiment, so go ahead. Educate a brainwashed mystic while I watch and I'll admit I was wrong. Search "Debating Jerry Pournelle"
The vast majority of human cells naturally die too. But, when someone else causes your cells to die, we generally can and do regard that as legally actionable, or at least potentially, and frequently, civilly anyway, do so based on the capability of those cells, not just the cost of the CHNOPS and minerals they contain.
The only people for whom the AL court’s decision is weird is the people so religiously fanatically caught up in their eradication of Christianity (and potentially Judaism) and Western Society that they don’t care if they destroy justice, or common sense, or women’s reproductive rights or anything else to do it.
Emma and Reason *and the AL Governor* reacting to an AL court declaring embryos to be people.
So, to be clear, feminists, pro-abortionists, and people who apparently know precisely dick about the law but sure as hell know how to moral panic about nothing, in a reaction to a decision that favors women, take the first step to ushering in A Handmaid’s Tale in order to thwart hyperzealous Christians.
This is the same retarded, centrist, hyperprotectionist, retarded, pet-cause, retarded, morally panicked over-reach that gave us S230.
Especially in light of all the “DUHSANTIS ENGAJEZ IN KULTUR WAR!”, “REEPUBLIKANZ POUNS!”, and “BATHROOM PANIK!” idiocy this place is a goddamned train wreck wrapped in a dumpster fire.
Hear hear! What we need in this country is more dicks writing all the laws that involve anything on the other side (time-wise) of a vagina.
And more vaginas that never had to register with selective service to make foreign policy and commit the country to war.
Even in a state where abortion is banned from conception, attacks on IVF remain incredibly unpopular
I seriously have no words to describe the depth of this stupidity.
It's like saying the woman who spilled coffee all over herself and sued McDonalds attacked fast food. It's like the CEO of Sweet Baby, Inc. saying traditional cis, het, white, male gamers are scaring activist developers by telling them "No thank you. We don't want that." (her words). There was no attack.
I mean, the people bringing the suit were the clinic's female customers. Their embryos were destroyed not in the production of life but in a lapse in judgement, security, or both on behalf of the IVF clinic.
The degree to which this law is 100% feelz, even if it flies in the exact opposite direction of everything else anyone stands for as humans, as women, as scientists improving their practice, as free marketers, as moralists as anything except not-so-metaphorically-rabid, anti-Christian 'secularists' is astounding.
if you keep mocking emma they'll make us pay to comment
lol
"The Libertarian Case For Buck v. Bell" - Emma Camp
"The Libertarian Case For Bragdon v. Abbott*" - Emma Camp
*This one's especially notable considering the case fell between the separate cases of Dr. Wayne Harrington and Dr. David J. Acer.
The former would even suggest an obvious consideration to demonstrate Emma and "Reason's" [drink] retarded cheerleading: If an IVF clinic employee tosses a cigarette in the dumpster out back and burns the whole building down, we just treat it like a grease fire at your local hole-in-the-wall fast food joint and not like the IVF clinic and/or their employee just sterilized every last one of their patients, right?
It’s actually incredible how exactly NO ONE writing stories actually looks into the facts of the case.
An IVF Clinic was negligent and allowed the destruction of embryos that represented a couple’s probable last chance of having a baby.
They sued under Wrongful Death, because of the vagaries of Alabama Law. Because of outrageous jury awards for property damage in the late 20th Century, Alabama had tort reform that greatly limits property damage awards . And an embryo is more than mere “property”.
The case has nothing to do with abortion, women’s rights, attacks on anybody or anything. The reaction of the IVF Clinics was similar to the pro-abort Drs refusing to treat miscarriage patients to draw attention and sympathy. Basically, if the IVF Clinics weren’t grossly negligent and didn’t allow access to the embryos so that any old fool off the street could smash them or throw them out, ruining some couple’s chance at a family, they had nothing to fear.
+1 And even if they didn't understand the vagaries of the case or the law, the notion that every fast food restaurant in the state may need to close because one accidentally sterilized some woman with hot coffee is vying for the upper limits for preposterous, ignorant, and stupid. Only to be edged out by the idea that "We need to pass a law to protect the fast food restaurants!"
Especially from a magazine that shits all over every other form of protectionism, except S230 and free speech (and Team D) protectionism, as loud as it can any other time.
Again it feels exactly like S230 where one side says, "We need to protect free speech on the internet!", the other side says "We need to clean up the internet to do business." and some retard legislator, or a couple of them, pens "Protection For 'Good Samaritan' Blocking and Screening of Offensive Material" and both the Left Statists and the Right Statists say perfect while the actual libertarians of the time (which, again at the time, included this magazine) make a litany of cogent points about Congress defining offensive material, Congress protecting offensive material, Congress passing a law that even by it's own passing violates the 1A, Congress invoking a Biblical Parable in the passing of a law...
Same thing. Emma, Ron, ENB, The Magazine... they've made it abundantly clear they don't give a shit about the lives of babies. They don't give a shit about people invoking the Bible or Jesus in the law one way or the other. They don't even give a shit about facts, science, or The Science as they'll tell you sonograms detect electrical currents. They don't care about equality before the law or justice.
All they care about is passing laws that make them feel good.
sweet. more babies is always necessary.
Frozen embryos are clearly NOT living children, no matter what the Alabama legislature (or a court interpreting its laws) may have said. I'm glad to see that the legislature and governor of that state understand that, and have now said clearly that they didn't mean to say what the court said they said. Just maybe, this will teach them to think through all the implications of pronouncements they write into law. But I wouldn't count on it.
>>Frozen embryos are clearly NOT living children
you seem to be unclear about what clearly means.
Inconceivable!
If lab embryos are “children,” there would be no need for multiple embryos, or successful implantation into a uterus, or hormone treatments, genetic testing, or any other steps. You would just grab a test tube of bodily fluids and bring it home for a game of catch (assuming the first speed bump doesn’t make your car look like Ron Jeremy spent the night in it).
If lab embryos are “children,” there would be no need for multiple embryos, or successful implantation into a uterus, or hormone treatments, genetic testing, or any other steps.
Technically, about half of these have nothing to do with the embryos or any given embryo.
And, again, people who will lecture me up and down about how dogs are not just property, but valued members of the family, taking the stance that private citizens can't consider their embryos as future or potential siblings, or more than just property, would be hilarious if it didn't seem so wickedly evil in as many dimensions.
People who will say that public schools have an obligation to educate children rather than simply persisting the life functions of parents' clumps of cells.
I would kinda get it if we were talking about the unclaimed embryos left at a clinic after someone died or a contract expired or whatever. Even then, it's biohazardous waste that has the potential to be used for some really wickedly evil things that should at least cause some libertarian head scratches (does the IVF clinic then own those potential humans at that point?)
The idea that this is "Yay! We repelled the attack of the EVUL KRISHUNZ!" is straight up modern, religious The Science! scapegoating and cheerleading.
Frozen embryos are clearly NOT living children, no matter what the Alabama legislature (or a court interpreting its laws) may have said.
It was actually the mothers (and fathers) of the lost embryos that brought the claim. But it's good to get a nice clear statement from the abject morons on the court system and human reproduction about where they actually stand with regard to the legislature dictating women's reproductive rights and the rights of their children to them.
Actually, God personally tells Alabamans that Aryan spermatozoa are alive, human, and hence human life. Argentina's Trumpanzee concurs that life begins at erection, so wanking is murder. A suitable form of punishment must be devised, no less severe than back-alley abortions or death in childbed unfairly applied to women only. I nominate the Pear Of Anguish: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pear_of_anguish
Careful, don’t want to give the American Taliban more ideas. Next thing you know, Daily Wire will call for a “conversation” on the Pear of Anguish, and we’ll be debating the merits on bringing it back for recalcitrant women.
Alabama's local chapter of Germany's AfD, the Lootveeg Von Mises Institution, has already taken over the National Libertarian Party. Its puppets removed all opposition to bigotry, struck down our leading-edge opposition to laws condemning innocent pregnant women into the involuntary servitude of attempted reproduction. Just NOW similar Supreme Court infiltrators invalidated 14A the way 1876 predecessors gutted 13A and 15A to quash the Cruikshank indictments and free Colfax genocidal white supremacists. See "The Day Freedom Died"
I fell like we have to do a sendoff every day just in case it's the last. I love you all ... hanging out at this forum was a decade+ of a hoot
Seconded. Even when I disagree deeply with other commenters, I enjoy and learn from the debate. Except for a few trolls (and the many spammers), I thank you all.
By the way, where are all the spammers these days? I don't remember seeing any since this announcement. Maybe there is a silver lining...
I find it odd that Reason thinks they're so adored that anyone will pay to contribute here.
That hasn't been true for any website that has gone this direction.
Their ad revenue will plummet when I quit clicking on their idiotic stories.
This story is Exhibit A why Reason is now complete garbage. Nary a whiff of analysis of the actual facts of the case or decision.
Exhibit A
Sandra (OBL) will rightly point out that you should go with numbers rather than letters and that's just for her immigration and wealth conservation forte.
Outside that, off the top of my head, since the Obama Era:
- Section 230 is the 1A of the internet!
- The Libertarian Case for Bernie Sanders.
- The Libertarian Case for Bake the Cake.
- Mostly Peaceful Protests.
- The Libertarian Case for more testing and more surveillance.
- He Shouldn't Have Been There.
- Reluctantly and Strategically Supporting Joe Biden.
- Don't Say Gay.
- Sonograms Detect Electricity.
- The Libertarian case for Transorbital Lobotomies.
and now
- The Libertarian case for Buck v. Bell
And, I'm sure I'm leaving out some things and this is distinctly leaving out prior stuff that could've carried over like:
- I'm unable to distinguish between Adam Lanza and Chris Kyle
- Conservatives should purges these books not just from polite society, but from human consciousness.
Binion with the Riots! Riots! Riots! and no big fat chocolate apology cake now that they've been shown to be a giant fabrication
Going full Jackie Coakley for the Sicknick story, especially given their general anti-police bias and in light of Babbitt, should've been utterly shameful... if they had shame.
Pick up on Adorer of Trump whistling in the dark!
It's been nice being on a forum where *I'm* one of the sane ones. Scary, but often informative.
So much ignorance on this case and the decision. But Emma can’t be arsed to do actual journalism.
The case was brought by ivf couples whose embryos were not protected by the ivf center. Then a nut job destroyed them. They sued. The court ruling in no way has expanded the definition of life in the state of Alabama.
It’s an extremely PRO CHOICE decision. If, thru your gross negligence, you deny a woman her Choice to have a baby, you can be sued.
What's all the new legislature for then. Why isn't it just a case of breach of contract?
"No action, suit, or criminal prosecution for the damage to or death of an embryo shall be brought or maintained against any individual or entity when providing or receiving services related to in vitro fertilization," the bill states. "No criminal prosecution may be brought for the damage to or death of an embryo against the manufacturer of goods used to facilitate the in vitro fertilization process or the transport of stored embryos."
In short, IVF clinics can no longer be held liable for breach of contract when they breach contracts whilst damaging an embryo.
In short, IVF clinics can no longer be held liable for breach of contract when they breach contracts whilst damaging an embryo.
Extrapolating: Just like with free speech and S230, if the IVF clinic accidentally-but-systematically impregnates you in a manner the State finds favorable, they will be protected from liability.
Good thing Reason and those feminists headed off the backwards, EVUL KRISTCHUNZ ushering us all towards A Handmaid’s Tale at the pass!
Well looky there! Robert Dear, heroic cop-killing baby saver, finally got access to the sockpuppet internet at the Colorado Springs Criminal Asylum library. Praise and Glory be!
I note that the theocrat Tom Parker got his 6th Commandment wrong. While it prohibits murder, embryos were never counted as human lives under it, as one can tell from other Torah laws and the next "1,000 years" of Jewish jurisprudence.
Funny how the *special* children don’t seem to have a right to be protected from being frozen in cages by others. Can I do that to my ‘children’ too? One would think what they're doing to those children would qualify as child abuse.
Well, there went Alabama's plans to repeal the ban on DFM. Then again, Alabama MAGAts are at least free to move to Mohammedan Gambia. Congress there seeks to again legalize female genital mutilation to boost membership in the Junior Antisex League for Allah. (https://www.dw.com/en/womens-rights-gambia-discusses-bill-to-repeal-fgm-ban/a-68459838)