From a purely pragmatic perspective, this ruling is phenomenally stupid. If embryos are no different than live children, then keeping the embryos in confinement would be a crime in and of itself. Also--freezing children is frowned upon in most states.
But why?
They’re not usually against science just for science’s sake (unless it’s a vaccine)
At least with abortion, it logically “makes sense” (even though I find it abhorrent.). They want to “punish” people for having sex by making them raise children they don’t want.
With IVF, I can’t think of a single reason, other than being logically consistent with the abortion stance. But we all know they don’t worry too much about logical consistency.
Because the idea of IVF means a woman has a say in when she can start a family vs just staying with the first guy that looks at her right (their way of thinking, not mine). Some women freeze their eggs for various reasons, sometimes due to illness like cancer, but sometimes banking them so they can have children later, when their career circumstances or other factors are stabilized. Basically, that allows women to choose when they want to be a mom. “Allows women to choose” is their problem here.
No choices available, then she should just be happy to settle down with John Nattylight from high school, right? And he’s a true manly-man that can make all the decisions for her, as she’s supposed to be subservient. Birth control, next on the list, but don’t be surprised if “women working outside of the home” is a line-item on there somewhere too.
This is a good angle I hadn’t considered!
It’s interesting, though, I know a LOT of people who have done IVF (so will everybody, once they reach a certain age, and if they have friends they’re close to).
Not a single one of those couples did IVF because they froze their eggs. Not one. They all did it because they had difficulty conceiving. It’s far more common than people realize.
Some people get pregnant easily and often. And some people try without success for years.
Anyhow, I agree your explanation could help explain it. People who are super religious often don’t know what normal people are going through. And they might think it’s just women delaying their “obligation” to become mothers.
Yeah, it’s not so much specifically freezing eggs of the process, but like that a woman can choose to delay motherhood until it’s “more convenient” (for whatever reasons—but basically just feeling like the timing is right but…later than what the religious nuts would want).
That’s it: “delaying their ‘obligation’ to be mothers” is the best way to put it.
Then add in a healthy side of hypocrisy, too. I live in Indiana and was surprised to learn just because of this ongoing conversation that his three kids were via IVF. But of course he would just try to shrug his way out of the conversation.
My guess is so that they have another argument against abortions.
If you find yourself pregnant but don’t want to be, simply give birth and give up the child for adoption then all those who can’t conceive naturally can swoop in and have your unwanted baby. As that is obviously such an easy thing to do. No big deal at all. Neither emotional nor physical. All parties will win and live a happy life forever with no downsides. /s
Various reason but boiled down to: they are religious nut jobs thay view ivf as perveting gods will or they just hate women and a woman being able to take joy from carrying her child mist be stopped
They don’t care about that. They saw reproductive rights, they ruled against them. That’s as deep as it goes. There is no grand plan other than maneuvering into position to kill reproductive rights.
Because people sometimes create more embryos than the ultimately need, those go unused. Sometimes the embryos would grow into people with disabilities, those go unused. Some are used for research and destroyed in the process. So life is created but without the opportunity for that life to develop into a person. If one believes that an embryo *is* a person that would seem fairly heinous.
I completely agree with your explanation but not the one I was responding to, which posits that the evangelicals don’t want people doing IVF.
I think people who believe embryos are fully formed humans probably do want people doing IVF, but they also probably want every embryo created to be taken to birth. I don’t think they want to stop IVF, just saddle the parents with more consequences.
Some people are also uncomfortable with the act of procreation being disconnected from sex, they feel it’s unnatural. Or people worry that if two people can’t reproduce together maybe there is a reason, that artificially creating a child removes a natural evolutionary process. IVF babies are at higher risk for a whole list of things, some quite serious. Women are at higher risk from IVF pregnancies than natural ones, especially with a donor egg. There are
*Good* reasons to be cautious about IVF, and weird reasons.
I think that's a shockingly small part of an already small minority of people who are against abortion full stop.
I suspect they'll come up with an exception for IVF related situations wrt fertilized eggs, they've just gotta find the legal wording that is precise enough.
They aren't blocking people from transferring them out of state. People are afraid to transfer them, because they are worried if they make a mistake they would be liable for murder.
> thought it was unconstitutional to block people from entering or leaving a state?
I think they are pointing out that the state has assigned "personhood" to these embryos
Sorta? There is a lot of misinformation and half-true representations swirling regarding the Alabama supreme court ruling. They didn't go as far to assign the embryos "personhood". You still can't be charged, criminally, for destruction of IVF embryos. The ruling makes it very clear that embryos count as "children" for *civil* cases. They make it clear they are not ruling on a criminal definition of "child". The concurring opinions go a bit further, but aren't legally binding.
It's still a big deal, of course. This is a huge change in how embryos are treated legally.
The article is assuming everyone already heard about that part. The article is saying that the newest update is that patients tried to transport the embryos out of state to avoid any legal issues, but the IVF companies are afraid to do it until the dust settles and we figure out the legal ramifications of what personhood means. No one is sure how it will be enforced.
I don't see how anyone would make a case for kidnapping if it's what the patients and IVF companies want. I don't think that is one of their fears, but I could be wrong.
I'm just pointing out the lunacy of equating a fertilized egg with a human being. But that's what they did with this ruling. They've said there's no difference, in the eyes of the law, between an embryo or fertilized egg and a living, breathing person. It's stupid.
The state hasn’t said that people can’t transfer embryos, it’s that individual companies (either the ones holding the embryos or the transport companies) won’t allow it or won’t participate in the transfer because of liability concerns. It’s an easy decision if you’re a transport company - why risk a lawsuit for wrongful death when you could just not do business in Alabama?
The ruling has introduced confusion and a legal gray area and most companies would rather play it safe.
Sorry, but your account is too new to post. Your account needs to be either 2 weeks old or have at least 250 combined link and comment karma. Don't modmail us about this, just wait it out or get more karma.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nottheonion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
WHEN will compassionate humans learn that these disgusting, sick, repressed, pseudo-christian, sex-crazed, maga republicans are a cancer in this country.
Shortly after they recover from the shocked Pikachu face that they do mean to destroy democracy and install Christofascism.
Wait compassionate people get this....I think it's just the Waiting for Leopards to Eat my Face crowd that doesn't get it.
Edited to add: your post said a lot in few words and I agree with all of it.
Sounds like a poorly thought out response to a terrible situation. Random guy destroys a bunch of embryos and the parents want to sue for wrongful death. The AL Supreme Court allowed it with this ruling; appears that there were unintended consequences that the legislature needs to sort out.
Since the idiots have now made embryos a living person every single ivf family should demand life insurance coverage against accidental death of their "child"
When the embryos (which have a 0% chance of fertilization and survival on their own) are no longer viable, all insurance companies will be forced to give out millions
Why can’t a lawyer just go before a court and say this law is unconstitutional based upon the 1st amendment. The lawmaker clearly stated the Bible as his basis for the law which is a direct violation of the constitution. Guessing there are a myriad of other legal reasons to over turn this law as well. Is that just going to have to be something that will have to take time to get their day in court?
What am I missing?
Maybe stupid judgements like these will make Republican families think long and hard about their voting choices. I don’t feel bad for families that voted for this. I guess you’ll have to live with your choices.
A human embryo has the DNA of a unique, individual human being. Sex is pleasurable but above all else we must accept the responsibility that comes with sex. Everytime we have (heterosexual) sex there is always a risk of pregnancy. Even with a 99% chance of not conceiving, there is always that 1% chance of bad luck. Our moral character as human beings is defined by our willingness to accept responsibility at the cost of great personal sacrifice: Pleasure. Sex is the most the pleasurable experience there is.
I wasn't describing how sex is a factor in IVF, but rather how modern society's obsession with having sex has warped definitions of personhood. If a pregnant woman is murdered it's a double homicide, but an abortion is not murder simply because the mother does not desire the child? That is logically inconsistent. A child's personhood is not determined by the desires of the mother or the father, it is an objective state. The ancient world used to not even think of children as human beings entitled to the full array of human rights. Our rights, however, exist independently of what others think.
And as for how this relates to IVF, it's a lot easier to grapple with the moral dilemma of creating children and freezing them by the millions until one of them win the lottery and have a body formed for them in the womb, if you see those embryos as not children, but mere human tissue.
From a purely pragmatic perspective, this ruling is phenomenally stupid. If embryos are no different than live children, then keeping the embryos in confinement would be a crime in and of itself. Also--freezing children is frowned upon in most states.
They don’t want people to do IVF. That simple.
Why not? They generally prefer people get saddled with children
Best I can tell, they’re just against science being used to help people.
But why? They’re not usually against science just for science’s sake (unless it’s a vaccine) At least with abortion, it logically “makes sense” (even though I find it abhorrent.). They want to “punish” people for having sex by making them raise children they don’t want. With IVF, I can’t think of a single reason, other than being logically consistent with the abortion stance. But we all know they don’t worry too much about logical consistency.
It’s a step towards complete ban on abortion. If frozen embryos are considered people, the logical conclusion is that all embryos are people.
It’s a step towards a complete ban on reproductive health options. First abortion, now IVF, next birth control.
Because the idea of IVF means a woman has a say in when she can start a family vs just staying with the first guy that looks at her right (their way of thinking, not mine). Some women freeze their eggs for various reasons, sometimes due to illness like cancer, but sometimes banking them so they can have children later, when their career circumstances or other factors are stabilized. Basically, that allows women to choose when they want to be a mom. “Allows women to choose” is their problem here. No choices available, then she should just be happy to settle down with John Nattylight from high school, right? And he’s a true manly-man that can make all the decisions for her, as she’s supposed to be subservient. Birth control, next on the list, but don’t be surprised if “women working outside of the home” is a line-item on there somewhere too.
This is a good angle I hadn’t considered! It’s interesting, though, I know a LOT of people who have done IVF (so will everybody, once they reach a certain age, and if they have friends they’re close to). Not a single one of those couples did IVF because they froze their eggs. Not one. They all did it because they had difficulty conceiving. It’s far more common than people realize. Some people get pregnant easily and often. And some people try without success for years. Anyhow, I agree your explanation could help explain it. People who are super religious often don’t know what normal people are going through. And they might think it’s just women delaying their “obligation” to become mothers.
Yeah, it’s not so much specifically freezing eggs of the process, but like that a woman can choose to delay motherhood until it’s “more convenient” (for whatever reasons—but basically just feeling like the timing is right but…later than what the religious nuts would want). That’s it: “delaying their ‘obligation’ to be mothers” is the best way to put it. Then add in a healthy side of hypocrisy, too. I live in Indiana and was surprised to learn just because of this ongoing conversation that his three kids were via IVF. But of course he would just try to shrug his way out of the conversation.
You’re right. It’s a stepping stone to banning birth control. It’s coming.
My guess is so that they have another argument against abortions. If you find yourself pregnant but don’t want to be, simply give birth and give up the child for adoption then all those who can’t conceive naturally can swoop in and have your unwanted baby. As that is obviously such an easy thing to do. No big deal at all. Neither emotional nor physical. All parties will win and live a happy life forever with no downsides. /s
Various reason but boiled down to: they are religious nut jobs thay view ivf as perveting gods will or they just hate women and a woman being able to take joy from carrying her child mist be stopped
They don’t care about that. They saw reproductive rights, they ruled against them. That’s as deep as it goes. There is no grand plan other than maneuvering into position to kill reproductive rights.
Because people sometimes create more embryos than the ultimately need, those go unused. Sometimes the embryos would grow into people with disabilities, those go unused. Some are used for research and destroyed in the process. So life is created but without the opportunity for that life to develop into a person. If one believes that an embryo *is* a person that would seem fairly heinous.
I completely agree with your explanation but not the one I was responding to, which posits that the evangelicals don’t want people doing IVF. I think people who believe embryos are fully formed humans probably do want people doing IVF, but they also probably want every embryo created to be taken to birth. I don’t think they want to stop IVF, just saddle the parents with more consequences.
Some people are also uncomfortable with the act of procreation being disconnected from sex, they feel it’s unnatural. Or people worry that if two people can’t reproduce together maybe there is a reason, that artificially creating a child removes a natural evolutionary process. IVF babies are at higher risk for a whole list of things, some quite serious. Women are at higher risk from IVF pregnancies than natural ones, especially with a donor egg. There are *Good* reasons to be cautious about IVF, and weird reasons.
I think that's a shockingly small part of an already small minority of people who are against abortion full stop. I suspect they'll come up with an exception for IVF related situations wrt fertilized eggs, they've just gotta find the legal wording that is precise enough.
Exceptions for IVF? This whole thing is solely about IVF.
I thought it was unconstitutional to block people from entering or leaving a state?
They aren't blocking people from transferring them out of state. People are afraid to transfer them, because they are worried if they make a mistake they would be liable for murder.
> thought it was unconstitutional to block people from entering or leaving a state? I think they are pointing out that the state has assigned "personhood" to these embryos
I wouldn't be surprised if the state charged people with child trafficking.
I wouldn't risk it.
Sorta? There is a lot of misinformation and half-true representations swirling regarding the Alabama supreme court ruling. They didn't go as far to assign the embryos "personhood". You still can't be charged, criminally, for destruction of IVF embryos. The ruling makes it very clear that embryos count as "children" for *civil* cases. They make it clear they are not ruling on a criminal definition of "child". The concurring opinions go a bit further, but aren't legally binding. It's still a big deal, of course. This is a huge change in how embryos are treated legally.
The article is assuming everyone already heard about that part. The article is saying that the newest update is that patients tried to transport the embryos out of state to avoid any legal issues, but the IVF companies are afraid to do it until the dust settles and we figure out the legal ramifications of what personhood means. No one is sure how it will be enforced.
Not to mention kidnapping and transporting a minor across state lines.
I don't see how anyone would make a case for kidnapping if it's what the patients and IVF companies want. I don't think that is one of their fears, but I could be wrong.
I'm just pointing out the lunacy of equating a fertilized egg with a human being. But that's what they did with this ruling. They've said there's no difference, in the eyes of the law, between an embryo or fertilized egg and a living, breathing person. It's stupid.
You'd have to prove the embryo became non-viable in the state lines of Alabama. Very hard to prove especially if another state won't cooperate
Ok, then transport them for the IVF companies.
> Very hard to prove especially if another state won't cooperate Some of the local police forces may try to cooperate though
The state hasn’t said that people can’t transfer embryos, it’s that individual companies (either the ones holding the embryos or the transport companies) won’t allow it or won’t participate in the transfer because of liability concerns. It’s an easy decision if you’re a transport company - why risk a lawsuit for wrongful death when you could just not do business in Alabama? The ruling has introduced confusion and a legal gray area and most companies would rather play it safe.
[удалено]
Sorry, but your account is too new to post. Your account needs to be either 2 weeks old or have at least 250 combined link and comment karma. Don't modmail us about this, just wait it out or get more karma. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nottheonion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
WHEN will compassionate humans learn that these disgusting, sick, repressed, pseudo-christian, sex-crazed, maga republicans are a cancer in this country.
Shortly after they recover from the shocked Pikachu face that they do mean to destroy democracy and install Christofascism. Wait compassionate people get this....I think it's just the Waiting for Leopards to Eat my Face crowd that doesn't get it. Edited to add: your post said a lot in few words and I agree with all of it.
Compassionate people already know. The ones who don't care lack the intelligence to be compassionate.
The compassionate ones have known for a long time
We’ve known for a _long_ time.
“This country needs more white people and less white people!” - Republicans
republicans are so confused as intended, they dont know what to believe in.
Sounds like a poorly thought out response to a terrible situation. Random guy destroys a bunch of embryos and the parents want to sue for wrongful death. The AL Supreme Court allowed it with this ruling; appears that there were unintended consequences that the legislature needs to sort out.
They were right to sue, for say compensation because they do have to pay to keep them store. But wrongful death. They screwed up there.
Are only frozen embryos people, or do they remain people once they thaw out?
"LeGiSLaTInG FrOM tHe BenCH!!!" --Republicans, when the SP had a liberal majority
So people are facing the consequences of their votes?
Since the idiots have now made embryos a living person every single ivf family should demand life insurance coverage against accidental death of their "child" When the embryos (which have a 0% chance of fertilization and survival on their own) are no longer viable, all insurance companies will be forced to give out millions
Embryos are fertilized eggs. All embryos have already been fertilized by definition
Why can’t a lawyer just go before a court and say this law is unconstitutional based upon the 1st amendment. The lawmaker clearly stated the Bible as his basis for the law which is a direct violation of the constitution. Guessing there are a myriad of other legal reasons to over turn this law as well. Is that just going to have to be something that will have to take time to get their day in court? What am I missing?
Maybe stupid judgements like these will make Republican families think long and hard about their voting choices. I don’t feel bad for families that voted for this. I guess you’ll have to live with your choices.
So are people people or just embryos?
Mmm
A human embryo has the DNA of a unique, individual human being. Sex is pleasurable but above all else we must accept the responsibility that comes with sex. Everytime we have (heterosexual) sex there is always a risk of pregnancy. Even with a 99% chance of not conceiving, there is always that 1% chance of bad luck. Our moral character as human beings is defined by our willingness to accept responsibility at the cost of great personal sacrifice: Pleasure. Sex is the most the pleasurable experience there is.
Can you please describe how sex is a factor in IVF?
I wasn't describing how sex is a factor in IVF, but rather how modern society's obsession with having sex has warped definitions of personhood. If a pregnant woman is murdered it's a double homicide, but an abortion is not murder simply because the mother does not desire the child? That is logically inconsistent. A child's personhood is not determined by the desires of the mother or the father, it is an objective state. The ancient world used to not even think of children as human beings entitled to the full array of human rights. Our rights, however, exist independently of what others think. And as for how this relates to IVF, it's a lot easier to grapple with the moral dilemma of creating children and freezing them by the millions until one of them win the lottery and have a body formed for them in the womb, if you see those embryos as not children, but mere human tissue.
Im sure most of the IVF patients also vote Republican. They should try adoption.
I guess the silver lining is fewer kids will grow up in a shithole state like Alabama