Frozen embryos are “children,” according to Alabama’s Supreme Court::IVF often produces more embryos than are needed or used.

  • Josie@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    In the Alabama case, a hospital patient wandered through an unlocked door, removed frozen, preserved embryos from subzero storage and, suffering an ice burn, dropped the embryos, destroying them. Affected IVF patients filed wrongful-death lawsuits against the IVF clinic under the state’s Wrongful Death of a Minor Act. The case was initially dismissed in a lower court, which ruled the embryos did not meet the definition of a child. But the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that “it applies to all children, born and unborn, without limitation.” In a concurring opinion, Chief Justice Tom Parker cited his religious beliefs and quoted the Bible to support the stance.

    absolutely wild case

  • Noel_Skum@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    Alabama? More like Talibana, a’ight? Being ruled by religious extremists - in the 21st (ce) century - blows my mind. Are people still that backwards? Apparently, yes. Nothing wrong with a bit of private faith in the sky man if it helps you in life… but to be a fundamentalist is unforgivable.

  • Facebones@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    Every woman with a frozen embryo.

    Get those child tax credits.

    Don’t have frozen embryos? Freeze some

    Get those child tax credits

    • TellusChaosovich@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      That is not legal. They have made embryos children when looking for people to put in jail, and not children when looking to give out benefits. Very convenient for the state budget!

  • whoisearth@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    Women of America. Get a freezer. Freeze your eggs and transport them home. On all future taxes claim them as dependents in perpetuity. Fuck these asshats. Game the system and make bank!

  • /home/pineapplelover@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    Tune in for the next episode of Conservative Politics! [Red state] says menstruating kills potential children? Find out next week!

    • sunbeam60@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      Right, so pregnant or nursing once you’re menstruating! Otherwise you’re an illegal woman, not fulfilling your biblical purpose. Got it. This will be fun.

  • elbucho@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    I recently read Neil Stephenson’s book called “Fall”, in which a significant chunk of the novel is set about 30 years in the future. At that point in time, large swathes of America are referred to as “Ameristan”, because they are break-away territories ruled by evangelical warlords. It feels surprisingly prescient.

  • JimmyMcGill@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    In a concurring opinion, Chief Justice Tom Parker cited his religious beliefs and quoted the Bible to support the stance.

    “Human life cannot be wrongfully destroyed without incurring the wrath of a holy God, who views the destruction of His image as an affront to Himself,” Parker wrote. “Even before birth, all human beings bear the image of God, and their lives cannot be destroyed without effacing his glory.”

    wtf

    • SeaJ@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      Ironic that he quoted the Bible since the Bible is okay with abortion.

      • EatATaco@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        The Bible doesn’t really say anything about abortion. The most convincing thing I’ve seen is that it values the life of a mother over that a fetus, but it doesn’t say abortion is okay. Unless I’m missing something.

        Not that it matters what this book says, I just don’t think it helps at all to misrepresent it.

          • EatATaco@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago

            At least the other poster offered up what is effectively a completely made up verse.

            • prole@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              “effectively made up verse” LOL

              Ah ok, so are you the arbiter of which stories in the Bible are literal, and which aren’t? Because that story seemed very fucking literal.

              Anyway, this can’t be the first time you’ve encountered a contradiction in the text of your holy book (assuming you’ve even read it), so I’m sure you’ve already got some pretty effective ways of ignoring the cognitive dissonance inherent in your worldview… So go ahead and have fun with that I guess.

        • LastYearsPumpkin@feddit.ch
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          Numbers 5:11-22

          If your wife is unfaithful, she should go to the priest and get a concoction to abort the pregnancy conceived with another man.

          • GhostMatter@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            It does not say or imply that at all. Maybe in some translations/adaptations, but not in most of them.

            • zarp86@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              5 months ago

              20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse[b] among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”

              It doesn’t imply that at all? Please feel free to let me know what this passage is really about.

              • GhostMatter@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                5 months ago

                I’m guessing this is the New International Version (NIV) of the Bible. Which is not a consensus at all.

                I’m not sure if you’re aware, but the Old Testament is written mostly in Hebrew and each passage has had thousands of interpretations and translations over time.

                My does not say this at all was too strong in light of the different versions, but you can make the Bible say a lot of things.

                Look at other translations, including in languages other than English and you’ll see that the “miscarry” is pretty unique to the NIV.

                You can check out the Wikipedia article on this passage to get an idea as to how complicated it is.

                • dvoraqs@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  The punishment section of the Hebrew version suggests many interpretations where words are euphemisms for things related to abortions. Her thigh might refer to her sexual organs, the curse an abortificent, etc. I think those meanings still exist in other translations.

            • TaterTurnipTulip@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              5 months ago

              It always strikes me as interesting that if the Bible truly was divinely inspired that there really should only be one translation and one interpretation. It should be incredibly clear and concise to everyone.

      • TellusChaosovich@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        No the religious zealots here do not. School coaches require prayer before practices and games, same sex couples get banned from prom, kids at school get tricked into going to fun after school events that turn out to actually be evangelism stunts. A lot of applications to educational programs, gymnastics programs, and jobs ask about “leadership” which is code for experience as a church deacon or active evangelist.

      • Facebones@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        The USA has never done seperation of church and state.

        If we did, half the govt would be arrested for extremism and most churches would be terrorist organizations.

  • sacredfire@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    I heard this somewhere: “You’re in an IVF clinic. It’s on fire and you enter a burning room. On a table is a large cooler with 5 thousand fertilized eggs, and there’s also a crying, injured five-year-old girl in the room. Which one do you save? You can only save one.”

      • rambaroo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        Muslims don’t believe that life starts at conception. So no, on this topic they are not as idiotic as Christians.

          • rambaroo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            Turkey and Kazakhstan. And this is just racist bs. Not all Muslims hate Jews or have regressive views. Not to mention this is all off topic, it’s Christians who are trying to destroy women’s rights in America not Muslims

            • BaardFigur@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              Turkey is a hybrid regime, scoring rather low on the democracy index, with aggressive retoric towards Greece, Cyprus and Armenia. Making unreasonable demands towards Sweden in return for NATO membership. Non-muslims are discriminated against, and they’re turning churches into mosques. I expected Turkey to be proposed, but Turkey is not a good example, even though it’s “less bad” than other options.

              Maybe christians are the problem in America, but in most west European countries, muslims are the ones causing issues.

              Kazakhstan: Not great either

              • rambaroo@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                5 months ago

                Turkey isn’t much worse than countries like Hungary or Poland when it comes to democracy.

                Also I like how you ignored the rest of my comment. But not surprised

                • BaardFigur@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  Setting the bar low with Orbanistan I see (which is still more democratic than Turkey btw).

                  Poland isn’t doing any worse than USA, and is straight up silly comparing it to Turkey, especially after their last election, replacing the PiS Prime Minister.