IVF embryos are people too

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are IUDs allowed in Alabama? Because under the rational that embryos are considered people and life at conception, since most IUDs make the uterus unhospitable for implantation, many pro lifers equate IUDs as a form of abortion.

Here we go....

They will 1000% come after birth control, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are IUDs allowed in Alabama? Because under the rational that embryos are considered people and life at conception, since most IUDs make the uterus unhospitable for implantation, many pro lifers equate IUDs as a form of abortion.

Here we go....

Actually, what they are arguing is life begins at fertilization. So, for instance, in a woman’s body, they would consider her pregnant as soon as sperm meets egg, and as that fertilized egg travels down the Fallopian tube, where it may or may not then implant in the uterine wall. And, yes...in that case, expect them to outlaw IUDs, since one of the purposes of IUDs is to stop implantation from taking place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

UAB pauses IVF procedures
https://www.al.com/news/2024/02/uab-pauses-in-vitro-fertilization-due-to-fear-of-prosecution-officials-say.html

Give us more than two candidate's to vote for in a national election. The two-party system is the problem. If there were no guarantees in Congress, maybe Americans wouldn't be so frustrated and checked out.

I feel like I have to chose between killing Palestinian children or embryos.

PP, here. I am IVF mom of a preemie. The rotting preemies in the NICU or tthe right to IVF?

Why do i have to choose?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

UAB pauses IVF procedures
https://www.al.com/news/2024/02/uab-pauses-in-vitro-fertilization-due-to-fear-of-prosecution-officials-say.html

The people awaiting IVF with embryos already stored need to sue. Clearly it's child abuse to keep the kid frozen

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

UAB pauses IVF procedures
https://www.al.com/news/2024/02/uab-pauses-in-vitro-fertilization-due-to-fear-of-prosecution-officials-say.html

Give us more than two candidate's to vote for in a national election. The two-party system is the problem. If there were no guarantees in Congress, maybe Americans wouldn't be so frustrated and checked out.

I feel like I have to chose between killing Palestinian children or embryos.

Sorry, but Trump would be even worse on the Palestinian kids. You know it, I know it, we all know it. You think the guy who moved the Embassy to Jerusalem would save the Palestinian kids?

Go read your Game Theory from PoliSci 101. You'll be able to figure out how to best vote in November in a winner-take-all election.

The two party duopoly is a natural feature of winner-take-all elections, like the Electoral College.

But who is winning?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are IUDs allowed in Alabama? Because under the rational that embryos are considered people and life at conception, since most IUDs make the uterus unhospitable for implantation, many pro lifers equate IUDs as a form of abortion.

Here we go....

Actually, what they are arguing is life begins at fertilization. So, for instance, in a woman’s body, they would consider her pregnant as soon as sperm meets egg, and as that fertilized egg travels down the Fallopian tube, where it may or may not then implant in the uterine wall. And, yes...in that case, expect them to outlaw IUDs, since one of the purposes of IUDs is to stop implantation from taking place.

Actually, you are bringing up something critical. If I read the ruling correctly, it discusses in detail, that previously a line was drawn at “children”or personhood, in or out of the womb. They argue that both deserve the same rights. They argue that it would otherwise mean that a person “born” without ever being in a womb would be in danger of not counting as a child or person.
However, this is currently not scientifically possible and it is doubtful whether it ever will be possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

UAB pauses IVF procedures
https://www.al.com/news/2024/02/uab-pauses-in-vitro-fertilization-due-to-fear-of-prosecution-officials-say.html

Give us more than two candidate's to vote for in a national election. The two-party system is the problem. If there were no guarantees in Congress, maybe Americans wouldn't be so frustrated and checked out.

I feel like I have to chose between killing Palestinian children or embryos.

PP, here. I am IVF mom of a preemie. The rotting preemies in the NICU or tthe right to IVF?

Why do i have to choose?

You put in your big girl panties, and you vote to protect your fellow countrywomen. It’s called patriotism. You can do it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The facts of the original case are beyond bizarre and seem like some bad movie. A “patient” at a fertility clinic “eloped” and broke into the room that stored frozen embryos, broke into the storage and grabbed several frozen embryos (in their containers) with their bare hands. Since that was basically a serious freezer, the eloper’s hands were severely burned immediately from the freezing metal and so the eloper dropped all of the embryos he/she was carrying and them broke onto the floor. When the breach was discovered the frozen embryos essentially had died.

So this was a joint lawsuit from 3 of the affected families who lost embryos for “unlawful death”.

It seems more like destruction of property rather than 'unlawful death' would have been the proper route here, unless you have a the zealous of a religious fanatic.

So being a nerdy lawyer I was very curious about this case. It seems to be very Alabama law specific and hinged on whether the term "unborn child" of Alabama's Wrongful Death of a Minor Act includes embryos kept outside a uterus or "extrauterine children" aka frozen embryos kept in a freezer. Alabama already defines embryos as children because they're ruled life begins at conception but now we are talking about frozen embryos not inside a woman's uterus.

In this crazy case, the fertility clinic had their storage facility located inside a hospital and someone some unauthorized crazy person was able to walk into the storage room, open the special cryogenic freezer, pick up several embryos out of that freezer and drop them all over the floor (because the severe cold burned their hands so as a reflex they dropped them). So the embryos died. The case doesn't go into more of those facts like why were the door and freezer unlocked, who was this nut job, why did they do it, etc.

The families want to collect punitive damages under the Alabama Wrongful Death of a Minor Act, which is why they argued the embryos were children and not property. Hospital and Fertility Clinic argued that there an exception to this act because these embryos were not inside a uterus, but plaintiffs argued that would violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment (I think this point is key). I wouldn't be surprised to see that argued in the future. The court stated it didn't keep to decide that part because "unborn children are children under the Act, without exception based on developmental stage, physical location, or any other ancillary characteristics;" and because of that simple ruling it won't decide any of the other parts, case over.

Here is a link to the decision. https://publicportal-api.alappeals.gov/courts/68f021c4-6a44-4735-9a76-5360b2e8af13/cms/case/c93db586-ec08-4f14-a6ba-a149967e68b0/docketentrydocuments/bb88f2bf-19ca-498f-9fe2-f754d36c0ff2

So if SCOTUS takes this up does it open a giant barn door to fetal personhood nationwide? That’s an untenable mess for every American woman.

It will be interesting because the Alabama Wrongful Death of a Minor Act does not define "child," so they needed to look to legislative intent, and well, the law was written in 1872, when embryos outside the womb was not even a whisper of a thought in the most creative sci-fi author's brain. So, it literally could not have intended to cover this situation. So we shall see how this gets interpreted by this Court and their alleged views of construction. There is a lot of judicial contortion in this opinion already.

Read the decision. It discusses this. There is well established case law that unborn children fall under this act and that Alabama recognizes life beginning at conception, so that embryos are children. I believe it cites cases starting in 2011. This was not the issue for this current case. The issue was did the law have any "unwritten exception" for embryos that were not in a womb/outside a uterus such as the ones being stored. Defendants argued there was an unwritten exception, Plaintiffs argued there isn't one. Court agreed with Plaintiffs and stated in their decision that for them it was pretty open and shut.

I did read it. The question was how to define "child" since the 1872 law does not.

And do you mean conception or fertilization? Who is pregnant? Who has conceived?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

UAB pauses IVF procedures
https://www.al.com/news/2024/02/uab-pauses-in-vitro-fertilization-due-to-fear-of-prosecution-officials-say.html

Give us more than two candidate's to vote for in a national election. The two-party system is the problem. If there were no guarantees in Congress, maybe Americans wouldn't be so frustrated and checked out.

I feel like I have to chose between killing Palestinian children or embryos.

Sorry, but Trump would be even worse on the Palestinian kids. You know it, I know it, we all know it. You think the guy who moved the Embassy to Jerusalem would save the Palestinian kids?

Go read your Game Theory from PoliSci 101. You'll be able to figure out how to best vote in November in a winner-take-all election.

The two party duopoly is a natural feature of winner-take-all elections, like the Electoral College.

But who is winning?

If this is the new talking point to try to get out trump out responsibility for of the destruction of fertility treatments in red states dream on. This denial of medical treatments to distraught patients is an ugly ugly business. Period. Trump own this. And he will do nothing to help Palestine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The facts of the original case are beyond bizarre and seem like some bad movie. A “patient” at a fertility clinic “eloped” and broke into the room that stored frozen embryos, broke into the storage and grabbed several frozen embryos (in their containers) with their bare hands. Since that was basically a serious freezer, the eloper’s hands were severely burned immediately from the freezing metal and so the eloper dropped all of the embryos he/she was carrying and them broke onto the floor. When the breach was discovered the frozen embryos essentially had died.

So this was a joint lawsuit from 3 of the affected families who lost embryos for “unlawful death”.

It seems more like destruction of property rather than 'unlawful death' would have been the proper route here, unless you have a the zealous of a religious fanatic.

So being a nerdy lawyer I was very curious about this case. It seems to be very Alabama law specific and hinged on whether the term "unborn child" of Alabama's Wrongful Death of a Minor Act includes embryos kept outside a uterus or "extrauterine children" aka frozen embryos kept in a freezer. Alabama already defines embryos as children because they're ruled life begins at conception but now we are talking about frozen embryos not inside a woman's uterus.

In this crazy case, the fertility clinic had their storage facility located inside a hospital and someone some unauthorized crazy person was able to walk into the storage room, open the special cryogenic freezer, pick up several embryos out of that freezer and drop them all over the floor (because the severe cold burned their hands so as a reflex they dropped them). So the embryos died. The case doesn't go into more of those facts like why were the door and freezer unlocked, who was this nut job, why did they do it, etc.

The families want to collect punitive damages under the Alabama Wrongful Death of a Minor Act, which is why they argued the embryos were children and not property. Hospital and Fertility Clinic argued that there an exception to this act because these embryos were not inside a uterus, but plaintiffs argued that would violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment (I think this point is key). I wouldn't be surprised to see that argued in the future. The court stated it didn't keep to decide that part because "unborn children are children under the Act, without exception based on developmental stage, physical location, or any other ancillary characteristics;" and because of that simple ruling it won't decide any of the other parts, case over.

Here is a link to the decision. https://publicportal-api.alappeals.gov/courts/68f021c4-6a44-4735-9a76-5360b2e8af13/cms/case/c93db586-ec08-4f14-a6ba-a149967e68b0/docketentrydocuments/bb88f2bf-19ca-498f-9fe2-f754d36c0ff2

So if SCOTUS takes this up does it open a giant barn door to fetal personhood nationwide? That’s an untenable mess for every American woman.

It will be interesting because the Alabama Wrongful Death of a Minor Act does not define "child," so they needed to look to legislative intent, and well, the law was written in 1872, when embryos outside the womb was not even a whisper of a thought in the most creative sci-fi author's brain. So, it literally could not have intended to cover this situation. So we shall see how this gets interpreted by this Court and their alleged views of construction. There is a lot of judicial contortion in this opinion already.

Read the decision. It discusses this. There is well established case law that unborn children fall under this act and that Alabama recognizes life beginning at conception, so that embryos are children. I believe it cites cases starting in 2011. This was not the issue for this current case. The issue was did the law have any "unwritten exception" for embryos that were not in a womb/outside a uterus such as the ones being stored. Defendants argued there was an unwritten exception, Plaintiffs argued there isn't one. Court agreed with Plaintiffs and stated in their decision that for them it was pretty open and shut.

I did read it. The question was how to define "child" since the 1872 law does not.

And do you mean conception or fertilization? Who is pregnant? Who has conceived?

Conception and fertilization are the same thing. When a sperm fertilizes an egg, that is conception. Perhaps you are thinking of implantation, when the fertilized egg implants in the woman’s uterine wall and starts to send out signals that can be measured at some point to confirm pregnancy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So basically a woman needs to take pregnancy test every single time she wants to have alcohol because otherwise she may be endangering her embryo? Will bars demand pregnancy tests before serving or they will be guilty of serving a minor?

They’ll need to keep their positive pregnancy test results in their car in case they get stopped for hov violation.

[Anonymous]

Every person with a bit of experience and a brain, saw this coming after the end of Roe vs Wade. Of course they would come after fertility clinics and everything else that is connected to fertilized eggs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Every person with a bit of experience and a brain, saw this coming after the end of Roe vs Wade. Of course they would come after fertility clinics and everything else that is connected to fertilized eggs.

Of course. The MAGA either have zero ability to understand the obvious progression of events here or they wanted this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The facts of the original case are beyond bizarre and seem like some bad movie. A “patient” at a fertility clinic “eloped” and broke into the room that stored frozen embryos, broke into the storage and grabbed several frozen embryos (in their containers) with their bare hands. Since that was basically a serious freezer, the eloper’s hands were severely burned immediately from the freezing metal and so the eloper dropped all of the embryos he/she was carrying and them broke onto the floor. When the breach was discovered the frozen embryos essentially had died.

So this was a joint lawsuit from 3 of the affected families who lost embryos for “unlawful death”.

It seems more like destruction of property rather than 'unlawful death' would have been the proper route here, unless you have a the zealous of a religious fanatic.

So being a nerdy lawyer I was very curious about this case. It seems to be very Alabama law specific and hinged on whether the term "unborn child" of Alabama's Wrongful Death of a Minor Act includes embryos kept outside a uterus or "extrauterine children" aka frozen embryos kept in a freezer. Alabama already defines embryos as children because they're ruled life begins at conception but now we are talking about frozen embryos not inside a woman's uterus.

In this crazy case, the fertility clinic had their storage facility located inside a hospital and someone some unauthorized crazy person was able to walk into the storage room, open the special cryogenic freezer, pick up several embryos out of that freezer and drop them all over the floor (because the severe cold burned their hands so as a reflex they dropped them). So the embryos died. The case doesn't go into more of those facts like why were the door and freezer unlocked, who was this nut job, why did they do it, etc.

The families want to collect punitive damages under the Alabama Wrongful Death of a Minor Act, which is why they argued the embryos were children and not property. Hospital and Fertility Clinic argued that there an exception to this act because these embryos were not inside a uterus, but plaintiffs argued that would violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment (I think this point is key). I wouldn't be surprised to see that argued in the future. The court stated it didn't keep to decide that part because "unborn children are children under the Act, without exception based on developmental stage, physical location, or any other ancillary characteristics;" and because of that simple ruling it won't decide any of the other parts, case over.

Here is a link to the decision. https://publicportal-api.alappeals.gov/courts/68f021c4-6a44-4735-9a76-5360b2e8af13/cms/case/c93db586-ec08-4f14-a6ba-a149967e68b0/docketentrydocuments/bb88f2bf-19ca-498f-9fe2-f754d36c0ff2

So if SCOTUS takes this up does it open a giant barn door to fetal personhood nationwide? That’s an untenable mess for every American woman.

It will be interesting because the Alabama Wrongful Death of a Minor Act does not define "child," so they needed to look to legislative intent, and well, the law was written in 1872, when embryos outside the womb was not even a whisper of a thought in the most creative sci-fi author's brain. So, it literally could not have intended to cover this situation. So we shall see how this gets interpreted by this Court and their alleged views of construction. There is a lot of judicial contortion in this opinion already.

Read the decision. It discusses this. There is well established case law that unborn children fall under this act and that Alabama recognizes life beginning at conception, so that embryos are children. I believe it cites cases starting in 2011. This was not the issue for this current case. The issue was did the law have any "unwritten exception" for embryos that were not in a womb/outside a uterus such as the ones being stored. Defendants argued there was an unwritten exception, Plaintiffs argued there isn't one. Court agreed with Plaintiffs and stated in their decision that for them it was pretty open and shut.

I did read it. The question was how to define "child" since the 1872 law does not.

And do you mean conception or fertilization? Who is pregnant? Who has conceived?

Conception and fertilization are the same thing. When a sperm fertilizes an egg, that is conception. Perhaps you are thinking of implantation, when the fertilized egg implants in the woman’s uterine wall and starts to send out signals that can be measured at some point to confirm pregnancy.

DP. No, not the same. Particularly in reference to IVF. When my DH and I went through IVF, my eggs were fertilized by his sperm in a lab. Fertilization occurred, NOT conception.
Similarly, a woman does not conceive unless that fertilized egg implants in her uterine wall. Fertilization precedes conception. It is earlier in the process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The facts of the original case are beyond bizarre and seem like some bad movie. A “patient” at a fertility clinic “eloped” and broke into the room that stored frozen embryos, broke into the storage and grabbed several frozen embryos (in their containers) with their bare hands. Since that was basically a serious freezer, the eloper’s hands were severely burned immediately from the freezing metal and so the eloper dropped all of the embryos he/she was carrying and them broke onto the floor. When the breach was discovered the frozen embryos essentially had died.

So this was a joint lawsuit from 3 of the affected families who lost embryos for “unlawful death”.

It seems more like destruction of property rather than 'unlawful death' would have been the proper route here, unless you have a the zealous of a religious fanatic.

So being a nerdy lawyer I was very curious about this case. It seems to be very Alabama law specific and hinged on whether the term "unborn child" of Alabama's Wrongful Death of a Minor Act includes embryos kept outside a uterus or "extrauterine children" aka frozen embryos kept in a freezer. Alabama already defines embryos as children because they're ruled life begins at conception but now we are talking about frozen embryos not inside a woman's uterus.

In this crazy case, the fertility clinic had their storage facility located inside a hospital and someone some unauthorized crazy person was able to walk into the storage room, open the special cryogenic freezer, pick up several embryos out of that freezer and drop them all over the floor (because the severe cold burned their hands so as a reflex they dropped them). So the embryos died. The case doesn't go into more of those facts like why were the door and freezer unlocked, who was this nut job, why did they do it, etc.

The families want to collect punitive damages under the Alabama Wrongful Death of a Minor Act, which is why they argued the embryos were children and not property. Hospital and Fertility Clinic argued that there an exception to this act because these embryos were not inside a uterus, but plaintiffs argued that would violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment (I think this point is key). I wouldn't be surprised to see that argued in the future. The court stated it didn't keep to decide that part because "unborn children are children under the Act, without exception based on developmental stage, physical location, or any other ancillary characteristics;" and because of that simple ruling it won't decide any of the other parts, case over.

Here is a link to the decision. https://publicportal-api.alappeals.gov/courts/68f021c4-6a44-4735-9a76-5360b2e8af13/cms/case/c93db586-ec08-4f14-a6ba-a149967e68b0/docketentrydocuments/bb88f2bf-19ca-498f-9fe2-f754d36c0ff2

So if SCOTUS takes this up does it open a giant barn door to fetal personhood nationwide? That’s an untenable mess for every American woman.

It will be interesting because the Alabama Wrongful Death of a Minor Act does not define "child," so they needed to look to legislative intent, and well, the law was written in 1872, when embryos outside the womb was not even a whisper of a thought in the most creative sci-fi author's brain. So, it literally could not have intended to cover this situation. So we shall see how this gets interpreted by this Court and their alleged views of construction. There is a lot of judicial contortion in this opinion already.

Read the decision. It discusses this. There is well established case law that unborn children fall under this act and that Alabama recognizes life beginning at conception, so that embryos are children. I believe it cites cases starting in 2011. This was not the issue for this current case. The issue was did the law have any "unwritten exception" for embryos that were not in a womb/outside a uterus such as the ones being stored. Defendants argued there was an unwritten exception, Plaintiffs argued there isn't one. Court agreed with Plaintiffs and stated in their decision that for them it was pretty open and shut.

I did read it. The question was how to define "child" since the 1872 law does not.

And do you mean conception or fertilization? Who is pregnant? Who has conceived?

That’s right. The question was can an embryo that is located outside of a womb be considered a child. I’m not sure why you’re arguing with me about this since you claim to have read the decision.

It hinged on the embryos being located outside of a uterus.

Also conception = fertilization. You seem confused.