Reply to IVF embryos are people too

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "IVF embryos are people too"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]The Alabama case was not about banning IVF treatment.  It was brought by a couple seeking IVF treatment at a facility.  They charged [b]negligence[/b] by the facility for losing their embryos when a random patient went in and dropped the embryos.[/quote]

Not just negligence - wrongful death.  Of course people working at IVF treatment centers will be concerned about continuing to work there, and provide treatment, when an accident could happen, and they could be charged with wrongful death.

You don't have to ban the treatment for this ruling to have a negative effect on the willingness of doctors and clinicians to provide IVF procedures.

[/quote]

Negligence in this case wasn’t enough for the plaintiffs. Again, people really should google the case (a link has been posted in the thread) and read the decision (or at least a few pages of it). The plaintiffs specifically want to collect punitive damages and the only way they can under Alabama law is under the Wrongful Death of a Minor Child Act. Hence this case hinges on whether there was a death of a person and for that you first need to determine was there a person. The court held the frozen embryos were people. So now you have a person/minor child.

The fact pattern doesn’t seem to be in dispute. If the plaintiffs in their third argument of destruction of property would only come into play if the court found that the embryos were not people and the Wrongful Death of a Minor Child Act did not apply. But you cannot collect much damages in Alabama in that scenario. BUT in other states the (gross) negligence of the clinic and hospital would be relevant. But these plaintiffs found a specific angle and Alabama had put itself into a corner with already establishing repeatedly that embryos are people. [/quote]

Yes and there are consequences for establishing that blastocysts are people. As has been repeatedly outlined in this thread. This goes far beyond trying to compensate a coupe for a horror they experienced.

Also did you ignore the chief justice quoting the bible in his concurring opinion? [/quote]

No I didn’t ignore it per se, I just think the court found that this particular case was very open and shut for them and they said as much in their reasoning that the Biblical reasoning (while disturbing and IMO unconstitutional) was irrelevant in the overall decision. It’s seems a bible beating justice needed to showcase his evangelicalness so he wrote a concurring opinion. It doesn’t take away, for me, the core of the main opinion which is because there is well established case law in Alabama that an embryo (which is egg that is fertilized by a sperm) is a person the MOMENT it is fertilized is a person, that includes all embryos. It is irrelevant to this court where that embryo is. It is a person and because it is a person the destruction of these embryos qualify under the Wrongful Death of Minor Act. End of story.

Now I haven’t read into the prior case law that did establish embryo is considered a person with all the rights thereto but I wouldn’t be surprised if there are some religious reasonings in those cases. So here would be some carry over.

[/quote]

But as you noted in a later post (I sometimes read threads backwards) these whackos play the long game. They put those biblical citations into the caselaw specifically so that it can be cited later, and it becomes further law and creates a citable reasoning in new cases that have nothing to do with IVF. They want more judges to cite to it, to infiltrate even further. "Biblical reasoning" in a court decision is never irrelevant in any decision. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics