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

  • /home/pineapplelover@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 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
      ·
      9 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.

  • whoisearth@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 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!

  • BaronVonBort@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    My wife and I had our son via IVF. We wanted every single one of our fertilized eggs to work, but they didn’t. We had one that did and we suffered every time one didn’t.

    Fuck Alabama for adding on to the torment and emotional suffering families going through IVF and any kind of infertility suffer already. It’s just adding unspeakable cruelty again.

      • JustUseMint@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        It takes a massive massive amount of time energy and resources, financial and others, to adopt. Its awful.

      • Wahots@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        Some places don’t allow same sex couples to adopt. Laws around adoption might be weaker, too.

      • unconfirmedsourcesDOTgov@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        Based on your post history, you’ll just delete your comment within a few hours anyway, but have you considered that if adoption was such a perfect solution then more people would adopt?

        Instead of simply imagining simple solutions to complex problems, maybe try having a bit of empathy and see where that takes you?

        Good luck.

        • EasternLettuce@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 months ago

          I see, so while the adoption system has issues we should just leave tens of thousands of kids to suffer while selfishly having more. Sounds very humane

          • unconfirmedsourcesDOTgov@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            9 months ago

            It feels like you’re suggesting that adoption is a panacea, but for a majority of couples, it simply isn’t. I agree it could be considered selfish, but selfishness is a virtue in our society so I am asserting that it should be expected and accounted for, rather than simply waving your hand at its inherent issues and pretending they’ll go away.

            Adoption has been proposed and has failed as a satisfactory solution to this problem for millenia, what has changed about it to make it relevant now?

              • unconfirmedsourcesDOTgov@lemmy.sdf.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                9 months ago

                I haven’t looked into it personally, but from every account I’ve heard, it sounds like a horror show. Admittedly, there’s probably some confirmation bias in there, but I’m also thinking about it from an anthropological perspective.

                If adopting a child were equivalent to giving birth to your own child, why would people still go through the torture that is pregnancy? We know that there have been orphanages for centuries, so this seems to be a long running thread in the history of humanity.

                From a behavioral economics standpoint, it seems presumptuous to suggest that more couples ought to change their preference from what they’re predisposed to choose naturally, especially without an explanation for why they are likely to have this preference to begin with.

                Once you start speculating on the reasons why people prefer adoption only as a fallback option, you’ll likely find that the answer is complicated and personal to every couple, but in aggregate the average couple isn’t thinking about adoption as a plan A.

                Even when it comes to same sex couples - they’re working on technology to be able to combine dna from two same sex parents and create an embryo that is truly a child of two people of the same sex.

                Not that there’s anything wrong with that, I’m just thinking of examples where adoption seems to run counter to people’s revealed preferences.

                • EasternLettuce@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  9 months ago

                  It’s extraordinarily shitty to suggest that children that are adopted are not equal to those related by blood. Ever since the beginning of time people and animals have cared for children that were not their own biologically. Look at any species of animal. Mama cats will take care of as many random kittens as fall into their lap. Birds will raise chicks from any number of different species of eggs. As long as orphanages have existed, so have people that have adopted children from them. There is no biological imperative that suggests Children by blood are better than anyone else. In fact, the entire history of the world speaks to the exact opposite.

                  People go through pregnancy because of cultural expectations And the ideals that they’re raised with. In fact, as time goes on, and women become more independent birth rates have fallen drastically, indicating that there isn’t a biological imperative to get pregnant, and to have children.

                  The fact that orphanages even exist at all, can be a testament to people having children who shouldn’t. we don’t need more of those

    • essteeyou@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      I’ve seen my sister going through this process for years. It’s emotionally challenging, financially challenging, and risky to her health. She’s had two ectopic pregnancies and had to be operated on twice. If she manages to have one baby she’ll be happy, and there’s no way it would make sense to implant all the other embryos given the health risk to her. So what would Alabama have her do?

      I’m glad she doesn’t live there.

        • Jojo@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 months ago

          I have heard someone say in all seriousness that it’s still murder to abort an ectopic pregnancy (which would just kill the mom and ‘child’ if allowed to continue)…

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

            Murdering a woman to save a fucking zygote that will never become a human anyway. I’m starting to genuinely hate these people.

            • Jojo@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              I mean the odds aren’t very different for the kid after the procedure. Why can’t God save them after? Not even /s, why don’t they ever have an answer for that? If we’re relying on a miracle anyway, why would an infinitely powerful god need such constrained circumstances to make it work?

  • NarrativeBear@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    Not sure exactly what companies store these frozen embryos, but if the company closes or you pass. How are the embryos disposed of?

    Does the company need to keep them frozen and alive indefinitely? Or is it murder if they are terminated by the company? What happens if the freezers/cooler breaks? Who is responsible for the now classified murder?

    • Wahots@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      Should be a gofundme paid for by the morons who support this nonsense. It would be excruciating expensive, too.

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

      This is according to a friend who had it done:

      If the treatment worked and there were embryos left over, they waited X amount of time, I think a year or so, and if they don’t hear anything from you then they are destroyed.

      My friend said she got a reminder but didn’t want to think about it, that it was too hard, so she never responded and assumes they’re gone. She said that to her, she never told them to do it, and that helps her if she ever thinks about it. She ended up having twins.

  • Facebones@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 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
      ·
      9 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!

  • carl_dungeon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    Then they should count as dependents, grant the parents tax breaks, be eligible for social benefits, receive child support payments, be counted as passengers when in mom driving in HOV lanes, etc.

  • NevermindNoMind@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    We had I think six eggs harvested and fertilized, of those I think two made it to blastocyst, meaning the cells doubled as they should by day five. The four that didn’t double correctly were discarded. Did we commit 4 murders? Or does it not count if the embryo doesn’t make it to blastocyst? We did genetic testing on the two that were fertilized, one is normal and the other came back with all manner of horrible deformities. We implanted the healthy one, and discarded the genetically abnormal one. I assume that was another murder. Should we have just stored it indefinitely? We would never use it, can’t destroy it, so what do? What happens after we die?

    I know the answer is probably it wasn’t god’s will for us to have kids, all IVF is evil, blah blah blah. It really freaks me out sometimes how much of the country is living in the 1600s.

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

      Even before this I would get really pissed when people casually said “It will happen when the time is right. God has a plan, though it isn’t one we understand.” In Alabama I was recently at the dentist, getting my teeth cleaned to the tune of religious music, hearing the hygienist say this bullshit to me.

    • TORFdot0@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      Whether you committed murder or not is directly correlated to the amount of money you have and whether you are in the in-group.

  • SteelCorrelation@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    I love how the chief justice cites his god as his legal argument. What a sham. The god of the Bible has, thus far, failed to prove its legitimacy in any context, especially regarding a secular legal system.

    • bobs_monkey@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      Nevermind forcing his god onto the rest of the population. If these yoyos get far enough, they’ll start sending non believers to “reeducation camps.”

    • erwan@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      I would think his reference to god would be a sufficient argument to nullify his decision? As you said the US justice system is secular.

    • JustUseMint@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      I don’t even care how retarded his logic is, it’s inherently not allowed because we’re supposed to have church state separation. That is the worst part to me.

  • Noel_Skum@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 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.

      • rambaroo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 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
            9 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
              9 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
                ·
                9 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
                  ·
                  9 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.