Only in Alabama!

TOP said:
it really is.A miscarriage is the loss of a baby... because it was wanted... an abortion is just getting rid of a clump of cells because it was unwanted... the frozen embryo discussion is pretty much the same... when recklessness or carelessness leads to the loss of these embryos this may mean that the couple involved have lost a chance to have children... everyone losing their mind here is ignoring that pesky detail...
Click to expand...

Every case of IVF involves discarding fertilized embryos. The Alabama law says discarding a fertilized embryo is murder. You never fertilize 1 embryo and then implant it, you fertiilze a dozen or so, pick one or a few, (some are not viable yet still a fertilized embryo), implant one and if successful throw the rest of the frozen ones away. The law is asinine, quit trying to make it sound rational.
 
Port Tack said:
Every case of IVF involves discarding fertilized embryos. The Alabama law says discarding a fertilized embryo is murder. You never fertilize 1 embryo and then implant it, you fertiilze a dozen or so, pick one or a few, (some are not viable yet still a fertilized embryo), implant one and if successful throw the rest of the frozen ones away. The law is asinine, quit trying to make it sound rational.
Click to expand...
that's not what the law says...
 
TOP said:
that's not what the law says...
Click to expand...

Yes it does.

it provides no avenue for disposal of the 'children' as 'children' cannot be disposed of.

they would have to be kept frozen forever which then leads to the next question. Can 'children' be kept frozen forever without it being considered torture or immoral, as not allowing them to be born or die means and keeping them frozen forever means they cannot join God, if that is your belief system.

You will simply hand wave this away, not because you are right but because you are predictable stupid.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
We're ass deep in kids as it is,

and there's nothing to even suggest that their lives are going to be even minimally tolerable
in the years just ahead...especially in Alabama.

Why do pro lifers revel in human misery as much as they do?

From where did the insane idea that life with no quality has absolute value come?

Sparing future generations the dystopia that awaits them is the ultimate act of kindness,

so of course, inherently cruel conservatives are opposed to it.

How did such vicious souls come into being?

Can a sane person possibly believe in a divine creator?

I cannot see how, no matter how hard I might try,

although frankly, I stopped trying long ago.:palm:
Click to expand...

So no IVF...period?
 
QP! said:
Yes it does.

it provides no avenue for disposal of the 'children' as 'children' cannot be disposed of.

they would have to be kept frozen forever which then leads to the next question. Can 'children' be kept frozen forever without it being considered torture or immoral, as not allowing them to be born or die means and keeping them frozen forever means they cannot join God, if that is your belief system.

You will simply hand wave this away, not because you are right but because you are predictable stupid.
Click to expand...

No that's not what the law says...
 
TOP said:
What parents wouldn't want to have the right to be legally protected if a clinic negligently destroys their embryos? Which is what happened to several couples who were denied that very protection...
Click to expand...

We're ass deep in kids as it is,

and there's nothing to even suggest that their lives are going to be even minimally tolerable
in the years just ahead...especially in Alabama.

Why do pro lifers revel in human misery as much as they do?

From where did the insane idea that life with no quality has absolute value come?

Sparing future generations the dystopia that awaits them is the ultimate act of kindness,

so of course, inherently cruel conservatives are opposed to it.

How did such vicious souls come into being?

Can a sane person possibly believe in a divine creator?

I cannot see how, no matter how hard I might try,

although frankly, I stopped trying long ago.:palm:
 
Hawkeye10 said:
The law is whatever the Overlords say it is today.
Click to expand...

No.

The law is pretty clear here.

All children have certain rights, such as not having their lives ended simply because they cannot get a medical procedure.

You cannot dispose of a child and say your reason is 'there was no medical procedure available for them so we disposed of them' and not be subject to being sued and/or jailed.
 
QP! said:
No.

The law is pretty clear here.

All children have certain rights, such as not having their lives ended simply because they cannot get a medical procedure.

You cannot dispose of a child and say your reason is 'there was no medical procedure available for them so we disposed of them' and not be subject to being sued and/or jailed.
Click to expand...
there's not a single bit of worry if there's no negligence in caring for the embryos... And disposing of them properly with parental consent as stated in the contract... which is always a part of IVF treatment.
 
TOP said:
there's not a single bit of worry if there's no negligence in caring for the embryos... And disposing of them properly with parental consent as stated in the contract... which is always a part of IVF treatment.
Click to expand...

As always you expose your stupidity and do not understand that you did.

No parent can simply sign a contract to throw away and kill their children, if that child cannot get access to a medical treatment.

What you do not understand, in your stupidity, is the contracts that allowed them to do that BEFORE they were deemed children and treated as property, DOES NOT protect the clinic or parents, AFTER it is determined they are children.



It is similar to changing the month an abortion can take place as many States are doing based on when they recognize the fetus as a child. If you change it from 3 months to 6 weeks then the day before the change, the parents and clinic could have the abortion at 3 months and NOT be charged with murder, and the day after the law changed, if you have an abortion at 3 months, even if you scheduled it and had agreement with the abortion clinic PRIOR, you will still be charged with murder.

What changed? The answer is the date the Fetus was recognized as a child.

And what has changed here. The embryo is now recognized as a child.

You CANNOT dispose of children in either instance and no contract cancels the law.

But again you are so stupid you will reply 'laws do not count re killing children if people consent via contract'
 
QP! said:
As always you expose your stupidity and do not understand that you did.

No parent can simply sign a contract to throw away and kill their children, if that child cannot get access to a medical treatment.

What you do not understand, in your stupidity, is the contracts that allowed them to do that BEFORE they were deemed children and treated as property, DOES NOT protect the clinic or parents, AFTER it is determined they are children.



It is similar to changing the month an abortion can take place as many States are doing based on when they recognize the fetus as a child. If you change it from 3 months to 6 weeks then the day before the change, the parents and clinic could have the abortion at 3 months and NOT be charged with murder, and the day after the law changed, if you have an abortion at 3 months, even if you scheduled it and had agreement with the abortion clinic PRIOR, you will still be charged with murder.

What changed? The answer is the date the Fetus was recognized as a child.

And what has changed here. The embryo is now recognized as a child.

You CANNOT dispose of children in either instance and no contract cancels the law.

But again you are so stupid you will reply 'laws do not count re killing children if people consent via contract'
Click to expand...

That's not what the law says... and you're very confused about abortion laws but that's all right .. simply avoid having to participate in IVF in Alabama and don't get an abortion... there would have been no need for the IDF ruling in Alabama had the clinic not been completely negligent and destroyed chances of families ever being able to have children... I have no idea why anyone Wouldn't see the value and the need for that kind of law...
 
TOP said:
that's not what the law says...
Click to expand...

As usual, you are wrong. So tell us, Toxic Esquire, if that is not what the ruling says, why is the Alabama legislature scrambling to pass law that will restore IVF and clarify that disposing of unused embryos is not murder?

Alabama House and Senate approve bills aimed at protecting in vitro fertilization after personhood ruling

The Alabama House and Senate each passed bills Thursday aimed at protecting in vitro fertilization treatments as state lawmakers raced to respond to the state Supreme Court ruling that prompted IVF clinics to pause parts of treatments and left many families in limbo.

The House bill, known as HB 237, passed out of the chamber with a vote of 94-6 with 3 abstentions. A companion bill in the Senate, SB 159, passed with a vote of 34-0.

Sponsored by Rep. Terri Collins and Sen. Tim Melson, the bills “would provide civil and criminal immunity to persons providing goods and services related to in vitro fertilization except acts or omission that are intentional and not arising from or related to IVF services,” according to the synopsis.
Click to expand...
 
Excellent ruling in Alabama and necessary... Doctors and clinics will step up their game and not be So careless with what is potentially a family's only option to have children...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top