Frozen Babies in Alabama

As you surely heard by now, the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that extra frozen embryos from fertilization treatments are people, and they said anybody who destroys one can be charged with homicide. But they haven't said what should happen to the frozen babies that they granted personhood. Are their parents committing a crime by keeping them frozen? If their parents die, will the frozen babies get a cut of the inheritance?

This is what the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court wrote in his official opinion in the case..

Quote:

---

In summary, the theologically based view of the sanctity of life adopted by the People of Alabama encompasses the following: (1) God made every person in His image; (2) each person therefore has a value that far exceeds the ability of human beings to calculate; and (3) 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. Section 36.06 recognizes that this is true of unborn human life no less than it is of all other human life -- that even before birth, all human beings bear the image of God, and their lives cannot be destroyed without effacing his glory.

More...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ClydeR

and they said anybody who destroys one can be charged with homicide.

---

No. No the supreme court didn't say that. What they said was under the Alabama "Wrongful Death of a Minor Act", parents can sue if their child is wrongfully killed, even if that child is an embryo that is located outside of a womb.

You can disagree with the court's decision all you like, but is it too much to ask for you to get at least the very basics of the case right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

You can disagree with the court's decision all you like, but is it too much to ask for you to get at least the very basics of the case right?

---

You know it is . . .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ClydeR

As you surely heard by now, the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that extra frozen embryos from fertilization treatments are people, and they said anybody who destroys one can be charged with homicide. But they haven't said what should happen to the frozen babies that they granted personhood. Are their parents committing a crime by keeping them frozen? If their parents die, will the frozen babies get a cut of the inheritance?

This is what the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court wrote in his official opinion in the case..

---

Was there ever a time when one group of human beings granted another group of human beings "personhood" and were they affiliated with any political party?

https://media.tenor.com/dp_hQBGT0rIA...hink-smart.gif

Quote:

---

Feb 22 (Reuters) - At least three Alabama providers of in vitro fertilization have halted treatments since the state Supreme Court on Friday said frozen embryos in test tubes should be considered children, casting doubt on future access to the procedure in the state.

The ruling by the court, whose elected judges are all Republican, has left doctors and patients wondering how to legally store, transport, and use embryos in Alabama.

Health advocates say by enshrining the idea of "fetal personhood," the ruling could also inspire further restrictions on women's reproductive freedom around the United States.

More...

---

They have a new excruciating nitrogen gas method of executing killers in Alabama. Nobody is going to risk it. If you can't have a baby in the normal way, then you need to move somewhere else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ClydeR

If you can't have a baby in the normal way, then you need to move somewhere else.

---

Not having humans is better than killing humans.

I don't support capital punishment, sooo, not sure what you're argument is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ClydeR

They have a new excruciating nitrogen gas method of executing killers in Alabama. Nobody is going to risk it. If you can't have a baby in the normal way, then you need to move somewhere else.

---

You don’t live in Alabama. As a middle aged gama male, society has judged for the survival of the human race that your genes should not be passed down to the next generation. Therefore, I struggle to understand why you are so worked up about this. It has absolutely 0 impact to you personally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neveragain

Not having humans is better than killing humans.

I don't support capital punishment, sooo, not sure what you're argument is.

---

I’m not sure ClydeR knows what his argument is, but I’d wager he is having a good cry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ClydeR

They have a new excruciating nitrogen gas method of executing killers in Alabama. Nobody is going to risk it. If you can't have a baby in the normal way, then you need to move somewhere else.

---

I'll give you a quarter pass for this one because you didn't specifically say that the court enshrined "fetal personhood" in this case, but you're still 75% responsible because you went out of your way to find a dumb article that understands the issue less than even you do apparently.

The court didn't enshrine "fetal personhood" in this case. Once again, all the supreme court did was say the "Wrongful Death of a Minor Act" law doesn't make an exception for an embryo located outside of the womb, thus IN THE CASE OF THIS ONE SPECIFIC LAW, an embryo is considered a child and thus a lawsuit can be brought against the hospital for the wrongful death of their children. You see, this is how courts are supposed to operate: they read and interpret the law to decide if the law is constitutional and they also decide what the law does and does not say. They don't act like Democrats when they control the US supreme court and just create law out of thin air.

The Alabama congress can just as easily make an amendment to this law tomorrow which states embryos located outside of the womb don't count as a child in regards to the "Wrongful Death of a Minor Act" and the Alabama supreme court would presumably say "Okay that's fine."

Once again, you can disagree with the ruling all you like, but can you get the very basics right before you go around spreading literal fake news?

Also these lawsuits were brought about because these families trusted this hospital to safeguard their embryos and protect them. Instead they allowed a patient to wander around the hospital and access the freezer where the embryos were being stored and the patient killed several embryos. The hospital didn't have a secured area only accessible by employees by a locked door and keypad, the freezer didn't have a lock on it, apparently they didn't even bother to have a security guard to make sure patients didn't just start opening up freezer doors.

You people are more upset that the Alabama supreme court said the law as written doesn't make an exception for embryos than you are at the hospital for not even having the most basic of safeguards in place to ensure this didn't happen in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

you went out of your way to find a dumb article that understands the issue less than even you do apparently.

---

Have you even read a ClydeR post before in the past 20 years?

This is all he does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ClydeR

As you surely heard by now, the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that extra frozen embryos from fertilization treatments are people, and they said anybody who destroys one can be charged with homicide. But they haven't said what should happen to the frozen babies that they granted personhood. Are their parents committing a crime by keeping them frozen? If their parents die, will the frozen babies get a cut of the inheritance?

This is what the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court wrote in his official opinion in the case..

---

Because this clearly needed its own thread.

Actual photo of you every time you create a new attention thread, which is like 94932749820 per week:

https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/...47/127/488.jpg

As explained in the article below, some legislators from both parties in Alabama are hoping to pass a bill that will protect IVF patients and doctors from prosecution under the new Alabama court ruling. Until and unless it passes, anybody with frozen embryos is in extreme legal jeopardy.

Quote:

---

Six days after Alabama's Supreme Court ruled that frozen embryos are "children," upending in vitro fertilization treatments, a Republican state senator said he plans to introduce a bill that would protect IVF statewide.

State Sen. Tim Melson, who chairs the Senate's Health Care Committee, said the bill would clarify that embryos are not viable unless they are implanted in a uterus.

In its decision, the State Supreme Court gave frozen embryos the same rights as children.

More...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ClydeR

As explained in the article below, some legislators from both parties in Alabama are hoping to pass a bill that will protect IVF patients and doctors from prosecution under the new Alabama court ruling. Until and unless it passes, anybody with frozen embryos is in extreme legal jeopardy.

---

You should abort yourself to show solidarity with the "abortion at any time" crowd.

Otherwise you're just all talk.

Quote:

---

State Sen. Tim Melson, who chairs the Senate's Health Care Committee, said the bill would clarify that embryos are not viable unless they are implanted in a uterus.

---

Oh hey look, they are looking to do exactly what I said they could do. Almost as if the Alabama supreme court didn't rule that embryos are people because the Alabama supreme court didn't create a law out of thin air like Democrat judges do.

I do like this bit of misleading bullshit from NPR though:

Quote:

---

The court ruling came in a lawsuit by couples whose frozen embryos were accidentally destroyed in a clinic.

---

As if a trained medical professional accidentally killed the embryos while he was doing official medical stuff, totally leaving out the part that a PATIENT was allowed to rummage through the freezer where the embryos were kept and the patient was the one who killed the embryos.

Just want to get the facts straight for anyone who might actually be taking Clyder's or NPR's words seriously and thinking they have the slightest fucking clue what they are talking about.

So much for the separation of church and church and state in the United States Constitution

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seran

So much for the separation of church and church and state in the United States Constitution

---

Oh boy, just when I thought this thread couldn't get any dumber, Seran comes along to prove that there is always room to make things dumber.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seran

church and church and state

---

https://media.tenor.com/4opamcAljRQA...augh-smile.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

Oh boy, just when I thought this thread couldn't get any dumber, Seran comes along to prove that there is always room to make things dumber.

---

To our amusement, Seran earns his PC GOAT Retard Champion status on the daily.

Seran: Please expand upon your position and explain to us why this is unconstitutional on the grounds of separation of church & state.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seran

So much for the separation of church and church and state in the United States Constitution

---

Jesus.. you even studder when you write.

Alabama's chief judge, who wrote the part of the recent ruling that I quoted in the first post, recently appeared on a QAnon show..

Quote:

---

Alabama Chief Justice Tom Parker, who wrote the concurring opinion in last week’s explosive Alabama Supreme Court ruling that frozen embryos have the same rights as living children, recently appeared on a show hosted by self-anointed “prophet” and QAnon conspiracy theorist.

More...

---

Quote:

---

"God created government," he told Enlow, adding that it's "heartbreaking" that "we have let it go into the possession of others."

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ClydeR

Alabama's chief judge, who wrote the part of the recent ruling that I quoted in the first post, recently appeared on a QAnon show..

---

Huffpost?

Bro... you are just going to force sErAn to one up you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parkbandit

Huffpost?

Bro... you are just going to force sErAn to one up you.

---

It’s like the two are competing in the PC Special Olympics.
https://cdn.quotesgram.com/img/43/0/...anRetarded.jpg

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State" ~Thomas Jefferson

By applying religious dogma to judicial decision or law, the Christian Fundie judge violated both the establishment clause and separation clause of the US Constitution.

Quote:

---

The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.' [...] The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. 330 U.S. 1, 15-16 and 18. Everson v. Board of Education, Supreme Court of the United States.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seran

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State" ~Thomas Jefferson

By applying religious dogma to judicial decision or law, the Christian Fundie judge violated both the establishment clause and separation clause of the US Constitution.

---

There are many religious things in government. You misinterpret, either through ignorance, omission or you are just plain retarded.. the phrase "separation of church and State"

Just stop.

ClydeR was just kidding about the huffpost link.. he does not want to step into the ring with you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seran

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State" ~Thomas Jefferson

By applying religious dogma to judicial decision or law, the Christian Fundie judge violated both the establishment clause and separation clause of the US Constitution.

---

Do you even read the material that you reference?

If the American government were to establish the Church of England as its official religion (example), that would violate the 1st Amendment and separation of church and state.

People, such as judges, being morally guided through whatever their religion is in whatever action they take, is in no way a violation of the Constitution. You do realize that our founding fathers were Christian and that those values & moral principles are rooted in our country, correct?

God bless America.

Quote:

---

Officials said Biden now plans to address access to IVF, and the fallout from the Alabama decision, during his State of the Union address on March 7, with the possibility of the White House inviting a guest who was affected by the ruling to attend the speech.

More...

---

It appears Biden has been reading this forum again.

Quote:

---

with the possibility of the White House inviting a guest who was affected by the ruling to attend the speech.

---

Hilarious. Who, other than the parents who lost their embryos due to the hospital's gross negligence, and the hospital who engaged in gross negligence, was affected by the supreme court's ruling?

Why do Democrats just make shit up? Oh, right, because their base (read Seran and time4NaziLoving) love eating shit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

Why do Democrats just make shit up? Oh, right, because their base (read Seran and time4NaziLoving) love eating shit.

---

Nobody is excited to vote for Joe Biden. Not even Seran. Therefore, they must campaign on “ZOMG, MAGA IS TRYING TO TAKE AWAY YOUR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS!!!” to energize their base of incels & man-haters.

To their credit, it has historically worked in recent elections. Republicans must find a way to reveal the truth to uninformed voters instead of letting them control the narrative.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ClydeR

It appears Biden has been reading this forum again.

---

You are on a retard roll today! You haven't made such stupid statements since you tried to explain the number of illegals crossing the southern border as a Trump issue.

Maybe you should take the rest of the day off.. so sErAn can catch up to your stupidity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

Who, other than the parents who lost their embryos due to the hospital's gross negligence, and the hospital who engaged in gross negligence, was affected by the supreme court's ruling?

---

Are you doing setups for me? Who else, you asked, could be impacted? This lady..

Quote:

---

Emily Capilouto, 36, also cried because of the ruling, but her tears were prompted by despair. She had struggled for years to have a child. Now she was nearing the end of an I.V.F. cycle, when one of the embryos she and her husband had produced would be transferred to her uterus. But on Wednesday, she learned that her clinic at the University of Alabama at Birmingham health system was halting I.V.F. treatments in response to the ruling.

“I don’t know what this means now,” Ms. Capilouto said on Wednesday, minutes after learning that her dream of having a child would be indefinitely suspended.

Questions like hers are echoing across the country after the court’s ruling, which was handed down Feb. 16. The potential national implications remain unclear, but many women in Alabama are wondering how this new classification for embryos — one rooted in a religious belief — will affect their own journeys toward motherhood, a process that for many who seek I.V.F. is already filled with emotional and physical pain.

More...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet

Do you even read the material that you reference?

If the American government were to establish the Church of England as its official religion (example), that would violate the 1st Amendment and separation of church and state.

People, such as judges, being morally guided through whatever their religion is in whatever action they take, is in no way a violation of the Constitution. You do realize that our founding fathers were Christian and that those values & moral principles are rooted in our country, correct?

God bless America.

---

You evidently didn't read the Supreme Court opinion which was cited, if you had you wouldn't be so stupid as to believe citing Christian beliefs as a reason to infringe upon rights is unconstitutional.

Quote:

---

Emily Capilouto, 36, also cried because of the ruling, but her tears were prompted by despair. She had struggled for years to have a child. Now she was nearing the end of an I.V.F. cycle, when one of the embryos she and her husband had produced would be transferred to her uterus. But on Wednesday, she learned that her clinic at the University of Alabama at Birmingham health system was halting I.V.F. treatments in response to the ruling.

---

That's the clinic being a bunch of pussies, not surprisingly at a left leaning university so they can drum up some outrage at this.

No where in the ruling does it state IVF is illegal. No where in the ruling does it state IVF clinics must be shutdown.

The ruling simply states that if you wrongly kill an embryo then you are liable. Here's an idea to the IVF clinics: put locks on your doors, put locks on the freezers, and maybe hire a security guard or two so patients can't just open up a freezer and kill embryos.

But that makes too much sense right? Much better to shut down IVF clinics so shitheads like Biden can feed people like you shit and claim it was the ruling itself that is to blame, not the clinics playing politics!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

No where in the ruling does it state IVF is illegal. No where in the ruling does it state IVF clinics must be shutdown.

---

IVF inevitably results in the destruction of embryos, which Alabama now forbids. Hospitals that do not want to break the law cannot perform IVF.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ClydeR

which Alabama now forbids.

---

No it doesn't.

Here is the relevant part of the law. You do remember there was a law in question here and it wasn't just the supreme court granting personhood rights to embryos that you made up, right?

Quote:

---

When the death of a minor child is caused by the wrongful act, omission, or negligence of any person, persons, or corporation, or the servants or agents of either

---

Notice key words: wrongful act or negligence.

If the parents say hey, we just need the one embryo, you can go ahead and destroy the other embryos, then it is no longer a "wrongful act" or "negligence."

You are just so wildly misinformed about this topic that it is beginning to become one of the modern wonders of the world.

Just because you like to eat shit fed to you by your politicians, doesn't mean I like to eat shit.

Oh yeah, not to mention that destruction of embryos is NOT required in IVF. The parents can choose to donate the embryos. But keep on eating that shit.

Not everybody has a good understanding of IVF, which is understandable since it is outside the territory of birds and bees. Embryos can be accidentally destroyed in the process. Some people might call that negligence. Then there is the role of chance, which is impacted by the number of embryos implanted. Chance of success and chance of harm to the embryos are both influenced in opposing ways by that decision. Intentionally increasing one chance at the expense of the other might be called by some people a wrongful act. The Alabama Supreme Court's decision created too much uncertainty for any responsible institution to proceed with IVF. Even the creation of multiple embryos might be viewed as wrongful, when it is obvious from the outset that most of them will need to be destroyed.

If you read the law in question, you will see that it is not just the parents who have the right to sue.

Finally, the court's opinion was so broad and based so heavily on authorities outside the normal legal sphere that no one can be certain of its limits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ClydeR

Embryos can be accidentally destroyed in the process. Some people might call that negligence. Then there is the role of chance, which is impacted by the number of embryos implanted. Chance of success and chance of harm to the embryos are both influenced in opposing ways by that decision. Intentionally increasing one chance at the expense of the other might be called by some people a wrongful act.

---

Again you're just making shit up. "Negligence" is a real, defined word in the legal sense, it doesn't just mean "Oops! This person died! Must be negligence!" They would have to prove that the doctor in question did something demonstrably dangerous that no other doctor would have done in order to prove negligence. And here's a crazy idea: maybe the doctor SHOULD be sued if he fucked up so badly that even other doctors are like "Dude..."

Here I'll give you an example of negligence versus not negligence, using this particular case in question!
Not negligence: The power to the hospital was shut off due to a natural disaster, the hospital's backup generator failed. The hospital tried everything they could to save the embryos but they couldn't find a way to transport the embryos to another working freezer.
Negligence: Allowing a patient to open the freezer where the embryos are stored and dropping the embryos on the ground.

Also claiming that using more than one embryo to increase the chance of success is a "wrongful act" is so laughably stupid I don't even know where to begin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ClydeR

If you read the law in question, you will see that it is not just the parents who have the right to sue.

---

You mean this part?

Quote:

---

if the father and mother are both dead or if they decline to commence the action, or fail to do so, within six months from the death of the minor, the personal representative of the minor may commence an action.

---

Who, in your shit eating world, would be the "personal representative" of the embryo if the parents decide not to sue?

Look, Clyder, I know you're a troll who has been trolling these forums for well over a decade now, but isn't it time you stopped spreading obvious fake news in a sad and pathetic attempt to make yourself sound smart?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

No it doesn't.

Here is the relevant part of the law. You do remember there was a law in question here and it wasn't just the supreme court granting personhood rights to embryos that you made up, right?



Notice key words: wrongful act or negligence.

If the parents say hey, we just need the one embryo, you can go ahead and destroy the other embryos, then it is no longer a "wrongful act" or "negligence."

You are just so wildly misinformed about this topic that it is beginning to become one of the modern wonders of the world.

Just because you like to eat shit fed to you by your politicians, doesn't mean I like to eat shit.

Oh yeah, not to mention that destruction of embryos is NOT required in IVF. The parents can choose to donate the embryos. But keep on eating that shit.

---

You're an idiot. The Alabama Supreme Court decision redefined the definition of a minor child, and does not limit it to purely in the scope of a single law.

Quote:

---

The upshot here is that the phrase "minor child" means the same thing in the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act as it does in everyday parlance: "an unborn or recently born" individual member of the human species, from fertilization until the age of majority.

---

By redefining what is and is not a "minor child" they're saying the Act extends to embryos.

[QUOTE=Tgo01;2303101]Again you're just making shit up. "Negligence" is a real, defined word in the legal sense, it doesn't just mean "Oops! This person died! Must be negligence!" They would have to prove that the doctor in question did something demonstrably dangerous that no other doctor would have done in order to prove negligence. And here's a crazy idea: maybe the doctor SHOULD be sued if he fucked up so badly that even other doctors are like "Dude..."[ /QUOTE]

Defining "negligence" in that was is negligent!


[QUOTE=Tgo01;2303101]Also claiming that using more than one embryo to increase the chance of success is a "wrongful act" is so laughably stupid I don't even know where to begin.[ /QUOTE]

Until it has been litigated, nobody knows that "wrongful act" means in that statute. Who wants to be the defendant in the case that decides it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

Who, in your shit eating world, would be the "personal representative" of the embryo if the parents decide not to sue?

---

It could be me. It could be former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, who was the last Alabama Chief Justice to get our attention. It could be Tommy Tuberville. It could be a grandparent or sibling of the deceased frozen baby. The point is that it's easy for you to say that doctors should take chances in the face of uncertain laws. You would not be so eager if you were the one at legal risk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seran

You're an idiot. The Alabama Supreme Court decision redefined the definition of a minor child, and does not limit it to purely in the scope of a single law.



By redefining what is and is not a "minor child" they're saying the Act extends to embryos.

---

Are you sure you know how to read?

What you quoted there is stating that "everyday parlance" extends to the "Wrongful Death of a Minor Act", meaning the wrongful death law defines a child the same way as it does in other language, NOT the other way around as you are suggesting.

The supreme court did NOT "redefine" anything, rather, the supreme court is saying the way the wrongful death act is worded, and the way the state of Alabama defines a child, means an embryo is a child whether that embryo is inside of a uterus or not.

Here is from the actual written decision itself, not filtered through your favorite MSNBC activist "journalist":

Quote:

---

All parties to these cases, like all members of this Court, agree that an unborn child is a genetically unique human being whose life begins at fertilization and ends at death. The parties further agree that an unborn child usually qualifies as a "human life," "human being," or "person," as those words are used in ordinary conversation and in the text of Alabama's wrongful-death statutes. That is true, as everyone acknowledges, throughout all stages of an unborn child's development, regardless of viability.

---

Meaning even the clinic in question agrees that an embryo is a human life and killing the embryo would run afoul of Alabama's "Wrongful Death of a Minor Act."

Further:

Quote:

---

The question on which the parties disagree is whether there exists an unwritten exception to that rule for unborn children who are not physically located "in utero" -- that is, inside a biological uterus -- at the time they are killed. The defendants argue that this Court should recognize such an exception because, they say, an unborn child ceases to qualify as a "child or "person" if that child is not contained within a biological womb.

---

Quote:

---

These are weighty concerns. But these cases do not require the Court to resolve them because, as explained below, neither the text of the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act nor this Court's precedents exclude extrauterine children from the Act's coverage. Unborn children are "children" under the Act, without exception based on developmental stage, physical location, or any other ancillary characteristics. 1. The Text of the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act Applies to All Children, Without Exception

---

So, yes. The entire case, all of it, centers around the "The Wrongful Death of a Minor Act" and if there is an exception to the act in which an embryo outside of the uterus is no longer considered a "child", which the court determined there is no such exception written into Alabama state law. Since the judges aren't activist Democrat judges this means the state congress can write an exception into the law if they so desire, which is what the state is apparently looking into. If these were activist Democrat judges and they did indeed redefine what a child is then the state congress' hands would be tied, similar to what SCOTUS did with Roe v Wade.

You can't help being stupid, Seran, that's just how you were born, but it's a choice to continue to wallow in your ignorance. Do better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ClydeR

It could be me. It could be former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, who was the last Alabama Chief Justice to get our attention. It could be Tommy Tuberville. It could be a grandparent or sibling of the deceased frozen baby.

---

Much like your lack of knowledge of this court case and IVF, you apparently don't know what a "personal representative" is.

A personal representative is someone who takes care of someone's personal estate after they are dead.

A personal representative is chosen in two ways:
1) The dead person chose their representative before they died
2) The court appointed someone to manage the estate of the deceased.

So for 1, I would like you explain to the class how an embryo chose their own representative.

And for 2, a court would only appoint someone for a child if their parents/legal guardians are mentally unable to handle the duties of being a personal representative (which seems unlikely since they are doing IVF), or 2, if the parents are dead, which they aren't because...well they are doing IVF.

Even if there was some freak accident where both parents are killed and then the embryo was killed, why in the world would the court appoint a personal representative to manage the estate of an embryo?

Can you and Seran just feed each other shit? Why do you both keep trying to feed everyone else your shit?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

Even if there was some freak accident where both parents are killed and then the embryo was killed, why in the world would the court appoint a personal representative to manage the estate of an embryo?

---

If the embryo has a reasonable cause of action and an eager advocate, then the court will appoint someone.

There are people in this world, including some lawyers, who will sue without a moral belief in the rightness of their cause, purely out of a desire for money. That is who would ask to be appointed as a personal representative. Better not to give them the chance. Defensive medicine. There are factors behind the scenes, such as doctor and hospital malpractice insurers, affecting these decisions.

Everyone besides ClydeR...


Why are you debating a troll?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage

Everyone besides ClydeR...


Why are you debating a troll?

---

https://media1.tenor.com/m/9yKtjBXc9.../friday-my.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage

Everyone besides ClydeR...


Why are you debating a troll?

---

I'm just waiting for him to switch back over to Latrin to post another "On the <insert massive Latrinsorm scared of everything stupidity>..." thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ClydeR

If the embryo has a reasonable cause of action and an eager advocate, then the court will appoint someone.

There are people in this world, including some lawyers, who will sue without a moral belief in the rightness of their cause, purely out of a desire for money. That is who would ask to be appointed as a personal representative. Better not to give them the chance. Defensive medicine. There are factors behind the scenes, such as doctor and hospital malpractice insurers, affecting these decisions.

---

It's almost as if you're referring to each of Trump's current and past lawyers. The number sanctioned, disbarred, or in prison speaks for itself. That fact and how many have gone unpaid has quickly eroded the quality of who is still willing to represent crazy tho.