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.Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
Senior Member
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.
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.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.
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!
Last edited by Tgo01; 02-23-2024 at 03:08 PM.
Senior Member
IVF inevitably results in the destruction of embryos, which Alabama now forbids. Hospitals that do not want to break the law cannot perform IVF.
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.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
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.
Last edited by Tgo01; 02-23-2024 at 03:40 PM.
Senior Member
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.
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.
You mean this part?
Who, in your shit eating world, would be the "personal representative" of the embryo if the parents decide not to sue?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.
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?
Last edited by Tgo01; 02-23-2024 at 04:09 PM.
Senior Member
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.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.
Senior Member
[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?
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.
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":
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."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.
Further:
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.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.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
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.
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?
Reply With Quote
