(02-24-2024 09:24 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  We need less kids. Overpopulation is what is going to kill the earth, not automobiles and plastic bags. But how do we achieve that? Through a Planned Parenthood program of eugenics? Through a Hitler-like program of extermination, starting with the youngest and most vulnerable? IDK.

I agree with the ruling that they are human children.

Lots of people disagree with the idea that frozen embryos sitting in a lab are children.

Left alone, those embryos will not become humans. The critical step of having these embryos successfully implant into a woman’s uterus is missing. Sort of like if you leave sperm alone, it will not become a human. You are missing the critical step of the sperm successfully linking up with a egg, and then the next step of implantation into a uterus. I’m going to assume that you don’t consider sperm to be human children.

Quote:Only Progressives think they are property, to be disposed of like trash.

You are truly the king of throwing out terms like only, all, and every.

I am baffled that you are seemingly not aware that there are pro-choice Republicans.

(02-24-2024 12:39 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-24-2024 09:24 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  We need less kids. Overpopulation is what is going to kill the earth, not automobiles and plastic bags. But how do we achieve that? Through a Planned Parenthood program of eugenics? Through a Hitler-like program of extermination, starting with the youngest and most vulnerable? IDK.

I agree with the ruling that they are human children.

Lots of people disagree with the idea that frozen embryos sitting in a lab are children.

Left alone, those embryos will not become humans. The critical step of having these embryos successfully implant into a woman’s uterus is missing. Sort of like if you leave sperm alone, it will not become a human. You are missing the critical step of the sperm successfully linking up with a egg, and then the next step of implantation into a uterus. I’m going to assume that you don’t consider sperm to be human children.

I have said quite often that I consider them to be children from the moment of the union of sperm and egg. I don't know if it a lack of read, a lack of comprehension, or a lack of remembering, or a combination, but I sure find myself having to repeat a lot for you. Like now.

So, once again, no, I don't consider a sperm or an egg, alone to be a human being. But I do consider the union to be ahuman, in the earliests stages of a development that wll not be finished for decades.
 
By the way, a newborn abandoned in a park also will not survive. the critical step of having someone who cares is missing.

Quote:[quote]

Only Progressives think they are property, to be disposed of like trash.

[quote]
[quote]
You are truly the king of throwing out terms like only, all, and every.

And terms like
whadaboutism?

Quote:I am baffled that you are seemingly not aware that there are pro-choice Republicans.

I am baffled that you are not aware that I AM a pro-choice Republican, in that I (a) think we need to find a compromise between legal and illegal abortion, and (b) do not think that mere humanity insolates people from being killed in many different ways legally.

Is it just a need to oppose me at every turn that makes you ignore my longtime, repeated statements? I stated my opinions for the Nth time, and here you come.

Once again, I have said MANY times that as a person who saw life before and after RvW. I see good and bad in both positions and therefore support a compromise. I guess it is just your reliance on stereotyping me that makes you think I am a supporter of a ban. a position that it is a human life is NOT identical to a position supporting an abortion ban. Duh.

You do bring up an interesting question. At what point in the development of a human being do they become human? I opt for the moment of union, but it seems you think maybe the implantation would be a better moment. Some other possible answers are birth or age 18. Plenty of evidence teenagers are not human.


In any case, the development of a human child is fraught with dangers that can interrupt the smooth flow. Car wrecks, illegal drug overdoses, cancer, parental abuse, abortion by a mother who does not want a child, literally hundreds of actions can interrupt development before full development. Many of them involve death of the developing human, but not all.

(02-24-2024 12:39 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Lots of people disagree with the idea that frozen embryos sitting in a lab are children.

What are they? Disposable assets? Real estate?

Quote:Left alone, those embryos will not become humans.

And if not left alone? What is the difference between an embryo implanted and nourished and loved for the next few decades and the embryos thrown in the trash? Some are human, the others trash? I think they are all the same, but you tell me how you differentiate which are developing children and which are like leftover grains of rice on a plate. I just see a difference in treatment, not in substance.

Per ABC News, Alabama State Senator ® pushing for embryos to NOT be considered children until the embryo is implanted. Must have been talking to 93.

I think maybe we should define them as non human until they are potty trained.

(02-23-2024 01:52 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Nope. I'm saying that this is an essentially a play stupid games, win stupid prizes situation.

When you appoint judges like this who have worldviews that IMO should be disqualifying you get more and more extreme rulings.

But, yes... it all starts with the legislators that push forward these bills and presumably this type of thing will be harder and harder for the GOP to defend.

What world view are you talking about?? I'm sorry to be hounding this, but you seem to think that a court deciding that the legislature has the power to do something means that they will. The world view these judges seem to have is that states should be making these decisions... not courts nor the Feds... and that is a basic ideal of Republicanism... and not some 'stupid game'.

The Supreme Court decided that the previous court/Supreme Court over-stepped its Constitutional bounds by making abortion a FEDERAL as opposed to a state issue. They did NOT make abortion illegal. The STATES certainly can... but so too could a highly conservative SCOTUS.... or a highly conservative state court.

If they had done that, I would agree with you.



It is a simple question of where the power lies.... IOW, are we reflecting the views of the nation as a whole, which strongly skews towards large population bases, or are the people actually represented locally? Republican vs Democrat government.

(02-23-2024 02:24 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Also, people in these states, notably IVF practitioners, now have a great deal of uncertainty around whether their practice could be construed as being illegal under existing laws. Hence why they have stopped offering said services.

I think this is mostly activists trying to make a statement, because the court ruling only says that the state CAN pass a law to make it illegal. The article as I recall specifically said that there was nothing on the books at the moment... so there is really no legal reason for them to stop offering services. They may not want to start consulting with someone and doing testing if they think the state might ban the procedure before they can complete it, but that's a business decision... not a legal one.

Even if it does, that doesn't make it wrong to correct a problem, reflecting the will of the population... it just makes it inconvenient until actual legislation is passed to reflect the new reality....

as in.....

(02-24-2024 07:57 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Per ABC News, Alabama State Senator ® pushing for embryos to NOT be considered children until the embryo is implanted. Must have been talking to 93.

Though this to me is a 'stupid game'... because they're basically arguing with the court for no purpose I see. I think instead they simply pass a law establishing that the state will not step in until some point after implant.... which could be microseconds after implant... or 9 weeks or 24 weeks or 24 years... depending on the will of the people/the actions of the legislature.

Quote:I think this is mostly activists trying to make a statement, because the court ruling only says that the state CAN pass a law to make it illegal. The article as I recall specifically said that there was nothing on the books at the moment... so there is really no legal reason for them to stop offering services. They may not want to start consulting with someone and doing testing if they think the state might ban the procedure before they can complete it, but that's a business decision... not a legal one.

It is absolutely a legal decision, Ham. Explicitly one regarding civil liability exposure, and a very decent potential for criminal exposure under the ruling. Your interpretation is simply off base.

To clear up a misconception --- there *are* laws on the books that make the destruction of an unplanted embryo a wrongful act with this ruling. The state *has* passed a previous law -- which the Ala Sup Court deemed applied to in vitro emryos.

The Wrongful Death of a Minor Act in Alabama applies explicitly to 'test tube embryos', creating civil liability for anyone wrongfully destroying the contents of the test tube.

In the opinion, the Ala Supreme Court noted that in the Alabama's criminal homicide laws "expressly include[s] (and continues to include) unborn children as 'persons', 'regardless of viability.'

They declined to traipse into the criminal aspect of the issue, but the defendant's reliance on criminal law currently not covering extrauterine children was deemed to be immaterial -- and the court expressly left that issue open.

The Alabama Sup Court has absolutely declared that the 'death' of a test tube embryo subjects IVF providers to civil liability, and very openly and explicitly left the the door open to charging IVF providers with criminal liability.

In short, economics will kill the IVF procedure in Alabama. If *anything* happens to a test tube, at any time, there is absolutely and explicit potential wrongful death actions against the provider. And the Ala Sup Court has very loudly ripped the door wide open for the same practices to be criminally liable under a manslaughter charge for accidental destruction.

(02-24-2024 09:43 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(02-23-2024 01:52 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Nope. I'm saying that this is an essentially a play stupid games, win stupid prizes situation.

When you appoint judges like this who have worldviews that IMO should be disqualifying you get more and more extreme rulings.

But, yes... it all starts with the legislators that push forward these bills and presumably this type of thing will be harder and harder for the GOP to defend.

What world view are you talking about?? I'm sorry to be hounding this, but you seem to think that a court deciding that the legislature has the power to do something means that they will. The world view these judges seem to have is that states should be making these decisions... not courts nor the Feds... and that is a basic ideal of Republicanism... and not some 'stupid game'.

The Supreme Court decided that the previous court/Supreme Court over-stepped its Constitutional bounds by making abortion a FEDERAL as opposed to a state issue. They did NOT make abortion illegal. The STATES certainly can... but so too could a highly conservative SCOTUS.... or a highly conservative state court.

If they had done that, I would agree with you.



It is a simple question of where the power lies.... IOW, are we reflecting the views of the nation as a whole, which strongly skews towards large population bases, or are the people actually represented locally? Republican vs Democrat government.

(02-23-2024 02:24 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Also, people in these states, notably IVF practitioners, now have a great deal of uncertainty around whether their practice could be construed as being illegal under existing laws. Hence why they have stopped offering said services.

I think this is mostly activists trying to make a statement, because the court ruling only says that the state CAN pass a law to make it illegal. The article as I recall specifically said that there was nothing on the books at the moment... so there is really no legal reason for them to stop offering services. They may not want to start consulting with someone and doing testing if they think the state might ban the procedure before they can complete it, but that's a business decision... not a legal one.

Even if it does, that doesn't make it wrong to correct a problem, reflecting the will of the population... it just makes it inconvenient until actual legislation is passed to reflect the new reality....

as in.....

(02-24-2024 07:57 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Per ABC News, Alabama State Senator ® pushing for embryos to NOT be considered children until the embryo is implanted. Must have been talking to 93.

Though this to me is a 'stupid game'... because they're basically arguing with the court for no purpose I see. I think instead they simply pass a law establishing that the state will not step in until some point after implant.... which could be microseconds after implant... or 9 weeks or 24 weeks or 24 years... depending on the will of the people/the actions of the legislature.

I guess you’re calling the multiple IVF clinics that have stopped offering their services, over the concern of potential legal risks “activists”? Same for the shipping companies unwilling to transport embryos?

What if, and hear me out, there are real and actual legal risks that now exist that businesses, not activists, are responding to?

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/2-alabama-...=107455469

(02-23-2024 01:52 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  When you appoint judges like this who have worldviews that IMO should be disqualifying you get more and more extreme rulings.

But those views are not disqualifying to the people of Alabama. And it's the Supreme Court of Alabama, not the Supreme Court of Rice 93.

(02-25-2024 07:42 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-24-2024 09:43 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(02-23-2024 01:52 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Nope. I'm saying that this is an essentially a play stupid games, win stupid prizes situation.

When you appoint judges like this who have worldviews that IMO should be disqualifying you get more and more extreme rulings.

But, yes... it all starts with the legislators that push forward these bills and presumably this type of thing will be harder and harder for the GOP to defend.

What world view are you talking about?? I'm sorry to be hounding this, but you seem to think that a court deciding that the legislature has the power to do something means that they will. The world view these judges seem to have is that states should be making these decisions... not courts nor the Feds... and that is a basic ideal of Republicanism... and not some 'stupid game'.

The Supreme Court decided that the previous court/Supreme Court over-stepped its Constitutional bounds by making abortion a FEDERAL as opposed to a state issue. They did NOT make abortion illegal. The STATES certainly can... but so too could a highly conservative SCOTUS.... or a highly conservative state court.

If they had done that, I would agree with you.



It is a simple question of where the power lies.... IOW, are we reflecting the views of the nation as a whole, which strongly skews towards large population bases, or are the people actually represented locally? Republican vs Democrat government.

(02-23-2024 02:24 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Also, people in these states, notably IVF practitioners, now have a great deal of uncertainty around whether their practice could be construed as being illegal under existing laws. Hence why they have stopped offering said services.

I think this is mostly activists trying to make a statement, because the court ruling only says that the state CAN pass a law to make it illegal. The article as I recall specifically said that there was nothing on the books at the moment... so there is really no legal reason for them to stop offering services. They may not want to start consulting with someone and doing testing if they think the state might ban the procedure before they can complete it, but that's a business decision... not a legal one.

Even if it does, that doesn't make it wrong to correct a problem, reflecting the will of the population... it just makes it inconvenient until actual legislation is passed to reflect the new reality....

as in.....

(02-24-2024 07:57 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Per ABC News, Alabama State Senator ® pushing for embryos to NOT be considered children until the embryo is implanted. Must have been talking to 93.

Though this to me is a 'stupid game'... because they're basically arguing with the court for no purpose I see. I think instead they simply pass a law establishing that the state will not step in until some point after implant.... which could be microseconds after implant... or 9 weeks or 24 weeks or 24 years... depending on the will of the people/the actions of the legislature.

I guess you’re calling the multiple IVF clinics that have stopped offering their services, over the concern of potential legal risks “activists”? Same for the shipping companies unwilling to transport embryos?

What if, and hear me out, there are real and actual legal risks that now exist that businesses, not activists, are responding to?

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/2-alabama-...=107455469

I think there ARE legal risks that businesses are responding to. If I were a director of an IVF clinic, I would suspend business until the legal ramifications are clarified and/or corrected. If I were a legislator, I would be working on legislation that legally exempted IVF from civil or criminal penalties.

I think that is a separate matter from the question of when does human life begins.

(02-25-2024 01:25 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

Quote:I think this is mostly activists trying to make a statement, because the court ruling only says that the state CAN pass a law to make it illegal. The article as I recall specifically said that there was nothing on the books at the moment... so there is really no legal reason for them to stop offering services. They may not want to start consulting with someone and doing testing if they think the state might ban the procedure before they can complete it, but that's a business decision... not a legal one.

It is absolutely a legal decision, Ham. Explicitly one regarding civil liability exposure, and a very decent potential for criminal exposure under the ruling. Your interpretation is simply off base.

To clear up a misconception --- there *are* laws on the books that make the destruction of an unplanted embryo a wrongful act with this ruling. The state *has* passed a previous law -- which the Ala Sup Court deemed applied to in vitro emryos.

The Wrongful Death of a Minor Act in Alabama applies explicitly to 'test tube embryos', creating civil liability for anyone wrongfully destroying the contents of the test tube.

In the opinion, the Ala Supreme Court noted that in the Alabama's criminal homicide laws "expressly include[s] (and continues to include) unborn children as 'persons', 'regardless of viability.'

They declined to traipse into the criminal aspect of the issue, but the defendant's reliance on criminal law currently not covering extrauterine children was deemed to be immaterial -- and the court expressly left that issue open.

The Alabama Sup Court has absolutely declared that the 'death' of a test tube embryo subjects IVF providers to civil liability, and very openly and explicitly left the the door open to charging IVF providers with criminal liability.

In short, economics will kill the IVF procedure in Alabama. If *anything* happens to a test tube, at any time, there is absolutely and explicit potential wrongful death actions against the provider. And the Ala Sup Court has very loudly ripped the door wide open for the same practices to be criminally liable under a manslaughter charge for accidental destruction.

Seems pretty clear to me. So, unless the Alabama legislators change the present law, IVF is destined to disappear in that state. And if I were a fertility specialist using IVF in my practice there or other states with similar laws, I’d be making plans to go elsewhere.

(02-25-2024 09:03 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-23-2024 01:52 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  When you appoint judges like this who have worldviews that IMO should be disqualifying you get more and more extreme rulings.

But those views are not disqualifying to the people of Alabama. And it's the Supreme Court of Alabama, not the Supreme Court of Rice 93.

From what I have read, the judge relied heavily on theology and his interpretation of it. Getting close to, if not stepping over, the separation of church and state by making a legal decision based upon a specific religious framework.

(02-25-2024 10:08 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-25-2024 09:03 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-23-2024 01:52 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  When you appoint judges like this who have worldviews that IMO should be disqualifying you get more and more extreme rulings.

But those views are not disqualifying to the people of Alabama. And it's the Supreme Court of Alabama, not the Supreme Court of Rice 93.

From what I have read, the judge relied heavily on theology and his interpretation of it. Getting close to, if not stepping over, the separation of church and state by making a legal decision based upon a specific religious framework.

I thought this decision was a Supreme Court of Alabama decision, not the decision of a single judge. Is that incorrect?

Which amendment codifies the separation of church and state?

Are the decisions of atheist judges also tainted by bias?

IAC, I think this decision follows logic and science much more than it follows any religion.

(02-25-2024 10:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-25-2024 10:08 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-25-2024 09:03 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-23-2024 01:52 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  When you appoint judges like this who have worldviews that IMO should be disqualifying you get more and more extreme rulings.

But those views are not disqualifying to the people of Alabama. And it's the Supreme Court of Alabama, not the Supreme Court of Rice 93.

From what I have read, the judge relied heavily on theology and his interpretation of it. Getting close to, if not stepping over, the separation of church and state by making a legal decision based upon a specific religious framework.

I thought this decision was a Supreme Court of Alabama decision, not the decision of a single judge. Is that incorrect?

Which amendment codifies the separation of church and state?

Are the decisions of atheist judges also tainted by bias?

IAC, I think this decision follows logic and science much more than it follows any religion.

I'm speaking of the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court who has said things like "Human life cannot be wrongfully destroyed without incurring the wrath of a holy God" in the concurring opinion he penned.

Which amendment codifies the separation of church and state? Eh gads!!! It's the first. And this ignorance from a Rice grad...

Quote:The First Amendment's Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/establishment_clause

The issue isn't an inherent bias one way or the other, it's using religion as the foundation for decision making.

The Chief Justice said the quiet part out loud, to be frank. Basing a judicial ruling on a religious foundation seemingly opens the door for far clearer issues.

(02-25-2024 09:04 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-25-2024 07:42 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-24-2024 09:43 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(02-23-2024 01:52 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Nope. I'm saying that this is an essentially a play stupid games, win stupid prizes situation.

When you appoint judges like this who have worldviews that IMO should be disqualifying you get more and more extreme rulings.

But, yes... it all starts with the legislators that push forward these bills and presumably this type of thing will be harder and harder for the GOP to defend.

What world view are you talking about?? I'm sorry to be hounding this, but you seem to think that a court deciding that the legislature has the power to do something means that they will. The world view these judges seem to have is that states should be making these decisions... not courts nor the Feds... and that is a basic ideal of Republicanism... and not some 'stupid game'.

The Supreme Court decided that the previous court/Supreme Court over-stepped its Constitutional bounds by making abortion a FEDERAL as opposed to a state issue. They did NOT make abortion illegal. The STATES certainly can... but so too could a highly conservative SCOTUS.... or a highly conservative state court.

If they had done that, I would agree with you.



It is a simple question of where the power lies.... IOW, are we reflecting the views of the nation as a whole, which strongly skews towards large population bases, or are the people actually represented locally? Republican vs Democrat government.

(02-23-2024 02:24 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Also, people in these states, notably IVF practitioners, now have a great deal of uncertainty around whether their practice could be construed as being illegal under existing laws. Hence why they have stopped offering said services.

I think this is mostly activists trying to make a statement, because the court ruling only says that the state CAN pass a law to make it illegal. The article as I recall specifically said that there was nothing on the books at the moment... so there is really no legal reason for them to stop offering services. They may not want to start consulting with someone and doing testing if they think the state might ban the procedure before they can complete it, but that's a business decision... not a legal one.

Even if it does, that doesn't make it wrong to correct a problem, reflecting the will of the population... it just makes it inconvenient until actual legislation is passed to reflect the new reality....

as in.....

(02-24-2024 07:57 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Per ABC News, Alabama State Senator ® pushing for embryos to NOT be considered children until the embryo is implanted. Must have been talking to 93.

Though this to me is a 'stupid game'... because they're basically arguing with the court for no purpose I see. I think instead they simply pass a law establishing that the state will not step in until some point after implant.... which could be microseconds after implant... or 9 weeks or 24 weeks or 24 years... depending on the will of the people/the actions of the legislature.

I guess you’re calling the multiple IVF clinics that have stopped offering their services, over the concern of potential legal risks “activists”? Same for the shipping companies unwilling to transport embryos?

What if, and hear me out, there are real and actual legal risks that now exist that businesses, not activists, are responding to?

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/2-alabama-...=107455469

I think there ARE legal risks that businesses are responding to. If I were a director of an IVF clinic, I would suspend business until the legal ramifications are clarified and/or corrected. If I were a legislator, I would be working on legislation that legally exempted IVF from civil or criminal penalties.

I think that is a separate matter from the question of when does human life begins.

The root cause of the fiasco is based on a body saying when does human life begin, mind you.

No deemed life == no wrongful death application.

No deemed life == no specter of potential criminal homicide application.

The question of when does human life begin is deeply embedded in the issue.

(02-25-2024 11:05 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-25-2024 10:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-25-2024 10:08 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-25-2024 09:03 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-23-2024 01:52 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  When you appoint judges like this who have worldviews that IMO should be disqualifying you get more and more extreme rulings.

But those views are not disqualifying to the people of Alabama. And it's the Supreme Court of Alabama, not the Supreme Court of Rice 93.

From what I have read, the judge relied heavily on theology and his interpretation of it. Getting close to, if not stepping over, the separation of church and state by making a legal decision based upon a specific religious framework.

I thought this decision was a Supreme Court of Alabama decision, not the decision of a single judge. Is that incorrect?

Which amendment codifies the separation of church and state?

Are the decisions of atheist judges also tainted by bias?

IAC, I think this decision follows logic and science much more than it follows any religion.

I'm speaking of the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court who has said things like "Human life cannot be wrongfully destroyed without incurring the wrath of a holy God" in the concurring opinion he penned.

Which amendment codifies the separation of church and state? Eh gads!!! It's the first. And this ignorance from a Rice grad...

Quote:The First Amendment's Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/establishment_clause

The issue isn't an inherent bias one way or the other, it's using religion as the foundation for decision making.

The Chief Justice said the quiet part out loud, to be frank. Basing a judicial ruling on a religious foundation seemingly opens the door for far clearer issues.

I guess I need to know what the “quiet part” was. What did he say that upsets you? Is there an assumption that all the justices voting in the majority were unduly influenced by their religion(s)?

(02-25-2024 09:05 AM)greyowl72 Wrote:  

(02-25-2024 01:25 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

Quote:I think this is mostly activists trying to make a statement, because the court ruling only says that the state CAN pass a law to make it illegal. The article as I recall specifically said that there was nothing on the books at the moment... so there is really no legal reason for them to stop offering services. They may not want to start consulting with someone and doing testing if they think the state might ban the procedure before they can complete it, but that's a business decision... not a legal one.

It is absolutely a legal decision, Ham. Explicitly one regarding civil liability exposure, and a very decent potential for criminal exposure under the ruling. Your interpretation is simply off base.

To clear up a misconception --- there *are* laws on the books that make the destruction of an unplanted embryo a wrongful act with this ruling. The state *has* passed a previous law -- which the Ala Sup Court deemed applied to in vitro emryos.

The Wrongful Death of a Minor Act in Alabama applies explicitly to 'test tube embryos', creating civil liability for anyone wrongfully destroying the contents of the test tube.

In the opinion, the Ala Supreme Court noted that in the Alabama's criminal homicide laws "expressly include[s] (and continues to include) unborn children as 'persons', 'regardless of viability.'

They declined to traipse into the criminal aspect of the issue, but the defendant's reliance on criminal law currently not covering extrauterine children was deemed to be immaterial -- and the court expressly left that issue open.

The Alabama Sup Court has absolutely declared that the 'death' of a test tube embryo subjects IVF providers to civil liability, and very openly and explicitly left the the door open to charging IVF providers with criminal liability.

In short, economics will kill the IVF procedure in Alabama. If *anything* happens to a test tube, at any time, there is absolutely and explicit potential wrongful death actions against the provider. And the Ala Sup Court has very loudly ripped the door wide open for the same practices to be criminally liable under a manslaughter charge for accidental destruction.

Seems pretty clear to me. So, unless the Alabama legislators change the present law, IVF is destined to disappear in that state. And if I were a fertility specialist using IVF in my practice there or other states with similar laws, I’d be making plans to go elsewhere.

You hit the nail on the head there.

(02-25-2024 11:30 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-25-2024 11:05 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-25-2024 10:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-25-2024 10:08 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-25-2024 09:03 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  But those views are not disqualifying to the people of Alabama. And it's the Supreme Court of Alabama, not the Supreme Court of Rice 93.

From what I have read, the judge relied heavily on theology and his interpretation of it. Getting close to, if not stepping over, the separation of church and state by making a legal decision based upon a specific religious framework.

I thought this decision was a Supreme Court of Alabama decision, not the decision of a single judge. Is that incorrect?

Which amendment codifies the separation of church and state?

Are the decisions of atheist judges also tainted by bias?

IAC, I think this decision follows logic and science much more than it follows any religion.

I'm speaking of the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court who has said things like "Human life cannot be wrongfully destroyed without incurring the wrath of a holy God" in the concurring opinion he penned.

Which amendment codifies the separation of church and state? Eh gads!!! It's the first. And this ignorance from a Rice grad...

Quote:The First Amendment's Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/establishment_clause

The issue isn't an inherent bias one way or the other, it's using religion as the foundation for decision making.

The Chief Justice said the quiet part out loud, to be frank. Basing a judicial ruling on a religious foundation seemingly opens the door for far clearer issues.

I guess I need to know what the “quiet part” was. What did he say that upsets you? Is there an assumption that all the justices voting in the majority were unduly influenced by their religion(s)?

There is no way you aren’t being intentionally obtuse here.

Use your power of deduction to take a guess at what the “quiet part” is and I’ll let you know if you’re correct.

(02-25-2024 11:33 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-25-2024 11:30 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-25-2024 11:05 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-25-2024 10:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-25-2024 10:08 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  From what I have read, the judge relied heavily on theology and his interpretation of it. Getting close to, if not stepping over, the separation of church and state by making a legal decision based upon a specific religious framework.

I thought this decision was a Supreme Court of Alabama decision, not the decision of a single judge. Is that incorrect?

Which amendment codifies the separation of church and state?

Are the decisions of atheist judges also tainted by bias?

IAC, I think this decision follows logic and science much more than it follows any religion.

I'm speaking of the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court who has said things like "Human life cannot be wrongfully destroyed without incurring the wrath of a holy God" in the concurring opinion he penned.

Which amendment codifies the separation of church and state? Eh gads!!! It's the first. And this ignorance from a Rice grad...

Quote:The First Amendment's Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/establishment_clause

The issue isn't an inherent bias one way or the other, it's using religion as the foundation for decision making.

The Chief Justice said the quiet part out loud, to be frank. Basing a judicial ruling on a religious foundation seemingly opens the door for far clearer issues.

I guess I need to know what the “quiet part” was. What did he say that upsets you? Is there an assumption that all the justices voting in the majority were unduly influenced by their religion(s)?

There is no way you aren’t being intentionally obtuse here.

Use your power of deduction to take a guess at what the “quiet part” is and I’ll let you know if you’re correct.

He said” the Bible forbids this”?

Just answer the questions and this will go much smoother.

(02-25-2024 11:35 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-25-2024 11:33 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-25-2024 11:30 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-25-2024 11:05 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-25-2024 10:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I thought this decision was a Supreme Court of Alabama decision, not the decision of a single judge. Is that incorrect?

Which amendment codifies the separation of church and state?

Are the decisions of atheist judges also tainted by bias?

IAC, I think this decision follows logic and science much more than it follows any religion.

I'm speaking of the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court who has said things like "Human life cannot be wrongfully destroyed without incurring the wrath of a holy God" in the concurring opinion he penned.

Which amendment codifies the separation of church and state? Eh gads!!! It's the first. And this ignorance from a Rice grad...

Quote:The First Amendment's Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/establishment_clause

The issue isn't an inherent bias one way or the other, it's using religion as the foundation for decision making.

The Chief Justice said the quiet part out loud, to be frank. Basing a judicial ruling on a religious foundation seemingly opens the door for far clearer issues.

I guess I need to know what the “quiet part” was. What did he say that upsets you? Is there an assumption that all the justices voting in the majority were unduly influenced by their religion(s)?

There is no way you aren’t being intentionally obtuse here.

Use your power of deduction to take a guess at what the “quiet part” is and I’ll let you know if you’re correct.

He said” the Bible forbids this”?

Just answer the questions and this will go much smoother.

Use a modicum of reading comprehension.

Yes, the quiet part was him, in his concurring opinion, explicitly invoking the religious foundation upon which his opinion was based.

I don't want judges saying that any actions are outlawed because they will incur the wrath of God, Allah, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.