this post was submitted on 22 Feb 2024
767 points (98.9% liked)

News

23367 readers
2676 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] GreenPlasticSushiGrass@kbin.social 54 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I'm not messing with that soft paywall. Are they saying that parents who let their frozen embryos go bad in the freezer are guilty of murder or manslaughter?

[–] NegativeInf@lemmy.world 93 points 9 months ago (5 children)

That's one interpretation. The judge used religious logic in his ruling.

[–] FenrirIII@lemmy.world 81 points 9 months ago (2 children)
[–] Uranium3006@kbin.social 42 points 9 months ago (2 children)

we need to get religion out of our society, it causes nothing but problems.

[–] Daft_ish@lemmy.world 11 points 9 months ago (1 children)

You don't understand. This old book told me all the answers to life's mysteries. WoOoOooo it's infallible.

God it would be funny/sad if someone found a copy of Mike Pences auto biography 10,000 years after some cataclysm destroyed society. Than they started worshiping it.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago (1 children)

WoOoOooo

You said it wrong. You failed your attempt at conversion.

Wololo. Wololo. Wololo.

Welcome to the Huns.

[–] aniki@lemm.ee 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)
[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

My dad was one of those jerks that would build 30-40 priests on an Econ build and then push with them when you decided to try and crack that nut,

Poof there goes your army.

Not that he really knew what an Econ build was, or any of the other things. But he’d play this “I don’t know what I’m doing” act and get away with it, (and he wasn’t good enough to deserve a feudal rush. Just… annoying.)

[–] tryptaminev@feddit.de 6 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (3 children)

These kind of "Christians" are about as christian as the people from Sodom.

That doesn't make it right to fuck things up for everyone else.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago (3 children)

Sorry, that's a no true Scotsman fallacy.

It doesn't matter if they aren't Christ-like. Many, many Christians, including clergy and even pontiffs have committed atrocities. They still worshiped Christ, making them Christians.

If we were to play it your way, the Crusaders weren't Christians, the Spanish Inquisition weren't Christians, the Conquistadors weren't Christians, etc. I don't think that's what you intend, but that is the problem with suggesting people who are not Christlike are not Christians.

Otherwise, we need to invent a new religion and put a huge percentage of people from the last 2000 years who thought they were called Christians into it.

[–] Flumpkin@slrpnk.net 2 points 9 months ago

They are fascists. Fascist christians vs christians.

[–] tryptaminev@feddit.de 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

If you read the fallacy you'd realize that you fell into the false fallacy fallacy.

To quote your linked article:

No true Scotsman or appeal to purity is an informal fallacy in which one attempts to protect their generalized statement from a falsifying counterexample by excluding the counterexample improperly.[1][2][3] Rather than abandoning the falsified universal generalization or providing evidence that would disqualify the falsifying counterexample, a slightly modified generalization is constructed ad-hoc to definitionally exclude the undesirable specific case and similar counterexamples by appeal to rhetoric.

There is plenty of countries with a christian background and still majority christian population, that wouldn't even think to discuss such absurd policies. American nutjobs cannot be considered to be representative of christianity as a whole. Much of their nutjobbery is specific to them.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

American nutjobs cannot be considered to be representative of christianity as a whole.

No one said they were. They aren't. But they are Christians. That is their religion even if you don't like that it is the same as yours.

[–] tryptaminev@feddit.de 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

That is not the true scotsman fallacy though. I never said they aren't Christians, i said that they are about as christian as, implying that they lack the qualities associated with it. Also i'm not a christian.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

I think you're misremembering. You did say they aren't Christians:

[–] SaltySalamander@kbin.social -2 points 9 months ago (3 children)

If we were to play it your way, the Crusaders weren’t Christians, the Spanish Inquisition weren’t Christians, the Conquistadors weren’t Christians, etc

All of the above are Catholic, and the vast majority of Christians I know would agree that they aren't Christian.

[–] PRUSSIA_x86@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Catholics are the OG Christians, despite what all the seething Protestants might tell you.

[–] tryptaminev@feddit.de 0 points 9 months ago

Nope. That would be the orthodox christians you still find sprinkled around Palestine and Syria. The catholics are already roman "lets stabilize our empire with mixing religion and poltiics" brand of christians.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

That is not only another No True Scotsman fallacy, it's also anecdotal.

Catholics are undeniably Christians no matter what other Christians may think. Catholicism likely came before their sect anyway.

[–] treefrog@lemm.ee -1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

That may be but the original point you seemed to make was broader.

I.e. you just moved the goal post because of the examples.

Are Prosperity Theology Christian's not really Christian?

btw, the buddha wasn't a buddhist, and christ wasn't a christian. Let go of identity views and just do the next right thing.

The world is tribal enough.

[–] BrokenGlepnir@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

I've been thinking of them as antichristian. Not as in against Christianity, but as in antichrist ...ian. From what I've heard the whole idea of the antichrist is supposed to be that Christians love the guy even though the guy goes against all of the lessons of Jesus, but he does the performative stuff. That sounds like what I see there.

[–] TengoDosVacas@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago

Christianity is an evil ideology, and they are acting as christians.

[–] TengoDosVacas@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

It is absolutely an evil ideology and shut be utterly abolished along with all Abrahamic religions. Fuck the Constitution; they got this one dead wrong

[–] Scubus@sh.itjust.works 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

*theistic religions

Believing that the flying spaghetti monster will solve all the worlds issues means you don't function in society

[–] TengoDosVacas@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

Sad that you have not been touched by His noodly appendage. Perhaps one day, Ramen

[–] billiam0202@lemmy.world 64 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The judge used ~~religious logic~~ religion in his ruling.

Ain't no logic to be found there.

[–] Scubus@sh.itjust.works 3 points 9 months ago

Well it says here you are bread, and as such are guilty of cannibalism.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 10 points 9 months ago (1 children)

to be fair, the (wrongful death*) lawsuit was because the hospital or wherever they were being stored at let the frozen embryos die off. It's entirely reasonable to expect some kind of... protection... considering the reason for those to have been stored was so they might be able to have kids, etc.

*wrongful death is a bit much, mind you. But how far do you want to take the "guy beats a pregnant woman to kill the baby" types of charges? ultimately, I suspect, the issue here is that the religious nutjobs lack nuance. they see the world as black-and-white and can't fathom a possibility where there were damages in this matter, but it wasn't a "wrongful death" scenario.

[–] Whattrees@lemmy.blahaj.zone 19 points 9 months ago (2 children)

From what I've previously read the agency that had the frozen embryos did not let them die off, they stored them properly in an industrial freezer kept at far below 0 temps. The issue was a person who didn't work at the clinic snuck into the room with the fridge, opened it and then dropped the embryos and ran away (the article said the assumption was because the containers were so cold he got freeze-burned). There might be a case here that they didn't do enough to stop the individual, or check on them often enough, I don't know enough details to know, but it doesn't sound like they just simply didn't care or didn't store them properly.

States have long had laws against forcibly ending someone else's pregnancy and those have stood up even before Roe died. It's not usually on the level of murder/manslaughter, but at a minimum it's been treated as a destruction of property. You don't have to treat the embryo as a person to charge someone with aggravated battery or something similar.

The main issue here is the broadness of this ruling (besides the whole quoting the Bible thing) which equates embryos with full-human life. It won't change a whole lot in this case, the families could have still sued for negligence or destruction of property, or any number of other civil remedies of this was denied, but now it's laid the ground work to do much worse things in the future.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Looking close, you’re right. Vandals got in.

I would suggest the facility was negligent in their security arrangements, as far as wrongful death (again, it’s a pretty dubious “if”, that it goes that far), it would be like somebody dying because the building wasn’t up to code when an arson came by.

My assumption is, though, that there’s a budget-rate ~~warm body~~ security guard; and between shit pay, shit training, shittier oversight… the guard couldn’t be arsed to care. (Alternatively, the guard was going to sell them for drug money.)

The good news for the facility… if their lawyers were any good in that contract they’d have gotten an indemnity clause and can pass that buck. (Liability is a bitch; and she hits hard. The security company will probably go poof unless they’re the size of G4S or Securitas)

In any case… personally, it doesn’t rise to wrongful death, but I can see a need for nuance. I would, personally, suggested the couple treat it as property, similar to a safety deposit box.

[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 3 points 9 months ago (2 children)

How could it be battery if the embryos aren't treated as people? Nobody was battered. No victim was even present.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

For the record, if we treat this more like a safety deposit box; the couple are the victims here.

It should probably be treated that way.

Their argument is because those embryos had potential to be human… they should be treated as human.

I don’t buy it, and it’s certainly not something that should establish the precedent that embryos=babies.

[–] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

So sue for property damage. Harvesting embryos is an expensive and painful process. Hell you could even sue for pain and suffering.

But wrongful death is just ridiculous.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago

Gee, that’s…. More or less what I’m saying?

[–] Whattrees@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 9 months ago

Sorry for the confusion, the battery part of my reply was related to forcibly ending someone else's pregnancy, which would have to involve some kind of battery unless it's like poison or something, not related to the embryos in the freezer. There is no battery to those since they are not people.

[–] Overzeetop@sopuli.xyz 7 points 9 months ago

I don’t see how this isn’t prima facie evidence of a first amendment violation (presuming that the courts or state legislatures are bound by “Congress” being synonymous with “Government” as I believe it’s been interpreted)

[–] MonkderZweite@feddit.ch 6 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Pretty sure personal beliefs which haven't been proven should make the ruling invalid. He's judge, not king.