An embryo is one of the earliest stages of development of a multicellular organism. But according to the Supreme Court of Alabama, it is a person, too — an unborn child, entitled to the same legal protections as any minor.

The court ruled on Feb. 16 that a fertility clinic patient who accidentally destroyed other patients’ frozen embryos could be liable in a wrongful death lawsuit, writing in its opinion that “the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act applies to all unborn children, regardless of their location,” and that this includes “unborn children who are located outside of a biological uterus at the time they are killed.”

This has had immediate and profound consequences on the practice of in vitro fertilization in the state, with many fertility clinics already deciding to interrupt their services for fear of legal repercussions, including the University of Alabama at Birmingham, which has paused its IVF treatments, as has Alabama Fertility Services.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] rzlatic@lemmy.ml 27 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

conservatives like to squeek "that's against god's will" but when conservative needs a heart stent or pacemaker to keep him alive, then god's will is not an issue. when conservative needs a kidney transplant, cancer treatment, or even glasses - there's no questioning against how god created their bodies.

as always, there's no biblical preachings when their asses and their life comfort are in question.

[–] lars@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 8 months ago

I have begun to interrupt myself on the many, many occasions when I realize the American Right does not care about ideological inconsistency and that I cannot better understand them or help anyone by recognizing them. It’s no fun but it’s less taxing than trying to understand their contradictory opinions.

[–] hypertext5689@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

By extension, even something as trivial as wearing clothes is against gods will. If their god didn't want people to see everyone in their birth suit, then we would've had in built clothing that wasn't form fitting and had a sac of air to turn everyone into a blob.

[–] Vorticity@lemmy.world 6 points 8 months ago (1 children)

This just made me realize something. Hatred of knowledge is baked into the Bible.

Clothes weren't a trivial thing for Adam and Eve. When they ate fruit from the tree of knowledge they learned that they should be ashamed of their nakedness and began wearing "clothes". That was what tipped God off to the fact that they had eaten the fruit and is why they were kicked out of Eden.

So, according to the Bible, wearing clothes literally is against the will of God. Everything else we do with our knowledge is too since the ability to have knowledge derives from eating that fruit.

[–] letsgo@lemm.ee -2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Nice misquote. It's not the tree of knowledge, it's the tree of knowledge of good and evil. There is a difference.

Biblically there's nothing wrong with knowledge, as long as it's appropriately balanced with faith.

[–] Vorticity@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

That's some good pedantry. "The tree of knowledge" is common shorthand for "the tree of knowledge of good and evil". For example, take christianity.com.

Edit: I didn't mean to ignore your real point. It seems to me that "knowledge of good and evil" is what leads people to oppose things like IVF. They believe that they understand what is good and what is evil and are imposing their opinions on everyone else.

[–] letsgo@lemm.ee 0 points 8 months ago

Your argument appeared to be predicated upon "knowledge", not "knowledge of good and evil", hence the need for clarification. There is of course more to knowledge than good and evil.