Alabama Supreme Court Says Embryos Are Children
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 бер 2024
- Alabama Court Halts IVF and more! 👨💻 Remove personal information off the web with Incogni with code LEGALEAGLE legaleagle.link/incogni ⚖️⚖️⚖️ Do you need a great lawyer? I can help! legaleagle.link/eagleteam
Welcome back to LegalEagle. The most avian legal analysis on the internets.
🚀 Watch my next video early & ad-free on Nebula! legaleagle.link/watchnebula
👔 Suits by Indochino! legaleagle.link/indochino
GOT A VIDEO IDEA? TELL ME!
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Send me an email: devin@legaleagle.show
MY COURSES
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Interested in LAW SCHOOL? Get my guide to law school! legaleagle.link/lawguide
Need help with COPYRIGHT? I built a course just for you! legaleagle.link/copyrightcourse
SOCIAL MEDIA & DISCUSSIONS
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Twitter: legaleagle.link/twitter
Facebook: legaleagle.link/facebook
Tik Tok: legaleagle.link/tiktok
Instagram: legaleagle.link/instagram
Reddit: legaleagle.link/reddit
Podcast: legaleagle.link/podcast
OnlyFans legaleagle.link/onlyfans
Patreon legaleagle.link/patreon
BUSINESS INQUIRIES
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Please email my agent & manager at legaleagle@standard.tv
LEGAL-ISH DISCLAIMER
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Sorry, occupational hazard: This is not legal advice, nor can I give you legal advice. I AM NOT YOUR LAWYER. Sorry! Everything here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Nothing here should be construed to form an attorney-client relationship. Also, some of the links in this post may be affiliate links, meaning, at no cost to you, I will earn a small commission if you click through and make a purchase. But if you click, it really helps me make more of these videos! All non-licensed clips used for fair use commentary, criticism, and educational purposes. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015).
Special thanks:
Stock video and imagery provided by Getty Images and AP Archives
Music provided by Epidemic Sound
Short links by pixelme.me (pxle.me/eagle)
Maps provided by MapTiler/Geolayers
What other rights do embryos have? 👨💻 Remove personal information off the web with Incogni with code LEGALEAGLE legaleagle.link/incogni ⚖⚖⚖ Get a great lawyer, fast! legaleagle.link/eagleteam
make a video about the trump supreme court ruling
I would LOVE to know from a legal standpoint, how "fetal personhood" doesn't 100% eliminate ALL legal challenges to legal abortion? If a fetus is a person, it should then have the SAME rights under the constitution as ALL OTHER people. NOT MORE rights, SAME rights. Currently, NO PERSON, has the right, to force another person, to hand over usage of their organs or tissues AGAINST their consent, and consent, can be given, or withdrawn, at ANY time. ***So how does a fetus person, have this right, when no person under the constitution, has this right?*** A child, already birthed child, does not have the right to force their parent, to donate blood or organs to them, for instance.
wouldnt this imply that depictions of the moment of fertilization to be child pornography?
This creates a lot of legal rabbit holes, could you sue a women for wrongful death if she had a miscarriage.
Stupid questions, but wouldn't this also apply to sperm banks as they are the other half of an unborn child?
Every woman in alabama should now be claiming embyos on their taxes as dependants. If theyre people, theyre children, and theyre claimable
And every man paying child support
Embryos are not citizens until they’re born.
@@daniellashah7995 a man who did not want a baby should not be forced to pay for stuff not made with his content.
@@satakrionkryptomortisThen a woman shouldn’t have to have a child without their consent either
@@satakrionkryptomortisThen he shouldn't have stuck it in, right? Sexual responsibility, right? I love the logic here - force a woman to take a pregnancy to term, but don't you dare make the man pay for it. *edit for all the pedantics in the thread - I'm not assuming satakrionkryptomortis is saying this, I'm just having fun flipping the Pro-Life argument ("don't want to get pregnant, don't spread your legs!") around onto men since it seems really weird to worry about men's rights in this context.
Oh, and it was definitely made with his content! Sorry, love the typo - you meant consent, I bet.
Sex education in schools is necessary, but it is also necessary for all Senators, apparently.
I listened to a debate online in the Alabama Senate about reproductive health (this was a couple of years ago) and they used phrases like "lady parts", "up there", "between the legs" and other phrases that one might use when talking with a four year old, but it really sounded like those old men hadn't a clue of what they talked about. When they tried to describe the fertilisation of an egg, they completely botched it. My old biology teacher would tell them to get the hell out of her classroom.
@@oliver_twistor "My old biology teacher would tell them to get the hell out of her classroom."
I WOULD TOO!!!
Politicians don't have to be smart to gain power. They just have to know how to enrage people enough to follow them.
😂😂 I love this whole thread
Tuberville wouldn't pass, like his Bama student athletes.
So, if I go to an IVF clinic and have twenty eggs fertilized and frozen, I can move to Alabama and claim 20 dependents on my tax return, right?
*eagle screech*
If you have millions on the bank, please try.
This. I’m saying this is now legally a thing.
And if you leave them frozen for 18 years, you can get them registered to vote. (I think there are ways for relatives to fill out the form, like if someone is legally blind, which the embryos are.)
For a state (supposedly) mad at voter fraud, Alabama made a great opportunity.
Yeah, they have a Safe Harbor law...I mean, you'd need to surrender them in 'cryogenic safety' within 72 hours of them being conceived, but then after that you can let the State figure out what to do with them!
"I'm just kidding, that would be bad for men so that obviously wouldn't be a thing." This hits right to the point!!
As a woman, when he said that, it totally hit home. I thank God I don't live in Alabama and feel so, so sorry for anyone with a uterus who unfortunately does.
And so damn depressing b/c of how true it is
I came here from Nebula specifically to comment on that point
I am not a fan of abortion,
But I believe child support should begin at conception.
So if I'm understanding correctly, if a woman places it up for adoption, therefore relieving her of all financial obligations and responsibilities, would be bad... for... women?
"It's not our job to consider the consequences of our decisions" is a truly buckwild thing for a supreme court justice to say.
One could argue that that is LITERALLY THEIR ENTIRE JOB
And yet, there they are, in their positions of power. I'm just going to say this: They didn't come into power out of thin air.
Of course they don't want to think about the consequences of their actions, they're conservatives
The courts job is to decide if a law is constitutional regardless of politics.
If there are unintended consequences, then the legislators need to change the law.
@badluck5647 that used to be the case until scotus expanded Constitutionality to include judicial review
If someone is pregnant and they commit a crime, how would they imprison the criminal without violating the embryo’s rights?
The embryo gets the same room, the womb...
@@jeremybrummel3254 Uh, no, as a person they have a right to freely move, especially if they arent fuilty of the crime. Therefore locking theor mother away is also locking them away, (even if they are only in the womb).
They might have to extract the embryo and implant it into someone else then :o
@@TheDizzieC I'm not familiar with Alabama law, as I am European, but I vaguely remember that, like many US states, they have laws that allow any person who was with a perpetrator and is not the victim of a crime, to be punished as an accomplice. This was originally introduced so that, if two people rob a store, while the third waits outside in the getaway car, and the two inside kill someone, the getaway driver can also be charged with murder. Consequently, if a foetus is treated as a person, when a pregnant woman kills someone, the unborn child is an accomplice to the homicide, and therefore punishable by law. Under these circumstances, you can commit crimes and get life without parole before you're even born. I know (or at least hope) that's unrealistic, but it's what you get, when you follow the logic of the supreme court's ruling.
Already an issue with born children. If you Imprison the parents the children are impacted by this. A different scenario, but same problem.
There's a quote I heard after this case, and I wish I could remember where it came from: "No one understands that an embryo is not a child better than someone who *desperately wants* that embryo to become a child".
Is ironic that the people that filed the lawsuit that ended up here are such people and they made nearly impossible for themselves and others to do IVF in their state.
That is heart-breakingly poignant. It really sums up the perspective in a single gut punch.
Thank you for sharing this quote, very accurate
and works the same way for the other side. no one understands that an embryo is a child better than someone who desperately wants that embryo to become just a clump of cells
I think the person that desperately wants the embryo to become a child in that quote is the potential parent/mother. Don't think it's talking about politics. @@jp95able
The funniest part is that this means that significantly less people will be having children because less people will have access to embryos etc.
The GOP, promoting more children by lowering the birthrate by 23% and climbing. Might as well call them the Dodo Party!
Ikr the irony is incredibly painful. People who want children will be denied the treatment to get them and those who absolutely shouldnt and don't want children are forced to birth them.
Not so, those who can afford IVF may be prevented but those who cannot flee to get an abortion in another state will also be prevented.
So- this means the unwed and poor who do not want their child will have more kids than those who want kids than those who can’t and want to use expensive IVF.
Maybe the two groups should get together?
Let’s make more unwanted poor babies, so we can educate them poorly in science- oh… that is why Alabama is here in the first place.
@@angtxsun4460yeah, because those two groups got together in the past so successfully, which is why we haven't needed a foster care system.
Oh wait...
Insanity is doing the same failed thing over and over again and expecting new results.
Replication of a failed experiment to confirm failure is one thing, putting the failed experiment into production, that's just batshit crazy.
And more people will be too scared to get pregnant, affraid of criminal prosecution if anything goes wrong...
Every woman who's pregnant in that case should take out life insurance. In the unfortunate event of a miscarriage, they get a payout from insurance companies. We'll see how fast lobyists let this be a thing.
No, they will just put up the cost for life insurance around that category.
Probably revoke all cover on and around pregnant women, just to really push home no *u*ks given for or about women.
Heck ya, and start asking for child support , backdated to the moment of conception!
Except for the part of getting a life insurance company to cover an unborn child. Whoops.
@@Sturmvogel I mean, if a frozen embryo was a person why should they not have the right to have a life insurance policy.
@@Sturmvogelisnt this the whole point of this discussion ?
as an ivf baby who is now some months away from my 21st birthday, I wonder if they’d count the ~4 years I was frozen as part of my lifespan and therefore sell me alcohol 🤔
holy shit
this is the most interesting comment on this ideology
and given this law, I think that 4 years
*should absolutely count* 😂
🎉 welcome to being 24 🎉
Go to the DMV and ask about getting your age corrected. Cite the supreme court decision, like print out the case file, bring the documentation that proves you were frozen for 4 years and your birth certificate, and see what they say.
You should be eligible for Social Security and Medicare half a decade earlier too.
In another video someone was talking about what the state would do if the Save Haven law were to drop off a bunch of frozen embryos at the doors of fire stations or hospitals, how long would the state have to keep them frozen. I pointed out they would probably wait until they were 18 and throw them onto the streets like they do now. While thawing on the streets they could also be arrested for being homeless bums, and if the DNA encodes for a lot of melanin they could also be beaten for resisting arrest.
🥂 cheers! 😂
If frozen embryos are people, then IVF clinics must meet state standards for child care centers, including staffing trained in early childhood development, staff-to-children ratios, and fire drills. Imagine trying to get all the frozen embryos to walk (not run) to the nearest emergency exit every time there is a fire drill.
You understand that paraplegics exist...
@jeremybrummel3254 loved your comment dude.
And given the TRAP laws (targeted restrictions on abortion providers, designed to close them down rather than make them safer for women) in southern states, I am sure that Alabama will have *no trouble at all* agreeing to these standards.
I'm wondering if IVF clinics need to have moveable freezers with battery backup as well as 24 hour coverage in the event of a fire?
@oregonsenior4204 Well, murder shouldn't be made easier, it should be banned. But... I do understand if the developing baby wouldn't survive naturally until viability anyway, might as well abort then.
As I was growing up popular wisdom was that one should be making a college fund for my future children. It would seem that no longer applies and instead should be replaced with a legal-fees-fund in case my child is born female.
But do you want to really bring a child into world?
@@XXMatt0040XXone wonders why we're experiencing a 23% decline in births...
If claiming an embryo on your tax return sounds ridiculous to you, then you understand why the rest of us think "life at conception" is an idiotic and gross oversimplification.
Yes, but not nearly as incorrect as many believe. The problem is, life, as defined by science with specific qualifications to be considered life, things like fetus' can qualify.
@@autumnberend828 Doesn't define things, because it can't define things. Science is a process, not an entity. Furthermore, there is no single, definitive definition of "life".
Pregnancy has many costs, why shouldn't you be able to claim those in the same way as a child write-off?
@@davidfortier6976There is, that's why we have dictionaries and words in the first place. Words with no definition are useless.
@@autumnberend828 How do you try to blame this mess on anything related to science?
This was championed by religious and scientifically illiterate people.
Regardless, any scientific definition is irrelevant. A definition only needs to make sense in the context it is used in.
No scientific definition of life is meant to be used to decide if embryos re humans, for the purposes of murder or tax deductions.
The clinics simply need to take all the non-viable embryos, transport them to the state Child Protective Services offices, and inform them that the parents do not want them and they are now wards of the state. Then Alabama can either cover the bill to keep them frozen or build their own cryogenic facility for all their precious embryos.
I don't see them having a choice. This is exactly what will be required to happen once IVF clinics start shutting down. Imagine if a hospital went bankrupt but the state said they were responsible for every patient still under their care at the time of filing. Forever.
Gonna have to be a pretty high-security cryo-vault with lots of failsafe and redundant systems. Gee, that sounds expensive to operate in perpetuity. I like this idea.
Problem being that Republicans would be all too happy to shut Child Protective Services down and then blame them for letting the frozen embryos thaw and deteriorate.
That'd be one hell of a thing to see.
This sounds reasonable.
What I’m hearing is that not only they want to criminalize miscarriages, but also ectopic pregnancies in general. What’s next, charging people for not having sex because they are preventing fertilization from happening?
that’s kind of happening in some states. there are parents of brides & grooms suing the couples for not giving them grandchildren.
@@jendee1260that happened in India
@@erkinalpsome seem to conflate everything that goes on in the world with the US, either as a root cause or where it occurred. Amazing, right until one realizes that the average US citizen couldn't point out on the map the difference in the locations of the UK and Uganda.
Ectopic pregnancies are SO scary, because the line between "this will cause death but she's not dying so we can't abort the baby" and "she's dying NOW, we're definitely legally allowed to help her" is narrow enough that women will die. Not if, just when and how many.
@@lynnsibley1172 Then they'll be forced to litigate and defend that decision to a court room every damn time or else they're in prison forever and their medical liscences are revoked. This may be the darkest timeline.
This can all be summed up in one simple sentence. "The United States still does not understand the basic concept of 'separation of religion and state'"
They understand it very well, they just don’t want it, they want theocracy 🤷♀️
For some reason, people hear 'freedom OF religion" and take it as 'freedom TO FORCE MY religion"
Oh no... ignoring the seperation of powers using the courts to make up absurd "implied" rights to privacy shich were never in the constitution....and apply them arbitrarily rather then compromise and LESIGLATE a reasonable solution
Backfired?!!
What a shock
And now states are fighting back making rules you don't like
Who could've seen this comming...
I guess such corruption does have consequance... (sometimes at least)
@@louwrentius I don't want theocracy. i want the damn church to be small and left alone.
@@ColdNorth0628 Then the church needs to shrink and leave alone.
As a soldier it's amazing to me how we fought overseas for years against a religious government just to turn into them
Ya it’s almost like fundamentalist and religious nationalists are all closer to each other than the majority and masses of most religious practitioners. Like they have the same goal not matter the “book” or gods they claim is there basis.
Mate, the usa have *been* that for decades, you all simply have had your collective heads up your assets this whole time.
Especially ironically hilarious that the very same people who were so rabidly against the brown people are now behaving like the Taliban
If you think you're in a position to be this smug you're probably being just as ignorant about your government.
@@benoitbrown9400I'm pretty sure they're also American, dude
And this is the same state that, in January, returned the bodies of two inmates who had died in prison back to their families with all their internal organs missing.
Maybe Alabama is selling organs to China?
😮
You are only a human until you are born 😂
@@PositiveOnly-dm3rxIf you're preborn, you're fine.
If you're preschool, you're f****d
-George Carlin
That's because the inmates didn't wanna pay child support to the organs who are also people, the organ protection agencies took them away for safekeeping where they'll be cared for.
So at what point do we require these courts to have a a series of reputable doctors related to the topic being made law to actually sit in and explain why they are idiots....
Given the biblical "interpretation" by one chief injustice? Perhaps instead, a fundie minister with a fine wooden stake and a cord of wood might be a superior option.
Given the jurist overrode the Almighty's decrees, hence knows better than God, an entirely Satanic viewpoint.
Not a suggestion, just an observation from an ordained minister, of both ancient punishments for blasphemy and the general practices of those of such like minds.
"We need more kids." Lmao if that's the case, I'm expecting him to be giving me some money to help take care of every kid I have.
Scariest line. He doesn't care about safe kids, or happy kids, or fed kids. Just more kids.
"we need more kids. also, cut government programs that help people be able to afford to have kids, because small govt good, big taxes bad"
@@S.A.White...He doesn't care about more kids because if there are no social programs for parents, and women have to leave the work force to bear children and care for them after they are born, then less people will have them.
@@ketchup901 that's the logical response. You are a logical person who probably cares about your constituents
I like how your smart reply is "Well what if I BEG him to do it? That'll show him" 😂
Also the way your mind instantly snapped to welfare 😂
An estimated 30-50% of fertilized eggs never implant in the uterine wall. Therefore every sexually active woman in Alabama should dospose of their used pads/ tampons at police stations-- in accordance with the state's "safe haven" law.
People die every day of natural causes, that does not justify murder.
I posted elsewhere, “Wastewater Surveillance” is a developing technology…
although usually used for *useful* things like Disease Tracking (although even then some ethics issues to sort out)
According to this train of thought sifting through all that for the countless unborn persons is a moral imperative, no?
Sounds like some Cyberpunk Dystopia lol
Seriously, don’t give them any ideas.
@@silverwolfguild 😂😂
Too late!
This country is such a joke. Following this logic, people in Alabama should be able to claim embryos as dependents. But somehow, that's where it foolish to consider embryos as people. There is no consistency in the legal system anymore. We need reform.
Can't do that tho, that might help citizens
Don't forget, if this is the case, the parents are also responsible for child support pay.
Don't underestimate people in Alabama. You ask them if they are dependants, and they will go all the way down that rabbithole and get laws for that, too.
Or for that matter, are IVF clinics housing the embryos now technically "foster parents", and therefore entitled to child maintenance payments from the state of Alabama?
@@tobleroonie5043 Foster parents eh? Well by that logic if you're giving someone your "property" then by that logic again, wouldn't that mean they're a babysitter and require payment to hold said child? At what point does it become a nursery or hell an adoption center? Eventually an orphanage! What if they stay there for year's will the embryos learn to drive? Experience their first love? Joking aside, this is a very confusing matter.
And AL passes a law saying that IVF people cannot be held accountable for actions that result in the death of an embryo or fetus.... so therefore, we should let IVF clinics do abortions since they can't be arrested for it. Thanks, AL.
hmm... that makes sense, yeah. so you can just become an abortion clinic as long as you're also an IVF clinic. funny how loopholes like these are just so easy to make
If a pregnant woman trips and falls on her stomach is she guilty of criminal child endangerment?
In certain states, absolutely. I wonder if it will gain the same stigma as SA victims of "what they could have done to prevent this" or "consider the life you ruined through your actions". I dont want to exist on this planet anymore.
I heard a retired judge on Public Radio remark that the Alabama Supreme Court doesn't know the difference between a watermelon seed and a watermelon.
It also couldn't tell you which end is in and which end is out.
Spewing out of both ends seems an acceptable outcome for them.
But when that watermelon seed takes root, it becomes a watermelon plant.
Or a bag of flour and a pizza.
@@NeutralDrowor a pineapple and a pizza
@@draketurtle4169 Uh-oh, you had to go there. Pineapple pizza...even more contentious than Roe vs Wade.
If a judge mentions biblical anything I'm their opinion then their decision should immediately be considered unconstitutional
Exactly
Law should be decided on ethics and not religion (even if ethics is sometimes decided based on what the majority of a society considers ethical)
Yes religion can try to teach ethics but that would be the equivalent of someone using the game of Monopoly to choose what stocks they should buy in the property market.
I wouldn't want to try this with the current supreme court-- and these kinds of insane bills are intended to get appeals to the supreme court.
@@typemasters2871 that would be even sillier since Monopoly was designed as an anticapitalist game.
@@emmaponymousNew Supreme Court Ruling Declares that all Legal Opinions that Cite Christianity are now Law…Punishable by Burning at the Stake.
1000%
So, if an IVF clinic can no longer look after embryos, do they become wards of the state? If the company goes bust and winds up, are those embryos orphans, or is it the responsibility of the customers of that clinic (the "parents") to collect and take over the (eternal) refrigeration of their embryos, before they thaw? Will CPS periodically visit them to check that the fridge is working? During those visits, if the temperature of the fridge is found to be too high or too low, will the "parents" be charged with neglect? In the event of a divorce or separation of the "parents", how will custody be determined? How will shared custody work? If there is a disruption to the power supply of a "parent's" home, who has committed the homicides, the "parent/s" or the energy company? If the "parents" are unable to care for their embryos, is the State of Alabama going to house and maintain them itself, or arrange and pay for those embryos to be placed in a foster clinic?
Also, shouldn't the legal definition of death be congruent with the legal definition of life? If life begins at the moment of conception, when a fertilised egg becomes a single cell person, then a person would remain alive as long as there are any active cells in their body. That would make it illegal to ever turn off life support, as there would still be living cells even in the absence of any brain activity. This would put hospitals in the same position as IVF clinics, where they would be eternally responsible for maintaining life support, once it is established (meaning it would never be offered).
Truly, Americans, your country is circling the drain. Perhaps you should consider establishing mandatory psychiatric evaluations before someone can be appointed to the judiciary.
The problems is that most "Americans" seriously do not believe the country is circling down the drain. Most celebrate this kind of nonsense.
That definition of life would also make organ transplants impossible, since the cells in the transplanted organ need to be alive for the transplant to work.
We KNOW! 🥺
Actually, the suggested revision of when death occurs would be quite, ahem, entertainingly aromatic.
Given that neuron activity has been detected a week after death has occurred.
@angelmendez-rivera351, the problem actually is that a very loud and threatening minority has hijacked the political machinery of our failing, due to their phenomenal efforts, nation.
And I say threatening, as in far too frequently, these religious maniacs will bring guns into the discussion - assuming that the rest of us aren't firearm owners and combat veterans. Yeah, had such discussions and suffice it to say, they're paper tigers, talk and bluster, but when the bluff is called, are conspicuous by their sudden absence. Especially when in person and I flop my military retiree ID card down.
@@angelmendez-rivera351I can assure you that most of us actually don't believe in this crazy, insane shitshow. It's just that there's an extremely loud, extremely zellous minority who manages to yell louder than the rest of us. We sane people really need to get off our asses and try and stop this shit by voting and being super loud, too.
I can imagine this exact video on The Onion, 10 years ago it would have been hilarious to think anyone could see cells on a Petri dish in a freezer as "children".
Thank you Alabama politicians for once again affirming every negative stereotype about our state, great job representing us on the national stage
Edit: yall Alabama is an extremely diverse state with a wonderful population, I'm not laughing about this. I'm genuinely sad that this is what people think of when they think of our state.
I genuinely went "Of course it's Alabama!"
Alabama and Mississippi are in a competition for worst state.
Internationally lol
Anyone who speaks english and knows a bit about the USA knows it's the state where crazy people love their family a little bit TOO MUCH.
Which sucks for the normal people living there :/
at what point do stereotypes just become fact
@@thezipcreatorThe states people aren't nearly as dumb but the government is hardly even elected. gerrymandered to ensure supermajorities and to silence minorities.
I love how a bunch of the people who are always bitching and moaning about LGBT people always talk about them making up words, but suddenly when they need to justify whatever batshit insane idea they have suddenly "extra uterine person" is now a word that they are using without any sense of irony
They don't care about truth or having consistent beliefs; they just care about power. They'll lie about anything and everything to get it.
Extrauterine has been in use since before 1800. This word was not made up for political reasons.
extrautarine just means "outside the uterus", it's a word you might reasonably expect to find in biology or medicine, but having it in politics is new. "extrautarine person" in the way they mean it is a new concept, but technically you and I are both extrautarine people. I do agree with your general point though, they're happy to invent new concepts when it suits them politically but complain when other groups do the same thing.
@@someone11112 No, but it was originally used to describe eggs growing in a woman's fallopian tube.
@@SomeoneBeginingWithIThe funny thing is that this only makes it more ironic. Cis and trans are also used in chemistry, existing for centuries, but conservatives consider cis a made up word
14:19 The first amendment to the US Constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Last I checked, pro- life arguments often include more secular ones like, "If people have a right to life, then murder is a violation of said right." You don't need to be a Christian understand the need for logical consistency.
@@coffeehousedialogue5684well the logical consistency in this case would allow for a stupid amount of loopholes and such, unlike the pro-choice arguments, so religion doesn't really matter in this case because it's dumb either way
@@kaderen8461 What are you even arguing against? I didn't bring up any religious reasons.
"well the logical consistency in this case would allow for a stupid amount of loopholes."
Like, what? I know I personally would be all for having men that hookup pay child support straight after knocking a woman up - and compensating said man in the event a paternity test proves he is not the father after all. If anything, that would remove any incentive for most people to be so reckless with their futures and that of their families.
@@coffeehousedialogue5684 you replied to a comment talking about religion
@@kaderen8461 Only to say that you don't need to be religious to be a pro-lifer. That was right there in my first reply.
It's not supposed to be logically consistent, it's supposed to be cruel.
You have to understand, the people who craft laws like this _HATE_ that women are no longer voiceless domestic servants. That is really what these rulings are about.
You haven't lived in the South. These people aren't thinking about women. They genuinely believe that pregnancy = human child with all rights. Push that to its logical conclusion and you get nonsense like this ruling. I find it hilarious and sad that women immediately make this all about an attack on them, when the issue in question is explicitly about embryos that have never been inside a woman.
You hit the nail on the head. I especially like that you called it for what it is: sheer, raw, naked CRUELTY. 👍🏻
Old rich men still mad that slavery isn't legal anymore.
"We need more children!" they cry, then make a judgement that reduces the number of children that will be born. Way to go.
Well they did technically make more children on paper, all those frozen embryos are legally people and citizens of Alabama now.
What they are supporting is more unwanted children born into essentially a dysfunctional, often impoverished, family dynamic and fewer wanted children for couples in a loving, supportive and nurturing environment.
Can’t see any issues with that down the road, no sireee!
It hurt itself in confusion!
Ask why the wealthy need the rest of us to have more children.
@@Xaluber When the dog catches the car, he wonders why his teeth hurt.
This has horrific implications for ectopic pregnancies as well, if fertilization is what determines life. It would mean ectopic pregnancies couldn't be treated because it would be "murder" so I guess the woman is just....condemned to die.
Yep, so now, getting pregnant is a game where you gamble your very life and you might produce offspring or die trying.
The Supreme Court and the Alabama supreme court making rulings by cherry picking examples from hundreds of years ago. It would not surprise me in the least if they made women Chattel in all but name once again.
That was already a major concern. This actually doesn't affect that at all.
I've never met a single pro-life person who believes things like ectopic pregnancies, miscarriages, or still births should be criminal. The fact that they believe that those pregnancies were human lives tends to engender sadness and empathy for women going through it.
Idiocy. This by no means implies that ectopic pregnancies are murder. They are death by illness.
You can always tell when conservatives have written a law when it helps almost no one and is so rigid that it will ultimately hurt who they supposedly try to protect.
Pretty sure nobody was supposed to be protected. Just punished. Preferably with a large fine.
womp womp go cry about it
Not only will it hurt people, they'll post "womp womp" and "go cry about it" messages so everyone knows the thing is supposed to hurt people and they're happy they have the chance to hurt people.
@@ripmeemaw2119you are absolutely right! Better to never object to the objectionable, when a fixed bayonet can far more effectively address the outstanding problem.
@@spvillano great use of sarcasm
If embryos are shipped to research facilities, would that be considered human trafficking?
So if you have embryos in mexico but move them to the US (and are then implanted and carried to birth) are they a US citizen or an illegal immigrant?
Fascinating question. I suspect it would be the latter because we live in an authoritarian nightmare in which every interpretation of law will favor those in power and disenfranchise those who have earned their ire. (Brown people and non-conforming whites)
They’ve redefined the meaning of “child” so maybe they’ll redefine the meaning of “birth”
Nationality is often dictated by the citizenship of the parents. If a German couple is on holiday in the US, and have a baby born on US soil, the child is still of German nationality and citizenship
Not until they’re born. 14th Amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
But please stop assuming that the whole point and only way to enter the U.S. is illegally and to have U.S.-citizen children. That's a really hurtful and offensive stereotype.
It doesn't matter where insemination or pregnancy began. So long as the child is born on US soil, they're a US citizen. That's literally the only requirement.
We need to have tax breaks for all embryos going forward.
That's what I said, start claiming them as dependents on taxes.
Tax Season is here, and I'm wondering how many Alabaman women are gonna try this on their returns.
I would go through IVF for the sole purpose of claiming all 10 embryos as dependents.
I can claim my wife's embryos as dependents. Ill be retiring after April 15th.
Sounds like a deal. Glad to see you've recognized it's a life.
It sounds like a massive tax loophole to be able to claim each frozen embryo as a dependent.
We've entered into an age where legislation is written not of science fiction, but to fictional science.
A scientific survey that was done back in 2018, in which over 5,000 biologists from over 1,000 academic institutions participated in the survey; "When Does Life Begin?". Overall, 95% of all the biologists that participated affirmed that a human life begins at fertilization, ie conception; the impregnation of the ovum, which then gives rise to an embryo/fetus. The second after this happens, it is no longer considered a part of a woman's body. It has become a separate, distinctive, individual human life/being.
Don't tell the judge that someone discovered how to convert skin cells into embryonic stem cells back in 2013. Wouldn't want to be put in prison for using an exfoliating soap.
Hell, might as well arrest the lettuce they ate because it facilitated the production of those cells by way of being a salad.
@@0Rookie0 Wasted calories are murder! You dig that food out of the trash right this instance mister!
Not to worry, a judge in TX is already preparing a ruling that such soaps do not have proper FDA approval and should be removed from circulation.
@@planescaped If we actually did this we'd solve world hunger overnight. That's not even a joke. America throws away enough edible, good food to give every food insecure person on the planet 7 meals a day.
If IVF is legalized in Alabama, it stands to reason that the storage and transfer of eggs should be free.
Charging for the trafficking of humans sounds a lot like slavery.
OR WAS THIS ALABAMA'S PLAN ALL ALONG??
Their plan was to lower the age of consent by 9 months. They lifke them young and fresh.
Sounds like something General Sherman would want to set fire to at any rate.
@@HAFBeast91 well at least that's better than what Tennessee Republicans were trying just a little bit ago. They were trying to completely remove the lower age limit for marriage. As in they wanted it to be legal to marry adults to babies.
Eggs aren't people. They're eggs. No life yet. Though it does have value. Expensive medical services aren't free in the US. Stop being a pedant.
@@cedrove7513Or in this case to frozen fertilized eggs? As a single person seeing all the tax benefits to being married, I'd consider marrying one of the surplus IVF embryos to reap those benefits, plus since it is unable to work surely it can claim disability allowance as well.
Wait, so the fetuses rights are independent from mine but my rights are not independent of the fetus? They should just say the quiet part out loud and write a law that says “Not being a mother and maker of children is illegal, this is what we intend for women”
At the very least, the rights is the fetus outweigh the rights of its organic incubation unit.
To me this is the whole point, which a lot of people won’t talk about: how can it be logical, or reasonable, or JUST, to protect the rights of a potential person over the rights of the living, breathing woman whose body created it and whose blood sustains it?!
@@KristenEnzhow much blood sustains that which is in a freezer? Electricity and blood are quite different.
And not much sustenance is going on, when around 1/3 - 1/2 products of conception end up inside of a tampon or sanitary napkin. Are we next to charge women for failed implantation?
@@KristenEnzChildren aren't a property that can be discarded on convenience. So yes, making babies have implications, one of them - you can't dump your kind when you see fit.
@@KristenEnz On the one hand, you have the mother's right to not be pregnant. On the other hand, you have the baby's right to not be killed. The question that must be answered is this. Which right is more fundamental? Which right has a greater claim? Abortion advocates argue that outlawing abortion would elevate the rights of the unborn child over and above those of the mother. "How can you make a fetus more important than a grown woman?" they might ask. In reality, outlawing abortion for selfish and self-centered reasons wouldn't be giving unborn children more rights than the mother, it would simply protect for them the one right that no one can live without-the right to life.
@@_BenJaminCroft_so a little girl who has been raped should be forced to carry her rapist’s baby to term?
The sadly proves that the supreme Court of Alabama has less brain cells than the embryos
note: embryos don’t even have brain cells
court of alabama: yes, they do.
👀🤦🏼♀️
Put this on a shirt !!!
This raises the question whether the justices of the Alabama Supreme Court are human beings.
@@jendee1260No, they don't.
Let's hear it for the "less government" party forcing "more government"!! 👏👏👏
It's almost like all they care about is money and everything else they support authoritarian measures to enforce
No no its less government for them, more government for us. You gotta read the very fine print written in white ink in the corner
more government when they like it, funny how they are the one fetishizing army and police while screaming small government
@@ldo300😂😂😂
Correction: They don't want less government, but smaller government. Government so small it will fit right up your uterus.
Best I’ve seen:
“I wish I had known earlier I could freeze children. Would have saved a lot of money on childcare.”
There are frogs that can freeze and then come back to life. Are they rocks all of a sudden?
@@avipinckney Go back to bed.
@@avipinckney Show me where those tadpole zygotes can do so before maturity. Until then, we humans are unlikely to develop that adaptation.
@@avipinckneyok grandpa let's get you back to bed.
@@avipinckneyHere's a fun fact - humans aren't frogs and we don't have the same capabilities. I'm sorry to break this to you.
They have solved the age old question of what came first. The egg or the chicken. They are both chickens. 😂😂
... the answer was always egg. Because chickens aren't the only animal who lays eggs, and are a newer species than some of the others.
So.... they care about them if it's in a woman but not if it's outside the woman???? Seems like it IS about women's bodies...
Went to Alabama to file my taxes, got more back because there’s 200 million dependents in my balls
That's nuts!
The t-shirt next to my bed is a grisly scene.
@@therealking6202 you're a mass murderer 😂😂😂
that's brilliant
Sperm isn’t an unborn child.
Alabama: cells are children
Hospitals: okay. We are no longer providing this treatment due to legal liability
Alabama politicians: surprised Pikachu face
I see this as an absolute win.
Why? @@jdotoz
@@sevin10a Cognitive insufficiency.
@@sevin10a I can't read @jdotoz's mind here, but here's my interpretation: Dumb legislation/rulings like the one discussed in this video should never have passed into law to begin with, in an ideal world. But if they do, it's better that their negative consequences be seen _quickly_ so the public gets angry and the law/ruling is amended/repealed quickly. Alabama made their bed, now they must lie in it. Hospitals pausing IVF services is tragic for patients, but it sure seems like an effective way to protest this new law that also catches nationwide attention.
Now if only there were cases of child support and tax credits for ivf embryos. I'd say open the floodgates so they can see how royally they screwed up.
Do these "children" have names, social security numbers, tax statuses, or anything else that an actual child has? No. This ruling is ridiculous.
Alabama : "Been awhile since we did something dumb. We have a reputation to uphold, people! Let's get to work!"
When I first heard this, I latched onto the dependent tax credit line of questioning immediately, but there are some even weirder scenarios. Many states have laws governing sexual conduct (primarily in the area of assault) written to describe a sexual act as some form of genital touching or insertion of part of a body into another’s body, or similar.
Given that, would IVF doctors be guilty of sexual assault when they insert the entire “body” of a “person” into a prospective mother without the embryo’s consent? If it’s a person, it’s undoubtedly a minor, which would increase the charges. Would sending embryos from AL to some other state be construed as transporting a minor across state lines for sexual purposes?
Of course it’s all stupid and wrong, but I’m depressed as to the sheer number of ways it’s stupid and wrong.
It's likely considered a medical procedure. This case at least seems to not be relevant, contrary to a thousand other issues that make this ruling legally absurd.
Is it still a minor if it is in storage for 25 years? There is no "expiration date".
@@whoever8997 can the embryos be drafted to fight in the space force?
@@ffff7164The draft must have some provision for excluding people unable to fight due to disability? The frozen embryos are severely disabled due to developmental delay. (If implanted they may develop normally and "catch up" to other children, but while frozen they have a severe developmental disability). They are completely blind, completely Deaf, and do not have use of arms or legs. I don't think any deafblind person without arms or legs would be expected to serve in the military in the event of a draft.
Can someone please print as many T-shirts as you can with the image at wiki-" rat king", you'll see what I mean, And text about SCOTUS. Thanks
If you're born in Alabama after this ruling, you have to add 9 months to your "age" to get your actual legal age, since you became a person at the moment of conception and not birth
what about embryos that have been on ice for 5 or 6 years? This has interesting complications for driving and voting.
Well that isn't true. It isn't called "the day you became a person day", it is called your birthday. It is celebrating your birth, not your "personhood."
@@brianharper1611implying he's talking about the birth day, it's your "age; 'the period of time someone has been alive or something has existed'".
@@brianharper1611 And yet, based on how they define a "person," this may legally change how old you are *as* a person, regardless of when your birthday is. If an embryo is a "person," but that "person" isn't considered to have an age while still an embryo, is it really still a "person" rather than just an embryo?
@@Endrian
I am sorry, but I don't understand what you are saying. Maybe it is me who is dense.
What was said is that "this would change the person's age" but age is counted from the moment of birth, not the moment of "personhood." Personhood is ill-defined anyway. Birthday is self-explanatory and can't be debated.
What am I missing here?
So they want to create laws for embryos that define them as both fully human and an object/good that can be treated as such? I suppose it shouldn't be surprising a southern state is comfortable with this particular logical inconsistency.
I love how they’re saying well this is how we did it back in the day so it must be right…. We also used to put lead in our gas and build houses with asbestos… the definition of a smart man is somebody you can learn some thing realize that it’s not right, unlearn it, and then relearn a behaviour.
Senator who didn't understand how holding military promotions was a national security risk fails to understand what IVF ruling means? Count my calories and call me skinny.
Now that's a phrase I'll happily steal and use it as my own
Tommy is a bit dim.
Legal Eagle needs to send this video to the Senator who doesn't know what IVF is because we all know, he & his ilk don't read. Maybe they'll get a clue.
I'm curious about something: if an embryo isn't viable do the parents have to buy a casket for it or cremate it, & then hold a funeral for it? Sorry to be so morbid. I'm a retired RN, BSN, & we think of everything.
He WILL be re-elected, correct?
@@antonnurwald5700 Oh 100%, the folks around there aren't the most progressive nor the brightest.
As a viewer from Western Europe, I'm trying to wrap my head around this exotic concept of embryos being considered children in the legal system. What exactly will be Child Protective Service's role in protecting these "embryonic children" from harm and endangerment when their care givers fail to provide for them? It feels silly to ask such a question, but if the government in Alabama is serious about this then surely they will also take some responsibility?
Actually, the more I think about this, the more unlikely it is that I will ever visit Alabama in my life. Not long ago, heartbeat in a fetus was considered the minimum requirement for life. Now they're down to embryos being children. How long until guys can get charged with genocide for emptying their sack into socks every other day? Yeah, I'll stay away. Thanks.
Nice joke, everyone knows that this law isn't meant to target men lol
As Devin said, "That would be bad for men, so obviously that's not going to happen."
Child Protective Services is a total clown-show in the United States of America. It is very rare in practice that they accomplish anything. It may as well not exist.
That wouldnt happen for men. Just women when we get our periods. Its not about men or their part in it, its about punishing women for existing
I'm from Philly and I'm unlikely to EVER visit any place south of Maryland. And I won't even drive in MD because of the speed cameras. I always get a ticket.
But yes.... wait until they try to ban transgendered procedures (I'm a post op myself) because they'll consider it an abortion of future children.... yes, this is slippery slope stuff. My feeling is that the GOP doesn't do anything for the general welfare of its citizens..... only for what they want or feel everyone must do autocratically. So, this is meant as a stepping stone to ban abortion altogether.
But it isn't even an embryo until day 10-12, with the formation of the amniotic sac. A fertilized egg is a zygote, an implanted egg is a blastocyst, THEN it develops into an embryo
13:41 just reminded me of “I don't pretend to understand Brannigan's Law. I merely enforce it” from Futurama.
The absolute schadenfreude hilarity I experienced listening to the panicked reaction from religious groups when the actual consequences of this ruling started to happen...
...it's bad.
They got what they wanted...and then realized it wasn't what they wanted.
Sigh.
Maybe this wouldn't have happened if they actually went to school.
@@kayeka4123, in my experience...that's not the problem.
Religion teaches two very bad things: Magical thinking, and that compromise shouldn't ever happen. This was inevitable.
A lot of these types do not question, interrogate, or even have the slightest sense of curiosity about the things they believe in, so when it’s put into reality, they have no logical framework on how it will work in reality.
Reminds me of something I saw about what a man did when texas ruled people not married in a church by a priest can't claim married on taxes. He had been married in a court by a judge, so he filed as single. He got a curious call, explained himself, and they said "You know who that law was for" he said "welp it's the law" and hung up, did not pay taxes as a married man that year. It's the same principal. You made your bed, now lie in it.
"That would be bad for men, so that's obviously not going to be a thing."
The ultimate litmus test of what these wackos will pass into law. Will it hurt women or their autonomy? Pass it twice. Will it possibly inconvenience men? Unjust!
The key to riddling out the line between embryo and fetus is "when do the first pluripotent stem cells begin to engage in their mature behavior", which is most clearly visualized through Chimeralism: the ability of a fetus to incorporate multiple cell lines. Answering how and when Chimeralization happens is the key to saying when the development process has committed to creating the individual that will follow.
...which still doesn't answer the question "why is there a Bubba with no biomedical degree standing between me and my OB/GYN?"
I recommend all women of child-bearing age move out of Alabama and Louisiana immediately. This could very well save your life. About 50% of conceptions either fail to implant or are spontaneously aborted (miscarried). Technically, those are all wrongful deaths and could all be investigated as homicides. They've made basic female bodily functions illegal.
The phrase “cryogenic nurseries” is so stupid that it made my brain shut down for a few seconds. 🤦🏾♂️
Oh I know. It's like, fine, call it whatever you want, it's still just an extra cold freezer (put simply).
I mean it would be one thing if it were a last ditch effort to save terminal pediatric patients. Crazy but understandable, but this....
Anyone sensible would have thought that this word only comes from the most cringy teen Sci-Fi, but here we are.
Great band name though.
I thought it was a joke and laughed hard enough for people to stare!
One of the first things that I thought after the outrage upon hearing this news, was, does this mean incarcerating a pregnant person would mean incarcerating a child?
Because the USA doesn't incarcerat children?
There are technically prisons with like daycare type facilities to allow a single mother to continue to care for her baby. There are children that literally grow up in prison
Mega mind was ahead of its time.
There's an opportunity here.
Well, killing a pregnant woman counts as a double homicide, so...
ok so in a nutshell: *"We could've debated the real issue at hand: the waiver but EHHHHHHHHHHHHH didn't feel like it >:} "* this is insane. how is this the system??
Justice is irrelevant to theocrats.
I can’t get over the fact that we’re living closer and closer to that bit in Legally Blonde where she wins the argument in her class about how a man’s paternity lawsuit could backfire to the point where his “solo emissions”are considered child abandonment 💀
"Does child support start when the embryo is fertilized in vitro? No! Because that would affect men." 💀
He's right tho
Accurate
Based?
It's been said before that if men could get pregnant, the right to abortion would be codified in the Constitution.
@@TheRogueWolfbut men are forced to pay child support.
So if what you said would be true then 1. Child support wouldn't be a thing, 2. Abortion would be legal
The fact that they are scrambling to carve out an exception tells you exactly how much they believe what they purport to believe.
Or how much their beliefs have massive flaws that cause great harm to people.
I would hate to be an IVF doctor in Alabama rn. I cannot imagine the feeling they're having to go through of having to stop treatments (I hear there's usually some bonds built there) on a patient you care about and want to help them conceive, but you could be legally prosecuted for that job's normal routines. And you can't pass on non-utilised embryos for testing, which help save lives with medical research and testing too.
People are fleeing places because of these laws that often are enforced heavy handedly.
Yep. As stupid as the decision is to consider frozen IVF embryos to be "children" it IS the only logical conclusion based on their premises.
If they argue there's no important difference between an embryo and a baby then there's no difference between a fertilised egg and a baby either.
If they argue being inside or outside the womb is the same in terms of giving birth then it must be the same in terms of being implanted in utero as well.
If they argue non-viability doesn't matter then being frozen in a lab also doesn't
Who would have thought. That a law pushed by people, who are trying to control one group of people. Would inevitably hurt people in the group that likely voted for them.
It’s almost as if, it wasn’t really about rights. But rather about controlling people outside the evangelical bubble.
'We can't make you fear God into obeying us, but we can make you fear the law'
it's also why they want to ban books in schools as well. They don't want you to learn what they are doing is wrong and that others have contrasting views to theirs!@@NikkiBudders
@@MrGamerofmusic Well said friend.
That means these “parents” should start getting Medicaid, tax deductions, and *LIFE insurance policies* on every last one of these bad boys.
i have the exact curiosities about life insurance policies.
This whole thing started from a loony sneaking into the clinic and dropping the embryos. But rather than sue the loony, the lawyers recognized that there would be much more money in suing the clinic. They then saw raising the possibility of homicide charges as leverage to make more money from the suit. This level of greed was indulged far too long by the justice system.
I don't think that's quite fair to the couples. We're talking about people who may have been trying for years to start a family, spent tens of thousands of dollars to undergo unpleasant procedures all for the sake of a potential child. The emotional stakes are extremely high, even if I don't agree with the conclusion that murder occurred. The clinic obviously could have had tighter security measures.
Obviously at least one of the justices was just itching to get a case like this so he could put his religion into law.
@@Driftercat I don't necessarily have a problem with suing the clinic, but suing for wrongful death of a child is insane and my sympathy just immediately evaporates.
@@Cream147player I don't blame the couples who took a real blow. They're people in pain and I doubt they meant for their lawsuit to have the impact it did (after all they themselves used IVF). It was the judges' responsibility to compensate them fairly while putting limits on the charges placed, and not to overhaul the entire concept of what might constitute a child.
I can't explain how WRONG it is to have a logical extension to absurdity argument I've made as an example of how sentimental but impractical legal standard actually became a real life ruling. Ffs, I argued that life at conception hinges on the idea of soul (which I believe exists but belongs nowhere in any legal code) logically has a problem with fertility clinics.
Meanwhile, the French are including abortion rights in their constitution (although it was already protected by law). They say they are the first to do so.
I heard it on the radio here in Sweden. Awesome news! I was so glad when I heard it, and it helps boost the efforts in other European countries to include it in their constitutions, as well. This whole thing started in earnest with the Dobbs decision. Immediately after the Dobbs decision, people from my party in Sweden as well as other parties began to talk about the need for enshrining abortion rights into our constitution. Ironically, the theocrats in the US may have significantly strengthened reproductive rights in Europe.
They explicitly said:"Before it is too late."
We are now starting to see what "too late" looks like in the US.
It is done today and they are now pushing to put it in the EU chart of fundamental rights
Life is not equal to personhood. Plants are alive, animals are alive, but they are people.
Only live human beings who have finished gestation should be considered people. Gestation can be completed inside or outside of a uterus, and must include at minimum, a gestational term congruent with viability. Viability is often considered plausible around the 23rd week of gestation (gestational weeks counted from the last menstrual period, not the current actual age of the embryo/fetus), with most fetuses statistically reaching viability by the 28th gestational week. Gestation is currently considered full term at 37 weeks. Life should be realistically sustainable by the time a gestating human is considered a person.
For those wondering about murder of a fetus - some states have handled this through a charge called “feticide.” We can both give recognition to gestating humans without giving them the same rights, protections and privileges as a “person.”
The pregnant person would already be able to right off medical expenses, get additional financial assistance (social services), etc.
We don’t need another s*it storm caused by uneducated, over zealous politicians.
Honestly, The fact that some of these politicians (Tommy Tuberville) are making decisions on stuff that they don’t even know anything about (IVF) is INCREDIBLY worrying!!!!!
21 years after fertilisation, you can legally give those frozen embryos alcohol. And you have to let them vote!
The age requirements have always been since birth. Historically. Since time immemorial, even. Being a person before birth or not being a person doesn't change that.
A woman should be charged for each embryo when buying an airplane ticket. (I'm joking)
@@RickJaegerthat creates a paradox if the state considering them as birth.
@@jbone9900 It really doesn't. Minimum age requirements have always been marked since birth. I understand what you're trying to do, but you're factually wrong on this particular matter.
@@RickJaeger Look at you, trying to use logic and reason when we're talking about the Alabama legal system. That's so cute.
Alabama: cells are people
Also Alabama: no, they don't count towards social safety net requirements! What are you, crazy?
Well, alabama doesn't think anyone outside of Walmart or Halliburton should have social safety nets anyway.
Alabama: "They count as 1/99th as a person until they are a viable human. Ergo, within a rounding error, they don't get child support, of course."
"And if we could make blacks count as 3/5ths of a human again, we'd do it in a heartbeat."
This is actually very ironic 😂 not even a century ago they didn’t consider black people as people but now even a fetus get the title. Don’t try over compensate it rarely works out
Its important as long as the government doesn't have to give or cut some slack on people, at that point we're all wrong and crazy.
The chief justice invoking Christian God as higher power than the state's law had me wondering if they had decided to repel\erase Thomas Jefferson's statement of "Church and state are and must remain separate."
We can only hope that this madness doesn’t spread and is overturned.
I don’t have high hopes tho.
Yeah, cautious optimism is the best I can muster right now lol.
As someone who very much wants a child, having a miscarriage was one of the worst pains I’ve ever felt. I still struggle some days, and it’s been almost 6 months. The fact that I could be arrested and jailed if I lived in Alabama (and some other states) is INSANE.
But you wont adopt...
You don't want "a child", you want a "mini-me", a little genetic clone. That is selfish.
@wmdkitty
And I'm pretty sure you have a house full of adopted children because you care about them so much
@@wmdkitty Kitty; about half of the pregnancies fail. IF you believe in a god & are anti-abortion, please go in your closet & pray that something will be done.
It will at least lessen the harm you are doing right now.
You are berating someone trying to become a parent who has just had a setback. When someone says they're in pain, normal feelings should tell you to sympathise, not sermonise. Do better.
.
Courtney, i'm so sorry for your loss. My mother had my brother & me, but also had a miscarriage. Even though she had 2 children, the pain was still there, the 'what could have been' You'll likely have successful pregnancies after this, but that doesn't take away your pain now.
Here are some internetcuddles from a stranger should you want them: ((()))
@@wmdkitty You don't know what's going on in her life.
I’m so sorry for your loss.
Miscarriages are normal and natural. No one should have the right to blame a woman for her miscarriage. And I hope you don’t blame yourself.
I was born, raised, and still live in the same town in the same house in northern Alabama. I'm so freaking scared living here now. I have chronic pain and deal with debilitating anxiety as well as other mental illnesses, and I am absolutely terrified of being pregnant and giving birth. My body couldn't physically handle it, and my mind couldn't mentally handle it. I'm on birth control, but I haven't had sex since 2018 because I'm absolutely terrified that I'll accidentally get pregnant, and if that happens, I'm screwed. I'm on disability so I can't afford to just up and leave the state. I hate it here, and honestly, the other than money issues, the only reason why I'm still here is because with how terrified I am, I know other femme people like me and people with a uterus are just as terrified as I am, and I'm going to fight for all of us to win this state from the clutches of these Fascist assholes.
Good vibes to you and yours, and best of luck bringing sanity to the US's professional problem child.
you need to consider moving, hun. not easy to hear. i moved for my mental health. your environment does matter. get out, love. like an abusive relationship. make smart goals and do what you gotta do. 🤍🩵🤍
No, go ahead and stay where you are. We don't need more broken people over here.
Perfect textbook example of an american leftie.
@@deadinside9565Lmao!
Annnnd thats why I don't believe there is any such thing as "a jury of my peers".
Although not a laughing matter, when this decision was announced, my immediate thought was of Monty Python's song "Every sperm is sacred" from "The Meaning of Life."
My parents could only conceive through IVF. The round that resulted in me only resulted in 2 viable embryos, and both were implanted in the uterus. We have pictures of the two little clumps of cells on a microscopic level, from before they were implanted! It's very cool to look at a couple little blobs of cells and know that's the first picture my parents ever got to see of me! Unfortunately, only my little clump of cells made it out of the womb, because I ended up absorbing/eating/outcompeting the other one pretty early on. No matter the lingo we use about it, I effectively killed my sibling in there. I like to joke, due to the astronomical cost of IVF, that it was the most expensive meal I'll ever have.
If this happened in Alabama, right now, in another woman's uterus, could the surviving child be held liable for the death of the other? With IVF, it's not uncommon for implanted embryos to do this when implanted at the same time, especially if one ends up developing kinda wonky - in my picture of the clumps of cells, one is very uniform and the other one looks kinda scrambled, for lack of a better word. Is Alabama going to start chucking little babies in jail for killing their sibling when neither were larger than a ladybug?
Even if the parents of a victim don't want to press charges or anything, the state still has a responsibility to hold criminals accountable, and it seems from what Alabama law says, one embryo killing the other would absolutely be considered the murder of a child. You could even argue the IVF clinic or the mother endangered the wonky embryo by implanting it with the more normal-looking one, since there is precedent of this happening in IVF cases in the past - again, it's not uncommon for things to go wrong like this. Would she be liable? What then? Absolute insanity.
I would say no simply because the court has not been consistent in it's rulings. It'll rule that Embryo's are children but only for things that advance their political goals. They won't go and nuke their chances of getting elected by prosecuting every failed embryo case. This whole nonsense of looking back hundreds of years to make a ruling was started by the Supreme Court, which has the lowest approval ratings of any SC in US history.
Yummy sibling juices 🤤
I figured you were the ordered clump? If so, don't feel too bad, things weren't exactly looking up for your hypothetical sibling.
I seriously doubt it. As far as I know any criminal prosecution requires the mental intent to commit the crime as well as the knowledge that what you were doing was illegal/wrong. Since you didn't even have a full nervous system or faculties of reason, I think you're in the clear.
That is so cool! (The picture part, not the other stuff.) The first picture my parents have of me is after I was born.
@@dust3507 The fact we even have to consider these things is is the insanity prolife people have wrought.
"We need more kids"
WE NEED AFFORDABLE LIVING
Alabama supreme Court apparently doesn't agree.
“We need more kids” actually means “We need more poor women raising poor young men who have no choice but to go into the military in order to make a living.” They don’t care about kids. They care about controlling reproductive labor to produce more soldiers to protect their own wealth in case Putin tries to start WW3. The only reason we have school lunches was because during the Great Depression boys were so malnourished that they ‘would not make good soldiers’
We certainly don't need more kids. The entire population of the Earth is already so large that before half a year has passed we've consumed more resources than the world can replenish in one year.
Just another pathway into a new form of affordable living - prison.
And we certainly don't need more kids. The world is overpopulated humans already consume more resources than the Earth can replenish In a year even before half a year passes.
Literally protecting potential life, what about the lives that exist already and are living on the streets
Haha, protecting people? Nah, let's protect the cell clumps! This is how we shall please God! What sacrifices we make in His name!
That would mean addressing real problems. The GOP doesn't want that.
The fact that he said “we need more kids” is the problem right there. They don’t care if we can’t support them. If we want kids we’ll have kids, that senator wants kids regardless if they can be taken care of or loved. That’s how society crumbles, by creating more traumatized kids that parents can’t afford to take care of during these times of inflation. If kids aren’t properly cared for, they don’t usually create the most stable adult (not every time, but a lot of cases involve lack of parenting).
Using a dictionary from 1864 as a source is absolutely hilarious yet sad. These people are stuck centuries behind
It would probably make a lot sense for defining terms that have changed a lot since the creation of whatever law is being discussed. However the term children hasn’t changed, it’s just been refined
They only used an old dictionary because they needed to know what the word would have meant in 1864, this is standard practice, not them being stuck centuries behind.
@@I_Love_Learningthen the right to bear arms looking like we stuck with muskets and swords.
@@I_Love_Learning Why 1864?
Even so, @@I_Love_Learning, relying on language, definitions, and understandings of science, logic, and reality of folks hundreds of years ago to determine how we should govern ourselves is like, as one member of said group put it (Thomas Jefferson), expecting someone to wear their childhood coat because that was the coat they were given as a child.
We need to grow and develop as a society, which necessarily means questioning things we did in the past and using our superior knowledge and progress to better approach "a more perfect union".
So since this law implies that an embryo has full personhood rights the instant the sperm and egg touch, does that mean that birthright citizenship applies automatically if a pregnant migrant crosses the border? Or does she have to get pregnant on US soil for it to count?
If she donated her uterus then can she be deported while carrying what this law considers a full person? If that's the case is unlawful deportation of a US citizen? Or would that count as trafficking?
The stupidity of this decision begs so many questions.
I don't think an embryo would be a citizen, because the 14th Amendment states "All persons born or naturalized in the United States ... are citizens ...". So if an embryo is a person but not a citizen, then I think they would be subject to deportation.
@@electronics-girl Yeah but right there, "all persons". This grants personhood, ergo the embryo would be a person and therefore a citizen by the amendment.
Honestly it'd be hilarious to use that in a court case there given they'd have to choose between admitting an embryo isn't a person and not being racist in Alabama.
@@redkingrauri3769But it's not "all persons", period. It's only persons who are "born or naturalized in the United States". Since the embryo has not been born or naturalized, it is not a citizen.
I would say citizenship occurs at birth.
@electronics-girl I very much wonder how the distinction of 'birth' ever matters anymore in the US. This entire ruling seems to make it obsolete.
So, the harmful chemicals act being used against birth control. If the law is being used as such, couldn't it also be used in another way? Like, if someone didn't know they were pregnant and were going to chemo? Or if they were mentally ill and tried to end their lives via overdose? Or even just exercising? I live in Utah and know people love snowboarding but it's also a little dangerous. We certainly wouldn't allow babies on the slope. But, if someone was pregnant and didn't show it, and went snowboarding, is that child endangerment? That embryonic personhood is just...doesn't it seem like taking government too far? Why aren't conservative being more limiting (i.e. conservative) here with their rulings?
That would never happen. Take a woman and her husband in a car accident. It's rough, both of them end up with potential concussions. He's whisked into the MRI immediately to make sure his brain and spine are fine. She risks potential stroke from bleeding on the brain while they wait for her pregnancy test results to come back, because no one gives a flying F about women- she MIGHT be pregnant! THINK OF THE FETUS! IT MIGHT BE MALE! There's not a single hospital in America that would give a woman chemo without doing a pregnancy test first, even the lady in question is a gold star lesbian.
LOVED when he said “ child support obligations began at that moment!? I’m just kidding, that would be bad for men so that’s obviously NOT going to be a thing” SOOOO TRUTHFUL!! We make light of it but it’s REALLY Sad that we as women are being told what to do with our bodies when THEY don’t have the same against them! Prayers to all the ladies out there and the families effected!! Hope we learn and vote 🗳️!!!
Alabama may I remind you kindly of the separation between church and state. America is a democracy not a theocracy.
I'm starting to think this is all a roundabout civil war strategy to secede by getting kicked out. I mean, I'd sure be happier without them.
@@josephmathessometimes i think abt that with my own state (texas) that very much wants to secede, but I remember not only my own situation in which i cannot afford to move out, and mannnyyy others cannot either. If a horrible state secedes, what happens to the citizens who cant escape? by keeping this shitty states in america, they are cannot go as far as they want, even if they are getting close. the souths low cost of living is kinda trap imo, if ur a local, u cant make enough to move out since with low cost of living (its still really high for us locals btw) comes low wages. good times!
It's a Republic... America wouldn't survive on strictly a democracy. Mostly bc the average person is stupid and needs to be regulated
You think so, do you? Well hang on tight, because here comes Christian Nationalism.
"I'm just kidding, that would be bad for men so obviously that's not going to be a thing"
*internal screaming*
I'm pretty sure this video put in 1948X more thought than the lawmakers who passed that bill.
"We make laws not think ahead."
More states to add to my list of places I will never move to
It’s almost like people who have no idea what there talking about shouldn’t be in charge of things they know nothing about. Don’t put me in the pilots seat of a plane and expect me to do a good job.
Indeed. I am an avid knowledge seeker, so I have a modest understanding of a huge range of things, *but don't put me in charge of anything that I don't have experience in!*
To the judges: go to med school, specialize in OB/GYN, spend a full year doing OB/GYN stuff (as you can tell, I have no experience as OB/GYN)... then we can talk.
They will put a diverse pilot in, don't worry 😂
@Klongu_Da_Bongu Ok? As long as its a pilot? I dont see your point other than being racist/sexist for the sake of being racist/sexist.
@@Klongu_Da_Bongu I don’t care who the pilot is. I only care if they can fly the plane or not.
@@xythrr It's absolutely racist to hire pilots based on skin color and not merit, I agree.
Waiting for someone to call this a "Judeo-Christian victory" so I can scream and get it over with. Jewish law states that the health of the mother is prioritized until the embryo is about to be born, and only then do you make equal effort to save both. The overturning of Row vs Wade presented challenges for Jewish families who could now loose a wife and mother for a reason not compatible with THIER religious beliefs. I don't know the details around the Jewish laws and policies for IVF, but they are discussed and agreed upon. A great many families go to IVF to have children, and since Row vs Wade was debated again, there were concerns on how it would affect IVF. This is greatly against Jewish values, and I hope the "Christians" involved will keep our name out of it.
In the end, it just an easy free vote from those sectors if they appeal to them. Almost every decision is pretty much a game of how much votes you will gain before the final boss that is the election season. this is why a lot of election and campaign mostly show what law or decision they gain just a reminder that "I made a law for your religion, vote for me"
Yerp and or victory for Abrahamic religions…. This is purely a Christian specifically a Catholic and the American puritanical spin of christian sects thing really… but yeah it’s pretty much just them… getting real tired of puritains pushing their bronze age religion on everyone else.
It's pretty ingenious when you think about it. They don't like us Jews, so they attach us to their "moral" victories to trick people into hating us more.
I agree that when the life of the mother is threatened she gets the priority. But the Jewish tradition also values life so if both can be saved without endangering the mother should we not endeavor to do so? There were many orthodox jews who celebrated the Dobbs decision and many reform or conservative jews who lamented it. I wish all those women faced with difficult choices like this the best regardless of their decision but I also hope that those who are viable are born and find loving homes and lead fulfilling lives.
Its called judo Christian because...ultimately...it's the same religion.
I completely agree that with this ruling child support should start at conception in Alabama. This absolutely should be the policy if they are children from conception.
Trolling?
I cimpletely afree that not a single Planned Parenthood clinic is to be shut down.
I mean... Look at where most of them are 😂
@@lars6261 Why would they be trolling? They should be able to claim them as a dependent and even get life insurance on the embryo if they are by law a person now.
@@Klongu_Da_Bongu Is this meant to be a clever racist comment or are you actually for helping people that need it?
@@godlygamer911 It's sarcastic. And yes, I would remove all of those clinics. If you really want all that, let's make a compromise - keep the clinics, but not where they are, and a different name and work ethic. Seems rough or unrefined, but it's a start.