this post was submitted on 21 Feb 2024
417 points (96.2% liked)

Technology

62058 readers
4684 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s
enu
technopagan
L4s
417
Frozen embryos are “children,” according to Alabama’s Supreme Court (arstechnica.com)
submitted 11 months ago by L4s to c/technology
122 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Frozen embryos are “children,” according to Alabama’s Supreme Court::IVF often produces more embryos than are needed or used.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

It's stupid but the article says why:

In the Alabama case, a hospital patient wandered through an unlocked door, removed frozen, preserved embryos from subzero storage and, suffering an ice burn, dropped the embryos, destroying them. Affected IVF patients filed wrongful-death lawsuits against the IVF clinic under the state's Wrongful Death of a Minor Act. The case was initially dismissed in a lower court, which ruled the embryos did not meet the definition of a child. But the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that "it applies to all children, born and unborn, without limitation." In a concurring opinion, Chief Justice Tom Parker cited his religious beliefs and quoted the Bible to support the stance.

[–] Daft_ish 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

I know why the courts would ask but in general this is something a single judge has no authority on. The idea that a single person gets to define what "life" is absurdity. We have army's of scholars following strict rules of logic, ethics, and are backed by science. Their consensus is more compatible with human society than some dusty book.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

Absurdity indeed!