First the crazy: Alabama has been calling embryos and fetuses 'people' for a long time. The latest ruling says that even frozen embryos are 'people'. This ruling says:
“We believe that each human being, from the moment of conception, is made in the image of God, created by Him to reflect His likeness. It is as if the People of Alabama took what was spoken of the prophet Jeremiah and applied it to every unborn person in this state: ‘Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, Before you were born I sanctified you.’ Jeremiah 1:5 (NKJV 1982)”.
source: archive: https://archive.is/fBJnL | https://premierchristian.news/en/news/article/created-by-him-to-reflect-his-likeness-alabama-judge-quotes-bible-in-embryo-lawsuit-ruling
USA Today points to Gorsuch as opening the gates to highly religious rulings:
The First Amendment's Establishment Clause typically limits the role religion can play in government, but the U.S. Supreme Court in 2022 changed the longstanding process by which it reviewed conflicts between government and religion. The decision to change that process was written by Justice Gorsuch, who said the court needed to rely more heavily on "reference to historical practices and understandings." Parker, the Alabama judge, specifically referenced Gorsuch in his concurrent opinion.
source: archive: https://archive.is/cPjgw | https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2024/02/22/ivf-opinion-from-alabama-justice-was-overtly-religious/72689378007/
Slate points out that by the Court's own logic, both the 'parents' and the clinic should be charged with murder (as well as the person who actually dropped the embryos).
source: archive: https://archive.is/7l3vx | https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/02/abortion-bans-alabamas-anti-ivf-ruling-fail.html
WITH ALL THAT:
Perhaps it is a good thing that the whole nation now has a reason to take a long hard look at what it means to be a 'person'. I've seen studies saying anywhere from 20%-60% of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion; most before the woman realizes she is pregnant. This paper says maybe as low as 10%, but only if you aren't paying attention: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5741961/
The spontaneous miscarriage rate varies between from 10% to 20% where 10% refers to late recognition of pregnancy and 20% refers to research involving routinely testing for pregnancy before 4 weeks or 4 weeks after the last menstrual period
This chart says there's a 30% chance of miscarrying in the first week, with reduced risks after that: https://datayze.com/miscarriage-chart
Per Alabama, is God that invested in killing 'unborn' 'people'? Given how likely it is for an embryo to naturally abort, can we ever claim "beyond reasonable doubt" that a pregnancy was ever viable?
The above Slate piece suggests the unborn be treated as property. That might work for cells you want to keep, but note that there's a Supreme Court precedent that discarded cells are NOT a person's property and can be commercialized (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrietta_Lacks#Consent_issues_and_privacy_concerns).
If we try to define when life begins, the Religious Right is sure to get deference. Look at how they've put "heartbeat bills" in place for embryos that don't HAVE HEARTS! Personally, I don't think setting a time constraint should be involved in defining life, but we're here to chat and discuss.
Lastly, CNN offered an opinion that we could choose to be more like South Korea which ruled (as summarized in Op-Ed):
If embryonic or fetal life has value, the state shouldn’t start with criminalization. Instead, the government may have a constitutional obligation to advance its interest in protecting that life in ways that don’t limit reproductive liberty, by protecting pregnant workers, delivering better prenatal care or safe housing and reducing the rate of maternal mortality.
source: archive: https://archive.is/GV0M0 | https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/21/opinions/alabama-supreme-court-fetal-embryo-personhood-abortion-ziegler/index.html
Yes, this is the realistic answer here. So many are just flat-out trapped.
Then again, so long as they continue to vote for these Republican jokers who keep doing these things, that's kinda on them?
The heart-breaking part is, as you say, the poorer people that are not doing that, yet have no other options offered to them.
So my comment would have been better phrased as "want to move". But... there are no easy answers here. People are going to literally die no matter what.
True. Keep in mind that there is lots of voter suppression as well there. But yeah, it’s on the people voting R.
And not fighting back, I suppose, though what are you going to do, realistically?
Remember that rally in Charleston, NC - the one where people announced ahead of time that they were going to kill people? then they wrapped barbed wire around their bats? and then they actually killed people? Oh right, I forgot, the other side failed to secure a proper permit so... "many sides" we are told:-|.
So it is not merely "voter" suppression, but suppression done in many ways - e.g. fear.
For the record, I never felt that you were fighting back. Nor have I been really disagreeing with you.
And REALLY good point. One thing we fail to realize is how much tribalism affects people as well. No one wants to stand out and be cast out of their tribe. When that happened throughout history, those people died. So when your friends and coworkers say one thing, the most you can do for your own survival sometimes is simply stay quiet.
To add to that, you have hopelessness. What use is trying to make change when the odds are insurmountable. I really feel for people living there. So many people must feel hated by those around them, and they feel like there’s nothing they can do.
Oh, by "not fighting back" I meant people in states like Alabama not doing anything to challenge the status quo (e.g. vote Dem). But me not fighting back against you is also a true statement:-).
And then I didn't want you to think I was "blaming" those who did not fight back - they have good reasons, including fear of retribution.
One of my heroes George Carlin basically advocated for giving up and not voting at all. The caveat is that back when he said that, the "both sides-ism" actually more or less worked, prior to Newt Gingrich pushing to weaponize tribalism in the Republican party (at least some people trace it back to that pivot point, though surely the roots go much further into the hundreds of years, or millenia before USA even started, or even prior to us becoming homo sapiens:-).
All that I have managed to come up with so far - perhaps all that ever was really - is that while you can't change everything everywhere, you can change yourself, and we are in fact responsible for doing at least that (although that interleaves with interactions with others b/c how will you improve yourself by just walling yourself off from society and reading all the time?). So, since I do not live in Alabama, I choose to be sad for them, but I will work wherever I happen to find myself at any given moment - and be glad that I do not live there.