43
submitted 8 months ago by memfree@beehaw.org to c/chat@beehaw.org

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

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] apis@beehaw.org 10 points 8 months ago

Not if their policies increase the rate of reproduction, no, or at least, not for some time, because they know that unwanted & unplanned pregnancies increase the desperation of the women, both in the immediate sense & in slashing the numbers of women who can access education > good employment > sufficient societal security to unionise.

They intend to make it ever harder for anyone, but especially women, to obtain sterilisation or other means of reducing risk of pregnancy. This is why they chase reproductive health in general, even things such as IVF.

You already know these people to be dangerous ideologues - I'd caution against underestimating them or their grotesque vision.

[-] memfree@beehaw.org 5 points 8 months ago

When trying to bring this sort of thing up with a mixed group of people, I use the term "Republican low-wage policies" to describe a whole set of policies, and now I'm going to have to add forced-births to the list. Decades ago, it was just an insistence on denying citizenship to migrant farm workers to suppress wages, then add to that 'no child left behind' making it harder to teach more to students that could achieve more, then the whole home-school/charter-school movement where funds that used to go to public schools getting split and diluted, and so on.

And yes, I can see how it'd be hard to get sterilized without the health care and career to provide and pay for it.

this post was submitted on 22 Feb 2024
43 points (100.0% liked)

Chat

7499 readers
7 users here now

Relaxed section for discussion and debate that doesn't fit anywhere else. Whether it's advice, how your week is going, a link that's at the back of your mind, or something like that, it can likely go here.


Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS