• Anti-Abortion, Yet Pro-IVF

    From Lawrence D'Oliveiro@21:1/5 to All on Tue Mar 5 07:26:26 2024
    I suppose you’ve heard about that decision by the Alabama Supreme Court a
    few days ago that embryos created by in-vitro fertilization are also to be treated as human beings, which means discarding excess ones (as commonly happens with the procedure) is technically murder.

    For some reason, many of the anti-abortion brigade are unhappy about this (including Donald Trump!), and think this is taking things too far.

    I wonder why? Does their “Life Begins At Conception” ideology only apply
    to conception within a woman’s body, not within a Petri dish?

    I wonder what our anti-abortionist Prime Minister thinks?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lawrence D'Oliveiro@21:1/5 to All on Thu Mar 7 21:01:01 2024
    On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 07:26:26 -0000 (UTC), I wrote:

    I suppose you’ve heard about that decision by the Alabama Supreme Court
    a few days ago that embryos created by in-vitro fertilization are also
    to be treated as human beings, which means discarding excess ones (as commonly happens with the procedure) is technically murder.

    And so the fun continues, as the state legislature hastily passes a
    bill to shield IVF providers from the unfortunate consequences of this
    decision <https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/03/ala-passes-law-to-shield-ivf-but-legal-and-ideological-questions-loom/>

    I wonder why? Does their “Life Begins At Conception” ideology only apply to conception within a woman’s body, not within a Petri dish?

    This is looking more and more like the case:

    But, most notably, it entirely ignores the crux of the Supreme
    Court's ruling: whether frozen embryos have the same legal rights
    as children. In its ruling, the court drew from a 2018 amendment
    to the state's constitution to "recognize and support the sanctity
    of unborn life and the rights of unborn children." Lawmakers have
    only begun to grapple with the contradiction of having personhood
    defined as beginning at fertilization but granting immunity to
    those who destroy fertilized eggs considered children. The
    incongruence leaves open the possibility of future legal
    challenges to the rushed law.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)