The Alabama IVF/embryo ruling is the logical conclusion

[intrepidity]

to the (usually religious-based) line of thinking about the sanctity of life, isn't it?

Once you allow murder charges to be brought against someone who causes the death of a fetus, you have set up the conditions for this current ad absurdum extension. In some ways, it was inevitable that the discussion got to this point.

It's a real sticky wicket.

If you have come to terms with where the lines are drawn, I'd like to hear from you. (I don't want to hear any arguments based on religion, though.)

I struggle similarly with laws that treat pets as property, when someone deliberately kills someone's pet.

FTR, I fully support very permissive abortion rights. If one life *fully* (and physically) depends upon another for existence, seniority rules. Where I struggle, as mentioned above, is where "personhood" can be arbitrarily assigned. That's how this ruling came about in Alabama, because some people thought that their frozen embryos deserved personhood and rights, and that being "ex-utero" was not sufficiently differentiating criteria from an implanted one: in both cases, the embryo most decidedly *cannot* survive on its own. Sigh.

Frankly, I'm beginning to really question the whole premise, that life itself is precious. I mean, it's *OK* and everything, sometimes better than the alternative, but also it's like *everywhere* (at least on this planet). I guess a species trying to get a toehold on a competitive planet might need to devise a strategy (religion) to convince itself to propagate to critical mass, but after that, then what?

[TwilightZone]

1. I've been wondering for years why they weren't targeting IVF.

If they really believe that life begins at conception, IVF shouldn't be an exception. And here we are, sadly.

In fact, if we take their "god's will" argument to its logical conclusion, IVF shouldn't even be allowed. God meant you not to have children. You're messing with god's will by trying to have children artificially.

It's all nonsense, but targeting IVF actually makes some logical sense when looked at from their perspective. It was always a weird exception to their draconian worldview.

Birth control is next, though that's already been on the radar for a while. I think they'll ramp it up now.

[flying_wahini]

3. The nay sayers said the exact thing when heart surgery and transplants came into real world choices.(70's)

But they were the first in line too when it came to THEM,

The rank hypocrisy has always been a hallmark of the GOP.

[flying_wahini]

2. I have to say this has caused me lots of anxiety. My son and his wife are using IVF and we live in Texas.

Just preparing for implantation in a few weeks and hoping it takes. I’m worried that Gov HotWheels will screw everything up for us after a year of VERY EXPENSIVE meds and treatments.

Why don’t they mind their own business? Can’t stand people who control their own lives.
They want Sheep.

[getagrip_already]

4. Conclusion? Nope, not even close to a conclusion

It's just another stepping stone.

Hormonal treatment of all types will be targeted. Menopause, acne, other skin ailments requiring hormonal or gene therapy.

Then there are std treatments. Why cure disease brought on by evil? Just put them in a colony somewhere.

They aren't just antivax. They were anti aids treatment years back. What makes anyone think they have changed?

[Model35mech]

5. This episode of religious over-reach will not last forever.

Choice rhetoric will adapt to meet the challenge while society will generally tire of dealing with the damaging consequences of not having abortion available.