Supreme Court says people will be held criminally liable under the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act if they destroy one
  • BoringHusband@lemmy.world
    227·
    3 months ago

    I guess soon, when you break-up with someone, the state might charge you with killing the idea of the children you might have had.

  • neptune@dmv.socialEnglish
    119·
    3 months ago

    Isn’t it illegal to transport a child to commit a crime? Human trafficking? Kidnapping? What a can of worms. I feel like there’s too much money in fertility treatments for SCOTUS to let this stand.

    • HauntedCupcake@lemmy.world
      7·
      3 months ago

      I’m surprised the Alabama legal system isn’t more comfortable with miscarriages. They seem to have had a lot recently

    • milicent_bystandr@lemm.ee
      2·
      3 months ago

      When she arrived at hospital seeking treatment, Poolaw admitted to using illicit drugs while pregnant.

      So the ‘crime’ is of causing the death of the foetus through illegal drug use.

      • SeaJ@lemm.ee
        4·
        3 months ago

        It’s not conclusive that the cause was drug use. And that really should not matter anyway. It was a miscarriage.

    • gedaliyah@lemmy.worldMEnglish
      17·
      3 months ago

      “Yes, I see on your tax forms that you have claimed 1034 dependents, which means that the state actually owes YOU. Here is your big bag of money sir.”

    • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
      7·
      3 months ago

      Well considering most people who have them are wealthy, it would fit right in with Republicans wanting to give tax breaks to the rich.

      The real question is child support.

    • unreasonabro@lemmy.world
      6·
      3 months ago

      Oh man, get the state to pay for the storage costs for your embryos. That’ll put and end to this silly shit STAT.

  • fubarx@lemmy.ml
    70·
    3 months ago

    Tinder in certain states will put up an alert, warning you that if female, by proceeding with the date, you may be liable to carry a child to term, and if male, will need to pre-deposit child support in an escrow account.

    • FryHyde@lemmy.zip
      3·
      3 months ago

      Massive child trafficking ring brought down in Alabama. Governor to receive medal for outstanding achievement in law enforcement as 700 arrests are performed statewide.

  • GreenPlasticSushiGrass@kbin.social
    54·
    3 months ago

    I’m not messing with that soft paywall. Are they saying that parents who let their frozen embryos go bad in the freezer are guilty of murder or manslaughter?

          • Daft_ish@lemmy.world
            12·
            3 months ago

            You don’t understand. This old book told me all the answers to life’s mysteries. WoOoOooo it’s infallible.

            God it would be funny/sad if someone found a copy of Mike Pences auto biography 10,000 years after some cataclysm destroyed society. Than they started worshiping it.

            • FuglyDuck@lemmy.worldEnglish
              10·
              3 months ago

              WoOoOooo

              You said it wrong. You failed your attempt at conversion.

              Wololo. Wololo. Wololo.

              Welcome to the Huns.

                • FuglyDuck@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  3·
                  3 months ago

                  My dad was one of those jerks that would build 30-40 priests on an Econ build and then push with them when you decided to try and crack that nut,

                  Poof there goes your army.

                  Not that he really knew what an Econ build was, or any of the other things. But he’d play this “I don’t know what I’m doing” act and get away with it, (and he wasn’t good enough to deserve a feudal rush. Just… annoying.)

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
              9·
              3 months ago

              Sorry, that’s a no true Scotsman fallacy.

              It doesn’t matter if they aren’t Christ-like. Many, many Christians, including clergy and even pontiffs have committed atrocities. They still worshiped Christ, making them Christians.

              If we were to play it your way, the Crusaders weren’t Christians, the Spanish Inquisition weren’t Christians, the Conquistadors weren’t Christians, etc. I don’t think that’s what you intend, but that is the problem with suggesting people who are not Christlike are not Christians.

              Otherwise, we need to invent a new religion and put a huge percentage of people from the last 2000 years who thought they were called Christians into it.

              • SaltySalamander@kbin.social
                3·
                3 months ago

                If we were to play it your way, the Crusaders weren’t Christians, the Spanish Inquisition weren’t Christians, the Conquistadors weren’t Christians, etc

                All of the above are Catholic, and the vast majority of Christians I know would agree that they aren’t Christian.

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                  5·
                  3 months ago

                  That is not only another No True Scotsman fallacy, it’s also anecdotal.

                  Catholics are undeniably Christians no matter what other Christians may think. Catholicism likely came before their sect anyway.

                • treefrog@lemm.ee
                  2·
                  3 months ago

                  That may be but the original point you seemed to make was broader.

                  I.e. you just moved the goal post because of the examples.

                  Are Prosperity Theology Christian’s not really Christian?

                  btw, the buddha wasn’t a buddhist, and christ wasn’t a christian. Let go of identity views and just do the next right thing.

                  The world is tribal enough.

              • tryptaminev 🇵🇸 🇺🇦 🇪🇺@feddit.de
                2·
                3 months ago

                If you read the fallacy you’d realize that you fell into the false fallacy fallacy.

                To quote your linked article:

                No true Scotsman or appeal to purity is an informal fallacy in which one attempts to protect their generalized statement from a falsifying counterexample by excluding the counterexample improperly.[1][2][3] Rather than abandoning the falsified universal generalization or providing evidence that would disqualify the falsifying counterexample, a slightly modified generalization is constructed ad-hoc to definitionally exclude the undesirable specific case and similar counterexamples by appeal to rhetoric.

                There is plenty of countries with a christian background and still majority christian population, that wouldn’t even think to discuss such absurd policies. American nutjobs cannot be considered to be representative of christianity as a whole. Much of their nutjobbery is specific to them.

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                  4·
                  3 months ago

                  American nutjobs cannot be considered to be representative of christianity as a whole.

                  No one said they were. They aren’t. But they are Christians. That is their religion even if you don’t like that it is the same as yours.

            • BrokenGlepnir@lemmy.world
              3·
              3 months ago

              I’ve been thinking of them as antichristian. Not as in against Christianity, but as in antichrist …ian. From what I’ve heard the whole idea of the antichrist is supposed to be that Christians love the guy even though the guy goes against all of the lessons of Jesus, but he does the performative stuff. That sounds like what I see there.

        • TengoDosVacas@lemmy.world
          3·
          3 months ago

          It is absolutely an evil ideology and shut be utterly abolished along with all Abrahamic religions. Fuck the Constitution; they got this one dead wrong

          • Scubus@sh.itjust.works
            1·
            3 months ago

            *theistic religions

            Believing that the flying spaghetti monster will solve all the worlds issues means you don’t function in society

      • Billiam@lemmy.world
        66·
        3 months ago

        The judge used religious logic religion in his ruling.

        Ain’t no logic to be found there.

      • FuglyDuck@lemmy.worldEnglish
        12·
        3 months ago

        to be fair, the (wrongful death*) lawsuit was because the hospital or wherever they were being stored at let the frozen embryos die off. It’s entirely reasonable to expect some kind of… protection… considering the reason for those to have been stored was so they might be able to have kids, etc.

        *wrongful death is a bit much, mind you. But how far do you want to take the “guy beats a pregnant woman to kill the baby” types of charges? ultimately, I suspect, the issue here is that the religious nutjobs lack nuance. they see the world as black-and-white and can’t fathom a possibility where there were damages in this matter, but it wasn’t a “wrongful death” scenario.

        • WhatTrees@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
          19·
          3 months ago

          From what I’ve previously read the agency that had the frozen embryos did not let them die off, they stored them properly in an industrial freezer kept at far below 0 temps. The issue was a person who didn’t work at the clinic snuck into the room with the fridge, opened it and then dropped the embryos and ran away (the article said the assumption was because the containers were so cold he got freeze-burned). There might be a case here that they didn’t do enough to stop the individual, or check on them often enough, I don’t know enough details to know, but it doesn’t sound like they just simply didn’t care or didn’t store them properly.

          States have long had laws against forcibly ending someone else’s pregnancy and those have stood up even before Roe died. It’s not usually on the level of murder/manslaughter, but at a minimum it’s been treated as a destruction of property. You don’t have to treat the embryo as a person to charge someone with aggravated battery or something similar.

          The main issue here is the broadness of this ruling (besides the whole quoting the Bible thing) which equates embryos with full-human life. It won’t change a whole lot in this case, the families could have still sued for negligence or destruction of property, or any number of other civil remedies of this was denied, but now it’s laid the ground work to do much worse things in the future.

          • FuglyDuck@lemmy.worldEnglish
            4·
            3 months ago

            Looking close, you’re right. Vandals got in.

            I would suggest the facility was negligent in their security arrangements, as far as wrongful death (again, it’s a pretty dubious “if”, that it goes that far), it would be like somebody dying because the building wasn’t up to code when an arson came by.

            My assumption is, though, that there’s a budget-rate warm body security guard; and between shit pay, shit training, shittier oversight… the guard couldn’t be arsed to care. (Alternatively, the guard was going to sell them for drug money.)

            The good news for the facility… if their lawyers were any good in that contract they’d have gotten an indemnity clause and can pass that buck. (Liability is a bitch; and she hits hard. The security company will probably go poof unless they’re the size of G4S or Securitas)

            In any case… personally, it doesn’t rise to wrongful death, but I can see a need for nuance. I would, personally, suggested the couple treat it as property, similar to a safety deposit box.

          • lolcatnipEnglish
            3·
            3 months ago

            How could it be battery if the embryos aren’t treated as people? Nobody was battered. No victim was even present.

            • FuglyDuck@lemmy.worldEnglish
              2·
              3 months ago

              For the record, if we treat this more like a safety deposit box; the couple are the victims here.

              It should probably be treated that way.

              Their argument is because those embryos had potential to be human… they should be treated as human.

              I don’t buy it, and it’s certainly not something that should establish the precedent that embryos=babies.

              • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                3·
                3 months ago

                So sue for property damage. Harvesting embryos is an expensive and painful process. Hell you could even sue for pain and suffering.

                But wrongful death is just ridiculous.

            • WhatTrees@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
              1·
              3 months ago

              Sorry for the confusion, the battery part of my reply was related to forcibly ending someone else’s pregnancy, which would have to involve some kind of battery unless it’s like poison or something, not related to the embryos in the freezer. There is no battery to those since they are not people.

      • Overzeetop@sopuli.xyz
        7·
        3 months ago

        I don’t see how this isn’t prima facie evidence of a first amendment violation (presuming that the courts or state legislatures are bound by “Congress” being synonymous with “Government” as I believe it’s been interpreted)

      • MonkderZweite@feddit.ch
        6·
        3 months ago

        Pretty sure personal beliefs which haven’t been proven should make the ruling invalid. He’s judge, not king.

  • Treczoks@lemmy.world
    47·
    3 months ago

    If those embryos count as children, wouldn’t it be OK to ask for all kinds of legal benefits for them?

  • BigBananaDealer@lemm.ee
    41·
    3 months ago

    if a woman has a period and has had sex, there is a good chance a fertilized egg was probably somewhere around the blood, making every woman in Alabama who has had sex a possible serial killer

  • dohpaz42@lemmy.worldEnglish
    34·
    3 months ago

    By that logic, women are committing murder every time they menstruate.

    Maybe I missed something because the article is behind a paywall.

    Edit: ok, as pointed out, I don’t know how these things work. I apologize, and accept all the downvotes and jabs you can give.