IVF often produces more embryos than are needed or used.

Frozen embryos are “children,” according to Alabama’s Supreme Court::IVF often produces more embryos than are needed or used.

  • BaronVonBort@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1491·
    9 months ago

    My wife and I had our son via IVF. We wanted every single one of our fertilized eggs to work, but they didn’t. We had one that did and we suffered every time one didn’t.

    Fuck Alabama for adding on to the torment and emotional suffering families going through IVF and any kind of infertility suffer already. It’s just adding unspeakable cruelty again.

    • essteeyou@lemmy.worldEnglish
      451·
      9 months ago

      I’ve seen my sister going through this process for years. It’s emotionally challenging, financially challenging, and risky to her health. She’s had two ectopic pregnancies and had to be operated on twice. If she manages to have one baby she’ll be happy, and there’s no way it would make sense to implant all the other embryos given the health risk to her. So what would Alabama have her do?

      I’m glad she doesn’t live there.

        • Jojo@lemm.eeEnglish
          251·
          9 months ago

          I have heard someone say in all seriousness that it’s still murder to abort an ectopic pregnancy (which would just kill the mom and ‘child’ if allowed to continue)…

          • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
            241·
            9 months ago

            “But god can save her! If it’s part of his plan they will survive!”

            /s if it wasn’t obvious.

            • Jojo@lemm.eeEnglish
              141·
              9 months ago

              I mean the odds aren’t very different for the kid after the procedure. Why can’t God save them after? Not even /s, why don’t they ever have an answer for that? If we’re relying on a miracle anyway, why would an infinitely powerful god need such constrained circumstances to make it work?

          • rambaroo@lemmy.worldEnglish
            3·
            9 months ago

            Murdering a woman to save a fucking zygote that will never become a human anyway. I’m starting to genuinely hate these people.

      • limelight79@lemm.eeEnglish
        1·
        9 months ago

        Friends of ours were going through something similar - they finally have a viable pregnancy, but it took many tries and failures. Fortunately we live in a state that isn’t controlled by religious nut jobs.

      • JustUseMint@lemmy.worldEnglish
        16·
        9 months ago

        It takes a massive massive amount of time energy and resources, financial and others, to adopt. Its awful.

      • Wahots@pawb.socialEnglish
        15·
        9 months ago

        Some places don’t allow same sex couples to adopt. Laws around adoption might be weaker, too.

      • unconfirmedsourcesDOTgov@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
        83·
        9 months ago

        Based on your post history, you’ll just delete your comment within a few hours anyway, but have you considered that if adoption was such a perfect solution then more people would adopt?

        Instead of simply imagining simple solutions to complex problems, maybe try having a bit of empathy and see where that takes you?

        Good luck.

          • unconfirmedsourcesDOTgov@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
            52·
            9 months ago

            It feels like you’re suggesting that adoption is a panacea, but for a majority of couples, it simply isn’t. I agree it could be considered selfish, but selfishness is a virtue in our society so I am asserting that it should be expected and accounted for, rather than simply waving your hand at its inherent issues and pretending they’ll go away.

            Adoption has been proposed and has failed as a satisfactory solution to this problem for millenia, what has changed about it to make it relevant now?

              • unconfirmedsourcesDOTgov@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
                12·
                9 months ago

                I haven’t looked into it personally, but from every account I’ve heard, it sounds like a horror show. Admittedly, there’s probably some confirmation bias in there, but I’m also thinking about it from an anthropological perspective.

                If adopting a child were equivalent to giving birth to your own child, why would people still go through the torture that is pregnancy? We know that there have been orphanages for centuries, so this seems to be a long running thread in the history of humanity.

                From a behavioral economics standpoint, it seems presumptuous to suggest that more couples ought to change their preference from what they’re predisposed to choose naturally, especially without an explanation for why they are likely to have this preference to begin with.

                Once you start speculating on the reasons why people prefer adoption only as a fallback option, you’ll likely find that the answer is complicated and personal to every couple, but in aggregate the average couple isn’t thinking about adoption as a plan A.

                Even when it comes to same sex couples - they’re working on technology to be able to combine dna from two same sex parents and create an embryo that is truly a child of two people of the same sex.

                Not that there’s anything wrong with that, I’m just thinking of examples where adoption seems to run counter to people’s revealed preferences.

  • carl_dungeon@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1052·
    9 months ago

    Then they should count as dependents, grant the parents tax breaks, be eligible for social benefits, receive child support payments, be counted as passengers when in mom driving in HOV lanes, etc.

    • Wogi@lemmy.worldEnglish
      63·
      9 months ago

      Holy shit storing embryos frozen and counting them as dependants would be an actual life hack

        • SoleInvictus@lemmy.worldEnglish
          181·
          9 months ago

          That’s why I freeze dried mine and keep them in the glove compartment for use in the HOV lane.

        • fruitycoder@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          3·
          9 months ago

          11k to 15k starting cost plus 400 to 600 a year.

          So when talking about thousands of dollars of tax credit it might have a good ROI. The initial cost could probably be lower if the actual quality doesn’t matter to you.

          • phillaholic@lemm.eeEnglish
            2·
            9 months ago

            I was under the impression the yearly fee was much higher, but maybe I was co flaring it with the cycle cost of IVF which can reach 30k.

  • SteelCorrelation@lemmy.oneEnglish
    1034·
    9 months ago

    I love how the chief justice cites his god as his legal argument. What a sham. The god of the Bible has, thus far, failed to prove its legitimacy in any context, especially regarding a secular legal system.

    • bobs_monkey@lemm.eeEnglish
      352·
      9 months ago

      Nevermind forcing his god onto the rest of the population. If these yoyos get far enough, they’ll start sending non believers to “reeducation camps.”

    • erwan@lemmy.mlEnglish
      352·
      9 months ago

      I would think his reference to god would be a sufficient argument to nullify his decision? As you said the US justice system is secular.

    • JustUseMint@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1511·
      9 months ago

      I don’t even care how retarded his logic is, it’s inherently not allowed because we’re supposed to have church state separation. That is the worst part to me.

  • sacredfire@programming.devEnglish
    793·
    9 months ago

    I heard this somewhere: “You’re in an IVF clinic. It’s on fire and you enter a burning room. On a table is a large cooler with 5 thousand fertilized eggs, and there’s also a crying, injured five-year-old girl in the room. Which one do you save? You can only save one.” The answer for most people is obviously the 5 year old and it’s not a hard choice.

  • Facebones@reddthat.comEnglish
    761·
    9 months ago

    Every woman with a frozen embryo.

    Get those child tax credits.

    Don’t have frozen embryos? Freeze some

    Get those child tax credits

    • TellusChaosovich@lemmy.worldEnglish
      19·
      9 months ago

      That is not legal. They have made embryos children when looking for people to put in jail, and not children when looking to give out benefits. Very convenient for the state budget!

  • JimmyMcGill@lemmy.worldEnglish
    702·
    9 months ago

    In a concurring opinion, Chief Justice Tom Parker cited his religious beliefs and quoted the Bible to support the stance.

    “Human life cannot be wrongfully destroyed without incurring the wrath of a holy God, who views the destruction of His image as an affront to Himself,” Parker wrote. “Even before birth, all human beings bear the image of God, and their lives cannot be destroyed without effacing his glory.”

    wtf

    • SeaJ@lemm.eeEnglish
      314·
      9 months ago

      Ironic that he quoted the Bible since the Bible is okay with abortion.

      • EatATaco@lemm.eeEnglish
        49·
        9 months ago

        The Bible doesn’t really say anything about abortion. The most convincing thing I’ve seen is that it values the life of a mother over that a fetus, but it doesn’t say abortion is okay. Unless I’m missing something.

        Not that it matters what this book says, I just don’t think it helps at all to misrepresent it.

        • LastYearsPumpkin@feddit.chEnglish
          254·
          9 months ago

          Numbers 5:11-22

          If your wife is unfaithful, she should go to the priest and get a concoction to abort the pregnancy conceived with another man.

          • GhostMatter@lemmy.caEnglish
            424·
            9 months ago

            It does not say or imply that at all. Maybe in some translations/adaptations/interpretations, but not in most of them, and there is no full consensus.

            • zarp86@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
              243·
              9 months ago

              20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse[b] among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”

              It doesn’t imply that at all? Please feel free to let me know what this passage is really about.

              • GhostMatter@lemmy.caEnglish
                612·
                9 months ago

                I’m guessing this is the New International Version (NIV) of the Bible. Which is not a consensus at all.

                I’m not sure if you’re aware, but the Old Testament is written mostly in Hebrew and each passage has had thousands of interpretations and translations over time.

                My does not say this at all was too strong in light of the different versions, but you can make the Bible say a lot of things.

                Look at other translations, including in languages other than English and you’ll see that the “miscarry” is pretty unique to the NIV.

                You can check out the Wikipedia article on this passage to get an idea as to how complicated it is.

                • dvoraqs@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  82·
                  9 months ago

                  The punishment section of the Hebrew version suggests many interpretations where words are euphemisms for things related to abortions. Her thigh might refer to her sexual organs, the curse an abortificent, etc. I think those meanings still exist in other translations.

            • TaterTurnipTulip@lemmy.worldEnglish
              5·
              9 months ago

              It always strikes me as interesting that if the Bible truly was divinely inspired that there really should only be one translation and one interpretation. It should be incredibly clear and concise to everyone.

              • GhostMatter@lemmy.caEnglish
                1·
                9 months ago

                Even if it was truly was, humans are still faillible:

                • the texts are transcripted thousands of times, and errors made during transcriptions are eventually reproduced.
                • the texts can be modified voluntarily during retranscriptions, maliciously or not.
                • parts of texts are lost and found again.
                • texts reference other extinct texts or what was considered common knowledge that was not written down. So we can only infer from there.
                • Hebrew uses an abjab alphabet, which means no vowels, so certain written words can be different depending on what vowels you ascribe to them.
                • texts are translated by people with biases and objectives as to what it should convey (like the US Evangelicals with the NIV).
                • etc.

                So even if the original text was given divinely, it would end up being distorted.

                This is why I’m not comfortable saying the Bible is okay with abortion. It can be interpreted that way, for sure, but it’s not a definite statement.

          • EatATaco@lemm.eeEnglish
            12·
            9 months ago

            At least the other poster offered up what is effectively a completely made up verse.

            • prole@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
              1·
              8 months ago

              “effectively made up verse” LOL

              Ah ok, so are you the arbiter of which stories in the Bible are literal, and which aren’t? Because that story seemed very fucking literal.

              Anyway, this can’t be the first time you’ve encountered a contradiction in the text of your holy book (assuming you’ve even read it), so I’m sure you’ve already got some pretty effective ways of ignoring the cognitive dissonance inherent in your worldview… So go ahead and have fun with that I guess.

              • EatATaco@lemm.eeEnglish
                1·
                8 months ago

                this can’t be the first time you’ve encountered a contradiction in the text of your holy book

                lol. I’m not a Christian. You’re just exposing your lack of critical thinking by thinking that, because I don’t agree with you, I must be the exact opposite. My child, the world is not black and white.

                You’re projecting your struggle with cognitive dissonance onto me, make no mistake about it.

      • TellusChaosovich@lemmy.worldEnglish
        16·
        9 months ago

        No the religious zealots here do not. School coaches require prayer before practices and games, same sex couples get banned from prom, kids at school get tricked into going to fun after school events that turn out to actually be evangelism stunts. A lot of applications to educational programs, gymnastics programs, and jobs ask about “leadership” which is code for experience as a church deacon or active evangelist.

      • Facebones@reddthat.comEnglish
        84·
        9 months ago

        The USA has never done seperation of church and state.

        If we did, half the govt would be arrested for extremism and most churches would be terrorist organizations.

    • Skates@feddit.nlEnglish
      1·
      9 months ago

      Just shit on this person. What a fucking hick. Just straight up pull your pants down and shit on him.

  • Josie@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
    63·
    9 months ago

    In the Alabama case, a hospital patient wandered through an unlocked door, removed frozen, preserved embryos from subzero storage and, suffering an ice burn, dropped the embryos, destroying them. Affected IVF patients filed wrongful-death lawsuits against the IVF clinic under the state’s Wrongful Death of a Minor Act. The case was initially dismissed in a lower court, which ruled the embryos did not meet the definition of a child. But the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that “it applies to all children, born and unborn, without limitation.” In a concurring opinion, Chief Justice Tom Parker cited his religious beliefs and quoted the Bible to support the stance.

    absolutely wild case

  • whoisearth@lemmy.caEnglish
    49·
    9 months ago

    Women of America. Get a freezer. Freeze your eggs and transport them home. On all future taxes claim them as dependents in perpetuity. Fuck these asshats. Game the system and make bank!

      • rambaroo@lemmy.worldEnglish
        62·
        9 months ago

        Muslims don’t believe that life starts at conception. So no, on this topic they are not as idiotic as Christians.

          • rambaroo@lemmy.worldEnglish
            141·
            9 months ago

            Turkey and Kazakhstan. And this is just racist bs. Not all Muslims hate Jews or have regressive views. Not to mention this is all off topic, it’s Christians who are trying to destroy women’s rights in America not Muslims

              • rambaroo@lemmy.worldEnglish
                41·
                9 months ago

                Turkey isn’t much worse than countries like Hungary or Poland when it comes to democracy. And Kazakhstan is in the middle of democratic reform

                Also I like how you ignored the rest of my comment. But not surprised

                Edit: and people were shitting on Christianity because Christians have huge amounts of power in the US. Far more than Muslims do in any western country. It’s Christians trying to destroy secular rights in the West. You brought up Muslims for no reason other than to deflect

  • NevermindNoMind@lemmy.worldEnglish
    451·
    9 months ago

    We had I think six eggs harvested and fertilized, of those I think two made it to blastocyst, meaning the cells doubled as they should by day five. The four that didn’t double correctly were discarded. Did we commit 4 murders? Or does it not count if the embryo doesn’t make it to blastocyst? We did genetic testing on the two that were fertilized, one is normal and the other came back with all manner of horrible deformities. We implanted the healthy one, and discarded the genetically abnormal one. I assume that was another murder. Should we have just stored it indefinitely? We would never use it, can’t destroy it, so what do? What happens after we die?

    I know the answer is probably it wasn’t god’s will for us to have kids, all IVF is evil, blah blah blah. It really freaks me out sometimes how much of the country is living in the 1600s.

    • TORFdot0@lemmy.worldEnglish
      151·
      9 months ago

      Whether you committed murder or not is directly correlated to the amount of money you have and whether you are in the in-group.

    • TellusChaosovich@lemmy.worldEnglish
      2·
      9 months ago

      Even before this I would get really pissed when people casually said “It will happen when the time is right. God has a plan, though it isn’t one we understand.” In Alabama I was recently at the dentist, getting my teeth cleaned to the tune of religious music, hearing the hygienist say this bullshit to me.

  • /home/pineapplelover@lemm.eeEnglish
    313·
    9 months ago

    Tune in for the next episode of Conservative Politics! [Red state] says menstruating kills potential children? Find out next week!

    • sunbeam60@lemmy.oneEnglish
      113·
      9 months ago

      Right, so pregnant or nursing once you’re menstruating! Otherwise you’re an illegal woman, not fulfilling your biblical purpose. Got it. This will be fun.

  • Noel_Skum@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    28·
    9 months ago

    Alabama? More like Talibana, a’ight? Being ruled by religious extremists - in the 21st (ce) century - blows my mind. Are people still that backwards? Apparently, yes. Nothing wrong with a bit of private faith in the sky man if it helps you in life… but to be a fundamentalist is unforgivable.