427
Frozen embryos are “children,” according to Alabama’s Supreme Court
(arstechnica.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 21 Feb 2024
427 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
59517 readers
2784 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
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.
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.
Alabama would have probably let her die with one of the ectopic pregnancies tbh.
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)...
“But god can save her! If it’s part of his plan they will survive!”
/s if it wasn’t obvious.
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?
Murdering a woman to save a fucking zygote that will never become a human anyway. I'm starting to genuinely hate these people.
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.
Some places don't allow same sex couples to adopt. Laws around adoption might be weaker, too.
It's not easy at all.
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.
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?
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.
I'm not suggesting that - I agree with you, once a couple decides to adopt, their adopted children are just as loved as any others. I'm simply pointing out that people will go to great lengths not to adopt in the first place.
If people are having children who shouldn't, would you agree that there is a moral imperative to prevent them from having children in the first place?