IVF, Embryos and Children in Alabama?

Author: ludofl3x

Posts

Total: 9
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
I am curious as to the thoughts folks here who say they're pro-life have on the implications of the latest ruling in Alabama, which says embryos, stored for the purposes of IVF, are in fact people. No one's said a word about it yet.

Can a married couple claim 50 embryos as tax deductions, for example?

Can you use the HOV lane if you're pregnant?

If someone who has a child successfully through this method then leaves 40 embryos behind, are they legally responsible for paying for the cryogenic storage of same?

If they refuse to pay for this, are they now criminally liable as negligent parents for lack of care?

Do the embryos become wards of the state, supported by tax dollars, if abandoned by parents, or if the parents die, knowing they will be stored indefinitely?

There's a ton of these questions and implications. What's the current thinking?
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 367
Posts: 11,103
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
Pro-life is based on false assumption that life is a good thing

and that you have right to cause unbearable unwanted pain to people to create more life,

and I am not even talking about pain woman has to go through,

but unwanted pain guaranteed to happen when you produce plenty of life.

Life is the condition for evil, so creating life creates evil.

So people who are good will refuse to reproduce to avoid participating in the creation of evil.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,288
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Best.Korea
Pro-life is based on false assumption that life is a good thing.
Most species value the herd less as the herd grows beyond comfort or sustainability. 

I recently watched a clip of a group of Macaques naturally killing off the freshly born little baby monkeys because there were already about 100 monkeys in the pack. 

Nature is interesting.


Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 367
Posts: 11,103
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Greyparrot
Yes, in nature, born baby animals are in great danger to be killed, not just from other species, but often it happens that animals kill baby animals of their own species.

Male cats sometimes kill kittens.

Humans have evolved to the point where most people dont kill their offspring, but abortions are still quite common way of killing offspring.

Overpopulation and suffering are serious problems, and abortion reduces both without killing born humans.
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 398
Posts: 2,035
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@ludofl3x
Better stored than thrown away.
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 398
Posts: 2,035
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@Best.Korea
If overpopulation is a problem, are people that are born with sexual reproductive abilities defective?

This must mean heterosexuality has been the true disorder while homosexuality has not.
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 398
Posts: 2,035
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@Greyparrot
Isn't paradoxical for life to destroy itself?
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 367
Posts: 11,103
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Mall
Let me paint a picture.

If you have 100 people and there is only enough food for 100 people, producing 20 more people would cause those 20 to starve or everyone having to skip meals.

Almost all resources on this planet are limited, and mass producing people because you think its your duty to do so would just cause fight over resources or make everyone much poorer or starving.

Actually, countries which are starving are very often the ones with 3 to 6 birth per woman.

Circumstances change. Reproduction was somewhat desirable 1000 years ago, because there was no overpopulation.

Today, if population is increasing, amount of resources available to one person is decreasing.

Earth cannot support infinite amount of people.

There is a limit, certain number, and reaching that number is bad, because we are all going to be much poorer or starving.
Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 1,266
3
2
6
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
3
2
6
Can a married couple claim 50 embryos as tax deductions, for example?
Under current law, probably not. But ideally? If they're paying bills to keep those embryos intact, then yes, proportionate to said expense (non-refundable).

Can you use the HOV lane if you're pregnant?
Ideally the rules should be applied the same as when a woman is driving with one baby in her car. Provided, of course, that she can give some valid proof of pregnancy.

If someone who has a child successfully through this method then leaves 40 embryos behind, are they legally responsible for paying for the cryogenic storage of same?

Ideally they ought to be, yes. If they didn't want to assume this risk, they should've went with adoption instead.

If they refuse to pay for this, are they now criminally liable as negligent parents for lack of care?
If their refusal leads to avoidable embryo death then yes, ideally they should be charged the same as any parent whose baby died from neglect.

Do the embryos become wards of the state, supported by tax dollars, if abandoned by parents, or if the parents die, knowing they will be stored indefinitely?
Ideally yes, they would be, with the state paying women to become surrogates. And ideally this expense would lead the state to ban IVF or only permit advanced techniques which don't create excess embryos.

What's the current thinking?
My thoughts are above. If you're trying to pull off a "gotcha" that the laws of the land haven't caught up to the practical implications of embryos being legal persons, then it's only a matter of time, assuming that good faith pro-life legislators eventually triumph. But for the time being, the tax status of embryos is pretty low on the list of issues we care to focus our attention and efforts on.