298
submitted 4 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

Even before the court ruled in favor of this vulgar fiction, state authorities relied on the concept to intimidate and jail women

Something that’s important to remember about last week’s ruling by the Alabama supreme court, which held that frozen embryos were persons under state law, is that the very absurdity of the claim is itself a demonstration of power. That a frozen embryo – a microscopic bit of biological information that can’t even be called tissue, a flick laden with the hopes of aspiring parents but fulfilling none of them – is equivalent in any way to a child is the sort of thing you can only say if no one has the power to laugh at you. The Alabama supreme court is the final court of review in that state. It cannot be appealed. For the foreseeable future, frozen cells in Alabama have the same legal status there as you or I do. Is this an absurd elevation of the status of an embryo, or an obscene degradation of human beings? The answer, of course, is both.

all 12 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] eran_morad@lemmy.world 62 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

No fucking shit, the whole point of all this backward crap coming from the inbreds is to oppress women and the middle/lower classes. Jesus fuck, can you people really not see through this?

[-] Ekybio@lemmy.world 18 points 4 months ago

Oh they know. But remember:

The cruelty is the point.

[-] admiralteal@kbin.social 46 points 4 months ago

The ruling will get replaced by a new piece of legislation that "fixes" the loophole and re-legalizes IVF. Probably reasonable quickly. Even the lunatic fringe conservatives didn't intend to shut down IVF.

The real scandal here isn't even the chaos caused by the court going wild like this -- though that certainly is a scandal.

What we should be concerned about is the fact that a member of a fringe religious cult that actively believes in doing away with the separation of church and state (the Seven Mountain Mandate) is not just actively and enthusiastically legislating from the bench, but is citing actual religious principles and scriptures in his decisions. And nothing is being done about it.

This justice sincerely believes literal demons have infiltrated the government and need to be engaged in holy war. He's a fundamentalist zealot. He is violating his oath to the rule of law on a daily basis.

[-] dhork@lemmy.world 13 points 4 months ago

The ruling will get replaced by a new piece of legislation that "fixes" the loophole and re-legalizes IVF. Probably reasonable quickly. Even the lunatic fringe conservatives didn't intend to shut down IVF.

I wouldn't be so sure on that. The "lunatic fringe", as you put it, has absolutely no problem sacrificing IVF on their altar. And even if the legislature passes a law to "patch" the issue, they know they have a sympathetic ear on the bench. They will have to challenge that law, and they know there will be at least one vote on the Alabama Supreme Court who will be sympathetic.

[-] stoly@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

Agreed. This was on someone’s list.

[-] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 19 points 4 months ago

So Alabama... does the child tax credit kick in seven months early? What if I think I'm pregnant.

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago

I'm a 41yo cishet male in another country, but I'm pregnant in Alabama for tax reasons!

..is probably one of the weirdest strings of nonsense I've ever written 😄

[-] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 14 points 4 months ago

Isn't that the entire point, really?

[-] dhork@lemmy.world 9 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

It is humiliating to even have to say this: that women matter more than fetuses or embryos, that a frozen cell in a petri dish is not a human being, but we are. It is an absurdity to make this argument, an exhausting waste of our time, a degradation. That, too, is part of the point.

That conclusion seems like something a modern European would write, but the situation in the US is different. The problem is that there is a significant minority of people here whose religious views state precisely the opposite: that the fetus has a right to life that is equal to their mothers'. Perhaps even more so, since the mother has already lived a significant portion of their life, while new life deserves the same chance. This has been a part of Catholic doctrine forever, and we have a large minority of Catholics here. (Catholics who, as far as I can tell, are much, much more conservative than their counterparts elsewhere in the world.)

Protestants, historically, didn't agree with Catholics on this point. Until recently when Evangelical Protestants (a uniquely American phenomenon, as far as I can tell) realized how much money they could fundraise on it, and how it could lead to winning elections. So, combined, these two groups wield outsized political power. They are still a minority overall, but they have managed to mobilize their respective voting blocs and exert their political will in a manner that would have made the Pharisees that their Savior fought against proud. I don't think these groups realize whose side they are really on.

The US is supposed to be a country with inherent freedom of religious beliefs, so those deeply-held convictions can't simply be dismissed in the fashion the author does above. However, they are pushing the issue because it wins them political influence. And that's why it's so hard to counteract. Since it's, at its core, a religious belief, logical arguments can't be used against it.

this post was submitted on 27 Feb 2024
298 points (99.0% liked)

politics

18075 readers
2680 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS