Alabama rules embryos are babies

Originally published at:


At the 8 or 16 cell stage all the cells of these embryos are pluripotent. That is, they could be separated and each implanted and become that many ‘twins’. So applying this sort of fantastically screwed-up definition of “extrauterine children” you’re ‘killing’ N-1 of them by implanting the one. One must suppose that there’s no hope of educating such medieval ‘legal authorities’ about the objective realities of biology as their true goals are the subjection of women and not designating when a clump of mindless cells is a “human”. -sigh-


Is it just N-1? How many times can they be allowed to regrow and split again? I would imagine at least 3 or 4, if not limitless.

Disclaimer: Only worked with cell lines, which I know are abnormal, and that was many, many years ago. Still $#@*& wish they told me that the cell line “HEP-G2” that we used excreted hepatitis virus. At least my technique was such that never became a problem.


Even if you believe that aborting a fetus is the same thing as killing a child this is still a ridiculous ruling.

It is estimated that less than half of all embryos inside or outside of the womb ever make it to the implantation stage, let alone to full term.

If embryos are babies then most babies are destined to die no matter what the law tries to do about it.


This obviously doesn’t help anyone who is at direct legal risk; but the reaction so far seems to be that of a dog that actually caught the car it was chasing.

“Fetal personhood” plays well with the forced-birthers when it’s being used as a bludgeon on that issue; but it’s functionally impossible to do IVF if you actually take that seriously(it’s also impossible to do natural conception without significant risk of killing a few embryos, it’s just much easier to treat the failed implantations and spontaneous abortions as nobody’s fault specifically); and IVF has many fewer opponents(notably, even though catholicism is formally against the practice, in part because of the embryo destruction, you won’t see them denying communion and similarly posturing against IVF the way they do against abortion; and protestant opinion is further divided on whether it’s even theoretically a problem).

I assume that anti-abortion interests will seek to ensure that any measure designed to safeguard IVF access is the narrowest, shabbiest, and most intellectually dishonest carve-out available; but so far there don’t seem to be many willing to support this decision as consistent with their professed positions.


I wouldn’t call it good public policy; but there’s an intellectually consistent position to be found in just charging anyone who conspires to risk pregnancy with reckless negligence. Might be tricky to sell forbidding conception as ‘pro-life’; but you could try.


While unconvincingly claiming that those aren’t actually their teeth marks all over the bumper.


People keep pointing out the hypocrisies and inconsistencies in their arguments and professed ideologies, missing the main point: They don’t care, and it doesn’t make the slightest difference.

They don’t actually care about “dead babies”, because otherwise they’d invest in perinatal care. They don’t care about “fertilization”, because otherwise they’d put out free condoms everywhere. They don’t care about any of it.

What it’s actually about is a rejection of the 20th Century and everything that comes with it. Except for the bits they like. It’s a rejection of Secularism and the Enlightenment and Modernism and the Scientific Method. They’re rejecting Il Saggiatore in favour of Civitatis Dei.

They don’t care that it doesn’t make any sense. Consistency is a weapon to be used against others, never a standard to be held to. It only matters that it makes them powerful, and it punished people who think they’re worth anything more than servility and an early death, and it makes the people they hate angry, and that last in itself would be enough.


They already are. Can’t punish wimin for enjoying sex if they can’t get pregnant from it.


I hate that it took me two re-reads to realize this was satire. I think. Actually, I’m not sure.



It’s not that general. It’s only concerned with human embryos.

Seems unlikely. If their motivation was accountability they’d also be trying to get the person who destroyed the embryos charged with a crime. They only seem to be going after the clinic, which suggests they’re just after money and have made the likely correct decision that the most profitable route is suing the clinic, which is likely covered my malpractice insurance, rather than the individual, who likely isn’t.

Off on a tangent, I’m really wondering about the motive of the person who removed the embryos from the cold storage. They are described as a patient of the clinic. Were they planning on stealing the embryos for their own use, because their own embryos had failed? Seems unlikely. They didn’t even realise they’d get hurt by touching something so cold, so they likely don’t have a clue about how to implant the embryos. And they’re likely paying a small fortune to get a child that carries their DNA rather than adopting, Stealing someone else’s embryo doesn’t fit with that self-supremacist mindset. Were they acting irrationally due to being sedated for a procecure? CNN report suggests not, since they entered the clinic through a security entrance (accidentally left unlocked) rather than the customer entrance. Were they an extremist trying to deliberately damage the clinic? If so, why bother becoming a patient, which requires identifying themselves, rather than lobbing a firebomb at it after hours while wearing a balaclava? Nothing seems to fit.


It’s satire. Real libertarians would tell you the government shouldn’t be involved in legislating marriage at all, it should be purely a civil contract between a man and embryo.


Stephen Colbert No GIF by The Late Show With Stephen Colbert

AND? What’s your point here?


In Alabama “don’t count your chickens until they’ve hatched” still applies, but for some reason we’re supposed to count people that way.


Every single frozen embryo in Alabama should be put in a huge basket and dropped off on the steps of the Alabama Supreme Court.

Or better yet allow the couples who are trying to get pregnant to decide what happens to their own embryos.


So, let’s get this straight. If they are babies, then doesn’t this mean:

They all should get social security numbers.
They can be claimed as dependents.
The source of the sperm can be compelled to pay child support.
The population of Alabama increased by over 1 million overnight.
A fertilized embryo left frozen for 18 years is eligible to vote, smoke, and serve in the military.
A fertilized embryo left frozen for 21 years is eligible to drink, and gamble.
Not using the fertilized embryos can be considered child abandonment.

This of course is all completely absurd but these are all conclusions you can reach by ruling a fertilized embryo has personhood.


The orange guy is on it.

Under my leadership, the Republican Party will always support the creation of strong, thriving, healthy American families. We want to make it easier for mothers and fathers to have babies, not harder! That includes supporting the availability of fertility treatments like IVF in every State in America. Like the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of Americans, including the VAST MAJORITY of Republicans, Conservatives, Christians, and Pro-Life Americans, I strongly support the availability of IVF for couples who are trying to have a precious baby. Today, I am calling on the Alabama Legislature to act quickly to find an immediate solution to preserve the availability of IVF in Alabama. The Republican Party should always be on the side of the Miracle of Life - and the side of Mothers, Fathers, and their Beautiful Babies. IVF is an important part of that, and our Great Republican Party will always be with you, in your quest, for the ULTIMATE JOY IN LIFE!