415

Frozen embryos are “children,” according to Alabama’s Supreme Court (arstechnica.com)

submitted 4 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

123 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] [email protected] 68 points 4 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

[-] [email protected] 27 points 4 months ago

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

[-] lingh0e 7 points 4 months ago

Also the very heavy and intentional use of pronouns.

[-] [email protected] -5 points 4 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.

[-] [email protected] 21 points 4 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.

[+] [email protected] -20 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 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 21 points 4 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.

[+] [email protected] -6 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 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.

[-] [email protected] 6 points 4 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.

[-] [email protected] -4 points 4 months ago

It might, but that's not enough to say the Bible is okay with abortions, and the rest of the texts might contradict that interpretation anyway. The NIV is pretty unique in translating directly into miscarry. If I search for those passages in English right now on search engines, I'm not even guaranteed to end up on that version, it took me a few tries.

[-] [email protected] 5 points 4 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.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 4 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.

[-] prole 2 points 4 months ago

It literally gives you a recipe for one

[-] [email protected] -1 points 4 months ago

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

[-] prole 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 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.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 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.

[-] otp 21 points 4 months ago

Does Alabama not do the whole "separation of church and state" thing? Lol

[-] [email protected] 16 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 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.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 4 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.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

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

this post was submitted on 21 Feb 2024

415 points (96.2% liked)

Technology

55960 readers

3030 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

[email protected]