And here we go again with total non sense from judges.. (Page 4): That's not the law the judges cited.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

Racmanaz wrote:

Did everyone forget this federal law?

"The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 protects unborn infants against violence and murder, and any individual responsible for the death or harm of a child in utero is charged separately from the offense towards the pregnant woman."

Unborn Victims of Violence Act - Wikipedia

That's not the law the judges cited.

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

SteveR wrote:

That's not the law the judges cited.

That’s probably because this law does not apply to embryos outside of the body host. I was just making the point that the unborn are living human beings.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

Racmanaz wrote:

That’s probably because this law does not apply to embryos outside of the body host. I was just making the point that the unborn are living human beings.

The Alabama judges cited an Alabama law about unborn children that was on point. It was paculiar to Alabama. It shouldn't have everbody in the country twisting things for the purposes of their own agenda.

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

SteveR wrote:

The Alabama judges cited an Alabama law about unborn children that was on point. It was paculiar to Alabama. It shouldn't have everbody in the country twisting things for the purposes of their own agenda.

I wasn't responding to your post and my intention was not to add to your point, that's why I didn't respond to any particular member but made the comment in general.

pendennis

SteveR wrote:

The Alabama judges cited an Alabama law about unborn children that was on point. It was paculiar to Alabama. It shouldn't have everbody in the country twisting things for the purposes of their own agenda.

The principle of stare decisis is used when determining a judge's thought process. It may not be the law in, say, Georgia, but if the Alabama law is logical, and has been upheld before in Alabama courts, then Georgia would be correct if it cites that law. In civil law, this happens all the time. It's one reason why civil law is so complicated.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

SteveR wrote:

.../...

What amazes me is that in your point of view, nothing is real because you are only able to read what is being said in a forum. Use other sources and see what is being said by lawyers, associations and the like. But then again, one who does not want to read or learn will never make this effort.

The decision already has repercussions... The university of Alabama has stopped part of their IVF program.

Legal analysts, not me, are drawing the inferences I am reporting here.

If an embryo is a person (i.e. a child) the whole spectrum of rights and responsibilities under the law(s) are applicable according to folks who know what the heck they are speaking about.

This will likely will end in USSC where nothing good can come out of, considering the judges are now political figureheads.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

pendennis wrote:

The principle of stare decisis is used when determining a judge's thought process. It may not be the law in, say, Georgia, but if the Alabama law is logical, and has been upheld before in Alabama courts, then Georgia would be correct if it cites that law. In civil law, this happens all the time. It's one reason why civil law is so complicated.

I think you're wrong. Alabama law has not consequence in Michigan. Your point makes no sense. NOW, if Alabama had ruled based on the Constitution, that might have been a different matter. They did not.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

Rongnongno wrote:

What amazes me is that in your point of view, noth... (show quote)

I've watched the MSM and seen what it has to say. I think they're wrong in their conclusions which push a particular agenda. The Alabama decision would have no effect, for one, on a couple throwing away embyros for whatever reason. This decision was solely about the destruction of good embryos which the couple had probably spent tens of thousands of dollars in the process of in-vitro to produce, which were destroyed through negligence. The ruling is narrow in scope in the sense that is allows the couple to sue the fertility clinic. It has no impact on criminal law, unless, ofc, something similar were to be done deliberately. Beware of the Henny Pennys of the world.

pendennis

SteveR wrote:

I think you're wrong. Alabama law has not consequence in Michigan. Your point makes no sense. NOW, if Alabama had ruled based on the Constitution, that might have been a different matter. They did not.

In civil law, common law is frequently cited as is statutory law from other states. Civil law has far more latitude than criminal. Attorneys cite cases found on sites which compile state laws and settled cases. Not every contingency in civil law is accounted for on a state's statutes. For instance, when an offer of settlement is made by counsel, opposing counsel must present that offer to their client.

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

Rongnongno wrote:

What amazes me is that in your point of view, noth... (show quote)

This one sentence reveals how warped and deluded you really are, you just refuse and can't accept that the embryo is a human being because that would mean that it would violate your deluded and reprehensible ideology.

"If an embryo is a person (i.e. a child) the whole spectrum of rights and responsibilities under the law(s) are applicable...."

Kraken Loc: Barry's Bay

Racmanaz wrote:

This one sentence reveals how warped and deluded you really are, you just refuse and can't accept that the embryo is a human being because that would mean that it would violate your deluded and reprehensible ideology.

"If an embryo is a person (i.e. a child) the whole spectrum of rights and responsibilities under the law(s) are applicable...."

You and the world is going to hell in a hand basket.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

pendennis wrote:

In civil law, common law is frequently cited as is statutory law from other states. Civil law has far more latitude than criminal. Attorneys cite cases found on sites which compile state laws and settled cases. Not every contingency in civil law is accounted for on a state's statutes. For instance, when an offer of settlement is made by counsel, opposing counsel must present that offer to their client.

Where are you pulling this from? What would you call "common law?" How could a law passed in another state be the basis for a judgment in another? That's ludicrous.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

And here we go:

https://www.mediamatters.org/qanon-conspiracy-theory/alabama-supreme-court-chief-justice-spreads-christian-nationalist-rhetoric

Scroll down and listen to the 'judge' answer, 1:00 point.

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

Rongnongno wrote:

And here we go:

https://www.mediamatters.org/qanon-conspiracy-theory/alabama-supreme-court-chief-justice-spreads-christian-nationalist-rhetoric

Scroll down and listen to the 'judge' answer, 1:00 point.

Farrrrr left Wing hack Mediamatters lolololol.

Shutterbug1697 Loc: Northeast

SteveR wrote:

The Alabama judges cited an Alabama law about unborn children that was on point. It was paculiar to Alabama. It shouldn't have everbody in the country twisting things for the purposes of their own agenda.

But when "Evangelical Christians" get word that this works in Alabama, they're going to shove their MINORITY religious beliefs down the throats of the throats of the Majority of the rest of the country by enacting copycat laws.

The Dobbs decision has emboldened them.