Did you know that the Alabama Supreme Court court ruled Friday that frozen embryos outside the womb are children?

[msc545]

https://alabamareflector.com/2024/02/19/alabama-supreme-court-ruling-could-end-ivf-treatments-in-state/

[goaded]

Unbelievable. Of course it's a religious decision: "even before birth, all human beings bear the image of God, and their lives cannot be destroyed without effacing his glory”, as Chief Justice Tom Parkerone said.

I guess it also makes taking Plan B manslaughter or at least reckless endangerment (you don't know if the ovum is fertilised or not when you take it, or even if there is one). Maybe IUDs and the pill as well.

[GoodGuyBreakingBad]

Never heard of this, thanks for sharing.

[RainbowMarinade]

If all fertilized eggs are the equivalent of children, will women be expected to submit their used sanitary products for fertilized egg inspections?
I mean, those eggs are children too.
Manslaughter charges will be abundant.

[goaded]

Since about one in three fertilisations end in a miscarriage, the child mortality rate is going to rocket up in that state. Maybe they'll insist that women lie with their legs in stirups for a couple of weeks after sex, until they're sure they're not pregnant.

[EmmaMary]

Regrettably as I've said many times before... Only In America. smh

[EmmaMary]

Thank you for the MHO.

[AviatorTom]

I believe they technically ruled that the embryos are human, and have the same rights as embryos in the womb. That makes sense, though it adds complexity to the entire abortion argument.

[exitseven]

The ruling suggests that embryos are people too. They have the same rights as children.

[goaded]

Every sane person in the world knows that that's ridiculous. Not to mention it totally ignores any rights the woman had to bodily autonomy.

[msc545]

Bodily autonomy is not extended to the right to murder children.

[goaded]

This is not a child. It's ridiculous to claim it is.

[msc545]

What is it that you think differentiates it from a child besides its appearance?

[goaded]

Seriously? No body. No skeleton. No brain. No gut. No bacteria. A person is made up of trillions of human cells and even more bacterial cells. You're pretending a handful of sand is a beach.

[msc545]

@goaded. you are avoiding naming the most important things which are life and potential.

So in your opinion, how many cells does a person have to have before you will concede that they ARE a person?

[goaded]

Yes, it's a potential child, but it's not a child, and it's not a person. An acorn is a potential Oak, but it's not a tree. You know a trillion is 1,000,000,000,000, right? At least something within a couple of orders of magnitude. And distinguished into all those minor details I mentioned: body. skeleton. brain, gut, etc.

I don't suppose you care about wanted or not wanted? Or wanted, but likely to die before birth, shortly after birth, or needing constant expensive medical care for life?

[exitseven]

Isn't there a list of conditions that must be met to be considered as living organism. I do not remember the whole list but it included reproduce, respiration and excretion. An embryo really does not do that.

[msc545]

It respires and excretes of course. It does not reproduce but it has the ability to do that at a much later time if it has not been murdered via abortion.

[goaded]

You can only murder a person.

[msc545]

@goaded It has, like we all did at one point, a rudimentary body, brain, skeleton, gut etc.

I don't care if it is "wanted" or not since "wanted" is code for convenience and life should not depend on the convenience of others.

If it is going to die before birth then remove the remains after it does; same answer for shortly after birth unless it is likely to be in great pain while doing so.

I don't give a damn about the expense of medical care in this case since life is more important than money except perhaps in the US.

[goaded]

Of course, the suffering of a woman who's going to give birth to a dead thing is unimportant. And no, that image does not include "a rudimentary body, brain, skeleton, gut etc.", it's a colllection of indistinguishable cells.

[msc545]

@goaded Did you not see the part where I said "If it is going to die before birth then remove the remains after it does" ? That means an abortion of a dead child would be acceptable to do and also a good idea as well.

I didn't realize that things had to be visible for you to believe in them.

[goaded]

OK, I see what you meant now; I thought you meant after birth.

They don't have to be visible, they have to exist. If it's a dozen cells, which one's the brain?

[msc545]

@goaded It is not a question of which one is the brain - in fact, they are ALL the brain as well as everything else at that stage. So what?

[goaded]

So, it's not what any reasonable person would call a person.

[msc545]

@goaded This is clearly not about the opinions of reasonable people. Not in Alabama, anyway.

[goaded]

There, we definitely agree!

[msc545]

@goaded Finally, thank God.

[exitseven]

It does not respirate. Pretty sure it does not excrete waste either.

[msc545]

If it didn't do these things it would be dead.

[goaded]

"respiration: The process of inhaling and exhaling; breathing, breath"

No lungs. No air.

[exitseven]

@msc545. That is the point. They are not living organisms yet. Viruses are not living either. Supermarket cells can swim upstream but they do not satisfy all the criteria either. They cannot reproduce.

[goaded]

Sometimes I love autocorrect!

[msc545]

@goaded notice that your definition doesn't say "air".

[msc545]

@exitseven Define and specify the criteria for life, and cite the source please.

[goaded]

@msc545 Define and specify the criteria for personhood, and cite the source please.

[msc545]

@goaded "Personhood" is a made-up word.

[exitseven]

@goaded Trees breathe as do fish.

[exitseven]

@msc545 It goes back to high school biology class. There was 7 criteria. The ones I remember was respiration, excretion, reproduction. it was a long time ago.

[msc545]

@exitseven : the ability to respire, grow, excrete, reproduce, metabolize, move, and be responsive to the environment.

[exitseven]

@msc545 well, aren't you the know it all. Although how does a tree move? The wind make sit move.

[msc545]

It also grows roots which also move.

[goaded]

@msc545 ""Personhood" is a made-up word." but you know what it means, so why not answer the question. Whether or not you include air, my definition of a person includes at a minimum those things I listed, not just a bunch of cells. Skin, body. skeleton. brain, gut, etc. Not just the "potential" for those things to develop in the right environment. I can have a bucket full of acorns and not a single tree.

[msc545]

Well, that might be your definition which is fine and well for you, but it's not the generally accepted definition and it certainly is not a definition of what constitutes life by any means. There are a lot of things that are alive that lack a gut or in some cases actually lack of brain etc. And are still deemed to be alive and act like they are alive and apparently have not gotten the telegram about the criteria you expect.

[msc545]

I think that the only reason that you brought these criteria up was to then try to subsequently prove that it's okay to abort an unborn child because it isn't really alive according to your criteria. I think you know as well as I do that's not going to work.

[goaded]

@msc545 Yesterday you were saying ""Personhood" is a made-up word.", now you're saying there's a "generally accepted definition"?

Don't try to conflate personhood with life, they're not the same thing at all. It's disingenous. I've explained my reasoning repeatedly, that abortions are acceptable because early fetuses are not people by any reasonable interpretation of the word, and that late abortions are end of life decisions by the next of kin. Nobody serious supports late term abortions of heathy fetuses.

I see that various anti-choice organisations are working to get the definition of personhood changed to their advantage. They don't seem to care that actual people will die because of it. It also outlaws IVF, and various forms of contraception. It won't stop any of those things (except the provision of IVF to let people have babies they want), it will just criminalise them.

[msc545]

Personhood is a concept made up apparently by you to support your notions of what is and is not appropriate relative to abortion. It means nothing to me. Things are either alive or dead. If they are alive it is not okay to kill them. If they are dead it doesn't matter what you do with them. Trying to justify killing something that is alive in order to pander to other things that are alive that you feel are more important is not acceptable.

[goaded]

Personhood has had over a millenium of philosophy, and, what's more, a wikipedia page! Also, someone tells me, it has a generally accepted definition. I didn't make it up.

I'm certain that if you showed someone a picture of a blastocyst and asked them if it was a picture of a person, they'd say no. Wouldn't you? How would you know it wasn't a chimpanzee blastocyst? Or a dolphin.

You can't murder a chimpanzee, and it's a lot closer to being a person than a blastocyst.

"Things are either alive or dead. If they are alive it is not okay to kill them"
So, you don't brush your teeth or use soap? Bacteria are alive, after all. We kill things all the time.

Personally, I had an egg in my lunch today. I don't feel like I killed a chicken.

[NYCQuestions1976]

It doesn't matter that the conclusion of this decision was made because of crazy religious reasons, because this isn't a pro-life/pro-choice/pro-abortion issue. The parents of these embryos/zygotes already made their choice, so it's past that point. People don't spend tens of thousands of dollars and take a myriad of drugs to freeze fertilized eggs and go through in vitro fertilisation just to plan on aborting their future pregnancy.

[goaded]

@NYCQuestions1976 Of course they don't, but the zealots (sorry, @msc545) don't distinguish between viable, or not, wanted, or not. Nobody gets to 6 months pregnant and decides they don't want to be a parent; and if they did, they could be helped by psychiatrists. Doctors won't abort a healthy fetus that far on without a very good reason. Any that do should be struck off and prosecuted.

[msc545]

@goaded I realize that some killing is inevitable. That does not mean I have to approve of it or facilitate it in any way.

[goaded]

@NYCQuestions1976 Then go after the Dr. Gosnell's. While you're at it address the situation his clients were in. Don't criminalise the women.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded It never fails how the biggest advocates for unfettered abortions are always the ones who should've been abortions themselves.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded Also I've already explained why this specific issue has nothing to do with choice.

[msc545]

@goaded Except that they do.

[goaded]

@NYCQuestions1976 I see you've totally given up on pretending to be able to hold a reasonable discussion.

[goaded]

@NYCQuestions1976 So you're nothing but a troll.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded No, I always make valid accurate points based on common sense and actual factual reality. Then when it becomes clear that I'm dealing with someone who's got a bowl of stale oatmeal in their head ➡️ @goaded ⬅️ , I might as well enjoy myself and entertain the rest of the site in the process. I'm a pillar in this community and morale for the masses.

[goaded]

@NYCQuestions1976 Yup, trolling and lying.

[goaded]

@NYCQuestions1976 You haven't even noticed that this conversation has nothing to do with Trump. Sad.

[NYCQuestions1976]

It doesn't matter that the conclusion of this decision was made because of crazy religious reasons, because this isn't a pro-life/pro-choice/pro-abortion issue. The parents of these embryos/zygotes already made their choice, so it's past that point. People don't spend tens of thousands of dollars and take a myriad of drugs to freeze fertilized eggs and go through in vitro fertilisation just to plan on aborting their future pregnancy.

[lightbulb27]

does that mean a chicken egg for lunch is a chicken...

the caviar putin snacks on are fish?

whats the diff between a frozen empryo and one inside the woman then... if a man goes nuts and hoots a woman dead, is that 2000 counts of murder?

that doesn't make sense to me...

[msc545]

@drewtate we don't market or eat fertilized eggs AFAIK.

[Agape93]

... embryos aren't children. Why are conservatives this fucking stupid?

[msc545]

So the morons in Alabama are getting to gether to pass a bill that will exempt IVF from this law.

[goaded]

Good luck with that; the state supreme court decided that they counted as children, and that meant destroying them was unconstitutional because of the 2018 state constitutional amendment. How do you pass a law to override your constitution?

[msc545]

@goaded They are having trouble with it - but are trying to say that since it is not attached to a uterus it's ok to kill it.

[goaded]

FAFO. The court decided they were children. I think it's too late for a simple law, now.

[msc545]

@goaded FAFO? is what?

[goaded]

Well, the last two are Find Out.

[msc545]

@goaded oh right. duh... I;m tired!

[Drewtate]

Means that IVF clinics are more responsible for these embryos, some of these are often couples last chance to have kids.