Frozen embryos are ‘children,’ Alabama Supreme Court rules in couples’ wrongful death suits

o_mlly said:

Second, if you know of any Alabamians who voted to secede in 1861 who are still alive and on the wrong side of this issue, let me know.

Click to expand...

Don't know about anyone still around from 1861. But...


President Obama's re-election has prompted a wide variety of reactions in Alabama including several thousand people who say they want the state to secede from the union. And before you dismiss this as just a fringe movement, the petition seeking Alabama's independence has more than 8,000 signatures so far.

Bradskii said:

What's with ThE mIXturE of capitals? I've never understood that.

Mm. Let me think. Well, a woman is a female of the species Homo sapien and is determined, generally, by having two X chromosomes, a vagina and a uterus. And I say generally because there are conditions where none of those might be applicable. And a child is (legally) a member of the aforementioned species between birth and the legal age of majority. Personally I'd say between birth and puberty myself.

I hope that helps.

Click to expand...

Mocking SpongeBob
This explains the capitals.
I'm agreeing with you, generally. For how much the conservatives think the "dEfInE wOmAn" is such a gotcha, this thread is demonstrating that a child means whatever you want to own the libs. Zygote, blastocyte, egg, embryo, fetus, baby none of it matters. Apparently they're all just "children." No nuance required.

Yttrium said:

Well, Derf could just let them both die, That's a third option.

Click to expand...

A fair point.

MotoToTheMax said:

Mocking SpongeBob
This explains the capitals.

Click to expand...

Ah. Now I know. Takes ages for me to type like that as autocorrect thinks 'Gee, I have to keep correcting this guy's spelling...'

MotoToTheMax said:

Apparently they're all just "children." No nuance required.

Click to expand...

It's almost mediaeval in concept. That there are tiny homunculus in the sperm. Sperm fertilizes egg and 'Look! A little man!' No, it's a fertilized egg. 'But it's human life!' Well, yeah. The sperm and egg were as well before one got anywhere near the other.

Belk said:

A fair point.

Click to expand...

Like Buridan's Ass, he dies in the flames trying to decide.

Bradskii said:

Ah. Now I know. Takes ages for me to type like that as autocorrect thinks 'Gee, I have to keep correcting this guy's spelling...'

It's almost mediaeval in concept. That there are tiny homunculus in the sperm. Sperm fertilizes egg and 'Look! A little man!' No, it's a fertilized egg. 'But it's human life!' Well, yeah. The sperm and egg were as well before one got anywhere near the other.

Click to expand...

Actually, it's not medieval. In those days the fetus was not considered a human before 'quickening,' 16-20 weeks.

BCP1928 said:

Actually, it's not medieval. In those days the fetus was not considered a human before 'quickening,' 16-20 weeks.

Click to expand...

I just went with this: Homunculus - Wikipedia

o_mlly said:

In 1865, the Fourteenth Amendment reversed the infamous Dred Scott decision. It took eight years and a civil war to come to the truth on the humanity of all God's children. We are on our way. Thank you, citizens of Alabama!

Click to expand...

Nowhere does the Constitution state, or even imply, that the unborn are "persons" in the legal sense, as that term is used in the 14th Amendment. If that's wrong, then the proper, and most secure way to grant such rights to the unborn nationwide will require a Constitutional amendment. And as regards abortion, 6 states have already held referendums. In every one, access to elective abortion was upheld by the voters. About 13 states will hold similar referendums later this year. To be on your way to an abortion-free nation, I suspect you'll have to change a lot of hearts and minds.

truthpls said:

One person may call mass murder progress, for example, and another might call it something else. For Christians, we know how things progress and end. People standing for good and what is right do not stop progress. They get on the right side of it.

Click to expand...

Mass Murder? There is no murder here at all.

Hans Blaster said:

Mass Murder? There is no murder here at all.

Click to expand...

One person may call something whatever they like was the point. As the example used. What is a "drag on progress" to you, in other words, may be something entirely different to someone else. Progress indicates moving toward something. What we are moving towards with all that abortion and embryo freezing and tinkering is insane depravity. Anyone standing against that is doing a good thing. (even though you call it being a drag on progress). A more correct term would be something like 'a freefall into hell' or 'restraining evil' rather than a 'drag on progress'. Is is a good thing to be a drag on the progress of evil!

truthpls said:

One person may call something whatever they like was the point.

Click to expand...

No you can't make up definitions. A zygote is not a child. By definition. An abortion is not murder. By definition. Change the definitions to suit your argument and your argument immediately becomes worthless.

Belk said:

How is that a false dichotomy? In the hypothetical it is clearly stated there are only two possible options. For this to be a false dichotomy a third option needs to exist, but that then goes outside the bounds of the hypothetical and completely ignores the point being addressed.

Click to expand...

The question as posed in this thread is addressing a moral issue regarding whether preborn life is human. The false dichotomy presupposes that one of the two human lives is less valuable than the other, and asks me to tell the questioner which one it is, without the option to say, "They are equally valuable." That third option is the one that makes the dichotomy false.

Bradskii said:

It's not a false dichotomy. I'm not sure you know what that means. It's a simple hypothetical. And you've already indicated your answer by avoiding the question. Thanks for that.

Click to expand...

You're welcome. And I appreciate your non-answer as well. Telling, isn't it?

Derf said:

The question as posed in this thread is addressing a moral issue regarding whether preborn life is human. The false dichotomy presupposes that one of the two human lives is less valuable than the other, and asks me to tell the questioner which one it is, without the option to say, "They are equally valuable." That third option is the one that makes the dichotomy false.

Click to expand...

It wasn't whether pre born life is human. It's been explained to you multiple times that no-one disputes that. But there was a hint of an answer. You'd walk out with a test tube because it was on your right, the baby was on the left and you're right handed. Hey, no other reason because you say that they are exactly equal.

While the mother of the baby is screaming hysterically at you why you didn't save her baby, you're trying to hold her off and explain that there's no difference. Stupid woman...

Congrats. You're front page news, my friend. The guy who saved a frozen embryo and left a child a few weeks old to burn to death. Do you think the headlines will be positive or negative?

And do you think your arguments will hold up in court? Because as sure as God made little green apples, someone will want to punish you for what you did.

Derf said:

You're welcome. And I appreciate your non-answer as well. Telling, isn't it?

Click to expand...

Now we've assumed your answer from your last post, I'll give you mine. And I'll use the same reasoning as we assumed you'd use. One twin was on my right. One on the the left. I'm right handed so that kid gets lucky. When I emerge from the burning building I''m seen as a hero. A tragedy that both couldn't be saved, but...I could only save one.

But you? There's a mob chasing you down the street, my friend.

Bradskii said:

No you can't make up definitions. A zygote is not a child. By definition.

Click to expand...

Yes, let's talk about definitions. A human zygote is human, just like an elephant zygote is elephant.

Bradskii said:

An abortion is not murder.

Click to expand...

Abortion is the word used for early termination of a pregnancy. Not all abortion is murder, because the word is also used for miscarriages (spontaneous abortions), but intentionally terminating a pregnancy is killing a human being. If the killing accords with the definition of murder, then it is murder, right? That's what definitions are all about.

"Child" isn't required for it to be murder. "Human being" is. Calling it a "zygote" or "embryo" or "fetus" or even "blob of tissue" doesn't stop it from being a human being. All of those words (except "blob of tissue") describe a stage of development, and when we are talking about stages of development of humans, all of those still mean "human being". Intentional killing of a human being with malice is murder.

Definition:
Murder--To kill a human being with premeditated malice.
"Kill" requires that the victim be alive, and that is without question.
"Human being" is also without question. It has human DNA, it is from humans and will be recognizable as a human early on in the pregnancy. A misshapen or malformed or maimed human is still a human being.
"Premeditated" requires merely planning, and walking into an abortion clinic is part of that planning.
"Malice" is ill will toward the victim without reason or cause.
MAL'ICE, noun [Latin malitia, from malus, evil.] Extreme enmity of heart, or malevolence; a disposition to injure others without cause, from mere personal gratification or from a spirit of revenge; unprovoked malignity or spite.

Bradskii said:

By definition. Change the definitions to suit your argument and your argument immediately becomes worthless.

Click to expand...

So, are you willing to stick by that statement? Since you attempted to change definitions of terms to suit your argument, are you willing to admit that your argument is worthless?

One of the Justices said
""In summary, the theologically based view of the sanctity of life adopted by the People of Alabama encompasses the following:
(1) God made every person in His image;
(2) each person therefore has a value that far exceeds the ability of human beings to calculate; and
(3) 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.""


How is any of this allowed in a judgement by a justice?
Shouldn't there be a separation of Church and State?
Isn't this showing the desire by that Justice to force Christianity onto people?

Is there a process to punish, by sanction or firing of this judge?

Bradskii said:

Now we've assumed your answer from your last post, I'll give you mine. And I'll use the same reasoning as we assumed you'd use. One twin was on my right. One on the the left. I'm right handed so that kid gets lucky. When I emerge from the burning building I''m seen as a hero. A tragedy that both couldn't be saved, but...I could only save one.

But you? There's a mob chasing you down the street, my friend.

Click to expand...

Mobs chase righteous people down the street fairly regularly. If I'm supposed to determine my morals based on whether a mob might chase me down the street, I'll be the most immoral man ever.

stevil said:

One of the Justices said
""In summary, the theologically based view of the sanctity of life adopted by the People of Alabama encompasses the following:
(1) God made every person in His image;
(2) each person therefore has a value that far exceeds the ability of human beings to calculate; and
(3) 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.""


How is any of this allowed in a judgement by a justice?
Shouldn't there be a separation of Church and State?
Isn't this showing the desire by that Justice to force Christianity onto people?

Is there a process to punish, by sanction or firing of this judge?

Click to expand...

For invoking God? Wouldn't that also violate "separation of church and state"?

Derf said:

Yes, let's talk about definitions. A human zygote is human, just like an elephant zygote is elephant.

Click to expand...

Yes. A human zygote is human. How many times must this be explained!

Derf said:

Abortion is the word used for early termination of a pregnancy.

Click to expand...

Yes. And if it's legal then it's not murder. And legal abortions are what we are talking about.

And a human being is a man, woman or child of the species Homo sapiens. Which does not include zygotes, blastocysts, embryos or foetus. A child is what you have from birth onwards.

Deal with it.