Alabama court ruled frozen embryos are children.

Yikes!!

 

This is the point of the artificial womb technology, after all. To be able to take a fertilized zygote (or whatever stage) and place it in an environment other than a natural womb, to gestate.

 

We're talking about TODAY - not some marvelous future.

If you want to start saving cryogenic human embryos, you have some work to do.

Arthur Caplan, one of the nation's leading bioethicists and a professor at the New York University Medical School, stated there are at least 90,000 frozen embryos considered abandoned.

Plus, there are well over a million frozen, gradually deteriorating toward the ten year point that is where their viability ends.

 

Ironically enough, I have a quote from another bioethicist, Vardit Ravitsky:

This concept is not limited to the idea of AW's either.

 

That does not pertain to the topic here.

The law in question is hypocritical and a serious assault on women's healthcare and personal bodily autonomy.

 

It very much pertains to the topic here. Both topics are raising new questions, meaning that we have to start taking a new look at how things are going to work and what the ethics about them are.

No not really. Oh to be sure some will try to make it so, but this law in and of itself holds no bearing on a woman's healthcare or bodily autonomy, since the embryos in question are not in her body. As I have noted before, if we do not allow born persons to violate a woman's bodily autonomy, then why should it be any different for the unborn?

 

Yes, that's part of the hypocrisy. An embryo can't sometimes be a person and sometimes NOT be a person.

As for your last sentence, we DO allow born persons to violate a woman's bodily autonomy. In fact, we have laws that insist that happens.

If we were to move to Canada's rules, women would have bodily autonomy. They could make their healthcare decisions. They would be allowed to make the hard decisions that sometimes come up with procreation.

 

Okay this post deserves this

 

It becomes an assault when the interpretation of those laws impact her life and her healthcare decisions. Now someone has to pay to maintain the existing embryos. Many couples do so just in case but what happens when her reproductive life ends? On a fixed income and still supporting frozen embryos? What happens to those embryos when the “parents” die? It would have been different if this decision had included a method of the state taking on state responsibility for those embryos

 

Please provide an example of that, outside of the concept of vaccines. I will acknowledge that such as a fine line to walk.

 

I actually have a thread about this in my other debate forum. Do you think I should do it over here as well? And I admit that it is a problem, one that is outside of the bodily autonomy issue, that will arise out of this ruling. But it is a separate issue.

Unfortunately that issue was not part of the case, and as such a ruling cannot be made on it. I'm not saying that it is not a problem. It is and one that needs addressing, as does the issue of who gets to decide what to do with the embryos, outside of the issues of the ruling of this case. If the couple is separated, do either of them get to withdraw and gestate the embryo in a unilateral decision (the man using a surrogate of course)? Or do they both have to agree to have that happen? Can either one order the embryos destroyed (remember, outside of the ruling of this case) unilaterally, or should that also be a joint call? But the courts can make law, and since there is nothing in the law at this point, there is nothing that a judge can do. We can't complain about "activist judges" and then complain when they don't do something activist.

 

But it does go to a core issue - the so called “pro-lifers” backing many of these idiocies are most often unwilling to put their hands in their pockets to pay for the inevitable outcomes. They would not pay to maintain the embryos ad infinitum just as they would not advocate for and pay for maternity leave, child welfare etc etc etc. Heck! They won’t even pay for extra midwives when their restrictive abortion laws drive up the birth rate

 

Why? I have never claimed sperm or ovum is the same as a zygote or embryo. Do YOU make that claim. The satire you posted would apply to anyone who does. Can YOU explain on the scientific level the difference between sperm/ovum and zygote/fetus. If you can then you should understand the absurd conflations some are trying to make.

 

And of course the ethical questions surrounding such procedures. Why do we need to do that? These are human lives we are talking about, don't you think each one needs to be treated as that human being and not some product of a lab never having that bond with a mother and father and family, just something out of a lab.

 

And what is the biological difference between a sperm or ovum and a zygote/fetus?


Like any other baby as long as some supplies nourishment and protection from the elements it will.

Why the "yike" do elaborate.

 

Sorry friend but TOTALLY and UNIQUELY has the ALL the characteristics of a homo sapien at that stage of the life of a homo sapien. And we are ENDOWED at creation with those rights which are a self evident TRUTH. It is human and it is living and thriving in the womb and will continue to do so as long as nourishment and protection from the elements is provided to where it can do so all on it's own and until it's death. They are all just STAGES of a HUMAN LIFE.

Yes that is a biological fail. It is UNIQUELY human if it is a HUMAN zygote.

OK then what genus and species is it and back up you claim from the medical textbooks that the human being only becomes homo sapien at some further developmental stage and exactly when that transformation occurs and the medical term for it.

A human sperm is not a human being versus a zygote or fetus. Do you know why? It is strictly biology and I bet you don't know. Yes a sperm is a human sperm. Yes a zygote is a human being. All due to this differentiation.

Yes I do know which is why I am having to explain it to you and others with these specious sperm and zygote conflations. Ya'll apparently did NOT major in biology and may have skipped what classes you did have.

Do you know what is cell specialization? Do you know the difference between tissue and organ? Do you know what organization is in living organism? Do you believe that is a heart cell implants into the fertile womb of a female that there is the possibility it will develop into a human zygote beginning a new human being and will continue to grow and develope into the fetal stage and then be born into world and continue it's life on into adulthood? You see that as some biological possibility? Do you believe a biologist observing a heart cell under a microscope and then a zygote could not tell the difference?

Do we need a bio major to 'splain all this ? ... or is this more in the realm of English -- the difference between the descriptive adjective and noun use of the word "Human"

and the final question is for Blue -- Tell us the difference between the murder of the numerous single celled human beings killed by an abortion prior to implantation .. or just a failed implantation which happens a high percentage of the time .. and those many single celled human beings killed by one's morning bowel movement ? and why we should care more about one than the other [/QUOTE]

 

The Republicans on the court were not commenting of what scientist say they were commenting of what the people of the state through the state constitution and state legislation said about when life comes under the protection of the law. BTW new legislation has been sent to the governor to clear up how it applies to clinics and whether they can be held to the abuse of minor children act. You know what the state supreme court said was needed here.

 

"Alabama court ruled frozen embryos are children."

how many children can you claim on your taxes?

 

So if you take those home and put them under a heating blanket in a few days you will have chicks running about the house?

BTW in humans it is called an ovum, once it is fertilized by a sperm it is no longer an ovum but a zygote. Human embryonic development does not occur outside the body of the mother but inside and without a shell as the womb provides the separate environment needed for the child to survive until birth.

 

Oh YOU know I know, I'm asking for YOUR belief what YOU think. So explain what is the difference.

 

What does that have to do with whether or not they are human beings? Can you write off the expenses, you betcha.

 

if they are children, you can claim them on your taxes, so ask the doc to fill up that petri dish with "children"

 

One example is laws that direct doctors to NOT perform the healthcare that a woman's condition requires.

 

Yes, you point out issues that this ruling creates. This ruling was made without any clear thought on what the ramifications would be.

The judge didn't even think about IVF or impact on cryogenic preservation or how it would end all legal abortion or how it would impact women's healthcare.

Also, this judge stated in an interview that his opinion was guided by his religion - a clear violation of the first amendment.

 

I'll leave your exploration of biology to you.

[/QUOTE]
All these elements of procreation you mention are frequently or usually expelled for reasons that may or may not be known.

At any time through gestation it can become known that a live baby will NOT result or that there are very serious defects.

Even late in gestation, a fetus can present a serious health risk to the woman.

So, yes - I responded with "Yikes"