Alabama court ruled frozen embryos are children.

Death from either is EXTREMELY RARE and usually because of something else.

AGAIN should our entire abortion policy be based on such extremely rare circumstances?

 

Actually given the OP this is NOT about abortion. The woman who brought the lawsuit was no seeking an abortion, the clinic that was sued does not do abortions, no one was trying to stop abortions. It was about a conflict between a constitutional amendment and a statutory law which the ASC said yep the the plaintiff is correct and the state legislature would have to act to change it, you know not wanting to engage in judicial activism, and the state legislature did and the governor signed the bill and it was all fixed BEFORE Biden gave his SOTU speech so why did he try to make it an issue?

 

There are also laws about abusing of minor children and this was a specific issue between a law and the state constitution which has been cleared up by the state legislature.

 

Are you saying it's the TAX CODE which determines our humanity????? REALLY?

 

Okay, cool. People in deep sleep do not have a right to life because they're not conscious and can't display sentience.

Statements like this make me doubt you're arguing in good faith. An individual zygote will never have the capacity for Sentience at any point in the future?

Note that I put the words "wake up" in quotes because I was alluding to its eventual development during its lifetime. Just like an infant does not have the capacity to reproduce, but it eventually will when it "wakes up" at puberty.

 

Since I was addressing about it being a misconception, that seems a rather strawman response.

 

You would have to tell me. I wasn't addressing that point with that post.

 

"People" - have rights of personal bodily autonomy ... you say .. but did not not agree with the Gov'ts right to Jab away ? .. thought you were an advocate of forced medical treatment .. vax mandates .. all justified on the basis of utilitarian justification for law.

 

Sorry friend .. a sperm is a living being .. as much as the Mighty Zygote .. pretending that the sperm is not alive .. not a living entity .. just like the Zygote is a living entity .. a stage in the process of human creation .. is the only "Lacking knowledge of biology" going on here.

and sorry .. just because a Human organism is made up of human cells .. and a whole lot of bacterial cells .. does not mean those other cells are not just as much organisms as the zygote.

A Zygote is a single human cell friend .. one of the many cells that make up a human . none of which themselves are humans however .. so you did get that part of the biology test right .. the rest you failed though which is unfortunate.

 

You should try it sometimes prior to posting some silly guess .. you might save yourself the trouble of being wrong so often.

 

Look friend .. who is "they" that does not state human organisms are in your feces ... LOL .. cause they are wrong .. as human cells are human organisms.. ... and that is the science friend .. so not what you are sticking to but science is not it ..

A human cell is a human organism.. as you have been claiming all along .. claiming that the zygote is an organism .. perhaps not realizing that a zygote is a human cell.

Sorry Blue -- either a human cell is an organism .. or it is not .. the zygote is a human cell .. you claim .. A human organism .. and I concur as does Biology.. you then turn around and claim that a human cell is not a human organism .. contradicting yourself .. and the Science .. while claiming that you stick to the science.

 

That is a majorly significant increase in risk. And that is just death alone. Those numbers do not include any permanent or long term damage to the woman.

Compared to a policy that would make a woman whose personal risk shot up to much higher numbers, take that risk and be likely to die? Yes of course. Texas, among others, has proven that the woman's high risk of dying, that "rare circumstance" as you put it, is still not enough for an exception.

Ultimately though, the entire policy should be based upon bodily autonomy and each person's willingness to take what risks they feel they can handle and not to take the ones they don't wish to, regardless of how low.

 

Not one part of this addresses the point of "Specifically, what the likely future impact of this ruling will be on abortion." There is no claim that the case itself was dealing directly with abortion. The claim is that this ruling will impact other rulings about abortion. Hell, this thread isn't even about whether or not the parents affected by the incident at the clinic should be compensated or not, or about the conflicts between the state constitutions and a state law. The OP specifically noted in their OP that they are bringing up the likely future impact of this ruling on abortion.

 

First off the Governor himself stated that this was a short term solution. Secondly, simply because the clinics are now shielded, for now, from being held accountable under the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act, it does not mean that the ruling cannot be used in other cases to further reduce or ban abortion even in the cases where the woman's life is at imminent risk.

 

Not at all. I am saying that the tax code can exempt anything it wants. If lawmakers want to make pets an exemption, they can do so. Doing so doesn't make dogs suddenly human or persons. However, looking in the reverse direction, if the tax law already states that minor person are allowed to be an exemption (including that a minor is a person under the calendar age of 1, and then a ruling is made elsewhere that dogs are considered persons, then legally, dogs under 18 years of age would have to be allowed as exemptions on taxes.

 

"Nonsense coming from inane notion in your head" he cries out ?! -- with no further comment than darting out to name call .. not telling us what this inane notion might be.

Look friend .. the living organism in human feces are not living humans .. .. and that is not "Inane Nonsense" .. I would argue the reverse is true.

 

Nothing, but when your position rests on arguing for definitions that belie the dictionary, you lack both.

 

You are confused Sentinel .. one need not be consciousness to have the capacity for sentience. You were told that someone in a deep coma is not brain dead. The brain of someone in a coma is quite active and capable.

The fetus prior to the wiring of the brain being complete has no capacity for significant brain activity - the fleshy abode has no ability to capacitate the soul.

No Soul -- No living human friend .. Zombies may look human enough but, no rights for Zombies.

 

Do you know what "old English" and "obsolete" mean?

You can't go to idioms to claim you found some sort of proof.

 

Holy Carp this is blistering fallacious semantic nonsense. The colloquialism "With Child" .. does not mean there is an actual child "by definition" in existence.

The dictionary is telling you what the person means .. when using the phrase "With Child" back in the middle ages. What that person meant .. was that the woman was pregnant .. a term for "She's preggo Folks"

Now please understand .. the line turning blue on the pee test -- your daughter calling you and saying " Im Preggo" .. does not mean that a living human exists in the present .. and certainly it does not mean that the Zygote was a living human ... its offspring now successfully implanted and producing human cells.

and so NO .. the dictionary for the phrase "With Child" is not telling you that a Living human is present .. merely a projection of what we hope will exist in the future happy happy - that which is known as a Baby ! - a phase we need to get through prior to advancing to the Child stage

 

Yes, it means the word and its definition are very old, which makes it even embarrassing not to know it.

404, "obsolete" not found. This is the current definition.

It's not just an idiom, it's the definition. It's one thing to have to screenshot the dictionary of an elementary word. It's something completely different to have to educate someone how to read a dictionary. Stop trying to redefine words to suit your political agenda. It's a horrible and embarrassing debate strategy.

 

This topic is NOT solved by a dictionary.

There is no filter on dictionaries to prevent nonsense from entering, as prevalence of use is not proof of truth.

 

Holy cow, another one! Hilarious.
It's telling you the use of child as a noun dates back to the Middle Ages. It's also telling you the use of child as a verb was first recorded c1175. Just because a definition is old doesn't mean it isn't valid. It's the first definition in that dictionary. The primary definition in current use. Other definitions and even obsolete definitions are listed below along with the time period of its usage.

Everyone come back tomorrow and I'll teach the class how to read a thesaurus.

 

Tell me when you get to something that discusses women's rights, healthcare, or anything related to biology.

 

Look friend ..the colloquialism "with child" is not a definition for a human .. it is a term for "Pregnant woman" really a descriptive adjective .. the woman being the noun.

None of which turns a zygote into a living human .. .. for that you have to give a definition of "Human" and show that the zygote meets that definition .. and this has nothing to do with a thesaurus nor you pretending to be able to teach a class on the subject .. you are in the wrong playground friend .. a thesaurus is not where you find out what a Zygote is.