Alabama court ruled frozen embryos are children.

Not the same logic .. I am not claiming a human infant is a human.. and there are those who argue for a later designation .. I am not one of them 22 weeks being where I draw the line .. not using the Homo Sapiens definition my self .. but if folks want to .. a zygote does not meet the criteria for Homo Sapiens. I define a human as having sentience .. or at least the capacity for Sentience .. favoring the Monty Python Definition .. "I drink therefore I AM"

We can debate what characteristics should be in or out .. by the Homo Sapiens classification system the Zygote don't cut it .. having near Zero of the characteristics required for Homo Sapiens .. such that the distinction between that and an infant is ridiculous silliness .. in other words .. we can say .. well maybe an infant is not quite 100% meeting all the criteria .. the zygote on the other hand does not even make it to 0.1%

Regardless .. If we are getting technical .. I go with a Philosophical .. Bio-Ethical - Scientific Perspective/definition which turns out to be the consensus position 22 - weeks .. I can defend this position from a Scientific .. Ethical and Religious perspective .... No capacity for thought .. then no capacity for the soul .. and a soul-less fleshy shell is not a human

 

Women can require abortion after 22 weeks.

We've seen the problems with laws against women like that in Texas and other states.

 

Got it. You're a vicious hater of human life, someone who takes savage glee in exterminating helpless haploid humans. But only after you dehumanize those helpless haploid humans first, to justify your extermination campaign.

If you can define yourself as correct, then it's just as valid when I do it. And it's a lot funnier when I do it.

In order to refute my argument, you have to show why "BECAUSE I SAY SO!" is right when you do it, but wrong when I do it. Get cracking. Make sure you don't use any subjective judgements of any type, because anyone else's subjective judgements are just as valid. And understand that objective criteria selected subjectively is a subjective judgement.

Those medical textbooks that your cherrypick say something that's plainly stupid and wrong, so they are wrong. Yes, I am very clearly smarter than the people who wrote such stupid things. What they wrote was religion, not science.

I know that because science has never tried to define "person". That's a social, legal and historical definition. Long before we knew how reproduction worked, we knew exactly what a person was. Throughout all of human history, it's been defined as "human, born and alive."

But the science says you're wrong. The logic says you're wrong. The history says you're wrong. Common sense says you're wrong. Thus, religious belief looks to be the correct explanation for your behavior.

 

I don't know what to think at this time. Trump probably wants to ban abortion altogether. Who knows?

 

I'll stand by what I say for now.

 

You are the one calling these "waste products of human beings" - babies. Not my biology sorely lacking for your biological fail.

What laughable silliness that you accuse me of holding your nonsensical position ..

Why do you not understand .. after being told this hundreds of times ? Just because something is a human organism .. human waste products for example .. does not mean that organism is a human.

A human Turd .. is not a human .. despite your protestations to the contrary .. jumping up an down .. stomping feed and claiming "Its a Baby .. Its a Baby .. Its a Baby" don't turn that turd into a human no matter how many times you repeat the same premise.

 

Did someone claim otherwise ? .. what part of the point .. "Sentience" is my definition of what you need for something to be human.. was not crystal clear ? if some woman is having an abortion after the point where sentience has been actualized .. a human is being killed .. U Understand ?

 

And I posted a link for you -pity you didn’t open it

 

Define “human being”? Are the organoids now being grown in the lab. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41...ail&utm_term=0_b27a691814-266f294882-51847612

 

Nope.

But, it looks like we may have a NEW limit for denying a woman's right to bodily autonomy!

 

The tax code doesn't even have to say that they are human or beings or the combination thereof. The tax code itself can simply say unborn are tax exempt. However, since the tax code already says children are exempt, if the state is going to declare them children, that means that, at least for state taxes, all frozen embryos count for exemption. I'm not calling for the embryos to be declared as such. I am only stating that if they are going to do it, then it applies across the board. And that would also mean that the procedure to create them and store them would be a medical expense separate and apart from the embryos themselves.

 

Grasping in desperation for some relevance - but this is nothing new. Sentience has been the consensus definition among subject matter experts for quite some time

The fail is assuming the rights of this Fetus person outweigh the rights of a Citizen person--- not that this would not be the case in some instances .. but this is not necessarily the case.

In a society where "my body my choice" is meaningless .. or better put .. where the rights of the individual are rendered meaningless- in this case by Prog Fallacious Utilitarianism .. the supposed good of the collective is the only consideration .. the rights of the individual ignored in this justification for law .. increased happiness for the collective being the only metric.

And so in the Society that Happy Will prefers .. the woman's right to bodily autonomy is denied. Not denied because of sentience so much .. denied because of lack of respect for bodily autonomy and Judicial hypocrisy.

Sitting on both sides of the fence is not cool William

 

But some women can't use their wombs. Which means they can't even use IVF, unless they are using a surrogate. And a woman might prefer to use an AW over an surrogate, or vice versa.

Conspiracy theory section is that way ---->

And bonds form between adopted children and parents as well. And since bond are rather subjective as to how strong they are or well formed or whatever, there really isn't any objective criteria by which to determine what types are better.

False premise. The child is already out of her womb and in a legal state of personhood, and not impinging upon her bodily autonomy at all. At issue at the moment is whether or not the embryos outside of her body are covered under legal protection.

Of course not, but something has to be shown to be detrimental objectively to individuals or society before it is not allowed. And all factors have to be considered. Technically, removing a leg is detrimental, but if it is causing or going to cause further damage to the rest of the body, then it's not detrimental.

 

There are already laws on the books for loss of property. So the ruling was not needed for the purpose of providing recourse for the losses of the parents. The parents can be compensated for their losses without causing this controversy.

 

Actually, given the OP, yes this is about abortion. Specifically, what the likely future impact of this ruling will be on abortion. This is the intent of the thread. OP can correct me if I am wrong.

 

Autocorrect is now a mass murder.

 

No it's not a sickness or disease, but that does not make it any less of a health risk. In fact, the mortality rate from pregnancy is higher than the mortality rate from abortion for women. And that is just the mortality rate. There is also risk of lifelong damages. Do you believe our entire abortion should be based on forcing women to continue the risk until it's too late to avoid the damages? And given that Texas won't even let the woman get an abortion when there is imminent health threats, you've not got a lot to fall back on.

 

The IVF procedure is medical care. It would fall under the tax deductions allowed for medical expenses. But declaring the embryos that are in storage as children, that means that they are eligible for the dependant exemption and the procedure that created them is eligible for medical deduction.

 

Given that medical science has determined that women have more miscarriages that previously realized, usually before they realize they have concieved, it's not a major misconception. Estimates are that as much as 30% of pregnancies end in miscarriages, many within the first few weeks. That may not be more than will live, but it is a significant amount. Further, that is not the only worry. Misshapen live birth is also a major worry or complications in the labor that could kill offspring, mother or both.

 

A person who is in a deep sleep or under general anesthesia has about as much capacity for thought as an human embryo. They do not stop being an human being just because they are in that state. At least, as long as they have the capacity to eventually recover or "wake up" from that state. Do you agree?

 

Your "happiness" argument is obviously and totally absurd. If you're happier because you like that a woman's healthcare rights were denied, that is just flat out disgusting.

You can make the happiness of others as an argument against any behavior you can imagine.


Believe me - I'm not on the fence on this topic.

 

But that is an imposed “coma like state” and if you have never heard the horror stories of people “waking up” but being unable to move under anaesthesia then count yourself lucky.

 

Actually I have seen estimates higher than that, especially if you include failure to implant the estimates can be as high as 70%

 

The definition of "human being" is a human. For purposes of the law in Georgia, they used the Webster's and Oxford English Dictionary for "child" which is "an unborn or recently born human." They also used the law and legal precedent.

These are basic definitions, not sure why help was needed, but... help provided nonetheless. In the future it's probably worth researching these basic words yourself. Asking people to define such words for you doesn't give people confidence in debate skills or the ability to have a reasoned and intelligent discussion.

 

Georgia? I thought this was Alabama