Alabama court ruled frozen embryos are children.

Again - this has societal impact whereas pregnancy is not contagious

 

Yes, that's precisely what the AL Supreme Court said.

 

I will go with RvW which tied it to the right to privacy.


http://fbaum.unc.edu/lobby/_107th/0...Statements/CRLP/CRLP_and_right_to_privacy.pdf

 

And you agree with that? Criminalising miscarriage? At what point would you have the woman charged?

 

You bring up a lot of good points. It's a physically painful process for the women. And I know women who used up all their eggs trying to get a baby that was biological to the parents. If they were on their last implantation and the clinic lost them because they didn't lock a door and/or the freezer, they would have been devastated.

 

Death penalty for a miscarriage seems to be the only reasonable outcome based on this ruling. Don't you agree?

 

Nice interpretation

 

If someone killed you "in private" should they escape legal consequences?

 

My body my choice. If you're scared stay home and live in a bubble.

 

Soooo - you are happy if children die because “my body my choice” ??


Whooping cough -but “my body my choice” yes?

Tell me - when did you decide pregnancy could be contagious

 

Did they say it, or are you just projecting where you think they want to go with it? Don't get me wrong. I would agree with the later part, but I didn't see anything to support the first part.

 

Which was the problem with the ruling. The right to an abortion, or more specifically the ending of a pregnancy, is a right to bodily autonomy, which is an established right as shown by the fact that no one has a right to our bodily resources, even after we die.

 

Well, civilised countries like mine ensure women going through miscarriage are supported but it seems that is NOT the case in the USA

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...ion came after a,drug use caused their losses.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/03/california-stillborn-prosecution-roe-v-wade

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59214544

As is said - I am grateful I live in a civilised country

 

I believe that @CornPop was saying (and they can correct me if I am wrong) that such was the message that the AL SC was putting out, reading between the line. I also think that their response to this post of yours, is intentional hyperbole to a point, but sadly, there are woman being charged with murder when they have miscarriages in other countries.

 

try reading the links

 

Not in mine they re not - most of the cases I have read where that has happened in South America. It is horrific where it does happen. Pregnancy loss is not always avoidable

 

Yes and they would ready have a recourse of charging neglect through law.

 

I posted this in the other thread about this ruling. The religious zealot GOP clown car of evangelicals is off the cliff in full acceleration. They have been conditioned to grab the third rail with both misguided hands. Men/women make darn sure to vote in November and take a non voting citizen to the polls as well.

 

then the State's work force should be able to add them to their work life insurance for their children, for welfare benefits, tax purposes, etc...

 

so you don't think the States should decide?

 

Where was the common sense part in your post ? Common sense that an argument contains 2 things -- 1) statement of claim/premise 2) some explanation, rational or proof showing the claim is true

What is the common sense part you wished to tell us about friend .. looking for Number two (2) here .. giving us some hope that common sense might be common !?

 

Heroin use affects society as a whole .. how is that justification for mandating that everyone use heroin ? What a ridiculous lack of an argument. Bottom line you have not made one

"Vaccines affect society as a whole - therefor everyone should be forced to Jab" -- is not an argument friend. That something has an impact to the collective - is not justification for forcing that something on the individual in a Constitutional Republic. Utilitarianism .. of its own volition .. is NOT valid justification for law.

If your nation does not have a constitution - lacks respect for individual liberty/ Essential liberty - Utilitarian Arguments will be all the rage .. and accepted as valid justification for law. You on the other hand are trying to use fallacious Utilitarianism as justification for law .. an anathema to both systems .. and big problem in all these so called liberal democracies after the fact .. Canada's Supreme court recently ruling that the actions taken by the Gov't in relation to the Trucker Protest were illegal.

Bottom line -- your argument is not valid .. a case of fallacious Utilitarianism ... where the claim of increased happiness for the collective (or Harm Reduction) itself is false.

Similar to the 2cnd had smoke legislation - an exercise in bad science and falsehood as justification for law .. the difference in this case is rather than taking away a liberty/freedom .. one is violating "My body my choice" .. in exactly the same way abortion Law - justification for Law on the basis of "Religious Belief" - "Bad Science" along with violations of logic and reason and principles of Justice .. founding principle and Constitutionally protected Essential Liberty.

 

congrats after a decade of posting on boards like this I think that is the most fallacious ans specious argument I have ever seen - and no we have yet to treat any addiction issue in a correct manner. And I think this is the core - you do not understand addiction as a disease. Now tell me - is addiction contagious? If it is - what is it’s R0?

And a doubling down on issues at best peripheral to the central issue in the thread

 

Yes, I remember it. Why did you change your argument?

 

nevermind offtopic