Alabama court ruled frozen embryos are children.

How about intrauterine or rather embryos pre implantation? Are we to throw out most contraceptives because they prevent embryo implantation?

 

If embryos are designated “children” then how it different them being frozen or in utero awaiting implantation?

 

Lols! I was being facetious since they did not exactly have the research ability we have today - many of those “vaccinated” did die - and if you are using that timeframe then you have to accept the timeline for MRNa vaccine development that dates back decades


https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02483-w

 

Would you mind not trying to take this thread off topic?

 

This ruling just inflames further what is a red hot issue that is so divisive as it is.

Embryos are embryos . Fetus is a fetus. Babies are babies. Toddlers are toddlers. Children are children. Teenagers are teens. Young adults are young adults. Adults are adults.

It is so poliltical now that definitions are being torn apart ceeating even more confutation and anxiety.

And for WHAT PURPOSE??? (votes??? politics?? , when the law is so tainted with politics , some decisions just don't make sense. It becomes a word (definition) game.

 

The actual decision was dripping the religious doctrine

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2024/02/24/alabama-chief-justice-tom-parker-ivf/#

 

One certainly cannot freeze CHILDREN........( the real ones , ) As stated before. this seems like a political word game. ..with no real constructive purpose. The effect is people start arguing about things that have been settled and this creates uncertainty.

 

The "religious" factor is unfortunate. This is a medical // legal issue . It should involve the relevant people, the medical staff within the boundaries of what is realistic and legal. Technically, this would be IMPOSING a certain BELIEF system on EVERY ONE else. That is presumptuous and arrogant.

 

Were you also being facetious when you said Alabama would be imprisoning women for having miscarriages? It's so hard to tell these days.

 

I didn’t say Alabama was imprisoning women - it is in fact happening in many states in America
Oklahoma
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/brittany-poolaw-manslaughter-miscarriage-pregnancy/

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

 

I do believe that @Giftedone was denouncing the concept of "go elsewhere" with sarcastic commentary about what women can do. I mean the explicitly state, "What a joke .. you can't just "Go Elsewhere" in many cases .. " Actually I'm not sure if Bower and Eddie aren't actually saying the same thing from different angle and think they are arguing opposite sides. I sadly do that with my one wife too often. But I've also been skimming away from most of the post that are doing the COVID vax side thread, so I don't have the full context. But that specific Giftedone post does read as if they are not accepting "go elsewhere" as a valid argument.

 

The later uses another's bodily resources, which requires consent, which in turn can be withdrawn at any time, and the other is just frozen, making no use of another's bodily resources.

 

What makes it so ironic is that the ones saying that you (generalized) can't change what the definitions of man or woman are, is also saying, we're changing what the definitions of baby and children are.

 

When it comes to law, do ever bother with "settled". I don't know how many times people kept telling me that RvW was settled law, and I kept warning them that it could be overturned via another SCOTUS decision or even an amendment. Oh look I was right. And for that matter, no word is ever settled either. Language evolves. Meanings change. Old definitions can go to the wayside, while newer ones become part of the common use. "Settled" only actually means "settled for now", and not forever.

 

Hmm but my point is that this ruling could also translate across to those contraceptive methods that prevent embryo implantation

 

Maybe, maybe not. I agree that opponents will try to do just that. However, it can be argued that preventing implantation before use of bodily resources not consented to, is the same as preventing entry onto property before trespassing occurs. The point remains is that the two situations are different. Whether that difference is enough for some courts, is another matter.

 

Wrong, many women from TX are having to travel hundreds of miles because Republicans were forcing her to carry a dying fetus for nine months and if Republicans get control of all branches of government, abortion will be outlawed nationwide with contraception next. The conservative Heritage Foundation laid all of this out.

 

I did not say women from Tx were not having to travel hundreds of miles due to Evil Red policies ? So why do you say wrong - building a ridiculous strawman fallacy rather than address the fact that in the system you prefer ... in the Eddie Legal system - anything is justified to be done to the employee - firing her for getting pregnant in the first place as an unwed mother ..and if they do not like it .. she can just move on and find another Job Elsewhere .. perhaps out of state .. like those women who have to travel hundreds of miles.

You are the one that condones law violating essential liberty -- the reason why the women of Texas are having to travel hundreds of miles .. not me. I told you right from the get go ... this Alabama court is an anathema to the constitutional republic , founding principle, Rule of law ... just like the Eddie Legal system .. Where the Employee can just Move somewhere else if she doesn't want to give the boss a BJ 3 times a week as he requires for her to keep her Job.

Hard core violation of "Life - Liberty - Pursuit of Happiness" Ed. I don't like this Legal system of yours.

 

Go talk to Eddie -- His position not mine

And on the same basis as your position - violates essential liberty

best to figure out what fallacious Utilitarianism is Bower -- to understand the consequences of your position-- "By Body my choice" ... Or Not ? Which is it Bower .. Eddie said the woman can go to another State if she doesn't like the violation of "my body my choice" .. you came up with "Its good for the collective" which turned out to be false .. but was an anathema to the founding principle even if true.

Glad someone in the room has good reading comprehension .. some skill at logic and reason .. and yes .. Bower and Eddie are definitely both violating the founding principle .. just from different ends... in slightly different ways .. Bower yet to figure out how this bad abortion law and the bad Vax law are related .. that when you violate principle of Justice in one area .. Precedent can spread it to others .. such that one needs to be careful what one wishes for .. rather than cry out "WTF" with no explanation of the exclaimation ?

What up Bower "WTF" what means that ? What would you like to tell us about fallacious utilitarianism and why you think this should be valid justification for law in the nation ?

 

What difference do you even know what this is about?

 

Again do you even know what this is about? This is about LIABILITY.

 

Excellent points.

 

Well, your posts are not conveying that belief well

 

Yep! So what is to stop a man suing a woman for using contraception if that contraception prevents implantation? For that matter - what is to stop some churches/ cults suing members or at least using this as a way of preventing women from using birth control?

 

The Maternal Mortality rates for the USA, already the highest in the developed world, are rising


https://healthfininst.medium.com/ma...-stand-compared-to-other-nations-f9f75cb806fb
And THIS is why there is a paucity of research on why MMR is so high in the USA

https://www.scientificamerican.com/...ality-rates-are-getting-worse-across-the-u-s/