Alabama court ruled frozen embryos are children.

I'm not confused at all, Giftedone. One does not have the capacity for sentience while in the state of deep sleep. Fortunately, it's usually a temporary state and the human will transition to state where it is capable of being aware and reacting to its environment. Likewise, a zygote is in a temporary state that will naturally transition to a state where it also is sentient, if uninterrupted.

 

Literally.

 

Sorry friend .. but if one did not have the capacity for sentience while in a deep sleep .. then it would be impossible for that person to wake up.. to dream .. to carry on basic neural functions such as breathing.

Look .. we are talking about the machinery here .. there are no thoughts .. no brain function .. no brain waves .. and no ability to capacitate those things without a brain ..

So friend .. what this means .. is that in order to be a living human, one needs to have a brain.

and very very confused .. is the belief that a Zygote has the necessary machinery for thought -- aka .. a brain .... Sorry .. A zygote is not sentient - having no capacity for the requisite brain function.

 

Sorry friend, but you're clearly out of your league here. Your comments belie your ignorance about basic biological processes. A human in a deep sleep is not capable of waking up, or even having dreams (which requires a REM state), until after certain physiological and chemical changes take place in the body.

 

Dictionaries do not show "truth" except in the form of word use. This includes the use of a word in an idiomatic, slang or euphemistic (among others) manner or even when it shifts from that manner into common use standard.

 

No need for personal invective friend - because you are not understanding the subject matter. Do you understand that in order to have brain waves .. as measured by EEG (electroencephalography) , that you need to have the physical machinery in place - brain matter. There are no measurable brain waves coming out of a Zygote friend .. and believe it or not .. people wake up after speeping .. even after deep rem sleep .. Its really true Sentenal - in fact you - yourself did this recently. Do you not remember ?

Never mind .. do you understand that without a brain .. a single human cell is not capable of - does not have the capacity to - produce brain waves. It simply does not have the equipment ( = capability) required to produce these complex wave patterns .. that we recognize from a living sentient being.

 

Capacity for Sentience was the bar you set. In that context, a brain that can't be used for Sentience is effectively the same as a brain that doesn't yet exist.

Neither a zygote nor a person in a deep sleep have the capacity for Sentience in their current states. Both have autonomic processes in their bodies and are in the process of eventually transitioning to a state where they do have that capacity.

 

Correct - Capacity for Sentience is the bar - part of the bar really but yes

Incorrect - that a brain that can't be used for sentience is the same as a brain that doesn't exist.

1) the statement is simply not true but,
2) the statement has no relevance to the question or context at hand.. a sleeping persons brain .. can be used for sentience. What brain are you talking about that can't ?

No only can a sleeping brain be used for sentience .. It is being used for sentience while the person is sleeping - as per the coroners definition - EEG waves very active ..

The issue here is how you are defining sentience .. Sentience is the measurable brain activity - which signifies that a functional and functioning brain is present.. this is the bar = capacity for sentience .. the one that the doctor uses to distinguish the difference between alive and dead .. "brain dead" .. at which point the plug is pulled and the dirt nap begins.

So ... if we are talking about a "Living Human" .. your coma patient qualifies .. still alive .. not ready for dirt nap. The zygote however does not .. when we put the EEG on we get nothing... "is there anybody out there" .. Pink Floyd

 

Nope.

 

sentience
noun
sen·tience ˈsen(t)-sh(ē-)ən(t)s
ˈsen-tē-ən(t)s

1
: a sentient quality or state

sentient
adjective
sen·tient ˈsen(t)-sh(ē-)ənt ˈsen-tē-ənt

Synonyms of sentient
1
: capable of sensing or feeling : conscious of or responsive to the sensations of seeing, hearing, feeling, tasting, or smelling

2
: AWARE


Simply having a brain or "brain waves" is not the same thing being sentient or even having the capacity for sentience. You do not have that capacity when you are in a deep sleep state, no matter how much you want to believe or pretend you do for the sake of your argument.

 

Not sure why you are posting this gibberish ... as we are talking about having the capability for sentience .. not being cognitive in the moment.

What part of - There is no such thing as a living human without a brain .. capable of .. and actively producing measurable brain waves. is having trouble sinking in .. as per the coroner's definition of Alive .. vs .. Dead

KK .. not some definition from your synonyms book that doesn't relate to the definition that is being discussed ..

Having the capacity for sentience .. does not mean one is actively engaging in that full capacity in any case. and yes .. the having of brain waves does related to the capacity for sentience .. The difference between the Doc pulling the plug and you starting your dirt nap .. and seeing if you will wake up at some point .. your brain still actively performing basic functions.

and Dude .. Someone in a deep sleep -- has the machinery in place with which it is possible to wake up .. and you do this every morning .. U Understand ?

 

I have over and over and over and over.

So AGAIN how do the laws in YOUR country deal with the embryos created in IVF procedures?

I don't follow blind links simple tell me how the issue is dealt with in your country in your own words. What is the status of the human embryo in your country and what prodeedures does it allow? Does it allow multiple embryos be created and if so what happens to the unused ones?

 

When the legislature attempts to classify dogs as humans let me know, you now you are presenting a totally specious argument.

Fixed it nonetheless and if the mothers life is at risk, an extremely rare case, abortions are allowed this was NOT about abortion why do you guys keep falsely portraying it as such?

There is NOTHING about abortion here. Nothing about abortion changed here. Throwing it in was just hair on fire hyperbole.

And due to not having access to an abortion? Prove all those women died because they were denied an abortion. Prove that was the cause. And STILL the EXTREMELY RARE case. And you believe our entire abortion policy should be based on that?

 

A human cell as in a heart cell or a skin cell or lung cell or a blood cell is a PART of a human organism your layman's misunderstanding of biology is showing again.

A simple explaination for you

Overview

Humans are complex organisms made up of trillions of cells, each with their own structure and function....

...Humans are multicellular, complex organisms. The cells inside our bodies are “specialized.” This means that each type of cell performs a unique and special function. For this reason, each of the 200 different types of cells in the body has a different structure, size, shape, and function, and contains different organelles.
https://www.healthline.com/health/number-of-cells-in-body#types-of-cells

So enough of your specious and fallacious claims that there are millions of separate individual human beings in my body. Go study up in human development, cellular specilization, organs and tissues and metabolic processes within the human organism.

And reconcile this with the fact that the human organism exist as a one cell organism for 24 to 48 hours. Wha does that even have to do with IVF and abortion?

 

Sorry friend I showed you the biology your uniformed layman's statement notwithstanding.

A human being in their zygote stage of life is only one cell for a matter if a day less than two. What is this point to support abortion you and others are trying to make?

 

Since my argument did not go there, all you are doing is presenting a strawman argument to mine, as you have done the last three times. Classifying a dog as an exemption is not classifying them as human. You are still trying to apply your argument from the wrong direction.

Putting a temporary patch on it is not fixing it, and the governor said directly that this was a short term solution. Meaning it's not long term therefore not a fix.

Try telling that to the women who have been denied abortions even when their life is in danger

Strawman again. We are not portraying this case to be about abortion, or at the very least I and several others here are not. We are predicting that the judgement from this case will be used, in a completely separate manner, as the basis to try to impose further bans on abortion where they do not currently exist. Attempting to claim we are saying that this case is about abortion is the false portrayal.

We are not claiming that abortion has changed because of this case. We are claiming that this case will be used as a basis to make changes.

I have already stated what I hold that the basis of abortion should be. You keep trying to make it to be otherwise. Again strawman.

 

It's not my argument it is yours.

The problem is fixed clinics are operating and there may be a redraft but I gekieve the legislature is satisfied.

This is not about abortion or denying women abortions.

By post #6 it was injected.

Anyway it's over now an no longer an issue.

 

No it's not my argument. You have been presenting my argument as something other that what I actually said. Hence, strawman

Ok, that has to be the most unique typo of that word I have seen to date. No criticism or relevance to the topic. Just an aside.

The case is not. But the worry on what the judgement will me in other cases is.

It was put out in the OP that the concern was how this ruling, not about abortions, will affect other cases that are about abortions.

No it's not, because the ruling is still in place. Therefore, it can be brought up as precedence for other cases that do deal with abortion. That is the concern being raised here. You trying to strawman that we are having an issue with this case being about abortion will not change that concern.

 

I just wanted to respond to one issue here.

The court ruling on embryos being people ABSOLUTELY affects abortion in a very serious way.

Today, states have limits, such as the first six weeks. But, THIS ruling totally ends that.

It gives embryos equal standing and EXTERNAL decision making representation in women's healthcare.

It is a flat out denial of women's personal bodily autonomy.

And, NO it is absolutely NOT "no longer an issue". This is a highly important assault on the rights of women throughout the USA.

 

Dude .. no one said a human cells were not part of a human organism. Unfortunately a zygote is not one of those cells .. and unfortunately for your silly argument .. not one of those cells is a human .. because a human cell is not a human

"So enough of your specious and fallacious claims that there are millions of separate individual human beings in my body" you say .. but it is not me claiming that a human cell is a separate individual human .. that is the claim you have been making.

 

Your assumption that a zygote is a human is assumed premise fallacy .. Your claim that a single human cell is a human is ridiculously unsupported nonsense .. as is repetition of premise thinking that such repetition makes a claim less false.

 

Errr - yes they do! Ever heard of REM sleep? The brain is active during sleep and can react to stimuli - albeit often grumpily but it can react

 

You may want to reconsider

A New Study Shows That the U.S. Maternal-Mortality Rate Is Overestimated

On Wednesday a study published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology found that high and rising rates of maternal mortality in the United States are due to flawed data. Starting in 2003, a pregnancy checkbox was included in the national death certificates. Researchers found that this box was checked for many deaths unrelated to either pregnancy or childbirth. While previous data found that the U.S. maternal-mortality rate increased by a whopping 143 percent since 1999, these new data found that there was only a 2 percent increase since that time....


...A better example comes from Texas. A 2016 Obstetrics and Gynecology study found that the Texas maternal-mortality rate doubled between 2010 and 2012. Countless media outlets were quick to blame Planned Parenthood funding cuts for this increase. However, the purported increase in maternal mortality took place before the cuts took effect. Furthermore, corrected data showed that the Texas 2012 maternal-mortality rate was greatly overestimated...
https://www.nationalreview.com/corn...u-s-maternal-mortality-rate-is-overestimated/

And from the study itself

Background
National Vital Statistics System reports show that maternal mortality rates in the United States have nearly doubled, from 17.4 in 2018 to 32.9 per 100,000 live births in 2021. However, these high and rising rates could reflect issues unrelated to obstetrical factors, such as changes in maternal medical conditions or maternal mortality surveillance (eg, due to introduction of the pregnancy checkbox).

....

Conclusion
The high and rising rates of maternal mortality in the United States are a consequence of changes in maternal mortality surveillance, with reliance on the pregnancy checkbox leading to an increase in misclassified maternal deaths. Identifying maternal deaths by requiring mention of pregnancy among the multiple causes of death shows lower, stable maternal mortality rates and declines in maternal deaths from direct obstetrical causes.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000293782400005X

The issue HERE is NOT abortion, there are LOTS of abortion threads here if that is what you want to discuss.

 

See above.

 

I will have to study that a little more in depth later. I don't have the time for it right now. That said, while this may show that the rate of increase is not as high as it has been reported, it does nothing to counter the fact that the risks from continuing pregnancy are still vastly higher than the risks from having an abortion.

The issue here is abortion and to what effect this ruling might have on future abortion cases, even though the decision itself was not about abortion. The OP is the one who set up the thread and established what the thread is about. You claiming otherwise doesn't actually change that, nor does your strawman argument that the decision itself wasn't about abortion. If you cannot understand the difference between what the decision was about and what the decision could affect in the future then you don't belong here, since you are only throwing out strawman arguments against the OP's argument.