Alabama court ruled frozen embryos are children.

As was shown the collection method spoiled the data as it misrepresented the actual numbers so stop beating a ...................... There is no need to kill almost a million unborn babies each year because pregancy is a death threatening condition.

 

YOU guys injected abortion into this not me. And then you did again in your second paragraph. The issue had NOTHING to do with abortion and as far as the law and abortion NOTHING has changed here while the IVF glitch was fixed. It's a dead issue now.

 

They are on the opposite ends of the spectrum and this effect abortion not a twit before during or after and it is a settled issue now, the glitch in the law was fixed.

 

The "opposite ends" in this case come between IVF being allowed to destroy embryos and then when the pregnancy takes hold, doing what? Allowing the destruction of the embryo? Denying destruction of the embryo?

You are talking about "opposite ends" that aren't even a week apart.

 

pot, kettle, achromatic

 

And you are still making strawman arguments. We didn't inject into anything. We outright said that this issue will affect future cases of abortion. We never made the claim that this case was about abortion. Again, you are the one who falsely claimed that we did. Further, you trying to avoid the issue by claiming it dead, doesn't change the fact that it is not dead. The ruling still has the likely potential to be used in future abortion cases.The ruling on the case did not go away with the legislative action, thus making it still available to be used as precedent.

 

Absolutely! It can't be any other way.

These laws and cases can not apply to one party and then become inoperative.

What the court decides is precedent. What the law says is still the law until congress or the judiciary acts to kill it.

 

But it wasn’t “flawed” it is RAW DATA

 

You know - I went back to that study and nowhere did it call the data “flawed” plus there is this

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000293782400005X

And even with the review of the data by this study WE still have a waaaaay lower MMR than you

 

ANd while indeed the legislature in the state did correct what this specific case was about, any part of this ruling can be used in other cases, even ones that don't relate to this case. That is what we are talking about and for some reason Blues can figure that out.

 

And then of course **** with the reporting of infant deaths and how it is merely a difference between how countries list the deaths and the fact that in the US we take the greatest efforts to save neo-natal cases that would never ne attempted in other country's.


What does it have to do with nything here?

 

Yes FLAWED RAW DATA because of how the questions were asked and recorded.

 

Injecting abortion was the strawman this is about CREATING babie not killing them.

 

You guys are the ones nesting your dead horse knee jerk IT WILL END ALL ABORTION post when this is about cresting babies not killing them.

 

No it's not because the entire premise of the thread is about the use of this ruling as precedent in FUTURE abortion cases.The thread has nothing to do with what this case was about. Every time you make an argument about the case, you are making a strawman since we are not talking about the case itself. If you want to talk about the case itself, and the ruling's affect on those types of situations, by all means start your own thread. But this thread is not about that. That would be the present. We are discussing the potential based on this ruling, or parts thereof, being applied to future cases.

 

And no where in the research paper did it say the data was flawed. That is YOUR interpretation

 

"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."

 

The OP said nothing about abortion you are attempting to assign a premise to it. The actual case had nothing to do with with abortion nor any effect now or in the future of abortion and the fix that was applied has nothing to do with abortion now or in the future. As I said the knee-jerk reaction was to turn it into an abortion thingy.

 

They don't have to say something about abortion in order to affect abortion law.

There is a connection between fertilized eggs and pregnancies.

 

..................................

 

I wouldn't treat you like that.

 

Yes I know, just the subject here.........

 

Just absurd! A Child is a human being. Every human being’s existence begins at conception. This is scientifically correct and indisputable.

A woman who is pregnant is carrying a second human being. Aborting this child in utero is, by definition, a homicide.