Alabama court ruled frozen embryos are children.

No, abortion absolutely IS the issue here.

The discarding of fertilized eggs as part of IVF is an abortion. Embryos are removed and discarded as medical waste.

If an embryo is a "person", then there can be no abortions at ANY stage, and the whole calculus of whether the woman's life and health prevail is challenged.

It even brings up the greater rights of the embryo as a person under the constitution.

It may be someone's religious belief, but every individual can have their religious beliefs without demanding that the entire population of the USA follow along in its practice.

 

just because my skin cells can become a new human body, doesn't mean they are

once can say they are human cells, and that is about it

 

I wonder how many would be on the front lines demanding embryos be allowed to become babies if we found out 1000 women were implanted with 1000 clones of Hitler against their will

 

Being implanted does not change what a human embryo is.

Yes, people have destroyed embryos that are in cryogenic preservation, in IVF, etc.

So, now that we recognize that killing "people" in embryo form is just fine, how does that change how a woman can make decisions for an embryo that is part of her body and has the potential to seriously affect her health - in fact, her life?

 

Your argument makes no sense unless you decided that a fertilized egg is a human person as referenced in the constitution.

I don't accept that - at all.

 

I would really like to see you place one of your skin cells into a dish or EVEN A HUMAN WOMB, and then it become a new baby. When those human cells form a complete human being at that stage of a human beings life you can say LOTS of things including that that is a human being. As anyone who has ever studied biology will tell you there are LOTS of different types of cells and that we as members of the human species like many other families.

 

just like a petri dish sperm and egg that has to be implanted to even become anything, we are talking Alabama her though, lol

 

Do go and learn the difference between a sperm and an egg and a zyqote through adult stage of a human being. BTW MANY states protect unborn life just as we in Alabama do under our state constitution and statutory law.

Do you not believe that this clinic bears some financial responsibility for the destruction of these embryos?

 

the ingredients were a sperm and a egg

and it won't grow into a baby on its own

 

Caterpillar and butterfly would be akin to embryo and child (random stages picked) but in both stages they are still a Monarch (species also random). No matter the stage, they are still a single species. Saying that a embryo is not a child doesn't automatically mean that one is a human and the other isn't.

And yet it gets the designation of "building" regardless of stage. A started building, a partially constructed building, an abandoned building, a decaying building, a collapsed building. All buildings.

Aside from the fact that a legal definition does not necessarily reflect the actual or scientific definition (see my incest example), what this says then is that not even a new born is a human being, since the capacity for thought is not yet present.

Zygote is a stage name, not a species in and of itself. Declaring it not to be a human is akin to saying that a baby is not a human because when it becomes a child the baby is dead and the child is a human and thus the baby isn't. That aside, the zygote stage lasts 3-5 days with multiple divisions occurring until it reaches the blastocyst stage. We do often refer to them by their stage names, just like we refer to a human in their teen years as an adolescent, even though that is only a developmental stage name.

 

Removed from where? Certainly no from a woman's body. An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. Currently, with induced abortions, we don't have a way to end the pregnancy without the termination of the offspring, but that does not mean such will always be the case. Even if we can remove the offspring from the woman without terminating it, the procedure would still be an abortion.

Incorrect. If a born person is violating another's bodily autonomy, say rape for example, and the only way to end the violation is the termination of the rapist, the fact that the rapist is a person does not invalidate the victim's bodily autonomy

Which would have an effect if the embryo is outside of a person where bodily autonomy is not in play, but still does not violate the woman's bodily autonomy.

 

The Hitler aspect is a red herring since how the Adolf Hitler of WWII is a product of his upbringing, meaning that there is no guarantee that any supposed clone would also grow up to be like him. For that matter we could get two clones who were on complete opposites; one a raging liberal, and the other a dominating conservative, and maybe another who follows the ways of Gandhi.

 

still, not one would want this genetics passed on like that, at least I would home not

 

If the embryo is outside of her body, as it would be with regards to the thread topic, it has no potential to affect her health. Outside of the woman's body, it has no impact on her bodily autonomy. Once in it does. Which means that it needs her consent to be there. Like all consents, it can be withdrawn at any time, except after the fact. In the case of the woman and the offspring, once the offspring is out, say by birth, she can't retroactively revoke consent, and have it terminated. At that point it is already out and not impacting her bodily autonomy.

 

If you are worried about such genetics, then you don't actually understand genetics. Genetics are not what made Adolf Hitler into the dictator that he became.

 

The "person" rule for embryos is not about pregnancy. It's about whether an embryo is a person.

Eggs are removed from the woman or from a donor and then are fertilized in a petri dish for several days to observe development of the embryos (people?!?) The IVF process then chooses an embryo to implant. Or, the embryos may be stored cryogenically. If the owner of cryogenically stored embryos wants to use them they are unfrozen and then an embryo is chosen. Those embryos (people?!?) not chosen are then discarded.3

This is a little confusing to me, as nobody is suggesting terminating the rapist.

So, I'm assuming you mean termination of the rapist's offspring growing in the victim's body for 9 months.

I don't accept that a woman should be required to extend the rape for 9 months, including the costs of a pregnancy, the risk a pregnancy poses and the psychological damage of sustaining 9 months of ensuring a healthy rape baby. Are you aware that a rape is a horrendous act to withstand?

It is the embryo that is being called a person. Where it is doesn't figure in.

But, when it is part of the woman's body, the claim is that there are two persons who have full constitutional rights. That's clearly an impossibility.

 

I know some would support it

 

SO are you saying that you meant removed from cryogenic storage? You could have said as such. Your initial wording wasn't clear on where you had meant "removed from"

No I mean the rapist themself. If during the process of the rapist violating the victim's bodily autonomy, the only way to stop the rapist is to terminate them, then that is permissible. The fact of them being human, a being, having rights, etc, do not change that, as they are the initial violator. The same principle applies to ZEF's inside the woman. They are there only if she consents for them to be there. If she does not consent or withdraws consent, they are the ones in violation of her bodily autonomy. Meaning that if the only way to end that violation is the termination of the ZEF, then that too is permissible. Why would we allow the ZEF to maintain the violation, when we don't allow the born adult to do so?

Yes it does in terms of whether or not it is violating another person's bodily autonomy. If it is in the woman with her consent, there is no violation. If it is in the woman without her consent, there is a violation. If it is outside of the woman, then there is no violation. Whether it is a person or not holds no bearing on whether it is violating her bodily autonomy.

No not impossible. We already have in place the system for when one born person with full constitutional rights, violates the rights of another born person with full constitutional rights. The violator ends up with certain rights suspended. That is what the rape example shows. The rapist's right to life is suspended IF there is no other way to end their violation other than to terminate them. We could apply that same principle to someone trying to kill another person. If we have to terminate the attacker to end their attempt to kill the victim, the attacker's right to life is in suspension. If we can suspend a given right when the violation is happening with a born person, then there is no reason to assume that we cannot with an unborn person, assuming personhood. Which is why I assert that personhood does not matter when it comes to a woman wanting to end her pregnancy. However, it does matter when discussing situations such as the thread topic, where the ZEF is not in violation of another's bodily autonomy.

 

And what is the biological difference between a sperm or ovum and a zygote/fetus?

Like any other baby as long as some supplies nourishment and protection from the elements it will.

 

you don't know, lol

 

What is it you are trying to argue here ? how is this related to the humanity .. or lack thereof .. of the mighty Zygote ?

 

Women have a right of healthcare of their person.

The right wing is driven CRAZY by requests to wear masks in times of pandemic - a well know step in slowing the spread of disease.

Yet, they pass laws against a women's healthcare.

I'd also point out that the judge in question STATED that his ruling was based on his religion. Our first amendment does not allow our government to be a theocracy. People are to be free of religions requirements imposed by government.

 

Scientists that have the experience with this sort of thing know the answers more than these conservative Republican dimwits.

 

Sorry friend .. the Zygote simply does not have the characteristics required to be classified as a homo sapiens -- such that it should be accorded rights .. including the right to life .. or any endowment from the founding fathers .. and your inability to support the claim that a Zygote is a living human is the main self evident truth here.


Biology fail number 2 - a human zygote is not a human .. nor is it a "Homo Sapiens" Once again you are confusing a noun with a descriptive adjective. A Human Sperm is not a "Homo Sapiens" because it has "Human" as a descriptive adjective in its description. KK

Something you would think one who majored in Biology might know ! along with knowing what the requisite characteristics of "Homo Sapiens" are. That was high school Biology was it not ?

Thinking .. that is always a good start .. Question Time ! --- Does the having of human DNA .. make that entity - "A Human" -- Hint .. a heart cell is not a human.. and how does this relate to the Sperm-Zygote Question ? Is the sperm not human ?

Do we need a bio major to 'splain all this ? ... or is this more in the realm of English -- the difference between the descriptive adjective and noun use of the word "Human"

and the final question is for Blue -- Tell us the difference between the murder of the numerous single celled human beings killed by an abortion prior to implantation .. or just a failed implantation which happens a high percentage of the time .. and those many single celled human beings killed by one's morning bowel movement ? and why we should care more about one than the other

 

In Alabama it is possible, when I was there I purchased 6 very cheap, lovely young chickens, here is the picture: