Cont: Roe v Wade overturned - this is some BS part II

[bruto]

No - I was responding to a post by the Atheist that said it is law in lots of the US.

It's the law in any state where the moment of conception is presumed to be the beginning of a human life for the purpose of reproductive legislation. So far it does not appear that such laws have gotten much traction but they are pending in several states. Any proposal that aims to forbid IUD birth control or any intervention that occurs between fertilization and implantation does so inherently. As far as I know Alabama has gone the farthest, but legislators are working hard elsewhere, and I think we'd be fools if we pretend it will end there.

And I would add that if what you meant to contest was The Atheist's use of "lots of the US," your response of "where is it law" was very badly framed.

 

[slyjoe]

It's the law in any state where the moment of conception is presumed to be the beginning of a human life for the purpose of reproductive legislation. So far it does not appear that such laws have gotten much traction but they are pending in several states. Any proposal that aims to forbid IUD birth control or any intervention that occurs between fertilization and implantation does so inherently. As far as I know Alabama has gone the farthest, but legislators are working hard elsewhere, and I think we'd be fools if we pretend it will end there.

And I would add that if what you meant to contest was The Atheist's use of "lots of the US," your response of "where is it law" was very badly framed.

If my question was poorly framed, I apologize.

Now, where is it law that an embryo is a person? Even Alabama doesn't have a law like that. The Alabama SC ruled that an embryo is a person, but does any state have a law making an embryo a person? That would outlaw in virtro fertilization in that state, would it not?

 

[Stacyhs]

So the Alabama Supreme Court has now ruled that frozen embryos are children under Alabama law.

The Atheist;14265109]Isn't that self-evident if life begins at conception?

Anything that isn't dead is alive but being 'alive' does not make it a child. What do a child and a blastocyst or zygote have in common except for being "not dead"?

Should a person who is brain dead but whose body is still alive be kept on ventilators indefinitely because they are technically still 'alive'? In that case, I could be charged with murder as I was the one who made the decision to take my MIL off life support.

Viruses, bacteria, fungi are 'alive', too. To equate this zygote to a 'child' is ludicrous.

[qimg]https://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_7166965d7fa8f361d1.jpg[/qimg]

Well, obviously.

However, as this thread has noted, it's not ridiculous and is actually law in lots of USA.

I never said that life doesn't begin at conception. What I said was "To equate this zygote to a 'child' is ludicrous."

I refer you back to my comment: "When a mass of cells becomes a child is not based on science but on personal and/or religious beliefs." As previously noted, countries where laws are based on religious beliefs are theocracies. Do you believe the US is, or should be, a theocracy?

 

[acbytesla]

In one sense, I'm thrilled with these extreme rulings and legislation being pushed in Red states. I can see a major backlash coming. But I also worry that is wishful thinking.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

In one sense, I'm thrilled with these extreme rulings and legislation being pushed in Red states. I can see a major backlash coming. But I also worry that is wishful thinking.

I certainly hope so. But people are slow when it comes to admitting that they may have made a mistake.

 

[bruto]

If my question was poorly framed, I apologize.

Now, where is it law that an embryo is a person? Even Alabama doesn't have a law like that. The Alabama SC ruled that an embryo is a person, but does any state have a law making an embryo a person? That would outlaw in virtro fertilization in that state, would it not?

I believe there are laws in most places that refer to the killing of persons, the definition of a person being left to the courts. If the court says "this is a person," then all laws concerning the killing of persons are affected by the definition. It does, at least potentially, make IVF illegal, or potentially so, which is why IVF programs in Alabama have been suddenly discontinued.

Just how the law might or might not be wrinkled or amended to re-enable any practical application of IVF remains to be seen, though Tuberville's flamboyantly stupid and ignorant failure to understand anything bodes ill for the effort. It's obvious, though, that if taken literally the ruling essentially abolishes all abortion of any sort, and that this is its intention.

 

[Darat]

If my question was poorly framed, I apologize.

Now, where is it law that an embryo is a person? Even Alabama doesn't have a law like that. The Alabama SC ruled that an embryo is a person, but does any state have a law making an embryo a person? That would outlaw in virtro fertilization in that state, would it not?

Totally confused you say Alabama SC has ruled an embryo is a person and then ask where has that happened?

 

[slyjoe]

Totally confused you say Alabama SC has ruled an embryo is a person and then ask where has that happened?

No - trying reading what I wrote. I asked where is it a LAW that an embryo is a person?

Remember The Atheist stated that an "embryo is a person" is a law in a lot of states.

ETA: By the way, the answer is 3 states (MO, GA, AL), and the law is blocked in another state (AZ).. I would not call that a lot.

 

[bruto]

No - trying reading what I wrote. I asked where is it a LAW that an embryo is a person?

Remember The Atheist stated that an "embryo is a person" is a law in a lot of states.

ETA: By the way, the answer is 3 states (MO, GA, AL), and the law is blocked in another state (AZ).. I would not call that a lot.

And once again, though you may be correct in assuming The Atheist's "lots of the US" as a lot of states, and thus not accurate, if you failed to read it before, anywhere a law refers to a person, the court's definition of a person becomes a part of that law.

 

[Darat]

No - trying reading what I wrote. I asked where is it a LAW that an embryo is a person?

Remember The Atheist stated that an "embryo is a person" is a law in a lot of states.

ETA: By the way, the answer is 3 states (MO, GA, AL), and the law is blocked in another state (AZ).. I would not call that a lot.

Sorry still not understanding you. The definition of words within legislation is (usually) part of what the likes of a supreme court confirms. In Alabama the SC has decided that the word "person" in their legislation to do with causing someone's death includes frozen embryos. So in their laws about murder: https://law.justia.com/codes/alabama/2022/title-13a/chapter-6/article-1/section-13a-6-2/

Murder.

(a) A person commits the crime of murder if he or she does any of the following:

(1) With intent to cause the death of another person, he or she causes the death of that person or of another person.

(2) Under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to human life, he or she recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to a person other than himself or herself, and thereby causes the death of another person.

...snip...

So everywhere in that piece of legislation where the word "person" appears that word "person" now includes a frozen embryo.

 

[slyjoe]

Sorry still not understanding you. The definition of words within legislation is (usually) part of what the likes of a supreme court confirms. In Alabama the SC has decided that the word "person" in their legislation to do with causing someone's death includes frozen embryos. So in their laws about murder: https://law.justia.com/codes/alabama/2022/title-13a/chapter-6/article-1/section-13a-6-2/



So everywhere in that piece of legislation where the word "person" appears that word "person" now includes a frozen embryo.

I don't know how broad the ruling was. The actual case before them was a civil wrongful death suit.

 

[Darat]

I don't know how broad the ruling was. The actual case before them was a civil wrongful death suit.

The decision was about whether an IVF embryo is a child under the “Wrongful death of a minor act”, so yes that is a narrower focus than for instance murder charges - however if you read the decision and read footnote 6 you’ll see that the court is clearly saying an embryo is a person for all legal purposes.

 

[slyjoe]

The decision was about whether an IVF embryo is a child under the “Wrongful death of a minor act”, so yes that is a narrower focus than for instance murder charges - however if you read the decision and read footnote 6 you’ll see that the court is clearly saying an embryo is a person for all legal purposes.

Oh I'm sure they did - it's Alabama. So did Tuberville and Haley, and most of the anti-abortion crowd.

 

[The Atheist]

Do you believe the US is, or should be, a theocracy?

Parts of it unquestionably are.

 

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Do you believe the US is, or should be, a theocracy?

Parts of it unquestionably are.

You're avoiding answering the actual question. I asked what you, not what others in the US, believe.

And please answer this other question you ignored:

Should a person who is brain dead but whose body is still alive be kept on ventilators indefinitely because they are technically still 'alive'? In that case, I could be charged with murder as I was the one who made the decision to take my MIL off life support.

 

[cosmicaug]

Half a human genome isn't a human by any stretch*, no matter how motile.

How very ploidist of you.

 

[cosmicaug]

Half a human genome isn't a human by any stretch*, no matter how motile.

So what is it, then? Is it a turnip? Maybe a potato? But, as you point out, if we are talking about sperm, they are motile, so maybe a platypus?

Of course, there's a difference between "human" and "a human" which is why you are correct above. However, sometimes folk here intentionally conflate the two to make misleading arguments.

Half a human genome is not a human by any stretch of the imagination; but it is human. A full human genome in a cell is also not a human by any stretch of the imagination; but it is human. Full human genomes in a cluster of cells forming a blastocyst is not a human by any stretch of the imagination; but it is human. Full human genomes in a mass of organized cells forming an embryo is not a human by any stretch of the imagination; but it is human. Full human genomes in a mass of disorganized cells forming a molar pregnancy is not a human by any stretch of the imagination; but it is human.

 

[cosmicaug]

Isn't that self-evident if life begins at conception?

Not at all. There is no beginning of life apparent here. There is no place where it begins. Unless you are going back millions of years, you start at a place in time with life and you continue on to another point in time where you have life. There is no point in time in between these two where there is no life.

 

[Darat]

Not at all. There is no beginning of life apparent here. There is no place where it begins. Unless you are going back millions of years, you start at a place in time with life and you continue on to another point in time where you have life. There is no point in time in between these two where there is no life.

Alabama SC has ruled that legally in their state human life starts at conception (and have made it clear that their decision is based on religious grounds). They are saying that a single cell is a human being i.e. when the egg is fertilised and before it undergoes its first division it is a person.

It really does open up a can of worms.

 

[The Atheist]

You're avoiding answering the actual question. I asked what you, not what others in the US, believe.

I believe everyone but the mother carrying the baby should stfu until the foetus reaches viability at around 28 weeks.

And please answer this other question you ignored:

I wasn't avoiding the question; I didn't think it wasn't worth answering, but if you insist: no.

Not at all. There is no beginning of life apparent here. There is no place where it begins./QUOTE]

I was pointing out where the evangelical right thinks life starts, not what I think. The absurdity of life beginning at conception should be blindingly obvious.