Alabama Supreme Court rules that IVF embryos may be considered unborn children

[Smoker1]

Look at the 18th Amendment - It was due to certain a Religious Group not wanting Alcohol, wanting to impose their Religious Beliefs onto everyone, and Congress Allowed it. Now........what Constitutional Amendment did that Violate?????? The 1st Part of the 1st Amendment. "Congress shall make no Law respecting the Establishment of any Religion, or Prohibiting the free exercise thereof." By making Law pushing and forcing a Religious View and Beliefs onto the People, that is Establishing Religion onto everyone, and with certain Religions, they use Wine as "The Blood of Christ", so that would Prohibit the Free Exercise.

Only problem is, both Sides seem to do Laws that go against Constitutional Amendments, and dont seem to care. Even trying to play Word Games, and trying to go around Constitutional Amendments to Violate them.

 

[Xzi]

Look at the 18th Amendment - It was due to certain a Religious Group not wanting Alcohol, wanting to impose their Religious Beliefs onto everyone, and Congress Allowed it. Now........what Constitutional Amendment did that Violate?????? The 1st Part of the 1st Amendment. "Congress shall make no Law respecting the Establishment of any Religion, or Prohibiting the free exercise thereof." By making Law pushing and forcing a Religious View and Beliefs onto the People, that is Establishing Religion onto everyone, and with certain Religions, they use Wine as "The Blood of Christ", so that would Prohibit the Free Exercise.

This Alabama ruling is very clearly unconstitutional given how many times "god" is referenced, but unfortunately it is unclear whether or not the current SCOTUS can be entrusted with upholding constitutional law. Thing is, there's no way to specifically favor white Christianity in this instance without leading us down a path which could also see Sharia Law implemented in the US. Separation of church and state remains vitally important to both a functioning democracy and functioning society.

 

[Foxi4]

Cellular life is not the same as human life by any definition. Not even the Bible equates the two, despite the fact that it comes from an era with no established knowledge of microbiology.

We've already determined that modern nutjobs don't bother reading the texts they reference which supposedly justify their authoritarian beliefs, otherwise they would've taken note of the DIY how-to guide on abortion present in the Old Testament.

Alabama's ruling is based wholly on ignorance of both science and Christianity. It's double dumb.

I don’t determine what is or isn’t human life based on the Bible, so I don’t know what anything you’ve just said has to do with what I said. We’re in agreement, the Alabama ruling is stupid. We disagree regarding the nuance, but I still don’t understand your objection.

Edit: For the record, human beings are cellular life. You probably meant to say single-cell organisms, which an embryo kinda is and isn’t since the whole point of it existing is rapid cell division. They start off as a single cell, but don’t stay that way for long.

 

[Smoker1]

This Alabama ruling is very clearly unconstitutional given how many times "god" is referenced, but unfortunately it is unclear whether or not the current SCOTUS can be entrusted with upholding constitutional law. Thing is, there's no way to specifically favor white Christianity in this instance without leading us down a path which could also see Sharia Law implemented in the US. Separation of church and state remains vitally important to both a functioning democracy and functioning society.

I am not for either Side. I agree and disagree with aspects of both Sides, and believe both are screwed up. Both sides want to out do each other, all the while People are caught in the middle.

Couple examples -
When Trump went to a Alabama College Football Game, Fans were told that if they Booed him, they would be Removed and Banned, right? Well, that Violates Free Speech.

Biden worked to make sure no one would be able to Post or Report on the whole Hunter Biden Laptop Story that was actually proven Legitimate. Along with, if anyone Posted anything regarding not getting the Covid Shots, or showed Legitimate Facts about it that would make People doubt the Shots, to prevent those Posts. Even if from Legitimate Sources or Doctors. Even a Reporter had her Post taken down and Account Banned just because she just only flat out said she would not get the Shot. That Violates Free speech and Freedom of the Press.

So yeah, both Sides are so messed up, and Hypocrites.

 

[x65943]

This Alabama ruling is very clearly unconstitutional given how many times "god" is referenced, but unfortunately it is unclear whether or not the current SCOTUS can be entrusted with upholding constitutional law. Thing is, there's no way to specifically favor white Christianity in this instance without leading us down a path which could also see Sharia Law implemented in the US. Separation of church and state remains vitally important to both a functioning democracy and functioning society.

Unfortunately simply mentioning God doesn't make something unconstitutional

Our money has god on it and this country has a national cathedral

The safeguards are unfortunately against any particular one religion, not the idea of religion or God in general

I agree this ruling is likely unconstitutional in and of itself though by ruling a very clearly inherently non viable entity somehow has personhood

At what point do you stop? Can my spit be a person? It's possible after all to use my spit to create a viable embryo - every human cell can create a new human being in the right hands

 

[Foxi4]

Unfortunately simply mentioning God doesn't make something unconstitutional

Our money has god on it and this country has a national cathedral

The safeguards are unfortunately against any particular one religion, not the idea of religion or God in general

I agree this ruling is likely unconstitutional in and of itself though by ruling a very clearly inherently non viable entity somehow has personhood

At what point do you stop? Can my spit be a person? It's possible after all to use my spit to create a viable embryo - every human cell can create a new human being in the right hands

This is a better, secular argument. The whole point is personhood. If I cut off my finger, that finger will remain a group of living human cells, however briefly, but it is not an independent life form - it’s a part of me (same DNA). It’s also not sentient (some elements of the nervous system, but no brain, therefore no sentience). It is, ostensibly, a part of me that I deliberately removed. Is an embryo the same as the mother or the father? No - it is unique and distinct. Is it alive? Yes - it shows signs of growth. Is it sentient? No. Does it have potential to become sentient? Not without a womb it doesn’t, and it’s not in a womb right now, so we’re not committing any slight against it by not putting it in one - that’s just us doing nothing. Seems pretty logical to me.

 

[Xzi]

We’re in agreement, the Alabama ruling is stupid. We disagree regarding the nuance, but I still don’t understand your objection.

I object to the "both sides" rhetoric as it relates to IVF. IVF would not be a thing that exists to humanity's benefit if not for scientific knowledge/discovery continuing to march forward despite the opposition of the ignorant.

Edit: For the record, human beings are cellular life. You probably meant to say single-cell organisms, which an embryo kinda isn’t since the whole point of it existing is rapid cell division.

Even multiple cells does not a human make. They can form animals, insects, plants, cancer, human organs, and more. An autonomous human being is easy to recognize as being comprised of multiple cohesive organic systems, greater than the sum of its parts.

The safeguards are unfortunately against any particular one religion, not the idea of religion or God in general

Easy enough to argue this infringes on the religious freedom of Jewish people from a legal standpoint, and from a common sense standpoint we know that Alabama isn't referencing any god other than the Christian one (which they've projected their own nutty beliefs on to).

 

[Foxi4]

I object to the "both sides" rhetoric as it relates to IVF. IVF would not be a thing that exists to humanity's benefit if not for scientific knowledge/discovery continuing to march forward despite the opposition of the ignorant.

Sure, that’s why we listen to science.

Even multiple cells does not a human make. They can form animals, insects, plants, cancer, human organs, and more. An autonomous human being is easy to recognize as being comprised of multiple cohesive organic systems, greater than the sum of its parts.

That’s not biology or science, that’s philosophy. You choose to ignore those earlier stages of development, but your arbitrary qualifier is not scientific at all. Humans are mammals, they have regular mammalian stages of development and as such human embryos are human life in the same way as a dog embryo is canine life. I don’t know why you’d be sticking to your guns on a losing talking point, your point of view is objectively anti-science, not pro science. I would respect it more if you said that it is human life, but it’s human life we don’t care about. We also generally don’t care that much about humans who experience complete cessation of brain function (usually due to extreme trauma) and are only technically alive because they’re hooked up to 50 different machines that tell the organs to keep going when the brain was reduced to jello. The reason why we turn off life support in those cases is because the person that was once in that body is gone and all that’s left is living meat. I know it sounds gruesome, but we’re biological computers attached to a meat machine. Once the operator is gone, that’s it. We care about the operator of the meat machine, this is not an unorthodox or outrageous point of view, it’s the status quo.

 

[Smoker1]

Saw a Video a couple Years ago of a Woman at a Rally, saying she was tired of the Separation of Church and State. That Government should not tell Religion what to do, that Religion should tell Government what to do. Right........because that has worked out so well in other Countries, huh? Also, which Religion, and which "God", as there are many depending on which Religion you are Referencing.

 

[x65943]

I object to the "both sides" rhetoric as it relates to IVF. IVF would not be a thing that exists to humanity's benefit if not for scientific knowledge/discovery continuing to march forward despite the opposition of the ignorant.


Even multiple cells does not a human make. They can form animals, insects, plants, cancer, human organs, and more. An autonomous human being is easy to recognize as being comprised of multiple cohesive organic systems, greater than the sum of its parts.


Easy enough to argue this infringes on the religious freedom of Jewish people from a legal standpoint, and from a common sense standpoint we know that Alabama isn't referencing any god other than the Christian one (which they've projected their own nutty beliefs on to).

If the court rules these are people it doesn't matter what your religious beliefs are

some beliefs are not protected - if your religion encouraged you to steal or murder for instance you would still be culpable after committing a crime

This ruling is stating that the embryos are persons

You would be hardpressed to say this is clearly infringing on jewish rights for instance - in the same way the church of satans argument that abortions are a part of their religion didn't succeed in court

Any constitutional argument will have to tackle the personhood arguments head on - which I think they will because this ruling is ridiculous

 

[Foxi4]

Any constitutional argument will have to tackle the personhood arguments head on - which I think they will because this ruling is ridiculous

The bitter-sweet part of this is that something good may come of this ruling when all is said and done because that question is very, very messy and it’s hard to find a baseline that could be codified and one that would satisfy a majority of the population.

 

[Xzi]

Sure, that’s why we listen to science.

Clearly not if your royal "we" includes the religious right.

Humans are mammals, human embryos are human life. I don’t know why you’d be sticking to your guns on a losing talking point, your point of view is objectively anti-science, not pro science.

Human embryos have the potential to become human life, a million different things can go wrong from point A to point B in that regard. There's a good reason we specifically call them "embryos" and not "babies." "Egg," not "chicken." There's also a good reason why we don't typically assign blame to an individual or a company for the chaotic nature of the universe.

If the court rules these are people it doesn't matter what your religious beliefs are

It does matter if the court is ruling based on their religious beliefs, because that infringes on so many other peoples' religious rights. Not to mention the civil rights of non-religious individuals.

some beliefs are not protected - if your religion encouraged you to steal or murder for instance you would still be culpable after committing a crime

State laws must override religious beliefs, yes, which is why religion logically cannot be involved in the process of lawmaking.

 

[x65943]

Clearly not if your royal "we" includes the religious right.


Human embryos have the potential to become human life, a million different things can go wrong from point A to point B in that regard. There's a good reason we specifically call them "embryos" and not "babies." "Egg," not "chicken." There's also a good reason why we don't typically assign blame to an individual or a company for the chaotic nature of the universe.


It does matter if the court is ruling based on their religious beliefs, because that infringes on so many other peoples' religious rights. Not to mention the civil rights of non-religious individuals.


State laws must override religious beliefs, yes, which is why religion logically cannot be involved in the process of lawmaking.

despite religion inspiring some of the judges underlying beliefs, it can't be used to overturn the ruling

ultimately it will come down to personhood

and it's hard to say that defining personhood this way would infringe on many religious beliefs any more than abortion bans for instance - it all comes down to when personhood begins which basically on one can agree on (muslims say at quickening, catholics say at conception, still others will point to birth - so no matter which one you choose it disagrees with someone)

 

[Xzi]

despite religion inspiring some of the judges underlying beliefs, it can't be used to overturn the ruling

A ruling referencing specific religious beliefs objectively violates the first amendment. Whether or not the current SCOTUS can be trusted to make objective rulings themselves is another matter.

ultimately it will come down to personhood

and it's hard to say that defining personhood this way would infringe on many religious beliefs any more than abortion bans for instance - it all comes down to when personhood begins which basically on one can agree on (muslims say at quickening, catholics say at conception, still others will point to birth - so no matter which one you choose it disagrees with someone)

Defining personhood is not a constitutional matter, nor should it be a matter involving the state at all. Ultimately the wingnuts need to decide on what their end goal is here, because if it's a higher birth rate in the US, forcing an end to IVF would be antithetical to that. Perhaps they believe outlawing porn and contraceptives will do enough to make up for it, but those are unrealistic goals which would take decades of Idiocracy to actually implement.

 

[WalterSlovotsky]

 

[Foxi4]

Human embryos have the potential to become human life, a million different things can go wrong from point A to point B in that regard. There's a good reason we specifically call them "embryos" and not "babies." "Egg," not "chicken." There's also a good reason why we don't typically assign blame to an individual or a company for the chaotic nature of the universe.

An egg is a gamete. A fertilised egg is a zygote. The correct comparison would be a chicken embryo inside an egg, which is absolutely chicken life. It’s a specimen of Gallus gallus domesticus in the embryonic stage of development. There are many definitions of the word “life”, some lean more into biology, others more into philosophy. I’ve outlined my requirements, and they’re purely scientific - all life on Earth is composed of cellular systems capable of growth. I can observe that an embryo is in fact alive under a microscope - I can see it subdividing into multiple cells and, ever so slowly, progressing towards the next stage of development. You can’t argue your way out of what is self-evident upon observation, you may as well tell me that the Earth is flat. If you want to say that a human embryo has the potential to grow into a fully-grown human under the right circumstances then I am happy to shake hands on that because that’s objectively true, but if you’re going to sit here and tell me that it’s not human or not alive when I can verify both of those things using the scientific method then you’re wasting both your time and mine. It is sophistry of the highest degree to pretend that your point of view is based on anything other than personal belief when all scientific evidence points to you being wrong. It is *totally fine* to say that it’s life you don’t particularly care about because it’s non-sentient - that’s not a moral failing, and at the very least you’re not lying through your teeth when saying that. I don’t particularly care about embryos in a glass vial either because they’re not nested inside a womb, and the chance that they will develop into a fully-grown sentient human is zero without human intervention.

 

[x65943]

A ruling referencing specific religious beliefs objectively violates the first amendment. Whether or not the current SCOTUS can be trusted to make objective rulings themselves is another matter.


Defining personhood is not a constitutional matter, nor should it be a matter involving the state at all. Ultimately the wingnuts need to decide on what their end goal is here, because if it's a higher birth rate in the US, forcing an end to IVF would be antithetical to that. Perhaps they believe outlawing porn and contraceptives will do enough to make up for it, but those are unrealistic goals which would take decades of Idiocracy to actually implement.

In what world would personhood not end up at the supreme Court???

If a court ruled black people weren't "persons" that would clearly violate the 14th amendment

In fact it all comes down to the 14th amendment and who is protected by the bill or rights etc

 

[Foxi4]

In what world would personhood not end up at the supreme Court???

If a court ruled black people weren't "persons" that would clearly violate the 14th amendment

In fact it all comes down to the 14th amendment and who is protected by the bill or rights etc

Just you wait until we get to immigration. Legally speaking, U.S. citizenship is bestowed upon an individual by the dint of birth on U.S. soil or naturalisation (the latter carrying some restrictions). Embryos (or fetuses for that matter) techically weren’t “born” yet, so if this ruling is to be taken at face value, embryos are illegal immigrants subject to deportation - they’re non-citizens. The law says nothing about conception, only birth. You could be conceived anywhere, that has no bearing on your citizenship.

Yes, it’s that stupid.

EDIT: Now that I think about it, I wonder how a dark comedy court case like this would play out. You’re a pregnant woman seeking abortion, but it’s illegal in your state, so you report your fetus as an illegal alien and request the federal government to detain it pending deportation. Very funny stuff. I imagine little ICE agents a’la “Interspace” coming in with wee little handcuffs ready to arrest it. You’re going straight to jail!

 

[Xzi]

An egg is a gamete. A fertilised egg is a zygote. The correct comparison would be a chicken embryo inside an egg, which is absolutely chicken life. It’s a specimen of Gallus gallus domesticus in the embryonic stage of development. There are many definitions of the word “life”, some lean more into biology, others more into philosophy.

That's why it's best to stick to specific terminology when discussing matters that require nuance such as these. It doesn't even have to be entirely scientific, as everybody knows what you're referring to when you say "chick," or "chicken." "Chicken life" however, is extremely vague, and can come off sounding ignorant in certain contexts. It also requires further explanation from the get-go.

I’ve outlined my requirements - all life on Earth is composed of cellular systems capable of growth.

Humanity has reached the point where we're capable of manipulating that growth, yet not the point where we can always guarantee positive outcomes even if we don't manipulate it. An embryo is not guaranteed to become a fetus, and a fetus is not guaranteed to reach birth. Thus "human life" in common parlance would refer to a baby, as historically we would not want to grow attached unless there was a high chance of survival.

We can grow a human ear, using human cells, attached to the back of a mouse, but nobody's going to refer to that as "humouse life."

In what world would personhood not end up at the supreme Court???

If a court ruled black people weren't "persons" that would clearly violate the 14th amendment

I mean personhood specifically in this context, as defined in a philosophical or religious sense before birth. The constitution is not a philosophical or religious text, but the first amendment does protect religious and philosophical freedom in the broader sense.

 

[x65943]

That's why it's best to stick to specific terminology when discussing matters that require nuance such as these. It doesn't even have to be entirely scientific, as everybody knows what you're referring to when you say "chick," or "chicken." "Chicken life" however, is extremely vague, and can come off sounding ignorant in certain contexts. It also requires further explanation from the get-go.


Humanity has reached the point where we're capable of manipulating that growth, yet not the point where we can always guarantee positive outcomes even if we don't manipulate it. An embryo is not guaranteed to become a fetus, and a fetus is not guaranteed to reach birth. Thus "human life" in common parlance would refer to a baby, as historically we would not want to grow attached unless there was a high chance of survival.

We can grow a human ear, using human cells, attached to the back of a mouse, but nobody's going to refer to that as "humouse life."


I mean personhood specifically in this context, as defined in a philosophical or religious sense before birth. The constitution is not a philosophical or religious text, but the first amendment does protect religious and philosophical freedom in the broader sense.

Ultimately tho in order to decide who merits protections it is necessary to define who is a person, and thus any ruling radically changing the meaning of who or what a person is would ultimately fall under the jurisdiction of the highest court in the land