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

[Foxi4]

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 mean, it’s a life form of the chicken species. I don’t think it’s vague. The adjectives give you a pretty good hint. It requires further explanation because you insist that an organism that is objectively alive is in fact not alive until you decide that it is rather than based on what can be observed. I remember having this conversation with a complete extremist who actually argued in earnest that vaginas are a magical portal, in the sense that a baby 5 minutes before birth is not a human, but 5 minutes after birth it magically is. Some kind of supernatural event happens inside that birth canal that bestows personhood, I guess. It was baffling. Guys, we can measure those things, that’s what science is for. I don’t have to guess what’s inside of a woman’s womb - we have ultrasounds, I can look at it and determine if it is far along enough to be considered a baby or if it’s a bunch of goo.

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.

If you punch a pregnant woman in the stomach and she miscarries as a result, you can be charged with homicide - we’ve seen cases like this before. Nobody will treat your ranting about viability seriously in court. The “something” that happened between point A and point B was you - you made it non-viable with your actions. It’s not about whether or not “something can happen” - something can happen to you before you reach 60, you could have a car accident tomorrow. We don’t assume that you’re not human because your viability as a geriatric is questionable.

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.

The Constitution is a philosophical text, it was always conceived as one. It’s all about things We The People find self-evident, it’s about people’s inalienable rights and all sorts of strictly philosophical beliefs as codified into law.

Edit: I just saw your “humouse” addition. That’s pretty funny. Of course not, we’ll treat it as human, because we can identify it as human on the basis of DNA. Now, presumably it’s based on somebody’s DNA and is a replacement ear, so we could probably find the person who owns it. I wouldn’t call it an independent organism for the same reason why I wouldn’t call a chopped of finger an independent organism - it’s a specific body part removed from the whole. I talked about this earlier, but you may have missed it. It’s *somebody’s ear* that’s growing on a mouse. You are right however, in the sense that it is alive - it’s growing. The body of a human with no brain function (on account of the brain being destroyed) hooked up to life support is alive too, it’s just not a person anymore, really, which is the whole point of this argument. You could keep that body alive for a very, very long time with the right equipment, but there’s no reason to do that besides making peace with it - you don’t recover from that. The person is gone. Your ear isn’t a person either, so there’s no reason to treat it as one.

 

[Xzi]

It requires further explanation because you insist that an organism that is ostensibly alive is in fact not alive until you decide that it is rather than based on what can be observed.

I never denied that a gamete or a zygote is alive, but neither one is the same as a chick or a chicken in any practical or functional sense. Just as in your previous example with a severed finger not being the same as a whole human being. That's why it requires further explanation. "Human cells" are not necessarily living cells, nor are they necessarily cells that can be expected to develop into a whole human being. Specificity is important.

If you punch a pregnant woman in the stomach and she miscarries as a result, you will be charged with homicide. The “something” that happened between point A and Point B was you.

In that specific scenario, sure, it must be assumed that the fetus would've lived to and beyond birth without outside forces affecting it. That is still just an assumption made by the justice system and not something that could 100% be guaranteed, however. No-fault miscarriages are quite common, and it's ridiculous to charge women with a crime for that.

It’s not about whether or not “something can happen” - something can happen to you before you reach 60, you could have a car accident tomorrow. We don’t assume that you’re not human because your viability as a geriatric is questionable.

Not relevant, nobody's contesting the humanity of a person who has lived autonomously outside the womb for any period of time. That's ultimately the only metric everybody could possibly agree on, for that matter.

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

See above. Neither private nor public institutions want to be held liable for the well-being of fetuses, financially or otherwise. That doesn't mean I believe we should allow last-minute abortions, but it does mean the state should limit the extent to which it might get involved in these deeply-personal matters.

 

[Foxi4]

I never denied that a gamete or a zygote is alive, but neither one is the same as a chick or a chicken in any practical or functional sense. Just as in your previous example with a severed finger not being the same as a whole human being. That's why it requires further explanation. "Human cells" are not necessarily living cells, nor are they necessarily cells that can be expected to develop into a whole human being. Specificity is important.

A gamete can’t be a chick because it’s not a complete DNA sequence of a chicken - it’s half. It’s very much something that is produced by an organism and I would argue a part of that organism until expelled. A zygote is fertilised, with the DNA of a hen and a rooster actively recombining into a new chicken - it has the potential to become a new chicken if left alone in sufficient warmth. The single cell will turn into a larger embryo and, at the end of that road there’s a little chick. A chicken is a terrible example for illustrating your point because eggs don’t need the hen to stick around, they will hatch just fine in an appropriate environment. My explanation is very specific. We’re not discussing cells that are dead. That too can be observed under a microscope. I think your point of contention here is that you don’t consider an embryo to be an organism when it is one, just at a very early stage. It’s not like a hand that was cut off from the host - that’s just a hand. The cells will continue to live for a short while, but it is not an organism - it’s part of one.

In that specific scenario, sure, it must be assumed that the fetus would've lived to and beyond birth without outside forces affecting it. That is still just an assumption made by the justice system and not something that could 100% be guaranteed, however. No-fault miscarriages are quite common, and it's ridiculous to charge women with a crime for that.

*We are in agreement* about this, that’s why your objection is so weird. You’d have a way easier time pushing your agendas forward if you focused on things people agree with you about and less on why they agree with you. Instead of discussing the merits of our agreement, you’re trying to convert me to your point of view for *some reason*.

Not relevant, nobody's contesting the humanity of a person who has lived autonomously outside the womb for any period of time. That's ultimately the only metric everybody could possibly agree on, for that matter.

Total nonsense. People do that all the time, I gave you a readily available example. The moment your head gets crushed in a car accident, I don’t particularly care if you still have a heartbeat or not - Xzi is, for all intents and purposes, dead as a person, even if his mortal shell is showing some signs of life because some small fraction of the brain stem is still present. Nobody on-scene will disagree with me, there is nothing to save, most of your brain is missing. I am looking at Xzi’s body spasming, Xzi is gone.

See above. Neither private nor public institutions want to be held liable for the well-being of fetuses, financially or otherwise. That doesn't mean I believe we should allow last-minute abortions, but it does mean the state should limit the extent to which it might get involved in these deeply-personal matters.

Ah, now we’re talking! Limiting the state’s involvement in the private lives of citizens? Come to me Xzi, come closer. I will show you the world… Shining, shimmering, splendid…

 

[Xzi]

A zygote is fertilised, with the DNA of a hen and a rooster actively recombining into a new chicken - it has a potential to become a new chicken if left alone in sufficient warmth.

We're in agreement then. An embryo has the potential to become a human, but an embryo is not currently a human.

Total nonsense. People do that all the time, I gave you a readily available example. The moment your head gets crushed in a car accident, I don’t particularly care if you still have a heartbeat or not - Xzi is, for all intents and purposes, dead as a person. I am looking at Xzi’s body spasming.

A dead person, yes, but still a person nonetheless. Or the remains of one, anyway. If we're falling back on "I think, therefore I am," that only further complicates matters since a baby's brain isn't really functional until roughly age three, and isn't fully developed until we're into our twenties. Regardless, we're in agreement that the brain, and the autonomy that comes with it, is most essential to what defines us as human.

Debates about the existence and/or nature of the soul should not involve the state.

 

[Foxi4]

We're in agreement then. An embryo has the potential to become a human, but an embryo is not currently a human.

That is not what I said. What I said was that a fertilised chicken egg will grow if you leave it alone. It has the potential to do that - become a full-grown chicken. It might not for a variety of reasons, just like a human fetus might not develop into a full-grown human, for instance if someone decides to Falcon Punch it. By the time an embryo is developed it is definitely a DNA-complete chicken in an early stage of development that is demonstrably alive, which is what we’re actually discussing. By saying “chicken” I meant a bird with feathers that walks around and clucks, in the same way as by saying “person” I mean a grown human who sits on the Internet and argues nonsense on a forum at night. You know that, because that’s been my stance for the last couple of pages.

A dead person, yes, but still a person nonetheless. Or the remains of one, anyway. If we're falling back on "I think, therefore I am," that only further complicates matters since a baby's brain isn't really functional until roughly age three, and isn't fully developed until we're into our twenties. Regardless, we're in agreement that the brain is most essential to what defines us as human.

It is what defines us *as persons*, that’s our biological command center - you are your brain, or rather, specific parts of your brain. What defines us as humans is our species, our genetic make-up. A genetically-modified talking chimp is not a human, no matter how good an orator it would be or how much you liked it. We couldn’t possibly have an argument about whether or not it’s human because it isn’t - we can test that. We *could* establish if it perhaps has personhood, which is a separate issue altogether. So far, the only species with legal personhood is our species, so it’s a non-issue, but I’ll get back to you if we ever cross that bridge - until then, a person is *probably* a human, possibly a reptilian skinwalker, but that’s rare.

Debates about the existence and/or nature of the soul should not involve the state.

Who says anything about souls? I didn’t bring it up. I don’t know if chickens have souls. I don’t think personhood is the same as soul. Soul is a metaphysical concept, I can’t test for that. I know a lot of people in this subforum who are definitely legally considered persons under the law, but I have no idea if they have souls or not. Jokes aside, it is definitely within the state’s purview to define who is and is not a person. This is a weird point you’re making here.

 

[Xzi]

By saying “chicken” I meant a bird with feathers that walks around and clucks, in the same way as by saying “person” I mean a grown human who sits on the Internet and argues nonsense on a forum at night.

I understood you the first time, so surely you now understand how "human life" could easily be interpreted as a person who exists outside of the womb, or perhaps even as a full-grown adult.

It is what defines is *as a person*, that’s our biological command center - you are your brain, or rather, specific parts of your brain. What defines us as humans is our species, our genetic make-up. A genetically-modified talking chimp is not a human, no matter how good an orator it would be or how much you liked it. We couldn’t possibly have an argument about whether or not it’s human because it isn’t - we can test that. We *could* establish if it perhaps has personhood, which is a separate issue altogether.

Yeah okay, that's on me for not following my own specificity rule. The human brain is uniquely human in nature. So far we've been unsuccessful in extending its functional lifespan or properly digitizing it. Things will get rather interesting once we've reached that point in our evolution.

Soul is a metaphysical concept, I can’t test for that.

Precisely. The last thing we need Alabama or SCOTUS weighing in on is the metaphysical/supernatural. It's hard to be sure they're even capable of grasping object permanence, let alone more abstract concepts.

 

[Foxi4]

I understood you the first time, so surely you now understand how "human life" could easily be interpreted as a person who exists outside of the womb, or perhaps even as a full-grown adult.

I understand you define it that way, that’s not my problem. My problem is that you claim science says that. That’s not true - that’s a belief, not a fact. Science says quite clearly that a human embryo is in fact both human and alive, in the same way as a chicken embryo is chicken and alive. You and I call a chicken a bird with feathers because that’s our common parlance, but it is a chicken from start to finish.

I love that we’re having a “chicken or the egg” discussion in earnest. This is great.

Yeah okay, that's on me for not following my own specificity rule. The human brain is uniquely human in nature. So far we've been unsuccessful in extending its functional lifespan or properly digitizing it. Things will get rather interesting once we've reached that point in our evolution.

Most definitely, because at that point we will be replacing the meat machine with an actual machine. We’ll have full-on arguments in cyberspace about whether we’re copies or the originals.

While using kinky animal avatars.

Foxi’s Recommendation: If you like this subject, play SOMA and see what you think.

Precisely. The last thing we need Alabama or SCOTUS weighing in on is the metaphysical/supernatural. It's hard to be sure they're even capable of grasping object permanence, let alone more abstract concepts.

Can it weigh in on matters of personhood? If not them, then who? *Someone* has to, otherwise Xzi with no brain is staying on the ventilator forever, you know that, right? We need some guidelines on what a person actually is.

 

[Xzi]

I understand you define it that way, that’s not my problem. My problem is that you claim science says that. That’s not true - that’s a belief, not a fact. Science says quite clearly that a human embryo is in fact both human and alive, in the same way as a chicken embryo is chicken and alive.

I'm used to scientific textbooks and papers calling it "embryonic life," or more commonly, "embryos." The species is more often than not obvious by context. I'll leave it at that.

 

[Foxi4]

I'm used to scientific textbooks and papers calling it "embryonic life," or more commonly, "embryos." The species is more often than not obvious by context. I'll leave it at that.

That’s fair if you want to subdivide human development like this. It’s not the only separate section either - child development is often considered separate since a child’s body is rather different compared to an adult. For instance, prepubescent children don’t have fully developed sexual characteristics. They go through a variety of changes that don’t stop until age 25, long after they’re considered legal adults (I believe that’s the age when brain development is complete). I just have a major issue with describing embryonic life (I’ll use your parlance, why not) as “not life” or “not human”, solely on the basis of the fact that I can test if an embryo is alive and human, and get a definite answer. I don’t think it’s intellectually honest to suggest that early stages of human development are in a magical limbo that we don’t talk about until X happens. I know why you insist on it - you believe that by agreeing you’d be ceding ground to anti-abortion activists and some such. Don’t worry - this is a safe space. Foxi will protect you.

 

[omgcat]

i thought embryos only referred to unfertilized eggs

That'd be even dumber, an egg is only half the genetic code so it's not even a person in any sense anyways. This whole thing is just flat out retarded.

 

[Foxi4]

That'd be even dumber, an egg is only half the genetic code so it's not even a person in any sense anyways. This whole thing is just flat out retarded.

It would be, indeed, very stupid. Every woman who ever had a period would have to go straight to jail - didn’t fertilise that egg in time, here’s your cuffs.

 

[Xzi]

I don’t think it’s intellectually honest to suggest that early stages of human development are in a magical limbo that we don’t talk about until X happens. I know why you insist on it - you believe that by agreeing you’d be ceding ground to anti-abortion activists and some such. Don’t worry - this is a safe space. Foxi will protect you.

You misunderstand, I don't hold the belief that humanity is somehow special in this context. There is a point in time for all living things wherein that individual life begins to have any concept of 'value' on any level, spiritual or otherwise, and it's at minimum viability. Beyond that, nature is chaos. Anti-abortion "Christians" can't accept that universal truth, but it doesn't bother me any as an agnostic.

It would be, indeed, very stupid. Every woman who ever had a period would have to go straight to jail - didn’t fertilise that egg in time, here’s your cuffs.

Bro you just came up with Trump's platform for 2028 if he's still alive to run.

 

[Foxi4]

You misunderstand, I don't hold the belief that humanity is somehow special in this context. There is a point in time for all living things wherein that individual life begins to have any concept of 'value' on any level, spiritual or otherwise, and it's at minimum viability. Beyond that, nature is chaos. Anti-abortion "Christians" can't accept that universal truth, but it doesn't bother me any as an agnostic.

None of that is science, however.

Bro you just came up with Trump's platform for 2028 if he's still alive to run.

Trump doesn’t give a shit about any of this, it’s red meat for the base, if anything.

 

[Xzi]

None of that is science, however.

Safe methods of abortion came from the advancement of medical science. Anti-abortionists drag the conversation back to religious and spiritual beliefs because there is no scientific backing for their bullshit. On a biological level there is very much a difference between a baby capable of eating and breathing autonomously, versus a fetus which is entirely reliant on its mothers' body to do those things for it. Thus minimum viability is indeed a scientifically significant concept, just as it's a morally/spiritually significant one.

 

[Foxi4]

Safe methods of abortion came from the advancement of medical science. Anti-abortionists drag the conversation back to religious and spiritual beliefs because there is no scientific backing for their bullshit. On a biological level there is very much a difference between a baby capable of eating and breathing autonomously, versus a fetus which is entirely reliant on its mothers' body to do those things for it. Thus minimum viability is indeed a scientifically significant concept, just as it's a morally/spiritually significant one.

You’ve been trying to drag the conversation back into the Middle Ages 5 minutes ago with your rant about souls - something I don’t care about. That’s my point. I get that what you are supporting is mostly good, and as I stated earlier, we agree for the most part, but you go about it the wrong way and thus lose me half-way through. You’re replacing religion with philosophy and then proceed to grandstand as more morally righteous - I don’t see how one is any better than the other. This might come as a surprise to you, but chocolate cake and red velvet? Same cake, one just has food colouring in it.

What you’re describing as a scientific delimitation is in fact an arbitrary one based on how you feel. That’s just a fact, everything else is a justification you’ve constructed for yourself because admitting that you don’t care about *all* human life is hard and somewhat unpleasant (even though nobody cares about all of it). You’ve chosen minimum viability as the turning point and that’s totally fine - a lot of people would call that reasonable (if vague). Your conclusion is not wrong, but you arrived at it following a weird train of thought. You can arrive at a correct conclusion following the wrong train of thought, I just can’t help but point it out to you on the off chance that it affects other decisions in your life.

 

[Dark_Ansem]

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

By your line of reasoning, are sperms and unfertilised eggs human life too?

 

[Xzi]

What you’re describing as a scientific delimitation is in fact an arbitrary one based on how you feel.

What I'm describing is how my own philosophical, spiritual, and moral beliefs line up with scientific fact. Christianity need not be in conflict with scientific fact either, but that is the current state of things.

You’ve chosen minimum viability as the turning point and that’s totally fine - a lot of people would call that reasonable (if vague). Your conclusion is not wrong, but you arrived at it following a weird train of thought. You can arrive at a correct conclusion following the wrong train of thought, I just can’t help but point it out to you on the off chance that it affects other decisions in your life.

Meh, I can sometimes start to lose focus on what it is exactly I'm trying to say and how it is exactly I'm trying to say it while multitasking (playing Tekken 8) and possibly being under the influence of mind-altering substances. Probably could've gotten to the same point in the conversation a fair bit quicker, but beyond that no harm done.

 

[Dark_Ansem]

What you’re describing as a scientific delimitation is in fact an arbitrary one based on how you feel.

I'm not exactly sure where you get this granitic certainty from, as the debate has been going on since the 1980s and it's not settled. Your claim "it's not science, it's philosophy or religion" is vague and misconstrued, as are accusations thrown around of "not valuing all human life". An embryo, which has neither nerves, heart, lungs, brain, feeling, nor any sensibility at all, isn't really a human being. "You can't put a five-year-old in a freezer and then take it out" as you can with embryos.

 

[Foxi4]

By your line of reasoning, are sperms and unfertilised eggs human life too?

This was already discussed.

I'm not exactly sure where you get this granitic certainty from, as the debate has been going on since the 1980s and it's not settled. Your claim "it's not science, it's philosophy or religion" is vague and misconstrued, as are accusations thrown around of "not valuing all human life". An embryo, which has neither nerves, heart, lungs, brain, feeling, nor any sensibility at all, isn't really a human being. "You can't put a five-year-old in a freezer and then take it out" as you can with embryos.

All of this has been discussed earlier, if you won’t enact the labour of reading the thread then I won’t enact the labour of arguing the same points twice.

“Is your fridge running?” - please convert this question into an indirect one.

What I'm describing is how my own philosophical, spiritual, and moral beliefs line up with scientific fact. Christianity need not be in conflict with scientific fact either, but that is the current state of things.

We’re not discussing Christianity, we were talking strictly about you.

Meh, I can sometimes start to lose focus on what it is exactly I'm trying to say and how it is exactly I'm trying to say it while multitasking (playing Tekken 8) and possibly being under the influence of mind-altering substances. Probably could've gotten to the same point in the conversation a fair bit quicker, but beyond that no harm done.

Oh, absolutely. My point is that I talked you down from “It’s not a human life” to “It’s alive, but it’s not human” and then down to “It’s human and it’s alive, but it’s not a fully-grown human so it has limited value - it progressively gains value as its viability increases”. That’s how I know it’s not a firmly held belief, and as a people person I like to drill down to what your actual thoughts are - that’s fun for me. I can shake on the final outcome because that’s effectively what I’m saying, I just found it odd that I had to wrestle that information out of you, but the mind-altering substances explain a bit. Cheers! Kick some butt in Tekken for me.

 

[Dark_Ansem]

All of this has been discussed earlier

Discussed =/= repeated, vague tautologies.

“Is your fridge running?” - please convert this question into an indirect one.

Please confirm a certain moderator is off their meds as somehow it is thinking to be back in school, clearly a senile moment.

Post automatically merged: Feb 24, 2024

We’re not discussing Christianity, we were talking strictly about you.

This may be a shock for you, but a Christian may very well have principles that are aligned with Christianity, if not sometimes identical.