Please only contribute on-topic posts only. If you’re not going to talk about the Alabama ruling, which encompasses the ruling itself and a broader discussion of the concept of unborn life, save yourself the trouble. If you want your star, complete the assignment as instructed. Future off-topic will be deleted.
Delusional.
start by deleting your rants then. Or rules are only for others?
I was and am, and somehow you complained about that too hiding behind the "already discussed" nonsense. You think to hold granitic certainty on a topic that has been discussed for 30+ years? think again.
Everything discussed in the thread so-far is on topic, the topic being legislation regarding “unborn children”. You can determine the sex of an embryo through DNA analysis, long before it develops any sexual characteristics at all. You can’t define its gender because gender is a social construct and an embryo is not yet capable of socialisation. There has never been a scientific debate regarding whether human embryos are human or whether they’re alive - both of those things are objectively true and can be determined scientifically. The debate is not about that, it’s about whether they should be regarded as on the same level as a full-grown humans, to which the answer is probably “no” because they’re not full-grown humans. The debate has always been about rights. A human embryo doesn’t come from a donkey and it’s demonstrably not dead - it is human in origin and living. It is, in fact, a developing human, just very small.
This is ONLY true when it reaches the blastocyst stage, which is around a week optimistically. But at any rate, it was only a semi serious question. Embryos aren't unborn children, not even at blastocyst stage. And the reason is that a child is a child, not a foetus, not an embryo and certainly not a blastocyst. If embryos were children, we would call them children in science too. The distinction is there and not without purpose.
Why are you arguing with yourself? I didn’t say that an embryo is a child, or a fetus. An embryo is an embryo. Sex can be determined as soon as DNA is recompiled, problem being that if you did it too early you could inadvertently destroy the cell. You wouldn’t do that in a medical setting, but for the sake of a thought experiment you sure can. DNA replicates pretty much as soon as an egg is fertilised, and it’s not some kind of different magical DNA, it’s just a matter of taking a sample. As for blastocysts, they’re what turns into an embryo, not the other way around, you have things mixed up. Every embryo was formerly a blastocyst, so by your logic, every embryo can be tested.
I didn't say you did. There's not just you in this thread.
I did, I also apparently got the timing wrong, it requires 10 days not 7. which makes the alabama ruling even more moronic.
Well, you’re complaining about it to me, so it was a fair assumption. Fair enough.
The ruling is draconian and stupid, with some luck it will be overturned.
In that case IVF children should be given birth too. Perhaps Alabama can pay and compensate surrogates to carry the IVF children to term and fund orphanages where they can be raised.
wouldn't the the tax code be federal regulation and not state based?
Sure. Alternatively the situation can be cleared up with legislation. “May” does not equal “is”. We’ll see how things shake up.
I hate to disappoint, but it wasn’t me - I did however agree that your titles do not fit our styling guide which is stickied in the sub. You should refer to it when making threads here. I have no comment beyond that - moderating decisions are final and not up to debate.
Hah! This SC won't do it and we've seen that politicians are too timid to legislate apparently.
I think Trump is carrots infinite money glitch as he can't help himself.
Title 13A; Article 1; Section 13A-2-3
We’ve been over this last time. The judge in question posted a legal opinion - he’s entitled to do it. That is not a guilty verdict. Other legal experts can also publish legal opinions which may or may not align with the judge’s - those aren’t a verdict either. Trump was never found guilty of rape, he was found liable for battery involving sexual assault in a civil suit. That is not proof positive that he actually did anything, nor does it carry any criminal penalty - it means at least half of the jury believed he did what was alleged, and as such he was found liable and his accuser was awarded damages. This is not a matter of statute of limitations - first degree rape has no statute of limitations in New York. If his accuser believes that is what happened, she can pursue those charges even now. If you insist on using the term, my recommendation is to use the word alleged, since it is an alleged crime until his guilt is proven. My line of reasoning aligns with what the law professors in the link below have to say:To refer to Trump as a rapist isn't a breach of the rules because it's not an opinion per a judge's clarification.
Technically I was Christian before I was an atheist before I was agnostic/vaguely pagan. Point I was trying to make is how Christianity holds humanity on a pedestal above, and separate from nature, but we aren't and we may never be. Without death, life has no meaning, and loss of life at the embryonic/fetal stages is common among all species. As humans we reason that out as somehow "cruel," but there needn't be malice assigned to it. In fact one could make the argument that death before consciousness is a mercy compared to death post-consciousness, especially in circumstances such as a child being born into extreme poverty and then slowly starving to death. It's humanity which can be cruel, and we project that on to the impartial chaos of nature.
I was not understanding what you specifically meant with the term "human life," and considering you acknowledge that it can refer to a single human skin cell, an embryo, or even a full-grown adult, that's still something which remains vague. In my eyes it's preferable to narrow usage of it down to a whole human which has at least demonstrated minimum viability via birth, but I won't fault you for choosing to use it in the broader sense.
Don't know if you know this, but in America you pay state and federal taxes and must file two separate returns
Yes and ruling them "unborn" children specifically means they cannot actually be claimed as dependents on either tax filing. Republican cowards always find a way to inflict maximum loss of rights/freedoms on individuals without following through on demonstrating the strength of their own convictions.
I sometimes forget this because Texas does not have state income tax
@
Xdqwerty:
@
Xdqwerty:
