Frozen embryos are ‘children,’ Alabama Supreme Court rules in couples’ wrongful death suits

[o_mlly]

I was explaining how mothers feel in a futile attempt to get you to concede that people consider zygotes and babies differently. I guess deflection is the current means of not admitting it.

A child, the legal description of which is someone from the point of birth onwards, already has that right.

I've asked for an argument from science and logic. A legal argument is a deflection and cannot apply (Alabama law withstanding).

As to what point during a pregnancy does the right to life concern us, I'd propose from the point where the foetus can live outside the womb. And that's obviously not a definite point in time. I'm open to other arguments.

Arguably, a child less than, say 3 years old (perhaps even older), cannot live outside the care of others. So, the independent viability of the child cannot be a point at which one obtains their right to life. And those who are on life support at any age do not suspend their right to life. Do you have any other arguments to support that one's obtains their right to life at some point in time after conception?

 

[o_mlly]

Except the distance isn't now a thousand miles. It's increasing. You are walking backwards at this time.

Apparently, you are not following jurisprudence in the USA.

 

[o_mlly]

But you said that biblical laws were to be respected. He didn't. One of you is wrong. Would you take a shot at who that might be?

Sure, the wrong one would be you. Read the passage again.

 

[o_mlly]

It wasn't about how I feel about others. I was explaining how mothers feel in a futile attempt to get you to concede that people consider zygotes and babies differently. I guess deflection is the current means of not admitting it.

Do you mean like the slavers felt about Africans? Or the Nazis about Jews? History is replete with stories on those who wanted to enslave or murder others first had to deny the others humanity. Same here.

 

[Goonie]

As commented elsewhere it's funny how the republicans are scrambling to reverse one consequence of this ruling. iVF has cross party support.

 

[Tinker Grey]

As commented elsewhere it's funny how the republicans are scrambling to reverse one consequence of this ruling. iVF has cross party support.

Suddenly, a fertilized egg is NOT a life to be preserved.

 

[o_mlly]

Suddenly, a fertilized egg is NOT a life to be preserved.

Suddenly? Nope.

In 1996, Pope John Paul II made an “appeal to the conscience of the world’s scientific authorities and in particular to doctors, that the production of human embryos be halted, taking into account that there seems to be no morally licit solution regarding the human destiny of the thousands and thousands of ‘frozen’ embryos which are and remain the subjects of essential rights and should therefore be protected by law as human persons.”

 

[Tinker Grey]

Suddenly? Nope.

In 1996, Pope John Paul II made an “appeal to the conscience of the world’s scientific authorities and in particular to doctors, that the production of human embryos be halted, taking into account that there seems to be no morally licit solution regarding the human destiny of the thousands and thousands of ‘frozen’ embryos which are and remain the subjects of essential rights and should therefore be protected by law as human persons.”

I don't think this response says much good about your reading comprehension.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Who decides what is correct? The bible defines murder so I consider that correct.

Where does the bible define murder?

 

[o_mlly]

I don't think this response says much good about your reading comprehension.

Backtrack to goonie's post to improve your comprehension. Nobody is "scrambling" to or "suddenly" changing positions on when a child has a right to their life.

 

[truthpls]

Eight separate responses and I can't find one worthy of a response. You are repeating yourself every post and I can't be bothered any more looking for something on which it is worth spending my time.

You reject it in other words.

 

[truthpls]

Where does the bible define murder?

Thayers defines kill as this
Thayer's

1. to kill in any way whatever
   1. to destroy, to allow to perish
2. metaph. to extinguish, abolish
   1. to inflict mortal death

So for example, if one destroyed a little one inn the womb that is killing. If one allowed a baby after birth to die, that is murder. etc

 

[Tinker Grey]

Backtrack to goonie's post to improve your comprehension. Nobody is "scrambling" to or "suddenly" changing positions on when a child has a right to their life.

Really? Anti-abortionists have always held that a fertilized eggs are NOT deserving of life? Really?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Thayers defines kill as this
Thayer's

1. to kill in any way whatever
   1. to destroy, to allow to perish
2. metaph. to extinguish, abolish
   1. to inflict mortal death

So for example, if one destroyed a little one inn the womb that is killing. If one allowed a baby after birth to die, that is murder. etc

A. Thayer's is not the Bible. You didn't answer the question that was asked.
B. "to kill in any way whatever" is not murder, else executions would be murder, war would be murder, people killed with their consent to escape terminal illnesses would have been murdered. This is a very poor definition.

 

[truthpls]

A. Thayer's is not the Bible.

It is one of the dictionaries explaining root meanings of words used in the bible. So when the bible says this for example The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly John 10:10
We can comprehend the word kill better.

You didn't answer the question that was asked.
B. "to kill in any way whatever" is not murder, else executions would be murder, war would be murder, people killed with their consent to escape terminal illnesses would have been murdered. This is a very poor definition.

In the verse above the context is clear. A man stealing from a home in the night. There are many instances of the use of the word in other verses as well we can use for context. Nowhere is a government executing murderers or etc included in an evil context. In fact Paul made it clear that they can and do execute capitol punishment for evildoers. War also is not included generally. Only when God leads the war! That does NOT happen today at all ever. It will happen when He returns to earth. It did happen when He led a people and nation for a time. Not today or in the world at large, period.

 

[o_mlly]

Really? Anti-abortionists have always held that a fertilized eggs are NOT deserving of life? Really?

Really. Copy and pasting the liberal media headlines is not research. Republicans who are practicing Catholic and perhaps many other republicans who are pro-life are neither "scrambling" nor "suddenly" changing what they held 28 years ago.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Thayers defines kill as this
Thayer's

Right, so the Bible forbids it (thou shalt not) but doesn't define it.

 

[BCP1928]

Many get their values from the bible. I hear one of the greatest moves in history is happening in Iran as well, regarding Christian conversion.

Muslims get their values from the Bible as well. Muslims regard our Old Testament plus the Synoptic Gospels as their "Old Testament" and the Quran is largely given over to commentaries on those texts.

They mean something. They indicate that a majority of people used that belief system to make laws.

If a majority belief is respected and turned into laws, then whether we all agree or not doesn't change things

So, in a country where most claim Christian values

And argue incessantly about what they are

it seems appropriate that those majority values be acted upon rather than dismissed by a minority as 'religious'

A "minority" which often seems to have more votes.

 

[truthpls]

Nope. No need for the supernatural there. It is just two parties disagreeing on gender disphoria and surgical interventions.

Yes there is an absolute need. God created man male and female. No confusion about it. God is not the author of confusion.

Nope and Nope. Promoting abortions (or even defending access) isn't supernatural. It is just someone taking a position on a political/moral issue.

People who murder do not need to admit or even know they are inspired and motivated by supernatural forces. The bible tells us that Satan and his children are murderers. It was Satan that entered Judas when he went out to arrange Jesus being murdered. It does not matter whether Judas realized as he walked out that door that he was possessed or not.

"attacking God" in school (whether you mean excluding practice to directly having teachers claim a god doesn't exist) is not supernatural. It is a religious position, or a political position, or upholding legal principles, etc. Not supernatural.

Speaking words from hell is not something that requires people knowing or admitting they are doing so either. By the fruit we know the tree.

I don't believe in your satan, so why would I accept any of these are satan inspired?

Those who do know. Those who read Scripture. Those who know good from evil.

It doesn't matter? Then why claim it?

SMH.

What doesn't matter is whether you are aware of it or deny it. (not whether it is supernatural or not)

 

[truthpls]

Muslims get their values from the Bible as well. Muslims regard our Old Testament plus the Synoptic Gospels as their "Old Testament" and the Quran is largely given over to commentaries on those texts.

And argue incessantly about what they are

A "minority" which often seems to have more votes.

You don't find it fishy when a majority gets less votes? If a majority of say, Americans were Christian then there are basics that they would have to agree on.