Alabama Supreme court rules embryos are children

[Bn2f]

Someone did try that one in Missouri a few years ago. The courts didn't buy it, of course. I think there may also have been a case where a pregnant woman tried to get out of a ticket for driving solo in the HOV lane, and who similarly lost.

You’re right!

This woman in AZ lost.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pregnant-woman-loses-hov-lane-case/

This woman in TX got her first ticket tossed out. IDK on her 2nd.

https://www.npr.org/2022/09/02/1120628973/pregnant-woman-dallas-fetus-hov-lane-passenger-ticket

SCOTUS created this mess by overturning precedent with no foresight.
Now we have states introducing Christian theocracy to the exclusion of other beliefs.

 

[HisArpy]

She did not. The bible is the book of the original religion topic, someone else brought up Islam to which she responded. She didn't single them out, did you not read what she was responding to?

She was responding to the religion examples brought up by other people, she did not single them out.

She referenced the two religion examples brought up by other people. That is not her defining or implying the term secular excludes only the two religion examples brought up by others.

How do you not understand this?

Ok, it seems you don't understand how things work.

When talking we go from the "general" to the "specific." We say things like; "you can't have any cookies before dinner."

That a "general" statement. If left alone it stands on its own and covers everything.

BUT!!!

If it's modified by specifics, that changes the general statement into a specific statement. So...

"You can't have any cookies before dinner. So, you can't have any Oreos or chocolate chip cookies now."

That's an example of a general statement being modified into a specific statement.

Notice how specific it got - no OREOS OR CHOCOLATE CHIP cookies.

What about Nilla Wafers? Are those also on the prohibited list? Snickerdoodles? Are they also banned before dinner?

This is what she did. This is what you don't understand.

 

[Lazaran]

I resent Derpy for making me cheer TinyFuckBoi.

No need to cheer.

TFB still has more in common with Derpy than not.

*nods*

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Ok, it seems you don't understand how things work.


This is what she did. This is what you don't understand.

LOL no that's not how the conversation ( posts) unfolded, but I'll sit back n watch TST keep kicking your ass, it's very entertaining.

 

[John_von_Neumann]

Ok, it seems you don't understand how things work.

When talking we go from the "general" to the "specific." We say things like; "you can't have any cookies before dinner.

Damn.

Do you wear a helmet when you go outside?

 

[TastySuckToy]

"You can't have any cookies before dinner. So, you can't have any Oreos or chocolate chip cookies now."

Presenting two examples of cookies doesn't change the meaning of "any cookies". It's just submitting two examples of cookies by name, and within your two sentence story, there's any number of possible reasons for doing so, none of which rationally translates to "I only mean these two types".

The modifer word of "any" means anything under the category label of cookies.

What about Nilla Wafers? Are those also on the prohibited list? Snickerdoodles? Are they also banned before dinner?

According to your statement, anything under the label of cookies is off the table, literally. The existence of two examples of what cookies are doesn't change that fact.

Honestly, is English a second language for you? The attempted logic you're employing is what children would try to do in an effort to lawyer their way out of parental rules.

This is what she did. This is what you don't understand.

Using your logic, you're wrong because adrine never mentioned cookies and you don't understand that.

I mean, it's obvious she didn't mention cookies, but since you brought up cookies, you must therefore be trying to imply the term secularism also means "no cookies".

No chocolate chip christianity for the kids, it seems, and washing away their sins of sticky chocolate fingers away is a moral sin that has thankfully been avoided.

 

[John_von_Neumann]

Ok, it seems you don't understand how things work.

When talking we go from the "general" to the "specific." We say things like; "you can't have any cookies before dinner."

That a "general" statement. If left alone it stands on its own and covers everything.

The best part about this is, even according to your own context-free made up on the spot reasoning where conversations always flow from general to specific, you still fail. Because right before she said this:

What the heck is it with you all or nothing dramatic folks? The judges didn't quote the koran. They quoted the bible.

she said this:

I'm a fan of secular law for a reason.

Derp.

 

[God_Above]

I rule that the Alabama Court Judges are children.

 

[Pad_Foot]

Can’t they now claim that the pill and iud’s kill children by not letting the poor babies implant themselves in their hateful mothers?

We are not talking about embryos. These are possible embryos. If it can be frozen it ain’t human.. or even a mammal! I could be wrong someone with a bio major help me out. Hell a bio class would put you above me, and these judges. What are they doing? Legislating from the bench ? Making up science on the fly!

Their previous claims of a heartbeat? Naw! That wasn’t soon enough!

All women with periods need to locked up, just in case!!

 

[TastySuckToy]

One of the biggest issues I have with the anti-abortion position is that they routinely keep conflating the terms life, alive, human, and human being.

 

[HisArpy]

Presenting two examples of cookies doesn't change the meaning of "any cookies". It's just submitting two examples of cookies by name, and within your two sentence story, there's any number of possible reasons for doing so, none of which rationally translates to "I only mean these two types".

The modifer word of "any" means anything under the category label of cookies.

According to your statement, anything under the label of cookies is off the table, literally. The existence of two examples of what cookies are doesn't change that fact.

Honestly, is English a second language for you? The attempted logic you're employing is what children would try to do in an effort to lawyer their way out of parental rules.

Using your logic, you're wrong because adrine never mentioned cookies and you don't understand that.

I mean, it's obvious she didn't mention cookies, but since you brought up cookies, you must therefore be trying to imply the term secularism also means "no cookies".

No chocolate chip christianity for the kids, it seems, and washing away their sins of sticky chocolate fingers away is a moral sin that has thankfully been avoided.

Lol. You really don't understand what actually happened.

 

[HisArpy]

One of the biggest issues I have with the anti-abortion position is that they routinely keep conflating the terms life, alive, human, and human being.

Legally, in order to be "a person," "a person" must be "born alive." Until that occurs, there is no "person." You can substitute whatever identifier (child, baby, human, etc) you wish for "a person" and the legal point remains the same.

This is a legal premise which was established multiple millenia ago and remains to this day while keeping the same basic premise as was originally envisioned as a matter of law. Which means it's kind of difficult to deny its existence and say someone is "conflating" it.

 

[TastySuckToy]

Lol. You really don't understand what actually happened.

Simply declaring the other side doesn't understand is not an argument. I'll take that as your concession on the issue.

Legally, in order to be "a person," "a person" must be "born alive."

My point was the anti abortion side keeps conflating specific terms I listed, and your response is bring up another term I didn't even mention. Are you being serious?

 

[RobDownSouth]

Lol. You really don't understand what actually happened.

The lack of self-awareness here is equal parts humorous and frightening.

 

[Rick345]

Legally, in order to be "a person," "a person" must be "born alive." Until that occurs, there is no "person." You can substitute whatever identifier (child, baby, human, etc) you wish for "a person" and the legal point remains the same.

The law can define a person as anything it wishes to, Alabama: Legislation taking effect July 1, 2006 (HB 19) amended Section 13A-6-1 of the Code of Alabama to include “an unborn child in utero at any stage of development, regardless of viability” as a “person” and “human being” for purposes of the state laws dealing with murder, manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide, and assault.

31 other states have similars laws all defining the unborn as persons for purposes of the state laws dealing with murder, manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide, and assault.

 

[butters]

chaos reigns when stupid laws are 'conceived and birthed' without due consideration of all their recognisable implications

State Republican lawmakers said they were working on a solution. “Alabamians strongly believe in protecting the rights of the unborn, but the result of the State Supreme Court ruling denies many couples the opportunity to conceive, which is a direct contradiction,” House Speaker Nathaniel Ledbetter said.

indeed, and should have been a consideration

Republican state Sen. Tim Melson, who is a doctor, said his proposal seeks to clarify that a fertilized egg is a “potential life” and not a human life until it is implanted in the uterus.

“I’m just trying to come up with a solution for the IVF industry and protect the doctors and still make it available for people who have fertility issues that need to be addressed because they want to have a family,” Melson said.

not the best way to make laws, is it?

House Minority Leader Anthony Daniels, a Democrat, introduced legislation to clarify that a “human egg or human embryo that exists in any form outside of the uterus shall not, under any circumstances, be considered an unborn child” under state law.

indeed

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/f...1&cvid=508ddb202b1a4f41806322251a09bfb2&ei=32

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Legally, in order to be "a person," "a person" must be "born alive."

Tell that to a corporation...I just had to throw that out there...

 

[Bray123]

https://imgur.com/golR9uv

 

[MajorRewrite]

Can’t they now claim that the pill and iud’s kill children by not letting the poor babies implant themselves in their hateful mothers?

In the Dobbs decision, Clarence Thomas said the Supreme Court will be coming after contraceptives next. And House Republicans voted against a bill to protect access to contraceptives.

We should take them at their word.

 

[HisArpy]

The law can define a person as anything it wishes to, Alabama: Legislation taking effect July 1, 2006 (HB 19) amended Section 13A-6-1 of the Code of Alabama to include “an unborn child in utero at any stage of development, regardless of viability” as a “person” and “human being” for purposes of the state laws dealing with murder, manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide, and assault.

31 other states have similars laws all defining the unborn as persons for purposes of the state laws dealing with murder, manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide, and assault.

They can try. Just like the many many many other things which have been tried in the past which also failed.

You see, it comes down to a simple fact that the world is larger and more complex than your simpleton view of it. You can say anything you wish but doing so doesn't make it true. Repeating that failure changes nothing and this is just another attempt at it. With the same inevitable result.

 

[HisArpy]

Simply declaring the other side doesn't understand is not an argument. I'll take that as your concession on the issue.

My point was the anti abortion side keeps conflating specific terms I listed, and your response is bring up another term I didn't even mention. Are you being serious?

When dealing with those who refuse to accept reality, it's the only argument which applies.

You do not understand what actually happened. Instead you cling to your false belief that something which didn't happen except in your own mind is fact. You hold on to the idea that accepted norms aren't real and that instead you can insert alternate reasoning based on fantasy into the situation as if they were actual facts.

The world doesn't work like that. Not matter how many times you click your heels together you cannot transport yourself back to Kansas again. Because even if you believe you can, the world doesn't work like that. The only result is that you will be disappointed once again.

Which is how the world always works.

 

[adrina]

Irony.

 

[HisArpy]

Irony.

^ still at the self aggrandizing fantasy stage.

 

[ll74]

I'm just happy I can freeze children in the basement legally now. (Sarcasm, obviously)

 

[TastySuckToy]

You do not understand what actually happened.

Not a valid argument.

The only thing I don't understand is your stubborn clinging to a position that contradicts standard English.

But you did explain what I asked you to explain, even if I reject it as nonsensical.