If I dont go visit my frozen embryo..

[brainbomb]

So should I be taken to court for refusing to walk my tiny human and put it in non shabby clothing

Consider this - if a mother drinks alcohol while pregnant, resulting in the death or harm of the child, then she is guilty of neglect. So no, you don't have to clothe a fertilized embryo, but if you neglect it to the point of death then it is the same as neglecting a child who has been born to the point of death.

This is a rather silly thread; I'm not sure what the point of it is, but perhaps I missed something.

If a husband did alot of drugs and his sperm was defective, having multiple heads on the cell, and it still got a woman pregnant resulting in a miscarriage.

is the father guilty of child neglect also? should he be tried for murder in addition to drug charges? was he neglecting his future child by doing drugs?

if a father got kicked in the balls by a buffalo, and didnt know his sperm was defective, and he gets a woman pregnant, should he be imprisoned for not getting a proper medical exam to make sure his nutsack still had healthy non defective swimmers?

maybe the state should lop his genitalia off to ensure he does not neglect his future children also

[brainbomb]

Since these embryos are children now, are they Trans? if so, we also need to ban any kind of care related to them because they are under 18 and if they dont have a gender yet, we dont want anyone deciding what gender they should be. That would be wrong.

[Jamiet99uk]

The burden of "where does life start and why there" always seems to fall on the pro-choice, which is unfair. The distinctions made by pro life people are equally arbitrary. I'm reminded of the Monty Python moment where a Catholic towns breaks out into song: Every sperm is sacred. Every sperm is great. If a sperm is wasted, God will be irrate.

"Every sperm is wanted
Every sperm is good
Every sperm is needed
In your neighbourhood!"

"Let the Pagan spill theirs
O'er mountain, hill, and plain
God shall strike them down for
Each sperm that's spilt in vain!"

[BrianBaru]

If you put a baby in a freezer, it would die.

A fertilized egg is not a baby.

A fertilized egg is not a baby. A newborn is not a toddler. An adolescent is not an adult. All are human lives, just at different stages of development.

Yes and an even earlier stage of development is the spermatozoa. Should each one of the sperm I produce be given specific legal rights and protections?

An unfertilized human egg or sperm is not a human life. A sperm or egg on its own does not grow into a human. Only the fertilized egg does.

[BrianBaru]

I'm not familiar with the Alabama ruling, so I won't comment on it before doing some research, but I am curious...

Where do we draw the line of life and non-life, and more importantly, why?

In the context of a human foetus, I would say the point at which it is likely to be able to survive outside the womb. In UK law this has generally been set at around 24 weeks.

The argument that life begins at viability is bogus and dishonest. Human life takes a long time to develop and be able to survive on its own. A one year old baby is barely able to feed itself, and then only when provided food. Perhaps a seven-year-old raised on a primitive farm could survive on a desert island, but few urban teenagers could. So not viable?
Human life needs care in the early years. The first nine months needs the mother. After birth, the little human still depends on other humans to survive. Different stages of human life requires different types of care and support. It is still a human life from the moment of conception

[Jamiet99uk]

A fertilized egg is not a baby. A newborn is not a toddler. An adolescent is not an adult. All are human lives, just at different stages of development.

Yes and an even earlier stage of development is the spermatozoa. Should each one of the sperm I produce be given specific legal rights and protections?

An unfertilized human egg or sperm is not a human life. A sperm or egg on its own does not grow into a human. Only the fertilized egg does.

No, it might. Lots don't.

[Jamiet99uk]

I'm not familiar with the Alabama ruling, so I won't comment on it before doing some research, but I am curious...

Where do we draw the line of life and non-life, and more importantly, why?

In the context of a human foetus, I would say the point at which it is likely to be able to survive outside the womb. In UK law this has generally been set at around 24 weeks.

The argument that life begins at viability is bogus and dishonest. Human life takes a long time to develop and be able to survive on its own. A one year old baby is barely able to feed itself, and then only when provided food. Perhaps a seven-year-old raised on a primitive farm could survive on a desert island, but few urban teenagers could. So not viable?
Human life needs care in the early years. The first nine months needs the mother. After birth, the little human still depends on other humans to survive. Different stages of human life requires different types of care and support. It is still a human life from the moment of conception

You think an embryo at the moment of conception has the same value as me and you, yes? You agree with the Alabama Supreme Court? You think frozen embryos in an IVF clinic should each have a name and a social security number and the right to vote?

[CaptainFritz28]

So should I be taken to court for refusing to walk my tiny human and put it in non shabby clothing

Consider this - if a mother drinks alcohol while pregnant, resulting in the death or harm of the child, then she is guilty of neglect. So no, you don't have to clothe a fertilized embryo, but if you neglect it to the point of death then it is the same as neglecting a child who has been born to the point of death.

This is a rather silly thread; I'm not sure what the point of it is, but perhaps I missed something.

If a husband did alot of drugs and his sperm was defective, having multiple heads on the cell, and it still got a woman pregnant resulting in a miscarriage.

is the father guilty of child neglect also? should he be tried for murder in addition to drug charges? was he neglecting his future child by doing drugs?

A) In the situation I described, the woman knows that she is pregnant, and knows that drinking too much alcohol may kill the child. She does it anyway, and the child dies. In your situation, the man does not know that his sperm is defective. Morality is a matter of making the best choices with the knowledge you have. Which leads to...

B) There is a certain responsibility that falls on the father here. Not a legal one, which is again related to the fact that his having defective sperm is not known by him. But if you do drugs, and know that they have a good chance of causing this very scenario, then go and sleep with a bunch of women, then you have to realize that there are consequences to your actions. You can't just acquit someone of all responsibility simply because "well, they wanted to do drugs and sex. Who am I to judge?"

if a father got kicked in the balls by a buffalo, and didnt know his sperm was defective, and he gets a woman pregnant, should he be imprisoned for not getting a proper medical exam to make sure his nutsack still had healthy non defective swimmers?

This is the same as above. He should have said medical exam, yes, but not to be forced by law.

maybe the state should lop his genitalia off to ensure he does not neglect his future children also

C'mon, everyone! Let's all go strawman an argument that no one has made and then pretend that all pro-lifers believe it! Yeah, that'll sure show 'em!

[CaptainFritz28]

Since these embryos are children now, are they Trans? if so, we also need to ban any kind of care related to them because they are under 18 and if they dont have a gender yet, we dont want anyone deciding what gender they should be. That would be wrong.

I know this whole thread is just a satire of all sides, as this point shows, but I will note that your humor is rather... pathetic. Neither side believes anything close to this.

[CaptainFritz28]

Yes and an even earlier stage of development is the spermatozoa. Should each one of the sperm I produce be given specific legal rights and protections?

An unfertilized human egg or sperm is not a human life. A sperm or egg on its own does not grow into a human. Only the fertilized egg does.

No, it might. Lots don't.

And? That doesn't refute anything he said.

[CaptainFritz28]

In the context of a human foetus, I would say the point at which it is likely to be able to survive outside the womb. In UK law this has generally been set at around 24 weeks.

The argument that life begins at viability is bogus and dishonest. Human life takes a long time to develop and be able to survive on its own. A one year old baby is barely able to feed itself, and then only when provided food. Perhaps a seven-year-old raised on a primitive farm could survive on a desert island, but few urban teenagers could. So not viable?
Human life needs care in the early years. The first nine months needs the mother. After birth, the little human still depends on other humans to survive. Different stages of human life requires different types of care and support. It is still a human life from the moment of conception

You think an embryo at the moment of conception has the same value as me and you, yes?

Why should I not?

You agree with the Alabama Supreme Court?

On many things, no.

You think frozen embryos in an IVF clinic should each have a name and a social security number and the right to vote?

Since when did the right to vote get extended to people under 18? I should've been voting for years!

Also, since when did a social security number and name become the standards for life? Are you saying that an undocumented, unnamed child is not as valuable as everyone else?

[CaptainFritz28]

The odds of miscarriage from IVF is actually higher than for a normal means preganancy.

The next step this law will evolve too is prosecuting parents who had IVF that result in miscarriage and jailing them for killing children

There are already people on the American right wing who thing that mothers who have miscarriages are murdererers.

It's completely fucked up. All they care about is controlling women's bodies.

Have you ever actually heard someone say this? Have you spoken with people who believe it? I would be hard pressed to believe that all 20 of the people that hold to this line of thinking live in your neighborhood.

[CaptainFritz28]

There will be judicial panels to discuss why the miscarriage happened.
Interrogations about the womans diet and what she did that day.
Lie detector tests to verify if the parents wanted the baby or not.
Capital murder trials for an IVF where the doctor accidentally drops the vial holding the embryo.

They will splay people open in front of a jury to count how many eggs are left.

This is the direction this will go

I wish this was satire but it bloody isn't.

The stupidity of these ignorant fucking bastards is mind boggling.

Same as before.

Making claims about all pro-lifers based on a tiny percentage of a certain radical group of outliers is rather stupid. If we wanted to do that, I could say that because California legalized killing babies 30 days past birth, every pro-choicer is for mass murdering born babies. Obviously that would be untrue, so I don't make that claim.

[CaptainFritz28]

The burden of "where does life start and why there" always seems to fall on the pro-choice, which is unfair. The distinctions made by pro life people are equally arbitrary.

This seems a rather personalized complaint. I have had just the opposite experience. I don't think there is much point in bickering about having to explain your own position.

I'd rather have y'all explain your position so I know what you believe than make ludicrous strawman claims that lump you all together into a group of lunatic murderers like Jamie does. If you want me to explain mine, I'll do so, but I have not been given the request.

I don't think a fertilized egg has much more moral status than a seperate egg or spermatozoa, and these are squandered all the time by design. I don't think a failure of birth control should imprison a woman to carry the child to term. I think women have an intrinsic right to choose when and with whom to procreate that cannot be superseded by a failure of birth control (let alone a sexual assault).

Wait wait wait... so you're telling me that you think we should be able to kill babies in the womb simply because women should be allowed to have sex without consequence?

Look, actions have consequences. Sex leads to pregnancy; it's simply a fact of life. To say that we have a "right" to be free from natural processes is like saying I have a right to smoke for all my life without getting lung cancer.

I think a woman's life is more valuable than a fetal life unless she chooses otherwise.

Very, very rarely does it come down to this, but when it does I agree. The woman should have the ability to choose whether she or her child dies, but only when those are the only possible outcomes.

Prioritizing the woman's right in this case is also a pragmatic way to support children — a woman who terminates a dangerous pregnancy may live to have more children in the future, the same is true for a woman who aborts in a bad situation (too young, abusive partner, etc.), and in general more children will be born to parents who are ready and willing to raise them if abortion is available.

Your logic here is just that if we kill all the children who will have bad lives, then we are supporting children! (Except for the ones who would've had bad lives, but it doesn't matter because they would have had bad lives anyways.)

The value of your life has nothing to do with its quality. A man being tortured and held in a concentration camp has just as much value as a man who just won a Nobel peace prize. All are equal,regardless of circumstances. Now, that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to improve those circumstances, which is why I believe a key part of being pro-life is supporting families and mothers who have chosen life, and helping to ensure that their circumstances are bettered. But the first step to that is having a life to better in the first place.

I think the best approach for both pro-life and pro-choice folks is to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies before they occur, but that requires more and better birth control, which apparently offends the sensibilities of some Alabamans.

Is that really the only way to go about it?
Perhaps if less people had sex who are not willing to support a child, perhaps if people realized that *GASP* there are consequences to their actions, then maybe we wouldn't have men running around impregnation dozens of women and then leaving them to fend for themselves.

This is just as much a fault of men, if not more so, and to ignore that is to be blind to the situation.

[Ferdack]

Behold, a tree.

[kingofthepirates]

I must say, this thread has absolutely made my day, and it has been a VERY fun round of laughs, with all the various hilarious/outlandish situations posed by both sides. I'd like to add one thing...

is like saying I have a right to smoke for all my life without getting lung cancer.

you do have right to do that, but I'd recommend putting that luck towards the lottery.

[kingofthepirates]

in actual relevance, I'd not like to argue for the value of a life, something that is hard to quantify (and something I am most certainly NOT qualified or ready to do), but I'd like to point to the book "Freakonomics" and the study within as evidence that abortion is a useful tool, and has decreased the crime rate. I believe there are other studies similar to it, but Freakonomics is the most recent one I remember to have read. I'd like to use this to support the argument that as a whole, society has unarguably benefited from abortion. Whether or not the massive drop in crime and benefit to society outweigh the moral/ethical/religious 'cost(s)' or abortion, is up for debate.

[CaptainFritz28]

I must say, this thread has absolutely made my day, and it has been a VERY fun round of laughs, with all the various hilarious/outlandish situations posed by both sides. I'd like to add one thing...

is like saying I have a right to smoke for all my life without getting lung cancer.

you do have right to do that, but I'd recommend putting that luck towards the lottery.

True. And when we're dealing with human lives, I prefer not to gamble.

[CaptainFritz28]

in actual relevance, I'd not like to argue for the value of a life, something that is hard to quantify (and something I am most certainly NOT qualified or ready to do), but I'd like to point to the book "Freakonomics" and the study within as evidence that abortion is a useful tool, and has decreased the crime rate. I believe there are other studies similar to it, but Freakonomics is the most recent one I remember to have read. I'd like to use this to support the argument that as a whole, society has unarguably benefited from abortion. Whether or not the massive drop in crime and benefit to society outweigh the moral/ethical/religious 'cost(s)' or abortion, is up for debate.

Not sure if you've looked around lately, but I don't think crime has really gone down since abortion became a major thing, and you would be hard pressed to prove that there is a correlation directly between those two things statistically.

[BrianBaru]

Behold, a tree.

No, it hasn't germinated yet. Potential tree, like a sperm swimming toward an egg is a potential human life.