Zone1 Embryos and Personhood

[marvin martian]

The recent ruling by an Alabama judge has ignited a firestorm in both sides of the reproductive rights community: frozen embryos have full legal personhood rights. This has split Republican lawmakers who are, on the one hand applauding the decision while simultaneously scrambling to enact legislation to carve out a niche for IVF by redefining when an embryo is considered a person.

Florida proposed an amendment to a legislative bill being considered:​

Republican lawmakers in Florida had proposed an amendment to the bill, the same week as the Alabama ruling, to define “unborn child” as a human “at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.” The change would likely protect IVF patients and doctors, but it remains uncertain whether it would be in any final version the full Legislature were to vote on.​

That raises questions too.

The issue of abortion is one of competing rights: weighing a woman’s right to bodily autonomy against a fetus’ right to life. But with frozen embryos, there are no competing rights.

So what exactly does this mean?

• With abortion does ”full personhood” mean that unless a woman is at death’s door, she cannot act to save her life?
• Does it mean every miscarriage is a potential crime scene?
• Will embryos be claimed as dependents on taxes? Will they get child support?
• Will they even be US citizens? Isn’t birth/born a stipulation there?

With frozen embryos it is even more tricky:

• How can an embryo, implanted in a uterus be given “personhood” rights while an identical embryo, that is frozen, not be?
• Will fathers of frozen embryos be liable for child support for each one?
• If they must remain stored into perpetuity…who pays?
• Can you claim them as dependents?
• If something happens that accidently destroys hundreds of stored embryos…should the person responsible face hundreds of counts of homicide charges?

How can you ethically have a “carve out” for IVF embryos but not implanted embryos?

Note: I put this in CDZ to hopefully have a real discussion as this latest ruling moves the debate beyond abortion.

Science says that life begins at conception. Why do you disagree?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Science says that life begins at conception. Why do you disagree?

I do not disagree!

Science and government are secular. Secular Science cannot tell Secular Government when the competition of a right to life for baby fetus begins versus its potential birth mother’s right to life.

As it stands in the Constitution there is no competition between baby fetus and its mother. The Pregnant woman always wins by virtue of meeting the live birth requirement in the Constitution.

see POST What Veapyz00280 to Veapyz00243

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That's an overly dramatic way of looking at America's systems of laws and regulations.

Yet accurate. Own it.

 

[peacefan]

The recent ruling by an Alabama judge has ignited a firestorm in both sides of the reproductive rights community: frozen embryos have full legal personhood rights. This has split Republican lawmakers who are, on the one hand applauding the decision while simultaneously scrambling to enact legislation to carve out a niche for IVF by redefining when an embryo is considered a person.

Florida proposed an amendment to a legislative bill being considered:​

Republican lawmakers in Florida had proposed an amendment to the bill, the same week as the Alabama ruling, to define “unborn child” as a human “at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.” The change would likely protect IVF patients and doctors, but it remains uncertain whether it would be in any final version the full Legislature were to vote on.​

That raises questions too.

The issue of abortion is one of competing rights: weighing a woman’s right to bodily autonomy against a fetus’ right to life. But with frozen embryos, there are no competing rights.

So what exactly does this mean?

• With abortion does ”full personhood” mean that unless a woman is at death’s door, she cannot act to save her life?
• Does it mean every miscarriage is a potential crime scene?
• Will embryos be claimed as dependents on taxes? Will they get child support?
• Will they even be US citizens? Isn’t birth/born a stipulation there?

With frozen embryos it is even more tricky:

• How can an embryo, implanted in a uterus be given “personhood” rights while an identical embryo, that is frozen, not be?
• Will fathers of frozen embryos be liable for child support for each one?
• If they must remain stored into perpetuity…who pays?
• Can you claim them as dependents?
• If something happens that accidently destroys hundreds of stored embryos…should the person responsible face hundreds of counts of homicide charges?

How can you ethically have a “carve out” for IVF embryos but not implanted embryos?

Note: I put this in CDZ to hopefully have a real discussion as this latest ruling moves the debate beyond abortion.

my 2 cents :
isn't it better to abort a fetus than to saddle it with very poor living conditions, due to (for instance!) the economic status of it's parents?

 

[Kruska]

Why not retrieve the brand new government’s function Saint Kruska with respect to reproductive law; as it stood in the English Colonies, as the Revolutionary War was fought and won by a majority of non-Christian white men,

Who are you trying to kid, aside from yourself?

and as the Constitution was being written under the influence of European anti/Catholic and anti/Protestant Christian Church State governance known as the rebellion of modern Enlightenment Philosophy against the European church state tradition?

Those Protestant Sects (Pilgrims etc.) - until today govern the USA, and are far more conservative and back-minded then even today's RCC.

If Betsy Ross had become pregnant at the time and did not wish to continue it she wouid have have arranged a private meeting with other women who helped each other with the things of giving birth as well as terminating an unwanted baby.

Total rubbish - an absolute minority did this - foremost the rich (whilst the poor had 7-10 kids) And due to adhering towards prevailing religious teachings at the time - out of wedlock births were far lower then today.

She wouid have terminated her pregnancy without legal consequence before her pregnancy was publicly detectable. Her act would never have been considered murder.

The "law"aka the social rules and conduct was what "Christianity" preached and imposed, especially in those days - and that is; "to kill a human-being is MURDER."

There is a scientific consensus - that an embryos heart (life) and brain (consciousness) starts to develop, kicks off from week 8 onward.
To kill - is defined by Law in any country until today - as ending another beings life FORCEFULLY.
One doesn't just "shoot" a deer - one KILLS it. (and I will eat it).

She could abort her child prior to “quickening” no questions asked.

If it became known - she was considered and treated by society as an outcast, and as a social lowlife, and additionally condemned by whatever Christian church.

I call that a right to privacy.

No it's purely a "self-claimed right" towards total selfishness and plain irresponsibility.

How can one compare the 17th-19th century mentality and a NON-GOVERNMENT support towards "unwanted birth" with today's 21st century??? What century are you living in??

And again "the LAW" states that ending another human-beings life FORCEFULLY - is MURDER.
As such if life begins from week 8 onward - an abortion after week 8 is MURDER. - nothing to discuss about.

Only exception is if a birth/embryo endangers the life of a mother. It's defined by Law as a "right towards DEFENDING ones own Life".

FYI, I am an atheist - I don't give a rats ass about religion - But I respect a given law, (until a majority decides to alter it) and I possess a moral compass towards respecting and protecting LIFE. aka to take RESPONSIBILITY for my actions - incl. that of MY sperm.

 

[Coyote]

Science says that life begins at conception. Why do you disagree?

So are you trying to create a carve out for IVF?

 

[Libby von H]

The recent ruling by an Alabama judge has ignited a firestorm in both sides of the reproductive rights community: frozen embryos have full legal personhood rights. This has split Republican lawmakers who are, on the one hand applauding the decision while simultaneously scrambling to enact legislation to carve out a niche for IVF by redefining when an embryo is considered a person.

Florida proposed an amendment to a legislative bill being considered:​

Republican lawmakers in Florida had proposed an amendment to the bill, the same week as the Alabama ruling, to define “unborn child” as a human “at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.” The change would likely protect IVF patients and doctors, but it remains uncertain whether it would be in any final version the full Legislature were to vote on.​

That raises questions too.

The issue of abortion is one of competing rights: weighing a woman’s right to bodily autonomy against a fetus’ right to life. But with frozen embryos, there are no competing rights.

So what exactly does this mean?

• With abortion does ”full personhood” mean that unless a woman is at death’s door, she cannot act to save her life?
• Does it mean every miscarriage is a potential crime scene?
• Will embryos be claimed as dependents on taxes? Will they get child support?
• Will they even be US citizens? Isn’t birth/born a stipulation there?

With frozen embryos it is even more tricky:

• How can an embryo, implanted in a uterus be given “personhood” rights while an identical embryo, that is frozen, not be?
• Will fathers of frozen embryos be liable for child support for each one?
• If they must remain stored into perpetuity…who pays?
• Can you claim them as dependents?
• If something happens that accidently destroys hundreds of stored embryos…should the person responsible face hundreds of counts of homicide charges?

How can you ethically have a “carve out” for IVF embryos but not implanted embryos?

Note: I put this in CDZ to hopefully have a real discussion as this latest ruling moves the debate beyond abortion.

IF you are serious then ask the first women physicians who were also feminists


First Female Physicians OPPOSED Abortion
Based on science , personal experience, and extensive medical practice

The first female physicians opposed abortion - Washington Examiner

The 2020 Centennial Celebration of the 19th Amendment is a great opportunity to celebrate the trailblazing suffragists who became our first female physicians. Elizabeth Blackwell, the first woman in the United States to earn a medical degree, graduated at the top of her class. Her opposition to...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

 

[Coyote]

IF you are serious then ask the first women physicians who were also feminists


First Female Physicians OPPOSED Abortion
Based on science , personal experience, and extensive medical practice

The first female physicians opposed abortion - Washington Examiner

The 2020 Centennial Celebration of the 19th Amendment is a great opportunity to celebrate the trailblazing suffragists who became our first female physicians. Elizabeth Blackwell, the first woman in the United States to earn a medical degree, graduated at the top of her class. Her opposition to...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

Not sure what your point is supposed to be here.

 

[PeterPilot]

Who are you trying to kid, aside from yourself?

Those Protestant Sects (Pilgrims etc.) - until today govern the USA, and are far more conservative and back-minded then even today's RCC.

Total rubbish - an absolute minority did this - foremost the rich (whilst the poor had 7-10 kids) And due to adhering towards prevailing religious teachings at the time - out of wedlock births were far lower then today.

The "law"aka the social rules and conduct was what "Christianity" preached and imposed, especially in those days - and that is; "to kill a human-being is MURDER."

There is a scientific consensus - that an embryos heart (life) and brain (consciousness) starts to develop, kicks off from week 8 onward.
To kill - is defined by Law in any country until today - as ending another beings life FORCEFULLY.
One doesn't just "shoot" a deer - one KILLS it. (and I will eat it).

If it became known - she was considered and treated by society as an outcast, and as a social lowlife, and additionally condemned by whatever Christian church.

No it's purely a "self-claimed right" towards total selfishness and plain irresponsibility.

How can one compare the 17th-19th century mentality and a NON-GOVERNMENT support towards "unwanted birth" with today's 21st century??? What century are you living in??

And again "the LAW" states that ending another human-beings life FORCEFULLY - is MURDER.
As such if life begins from week 8 onward - an abortion after week 8 is MURDER. - nothing to discuss about.

Only exception is if a birth/embryo endangers the life of a mother. It's defined by Law as a "right towards DEFENDING ones own Life".

FYI, I am an atheist - I don't give a rats ass about religion - But I respect a given law, (until a majority decides to alter it) and I possess a moral compass towards respecting and protecting LIFE. aka to take RESPONSIBILITY for my actions - incl. that of MY sperm.

You forgot to mention the exception to murder. We may not murder each other, but the state can murder any of us.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Right to life and it’s protection by civil authority begins at live birth.

Correct.

 

[Kruska]

You forgot to mention the exception to murder. We may not murder each other, but the state can murder any of us.

Show me any constitution or law in the USA or any Western democratic country - which supposedly allows a State to murder.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Don't get an abortion and mind your business, then. Your personal religious fetishes are your own.

Don't want to have a child then don't have sex or live with the consequences.

Two can play this game...

CHUCKLE

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Oh, if only you could make the rules, but my friend, you can't.

What rule would that be?

What ding posted sounded like something out of a biology text.

SMILE

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Until it is able to live and breathe on it's own, it is not a "person", and while we may mourn the babies that never were, it's something that women are taught to accept. We have to. We're told not to get too excited, not to tell people, until the first trimester is past.

We don't name them, and we're not allowed to mourn them if they don't make it. But if for some reason, we cannot carry these little ones to term, we're "murders". God gave women free will, and the ability to stop a pregnancy that is ill-timed. In times of famine, or war, or disease, we can stop the pregnancy, and wait for a better time, because raising small humans is a huge life-long commitment and in fairness to your children, one you should be in the best place possible to undertake.

And yet the incident/ruling being discussed in the current OP doesn't site that there is a famine, war, or disease.

So what's your point?

SMILE

 

[Damaged Eagle]

No human being comes into existence. A human being is defined by "breathing". Even Bible says that God "breathed life into Adam and he became a human being". When we cease to breathe, we die.

So the fetus is just a tumor to you.

SMILE

 

[Damaged Eagle]

What gives it value or rights?

What gives a person in a coma, brain dead, or a serious case of Alzheimer's rights?

Should we limit when a person has rights to their IQ?

SMILE

 

[Damaged Eagle]

I believe natural rights only apply to those born.


Why the State? What gives a POLITICAL entity that right over another? Seems off kilter. And, according to the state in this example, embryos in another’s body have these “rights” but embryos outside the body do not.

Because abortion is subsidized by the taxpayers...

taxes used for abortion - Yahoo Search Results

SMILE

 

[Damaged Eagle]

I do not deny the humanity of life in the womb. I reject you have any right to dictate to the person sustaining the life in the womb And who is the only person who can willingly assume the risk of harm and death that comes with giving birth,

You don’t assume that risk Saint Ding so you and the state have no interest in forcing full term gestation on anybody.

Does that mean taxpayer dollars can be spent elsewhere?

Are American Taxpayers Paying For Abortion?

As best I can determine, taxpayers subsidize roughly 24% of all abortion costs in the U.S. with 6.6% borne by federal taxpayers and the remaining 17.4% picked up by state taxpayers. If we apply the 24% figure to the total number of abortions, it is as if taxpayers pay the full cost of 250,000...

www.forbes.com

It says 24% of abortion costs are paid for by the government.

If you support abortion then start a charity to fund it.

SMILE

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Your argument has failed. So you go emo with mindless insult as if you are good and everything opposed to you is evil.

That is an absurd rationalization Saint Ding because we are talking about government coercion by will of a specific white Christian majority in a limited number of states that remove choice from individuals about risk avoidance to their life liberty and pursuit of happiness because the choice involved sex.

You need to butt out of people’s lives who do no harm to you or society when they decide to terminate their own pregnancy by their own choice.

The only one who seems to be going around doing mindless insults is yourself and your attitude about Christians.

They are free to have sex and abortions at their expense and yours but tax dollars shouldn't be used to fund your elective surgery.

Are American Taxpayers Paying For Abortion?

As best I can determine, taxpayers subsidize roughly 24% of all abortion costs in the U.S. with 6.6% borne by federal taxpayers and the remaining 17.4% picked up by state taxpayers. If we apply the 24% figure to the total number of abortions, it is as if taxpayers pay the full cost of 250,000...

www.forbes.com

SMILE

 

[Damaged Eagle]

4. You want them all to ban it so you can see your religious fetishes enforced on others at the end of a gun.

While you wish to force your elective surgery on every taxpayer at the point of a sword.

SMILE