Alabama Supreme Court declares frozen embryos are legally children

[Copernicus]

As I understand a common Christian perspective,
the embryo has a "soul". So it's not about having
brain function.
Note that Christian scientists have yet to verify
that this "soul" exists, nor even to objectively
define it.

That is my understanding, too. However, Rival was focused specifically on having thoughts, feelings, and experiences. One needs brain function to have such things, so it was appropriate to point out that ADigitalArtist was talking about facts, not hypotheticals.

 

[Revoltingest]

That is my understanding, too. However, Rival was focused specifically on having thoughts, feelings, and experiences. One needs brain function to have such things, so it was appropriate to point out that ADigitalArtist was talking about facts, not hypotheticals.

I understand.
I only added to it as a means of broaching the
idea that there is no widely agreed upon definition
of the beginning of human life. For those who
believe the soul creates right to life, which subordinates
the mother's bodily autonomy, I was going to ask
why they should be able to impose this view upon
others.

 

[Rival]

What is your definition of life? We are talking about frozen embryos. They do not grow, they do not move on their own, they do not eat, they do not excrete, they do not breath, they do not reproduce.

By what definition are they life?

Well, what is it if it's not alive? It's not dead.

What would be the use of freezing a dead embryo?

It's alive.

 

[Rival]

However, Rival was focused specifically on having thoughts, feelings, and experiences.

I didn't say this.

I took another poster up on the statement that they can't feel etc. We don't know that.

But that is not the basis of my argument.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, what is it if it's not alive? It's not dead.

What would be the use of freezing a dead embryo?

It's alive.

If it were as simple as either alive or dead,
then this poses a problem when addressing
a sperm or unfertilized egg.
Which are they?

 

[Copernicus]

However, I would take the position that there is a widely agreed upon definition of the beginning of human life--conception. The existence of souls is controversial, so there is widespread disagreement about whether they exist and, if so, what properties they have. The question that courts can rule on is not when human life begins, but when legal personhood begins and how to define legal personhood. Any other theological or philosophical issues are beyond their remit.

 

[Rival]

However, I would take the position that there is a widely agreed upon definition of the beginning of human life--conception. The existence of souls is controversial, so there is widespread disagreement about whether they exist and, if so, what properties they have. The question that courts can rule on is not when human life begins, but when legal personhood begins and how to define legal personhood. Any other theological or philosophical issues are beyond their remit.

If you're not using philosophy what are you using?

This is a philosophical issue. The idea of 'personhood' is a philosophy we've made up.

 

[Copernicus]

I didn't say this.

I took another poster up on the statement that they can't feel etc. We don't know that.

But that is not the basis of my argument.

I'm sorry, Rival, but we do know that. The evidence is quite overwhelming that brain function is necessary to have thoughts, feelings, and experiences. We even have the technology now to link them directly to living brain activity. Embryos are just human cells. Do you believe that individual cells have thoughts, feelings, and experiences?

 

[fantome profane]

Well, what is it if it's not alive? It's not dead.

What would be the use of freezing a dead embryo?

It's alive.

Something can be useful in creating life, but that does not prove that it is life.

I didn't say this.

I took another poster up on the statement that they can't feel etc. We don't know that.

But that is not the basis of my argument.

That is absurd. I can't prove that a snowman doesn't feel anything when it melts, but there is no logical reason to assume that it does. It does not express feelings, it does not emote, it does not have neural activity or anything else that would lead to the conclusion it might feel.

 

[Rival]

Something can be useful in creating life, but that does not prove that it is life.

Wtf? This is an embryo we are talking about. It has already been created. It's not some kind of a tool!

This idea sounds psychopathic. I'm not justifying it with a response.

That is absurd. I can't prove that a snowman doesn't feel anything when it melts, but there is no logical reason to assume that it does. It does not express feelings, it does not emote, it does not have neural activity or anything else that would lead to the conclusion it might feel.

Trees don't seem to have any of those things, either, but we know plants communicate.

Your snowman is comparing apples to oranges.

 

[fantome profane]

Trees don't seem to have any of those things, either, but we know plants communicate.

Exactly, a plant can communicate, it grows, it reproduces, it consumes food, they even move on their own. A frozen embryo does none of these things.

 

[Copernicus]

If you're not using philosophy what are you using?

This is a philosophical issue. The idea of 'personhood' is a philosophy we've made up.

If it is just a philosophical issue, then where is the government given permission to resolve it? The Constitution certainly does not grant the courts that right. Courts can only resolve legal issues. People do not become citizens with legal rights until they actually come out of a womb. I realize that some judges would like to make the laws as well as interpret them, but making and enforcing laws are delegated to other branches of government, and the Constitution even puts limits on those activities.

 

[Rival]

Exactly, a plant can communicate, it grows, it reproduces, it consumes food, they even move on their own. A frozen embryo does none of these things.

So what is it, then, to you?

If it's not alive, it's not dead, what is it?

 

[fantome profane]

So what is it, then, to you?

If it's not alive, it's not dead, what is it?

A tiny bit of frozen organic matter.

 

[Rival]

If it is just a philosophical issue, then where is the government given permission to resolve it? The Constitution certainly does not grant the courts that right. Courts can only resolve legal issues. People do not become citizens with legal rights until they actually come out of a womb. I realize that some judges would like to make the laws as well as interpret them, but making and enforcing laws are delegated to other branches of government, and the Constitution even puts limits on those activities.

All legal issues are philosophical. There is a philosophy at the basis of every legal system.

It's when those philosophies come into contrast and argument that these issues arise.

The philosophical issue here is 'What is life and what does it mean to be alive?'

There's no one answer to that on which our society has agreed, hence the debates.

As far as I am concerned, a rock is alive in some measure.

 

[Rival]

A tiny bit of frozen organic matter.

That doesn't answer the question.

 

[fantome profane]

That doesn't answer the question.

I think it did.

 

[Rival]

I think it did.

You refused to say whether it were alive or dead.

There's no other state in which something is unless it's an inanimate object such as a table.

Unless you think the embryo is an inanimate object, which would sound absurd to me.

 

[Copernicus]

All legal issues are philosophical. There is a philosophy at the basis of every legal system.

But not all philosophical issues are legal issues. That's the point. Courts can only rule on issues that the Constitution grants them authority to rule on, and that certainly is not the power to determine that individual human cells have thoughts, feelings, and experiences.

It's when those philosophies come into contrast and argument that these issues arise.

The philosophical issue here is 'What is life and what does it mean to be alive?'

Absolutely not. That is a question that philosophers, not judges, are equipped to debate. Judges can only decide on whether the law grants an embryo a civil right. The Alabama Supreme Court has now declared that it does, but there are strong questions about whether the federal Constitution grants state legislatures the power to grant a brainless cell or cluster of cells a legal right. The Alabama decision appears to grant them all the civil rights that babies acquire at birth, but not before.

There's no one answer to that on which our society has agreed, hence the debates.

The legal issues may be complicated, but our society has agreed that courts are limited in their power to resolve philosophical debates. They have to have a legal basis to do so. That is actually what the debate is over--whether they have the power to grant an embryo full civil rights.

As far as I am concerned, a rock is alive in some measure.

Well, you certainly take a broad perspective on the nature of life. I wouldn't try to back this claim up in court, if I were you. Would you consider it murder to smash a rock? I would like to see a lawyer defend the injuries suffered by a pile of pebbles.

 

[fantome profane]

You refused to say whether it were alive or dead.

There's no other state in which something is unless it's an inanimate object such as a table.

Unless you think the embryo is an inanimate object, which would sound absurd to me.

It is inanimate. It shows no signs of life. It does not move, it does not eat, it does not communicate etc. I can't help you if that sounds absurd, but it is reality.