After reading through this ruling, I am curious. If the court is ruling that the embryos are "unborn children", what does that mean in terms of government benefits? Because if all my eggs are counted as an unborn child is the government going to give more benefits like food stamps or other forms of assistance? and in the theory that destroying the embryos is going to be classified as a homicide, what could the clinics be charged with as far as disregarding extra embryos? in the process of IVF.
There are a number of questions that definitely arise with the legal application of the principle that a human life begins at conception.
Should certain forms of government benefits be expanded to encompass the additional human lives? Certainly arguments can be made in favor of that, for if government assistance is counted as a right, the unborn child would as a basic premise have the same rights as children already born. Even if we do not count government assistance as a right, any effort to limit the expansion of those benefits would require a rationale that certain benefits are only for people already born.
Could embryo destruction be classified as a homicide, and therefore a potential crime? The current state of the law in Alabama and elsewhere is that the destruction of embryos at IVF clinics is not a criminal act, but it would only take an act of a fickle legislature to change that. This is the reason several IVF clinics in Alabama have suspended operations--they are fearful of future legal repercussions.
There are some significant questions which establishing that human life begins at conception demands society address. However, that should never be a reason to deny the personhood of the unborn child. Rather, we should embrace that challenge and debate those questions. My one absolute insistence is that wherever and whenever human life is created, we respect that new life.
This case just emphasizes several of the problems we face with this issue. To legalize abortion we had to change the language from baby to fetus. And the legal precedent became that life was recognized at birth. However, if you murdered a woman who was pregnant, you could be charged for two murders, the mother and the fetus. Then came premature birth and late term abortion, both of which depended on whether or not the woman wanted the child, with the pro abortion side suppressing any
any information or photos of abortion procedures or the Gosnell clinic. They knew that if people saw these pictures, with the prevalence of premature birth that people would be appalled. No comes this ruling, the Plaintiffs in the suit allege that fertilized embryos are viable and therefore alive. The pro abortion people, must dismiss this case by mudding the facts, if we acknowledge that these Plaintiffs are correct and these embryos are living, then abortion goes out on its ear. Like so many of todays issues the logic must be twisted to justify the belief!
I’ve said it several times before, Peter - you have an amazingly good legal mind and would have made an excellent jurist. Thank you for clarifying the legal and Constitutional aspects regarding this issue.
This issue, and the abortion issue, are not going to be resolved until medical science can establish the exact moment when the soul enters the body of a fetus, thus creating a separate person. Is it at the moment of conception, or at first heartbeat, or at the moment of birth and first breath? No one can scientifically say. And that’s a big problem because the medical establishment doesn’t acknowledge the existence of a ‘soul’. They say that they’ve looked for one in the anatomy of a person but have not found one. (They gloss over the fact that if the soul was in any way composed of matter, it would not survive death and be immortal.) So the question is medically unresolved, and they are unlikely to pursue it because it would challenge their entire medical mindset of the person being nothing more than a collection of cells and ‘parts’.
After reading through this ruling, I am curious. If the court is ruling that the embryos are "unborn children", what does that mean in terms of government benefits? Because if all my eggs are counted as an unborn child is the government going to give more benefits like food stamps or other forms of assistance? and in the theory that destroying the embryos is going to be classified as a homicide, what could the clinics be charged with as far as disregarding extra embryos? in the process of IVF.
There are a number of questions that definitely arise with the legal application of the principle that a human life begins at conception.
Should certain forms of government benefits be expanded to encompass the additional human lives? Certainly arguments can be made in favor of that, for if government assistance is counted as a right, the unborn child would as a basic premise have the same rights as children already born. Even if we do not count government assistance as a right, any effort to limit the expansion of those benefits would require a rationale that certain benefits are only for people already born.
Could embryo destruction be classified as a homicide, and therefore a potential crime? The current state of the law in Alabama and elsewhere is that the destruction of embryos at IVF clinics is not a criminal act, but it would only take an act of a fickle legislature to change that. This is the reason several IVF clinics in Alabama have suspended operations--they are fearful of future legal repercussions.
There are some significant questions which establishing that human life begins at conception demands society address. However, that should never be a reason to deny the personhood of the unborn child. Rather, we should embrace that challenge and debate those questions. My one absolute insistence is that wherever and whenever human life is created, we respect that new life.
This case just emphasizes several of the problems we face with this issue. To legalize abortion we had to change the language from baby to fetus. And the legal precedent became that life was recognized at birth. However, if you murdered a woman who was pregnant, you could be charged for two murders, the mother and the fetus. Then came premature birth and late term abortion, both of which depended on whether or not the woman wanted the child, with the pro abortion side suppressing any
any information or photos of abortion procedures or the Gosnell clinic. They knew that if people saw these pictures, with the prevalence of premature birth that people would be appalled. No comes this ruling, the Plaintiffs in the suit allege that fertilized embryos are viable and therefore alive. The pro abortion people, must dismiss this case by mudding the facts, if we acknowledge that these Plaintiffs are correct and these embryos are living, then abortion goes out on its ear. Like so many of todays issues the logic must be twisted to justify the belief!
I’ve said it several times before, Peter - you have an amazingly good legal mind and would have made an excellent jurist. Thank you for clarifying the legal and Constitutional aspects regarding this issue.
This issue, and the abortion issue, are not going to be resolved until medical science can establish the exact moment when the soul enters the body of a fetus, thus creating a separate person. Is it at the moment of conception, or at first heartbeat, or at the moment of birth and first breath? No one can scientifically say. And that’s a big problem because the medical establishment doesn’t acknowledge the existence of a ‘soul’. They say that they’ve looked for one in the anatomy of a person but have not found one. (They gloss over the fact that if the soul was in any way composed of matter, it would not survive death and be immortal.) So the question is medically unresolved, and they are unlikely to pursue it because it would challenge their entire medical mindset of the person being nothing more than a collection of cells and ‘parts’.