But you can’t really push it much further unless you plan to prosecute wet dreams as genocide.
The rights argument has — for as long as I remember — been “life begins at conception”, which is why it can be applied to frozen embryos, because conception has happened. (Despite that being dizzyingly stupid, it still has a miniscule amount of shitty logic behind it.)
So despite me knowing the right is absolutely nuts and has no logic to their “logic” at all, I don’t see any argument being possible for “gametes are people”.
Because then ovulation would be murder without conception and even a successful conception would mean the man is a mass murderer, as hundreds of millions of sperm would “die” from not being the one that made it.
That is true, but prosecuting every woman who ovulates without conceiving the egg and then menstruates, as a murderer?
I can’t see that being too realistic either.
But like 80% of the politics of the US over the last decade or more have seemed to me like “well that’s just too insane to go through”, but noooo, I’m always wrong about it.
When Trump went up for election the first time, I was sure there was no way he’d get through. I laughed myself silly at the idea.
Then the elections came around. Lost the popular vote. Still won.
technically, if one were to follow the logic of the ruling they are mocking, yes, Alabama believe that
Isn’t it just about actually fertilised eggs?
Ie “after conception”.
It’s still just as fucking dumb and wrong, but…
https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/alabama-ruled-frozen-embryos-are-children-here-s-what-it-could-mean-for-embryos-frozen-across-the-state/ar-BB1iU4E3
It stems from this
Yes. I know.
I’m pointing out that eggs aren’t embryos.
Embryos are what eggs and sperm become after conception (and a few other stages).
The eggs you buy from a store aren’t or could never become embryos of any species, because they’re unfertilised.
Prior to previous rulings fetuses weren’t children
Prior to this ruling embryos weren’t children
The question is how long until the next ruling pushes the definition of child back further
Yes, it is. And it’s fucking terrifying.
But you can’t really push it much further unless you plan to prosecute wet dreams as genocide.
The rights argument has — for as long as I remember — been “life begins at conception”, which is why it can be applied to frozen embryos, because conception has happened. (Despite that being dizzyingly stupid, it still has a miniscule amount of shitty logic behind it.)
So despite me knowing the right is absolutely nuts and has no logic to their “logic” at all, I don’t see any argument being possible for “gametes are people”.
Because then ovulation would be murder without conception and even a successful conception would mean the man is a mass murderer, as hundreds of millions of sperm would “die” from not being the one that made it.
I have a feeling the gender that is subjected to those is safe from these laws
That is true, but prosecuting every woman who ovulates without conceiving the egg and then menstruates, as a murderer?
I can’t see that being too realistic either.
But like 80% of the politics of the US over the last decade or more have seemed to me like “well that’s just too insane to go through”, but noooo, I’m always wrong about it.
When Trump went up for election the first time, I was sure there was no way he’d get through. I laughed myself silly at the idea.
Then the elections came around. Lost the popular vote. Still won.
I did not laugh.