• ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    What I don’t understand is; do all girls/women receive child payments from birth to ~60

    If they have a period are they liable for murder?

    • LemmyKnowsBest@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      Wait a minute Are you telling me that Alabama thinks that unfertilized eggs are viable humans? or is OP and everybody in this comment section just being extra silly to mock Alabama’s latest anti-abortion shenanigans?

      • orrk@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        8 months ago

        technically, if one were to follow the logic of the ruling they are mocking, yes, Alabama believe that

        • Dasus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          Isn’t it just about actually fertilised eggs?

          Ie “after conception”.

          It’s still just as fucking dumb and wrong, but…

            • Dasus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              8 months ago

              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.

              • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                8 months ago

                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

                • Dasus@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  8 months ago

                  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.

                  • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    8 months ago

                    But you can’t really push it much further unless you plan to prosecute wet dreams as genocide.

                    I have a feeling the gender that is subjected to those is safe from these laws