Quote Originally Posted by Seran View Post
You're an idiot. The Alabama Supreme Court decision redefined the definition of a minor child, and does not limit it to purely in the scope of a single law.



By redefining what is and is not a "minor child" they're saying the Act extends to embryos.
Are you sure you know how to read?

What you quoted there is stating that "everyday parlance" extends to the "Wrongful Death of a Minor Act", meaning the wrongful death law defines a child the same way as it does in other language, NOT the other way around as you are suggesting.

The supreme court did NOT "redefine" anything, rather, the supreme court is saying the way the wrongful death act is worded, and the way the state of Alabama defines a child, means an embryo is a child whether that embryo is inside of a uterus or not.

Here is from the actual written decision itself, not filtered through your favorite MSNBC activist "journalist":

All parties to these cases, like all members of this Court, agree that an unborn child is a genetically unique human being whose life begins at fertilization and ends at death. The parties further agree that an unborn child usually qualifies as a "human life," "human being," or "person," as those words are used in ordinary conversation and in the text of Alabama's wrongful-death statutes. That is true, as everyone acknowledges, throughout all stages of an unborn child's development, regardless of viability.
Meaning even the clinic in question agrees that an embryo is a human life and killing the embryo would run afoul of Alabama's "Wrongful Death of a Minor Act."

Further:

The question on which the parties disagree is whether there exists an unwritten exception to that rule for unborn children who are not physically located "in utero" -- that is, inside a biological uterus -- at the time they are killed. The defendants argue that this Court should recognize such an exception because, they say, an unborn child ceases to qualify as a "child or "person" if that child is not contained within a biological womb.
These are weighty concerns. But these cases do not require the Court to resolve them because, as explained below, neither the text of the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act nor this Court's precedents exclude extrauterine children from the Act's coverage. Unborn children are "children" under the Act, without exception based on developmental stage, physical location, or any other ancillary characteristics. 1. The Text of the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act Applies to All Children, Without Exception
So, yes. The entire case, all of it, centers around the "The Wrongful Death of a Minor Act" and if there is an exception to the act in which an embryo outside of the uterus is no longer considered a "child", which the court determined there is no such exception written into Alabama state law. Since the judges aren't activist Democrat judges this means the state congress can write an exception into the law if they so desire, which is what the state is apparently looking into. If these were activist Democrat judges and they did indeed redefine what a child is then the state congress' hands would be tied, similar to what SCOTUS did with Roe v Wade.

You can't help being stupid, Seran, that's just how you were born, but it's a choice to continue to wallow in your ignorance. Do better.