Yeah man, I don’t disagree with any of that. But that is not what the ruling is about. The law, as it is written, only says “children”. This was a law written in the 1800s. It does not consider any of that.
The defense said, “hey you should throw this out because that thing isn’t a child, it hasn’t been born yet. Also, even if it was a child, they signed waivers and accidents happen.” The court said, “you can’t just say this doesn’t count because it hasn’t been born yet, but your right about the other stuff. Case dismissed.”
They did not rule on the number of cells that constitutes a child because that was not the argument. Here is the pseudocode:
Defense: If(!born) then child = false
Judge: Error
Media: mind blown
You: ‘If(cells <= 10) then child = false’ works on my machine
Me: That’s not what caused the error
The defense said, “hey you should throw this out because that thing isn’t a child, it hasn’t been born yet. Also, even if it was a child, they signed waivers and accidents happen.” The court said, “you can’t just say this doesn’t count because it hasn’t been born yet, but your right about the other stuff. Case dismissed.”
They did not rule on the number of cells that constitutes a child because that was not the argument. Here is the pseudocode:
Defense: If(!born) then child = false
Judge: Error
Media: mind blown
You: ‘If(cells <= 10) then child = false’ works on my machine
Me: That’s not what caused the error