From: ahk@chinet.com
BTR1701 wrote:
>On Feb 14, 2026 at 6:01:40 PM PST, ""Adam H. Kerman"" wrote:
>
>> Rhino wrote:
>>> On 2026-02-14 4:30 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>
>>>> A lawyer commenting repeated my line that a woman who spontaneously
>>>> aborts in the first month or two of pregnancy can be charged with
>>>> murder. This has massive implications for the clinical treatment of
>>>> women in ordinary and extraordinary circumstances.
>>
>>>> The wall of separation between church and state has been breached.
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>https://apnews.com/article/puerto-rico-923-governor-signed-law-
regnancies-9d2f1fb895a17511a920cc42d480668e
>>
>>> I think you could make a case for that breach to have happened in Roe v.
>>> Wade. The Supremes essentially drew a dividing line saying abortion was
>>> fine at such-and-such a point in the gestation cycle; the Puerto Rico
>>> decision just moved the line.
>>
>> I'm not seeing your point. Blackman was criticized at the time for both
>> the arbitrary time ranges, which were not based on landmarks in
>> gestation, and his notion of when viability might occur, which he just
>> made up. Viability was a moving target anyway, given advances in
>> technology.
>>
>> Where's the religion?
>>
>> The arguments didn't change the centuries-old legal concept that human
>> life begins with a live birth. In probate law, a yet to be born child
>> does not inherit from the father if the father died between conception
>> and birth.
>>
>> That human life begins at conception is a religious concept.
>It can be but it doesn't have to be based on religion.
Where else can it come from? Human life with live birth was being
practical. Common law was not implementing religious belief about when
the soul enters.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
