From: no_offline_contact@example.com   
      
   On 2026-02-14 9:01 p.m., 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-l   
   w-pregnancies-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?   
   >   
   It seems to me that the Supreme Court justices ruled as they did at   
   least partially out of their own beliefs about when life began, which   
   would surely be informed by whatever religious beliefs they had. You   
   don't really believe that their decision was entirely on the basis of   
   statute law do you? Aren't we all informed at least in part by whatever   
   we were told when we were young by clergy, schools, and parents?   
      
   > 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. Do you care   
   > to comment about how women's health care could be affected generally?   
      
   I have trouble with the idea that life begins at a live birth. I think   
   life begins at conception. I don't say that from the point of view of   
   religion - I'm not religious - it just seems obvious from the point of   
   view of biology. That thing that comes out of a mother's womb alive at   
   36 weeks was not dead the day before it came out. It wasn't a tumour   
   either; tumours don't have lives of their own.   
      
   There's obviously no guarantee that a baby will be born since babies can   
   die in the womb of natural (or unnatural) causes or that it will have a   
   good life but there is a more than reasonable chance that a conception   
   will lead to a live birth if uninterrupted by disease or human   
   intervention. Whether a baby was wanted is a different matter of course;   
   people ignorant about birth control or too lazy to use it can bring   
   unwanted children into the world. I have no problem with such children   
   being put up for adoption. I'm not as sanguine about killing them.   
      
   I think the consequences for women's health are very well understood at   
   this point. It would be pointless for me to regurgitate them here.   
      
   I really don't care where the law traditionally says life begins; I   
   think that's more a matter of drawing a line for the legal convenience   
   of whoever drew the line.   
      
      
   --   
   Rhino   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)