From: ahk@chinet.com   
      
   Rhino  wrote:   
   >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-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?   
   >>   
   >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.   
      
   Everybody agrees that the embryonic being is alive. Please distinguish   
   between life and human life.   
      
   >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?   
      
   Well, if you want judicial activism, that's one way to get it by   
   ignoring the Constitution, statutes, common law, and precedent.   
      
   Big chunks of the decision was judicial activism, but human life   
   beginning with live birth was from common law.   
      
   >> 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.   
      
   Morning after pills, which prevent implantation, have been falsely   
   redefined as abortificants in order to try to make them illegal. They   
   absolutely are not. Not all safe forms of birth control are readily   
   available.   
      
   >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.   
      
   They absolutely are not. Sometimes health care will result in the loss   
   of the foetus even though that is not the primary intent. That's now   
   been criminalized. An ectopic pregnancy is now human life, but there's   
   nothing to do with the embryo as it cannot become a human being. It's   
   been starved despite some cell division taking place outside the womb.   
   This is life ending for the woman but now she cannot be saved.   
      
   >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.   
      
   You understand they put this in the criminal code?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)