From: no_offline_contact@example.com
On 2026-02-15 2:38 a.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> BTR1701 wrote:
>> On Feb 14, 2026 at 7:29:18 PM PST, ""Adam H. Kerman""
wrote:
>>
>>> 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-la
-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?
>>>>>
>>>>> 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?
>
>> Science.
>
> During gestation, we go through periods in which we resemble the form of
> other species as they gestate. Takes quite a while to become discretely
> human. Human life begins at birth doesn't sound scientific at all.
>
Elsewhere in the thread, you seemed to be determined to stick with the
old definition of life beginning at birth. Now you seem to be reversing
that. I'm confused.
>> At the moment of conception, it's a living group of cells with its
>> own distinct DNA separate from the parents. It's as good a definition of
life
>> as any. The point is, believing a human life comes into being when the sperm
>> fertilizes the egg does not require some magical sky tyrant as a necessary
>> element.
>
> People who push for this are either religious themselves or are trying
> to score points with those who are religious. I'm calling a spade a
> spade.
>
I'm not religious and I don't give a crap about trying to curry favour
with the religious types. I simply think that life begins at conception.
>>> Human life with live birth was being practical. Common law was not
>>> implementing religious belief about when
>>> the soul enters.
>>
>> Who said anything about souls?
>
> Isn't that why abortions are murder?
Don't you have to be religious to believe that people have souls? To put
it another way, can an atheist be opposed to abortion without believing
in souls? I mean that as a hypothetical. I'm not really sure that I
believe in souls but I might be, depending on how it was defined. But I
do believe that an abortion is murder.
--
Rhino
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
