On 2026-02-15 2:53 a.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On 2026-02-14 9:01 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> 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-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.
Everybody agrees that the embryonic being is alive. Please distinguish >>between life and human life.
If a fetus in the womb is not human life, what is it then? A dog? A
chicken?
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.
I think that's because until very recently - within my lifetime - it was >almost unheard of for a premature infant to survive. It probably made
sense to set the beginning of life as the point at which the baby
emerged from the womb since that was the practical and readily
measurable point at which life was visible.
New medical technologies and techniques have made it possible for >significantly premature babies to survive now so the question of where
life begins is not so clear cut any more.
We've had a comparable situation with death. Again with my lifetime,
we've changed the definition of death from when the heart stopped to the >point where brain activity ceases because a heart stopping is not >necessarily the end of life any more.
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.
Really? They appear to have the exact same goal - ending a pregnancy -
but simply have a different technique for accomplishing that end.
Not all safe forms of birth control are readily available.
Agreed. Some may not even be legal in some jurisdictions. I remember
talking to a work colleague who'd grown up in the former Yugoslavia and
she went back to visit friends and family there. She went out with some
of her female friends and was astonished to find that she was the only
one in the group who'd never had an abortion. Tito's Yugoslavia
apparently outlawed contraceptives but freely allowed abortion.
But the difficulty of obtaining contraceptives seems a rather weak
argument to me. There remains a reliable way to prevent conception: >abstinence. I know there is a strong whiff of Christian fundamentalism >associated with that word but religious beliefs are not needed to
realize that an unwanted pregnancy is not a good idea for a given woman.
She may practice abstinence simply because she is too young or
financially insecure or too busy with work or other obligations; those
are all perfectly rational reasons even for a rabidly atheistic woman.
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.
Yes, I know about ectopic pregnancies and agree that letting a woman die >because of one is horrible. I would certainly exempt any doctor from >criminal charges for helping end an ectopic pregnancy.
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?
I assume that the "this" in that sentence is the issue about ectopic >pregnancies
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
On Feb 14, 2026 at 7:29:18 PM PST, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
On Feb 14, 2026 at 6:01:40 PM PST, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> >>>> wrote:
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> 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-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.
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.
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?
On Sat, 14 Feb 2026 21:30:16 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> 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-pregnancies-9d2f1fb895a17511a920cc42d480668e
Tell us how that would work if it's something she did not do to make
it happen.
Feb 14, 2026 at 11:38:29 PM PST, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote: >>BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Feb 14, 2026 at 7:29:18 PM PST, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote: >>>>BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Feb 14, 2026 at 6:01:40 PM PST, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote: >>>>>>Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
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-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.
The point is, the legislature is free to decide that it is based on
the criteria I mentioned below. Religion and supernaturalism is not >necessary. And resembling something is not the same as being that
thing. No matter what the fetus looks like at any given moment, it's
made up of human DNA. It's never actually anything but human.
. . .
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.
You can call it whatever you like and you may even be right but imputing >religion into a law merely because some of the people who voted for it are >religious is not how 1st Amendment law works.
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?
<shrug> You'll have to ask people who believe in souls.
I don't think abortion is murder because of souls the same way I don't >believe souls are the reason it's murder when full-grown adults are the >victims of homicide.
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On 2026-02-15 2:53 a.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On 2026-02-14 9:01 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> 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-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.
Everybody agrees that the embryonic being is alive. Please distinguish
between life and human life.
If a fetus in the womb is not human life, what is it then? A dog? A
chicken?
Again we are discussing a newly-enacted amendment to the criminal
code. Please focus on that. If it's a human being at fertilization,
the motivation is to redefine what would have been ordinary medical
care as homicide in which either the medical team or mother could
be prosecuted. This is not limited to prohibiting abortions, but any situation that is medical or traumatic in which the mother is no longer capable of carrying a baby that will be born healthy to term without
medical or surgical intervention in which the foetus won't survive. As
unlike trimesters birth is a bright-line distinction, that is a logical
point of demarcation to make in law.
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.
I think that's because until very recently - within my lifetime - it was
almost unheard of for a premature infant to survive. It probably made
sense to set the beginning of life as the point at which the baby
emerged from the womb since that was the practical and readily
measurable point at which life was visible.
Hence Blackburn's unscientific "viability" reasoning was criticized at
the time since rabid advancement in technology made imagining entirely artificial wombs within a decade or so not extremely speculative at all.
New medical technologies and techniques have made it possible for
significantly premature babies to survive now so the question of where
life begins is not so clear cut any more.
That doesn't mean change the common law definition. With the foetus
birthed through a surgical procedure separating it from it's mother, a separate team handles incubation, if there is some possibility of
survival. There are now two patients to treat and at this point, the
mother is being helped without considering the consequences to the baby.
We've had a comparable situation with death. Again with my lifetime,
we've changed the definition of death from when the heart stopped to the
point where brain activity ceases because a heart stopping is not
necessarily the end of life any more.
Have we? I'm not sure there haven't been multiple definitions all along. What's troubling are those circumstances in which the body goes into a
state in which it's appeared to have died as it struggles to heal and
the doctor declaring death fails to notice that the patient might
actually survive.
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.
Really? They appear to have the exact same goal - ending a pregnancy -
but simply have a different technique for accomplishing that end.
An abortion ends a pregnancy. Morning after pills prevent pregnancy.
They are not abortificants.
Remember your basic biology. With normal progression, a woman won't
become pregnant -- implantation in the womb is the point of demarcation
-- for 5 to 7 days after conception. Conception takes place hours or
possibly a day after sex.
Not all safe forms of birth control are readily available.
Agreed. Some may not even be legal in some jurisdictions. I remember
talking to a work colleague who'd grown up in the former Yugoslavia and
she went back to visit friends and family there. She went out with some
of her female friends and was astonished to find that she was the only
one in the group who'd never had an abortion. Tito's Yugoslavia
apparently outlawed contraceptives but freely allowed abortion.
What a terrible restriction!
But the difficulty of obtaining contraceptives seems a rather weak
argument to me. There remains a reliable way to prevent conception:
abstinence. I know there is a strong whiff of Christian fundamentalism
associated with that word but religious beliefs are not needed to
realize that an unwanted pregnancy is not a good idea for a given woman.
She may practice abstinence simply because she is too young or
financially insecure or too busy with work or other obligations; those
are all perfectly rational reasons even for a rabidly atheistic woman.
I have never disagreed that abortion should never be considered the
first choice or go to method of birth control, but we'll never eliminate
two blackout drunk idiots who just met having sex who are not intending
to form a family unit. Nature is just running its course.
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.
Yes, I know about ectopic pregnancies and agree that letting a woman die
because of one is horrible. I would certainly exempt any doctor from
criminal charges for helping end an ectopic pregnancy.
How do you do that? You've defined human life beginning at conception in
the criminal code, the intent of which is to prosecute doctors and
mothers in these circumstances in which yesterday she would have been receiving ordinary medical care?
The intent of criminalization is to punish women.
And now let's talk about the inheritance rights of artificially conceived embryos. And suing sperm donors for child support while still in
embryonic stage. And the possibility of forcing a woman into surrogacy
since the law has now made the rights of fertilized eggs superior to the rights of woman.
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?
I assume that the "this" in that sentence is the issue about ectopic
pregnancies
No. The topic all along has been changing the definition of the
beginning of human life to conception and placing the definition into
the criminal code of Puerto Rico. That's what this thread has always
been about.
You are not acknowledging the real world and highly likely consequences.
I'm not commenting on the rest of what you wrote but I share some but
not all of your moral outrage.
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
On Feb 14, 2026 at 7:29:18 PM PST, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:https://apnews.com/article/puerto-rico-923-governor-signed-law-pregnancies-9d2f1fb895a17511a920cc42d480668e
On Feb 14, 2026 at 6:01:40 PM PST, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> 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. >>>>>>>
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.
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.
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?
Feb 15, 2026 at 6:59:36 AM PST, NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote:
Sat, 14 Feb 2026 21:30:16 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> 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-pregnancies-9d2f1fb895a17511a920cc42d480668e
Tell us how that would work if it's something she did not do to make
it happen.
Miscarriages happen naturally all the time.
On 2026-02-15 2:38 a.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
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.
On 2026-02-15 12:53 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On 2026-02-15 2:53 a.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On 2026-02-14 9:01 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On 2026-02-14 4:30 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
New medical technologies and techniques have made it possible for >>>significantly premature babies to survive now so the question of where >>>life begins is not so clear cut any more.
That doesn't mean change the common law definition. With the foetus
birthed through a surgical procedure separating it from it's mother, a >>separate team handles incubation, if there is some possibility of
survival. There are now two patients to treat and at this point, the
mother is being helped without considering the consequences to the baby.
Agreed. What's your point?
. . .
Or maybe I do. I'm just remembering the case of a little boy that
suffered from hydrocephaly ("water on the brain"). The situation was >discovered when he was still in the womb and there was so much water in
his brain that his brain was compressed into only 3% of the space
normally occupied by a brain. Doctors said he'd be a complete vegetable
when he was born and there was only one slim shot for him if they did an
in utero procedure that drained much of the water. The parents agreed to
the procedure and the boy turned out to be very close to normal even
though they hadn't succeeded in improving the volume of the brain very
much. Apparently, the doctors/scientists were astounded at the level of >"neuro-plasticity" (ability of the brain to rewire itself) this boy showed.
. . .
And now let's talk about the inheritance rights of artificially conceived >>embryos. And suing sperm donors for child support while still in
embryonic stage. And the possibility of forcing a woman into surrogacy >>since the law has now made the rights of fertilized eggs superior to the >>rights of woman.
I'm not sure what scenarios you are envisioning here. Have there been
suits where the sperm donor was successfully sued for child support?
If so, I think I'm appalled. If a guy goes to a sperm bank and donates some >of his swimmers, I assume he's doing so either because of a humanitarian >impulse to help someone who can't conceive with their partner or perhaps
for some spare change. Making him pay child support seems really wrong
to me. I'm assuming that he got only a small honorarium for his >"contribution", not a multi-million dollar payout, and I have no reason
to assume he was already wealthy.
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On 2026-02-15 2:38 a.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
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.
I'm not ascribing bad political motive to you personally. In America,
your beliefs are protected by the free exercise clause regardless of how >religious you claim to be.
On Sun, 15 Feb 2026 21:13:08 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On 2026-02-15 2:38 a.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
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.
I'm not ascribing bad political motive to you personally. In America,
your beliefs are protected by the free exercise clause regardless of how
religious you claim to be.
I fully agree life begins at conception. Nah, life begins when the
eggs and sperm first come to life. That said, just because those bits
are alive doesn't make them human. They certainly aren't viable
outside their protective environment at that point.
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On 2026-02-15 12:53 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On 2026-02-15 2:53 a.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On 2026-02-14 9:01 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On 2026-02-14 4:30 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
New medical technologies and techniques have made it possible for
significantly premature babies to survive now so the question of where >>>> life begins is not so clear cut any more.
That doesn't mean change the common law definition. With the foetus
birthed through a surgical procedure separating it from it's mother, a
separate team handles incubation, if there is some possibility of
survival. There are now two patients to treat and at this point, the
mother is being helped without considering the consequences to the baby.
Agreed. What's your point?
Without such a law, a birth has occurred with surgical separation from
the mother. Maybe the premature baby may be artificially brought to term
with modern medical devices and treatment. I don't agree with you that improved technology requires any changes in legal definitions.
. . .
Or maybe I do. I'm just remembering the case of a little boy that
suffered from hydrocephaly ("water on the brain"). The situation was
discovered when he was still in the womb and there was so much water in
his brain that his brain was compressed into only 3% of the space
normally occupied by a brain. Doctors said he'd be a complete vegetable
when he was born and there was only one slim shot for him if they did an
in utero procedure that drained much of the water. The parents agreed to
the procedure and the boy turned out to be very close to normal even
though they hadn't succeeded in improving the volume of the brain very
much. Apparently, the doctors/scientists were astounded at the level of
"neuro-plasticity" (ability of the brain to rewire itself) this boy showed.
With this law, the mother would not be allowed to abort and required to undergo such a procedure, the intended consequence of making foetal life "human" and tnerefore superior to the mother's.
. . .
And now let's talk about the inheritance rights of artificially conceived >>> embryos. And suing sperm donors for child support while still in
embryonic stage. And the possibility of forcing a woman into surrogacy
since the law has now made the rights of fertilized eggs superior to the >>> rights of woman.
I'm not sure what scenarios you are envisioning here. Have there been
suits where the sperm donor was successfully sued for child support?
This is the first law of its kind in the United States. Lawsuits are a
given.
If so, I think I'm appalled. If a guy goes to a sperm bank and donates some >> of his swimmers, I assume he's doing so either because of a humanitarian
impulse to help someone who can't conceive with their partner or perhaps
for some spare change. Making him pay child support seems really wrong
to me. I'm assuming that he got only a small honorarium for his
"contribution", not a multi-million dollar payout, and I have no reason
to assume he was already wealthy.
I believe sperm donors have been sued but I don't know if there have
been support awards or inheritance rights. We do know that such fathers
have been tracked down by their spawn wanting to know where they came
from, which sounds like a horrid invasion of privacy.
What I'm suggesting is that the sperm donor might be sued for child
support starting the moment of conception and for storage of the
fertilized egg and implantation procedure.
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Feb 15, 2026 at 6:59:36 AM PST, NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote:
Sat, 14 Feb 2026 21:30:16 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> 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-pregnancies-9d2f1fb895a17511a920cc42d480668e
Tell us how that would work if it's something she did not do to make
it happen.
Miscarriages happen naturally all the time.
There's now a criminal investigation. She must report spontaneous
abortion to the coroner. The death of a human being was unattended so
that requires finding at autopsy of natural, accidental, or homicide.
Did the woman eat properly and seek prenatal care? Did she follow all recomendations? What if she didn't stop smoking or alchohol or drugs or
what if her prior use may have interferred with bringing a child to
term? Is her failure of prenatal care child endangerment?
Many of these are intentional acts for a mens rea analysis.
Please don't handwaive this away. Of course the law has been written for police investigations and prosecutions of the most wanton and morally despicable women.
I feel like you're pushing for the sort of abortion laws we have in
Canada where there are apparently no restrictions on abortion at all and >some women apparently just use it as a form of birth control.
. . .
I know you are speaking to BTR but I think you've raised some very >concerning issues. Are we really heading toward a point where the nanny >state has full supervision of every pregnancy and can punish the woman
(and anyone supporting her like a husband, other family, and close
friends) if she doesn't do everything possible to have an optimum
pregnancy? I'd find that very intrusive.
On the other hand, it wouldn't
be at all surprising for government to take it upon itself to ensure
that level of oversight, just like California is doing with cars that
will shut themselves off if the driver seems distracted.
I admit that I dread a future where the government has that much
oversight over our individual autonomy. I suppose that makes it sound
like I want mothers to be free to smoke, drink alcohol, take drugs, etc. >which I most certainly DON'T condone! The older I get, the more sympathy
I have for a point of view that Robert Heinlein expressed in some of his >books: at some point, the number of rules becomes excessive and then
it's time to move somewhere less intrusive. He was especially fond of
the idea of settling frontiers on other planets.
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
I feel like you're pushing for the sort of abortion laws we have in
Canada where there are apparently no restrictions on abortion at all and
some women apparently just use it as a form of birth control.
I've been quite clear since I started this thread that my primary concern
is not abortion for reasons of birth control but the obvious likely bad outcomes for women's health in numerous other scenarios in which she is
not seeking an abortion for birth control reasons and may have even
wanted to give birth under normal circumstances.
I'm not commenting on anything else.
On Feb 15, 2026 at 3:17:43 PM PST, "shawn" <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Feb 2026 21:13:08 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On 2026-02-15 2:38 a.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
I'm not ascribing bad political motive to you personally. In America,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. >>>
your beliefs are protected by the free exercise clause regardless of how >>> religious you claim to be.
I fully agree life begins at conception. Nah, life begins when the
eggs and sperm first come to life. That said, just because those bits
are alive doesn't make them human. They certainly aren't viable
outside their protective environment at that point.
Neither is a quadriplegic.
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?
In my state, Good Friday had been a public holiday in law till a state
judge ruled it to be an Establishment violation.
I fully agree life begins at conception. Nah, life begins when the
eggs and sperm first come to life. That said, just because those bits
are alive doesn't make them human. They certainly aren't viable
outside their protective environment at that point. So when does it
become human for me? I'm not sure as it's always going to be a moving
target if we base it on when the fetus becomes viable outside the womb
simply because modern medicine changes over the years.
Sun, 15 Feb 2026 20:53:10 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
In my state, Good Friday had been a public holiday in law till a state >>judge ruled it to be an Establishment violation.
Since when is a state bound by what holidays it can and cannot
designate?
Sun, 15 Feb 2026 04:58:43 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>:
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?
It certainly doesn't in any probate law I know of.
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
On Feb 14, 2026 at 6:01:40 PM PST, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> 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-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? Human life with live birth was being
practical. Common law was not implementing religious belief about when
the soul enters.
On Feb 14, 2026 at 7:29:18 PM PST, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
On Feb 14, 2026 at 6:01:40 PM PST, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> 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-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? Human life with live birth was being
practical. Common law was not implementing religious belief about when
the soul enters.
I just saw that under the United States Code, you can get up to 10 years in >prison and/or a $100,000 fine for disturbing, injuring, or destroying a bald >eagle. The code also defines "bald eagle" as a member of the species >Haliaeetus leucocephalus, at any stage of its development, including its >eggs.
So the law defines a pre-born eagle as an eagle (without the need for >religious justification). But for some reason a pre-born human is not a >human.
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
On Feb 14, 2026 at 7:29:18 PM PST, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
On Feb 14, 2026 at 6:01:40 PM PST, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> >>>> wrote:
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> 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-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? Human life with live birth was being
practical. Common law was not implementing religious belief about when
the soul enters.
I just saw that under the United States Code, you can get up to 10 years in >> prison and/or a $100,000 fine for disturbing, injuring, or destroying a bald >> eagle. The code also defines "bald eagle" as a member of the species
Haliaeetus leucocephalus, at any stage of its development, including its
eggs.
So the law defines a pre-born eagle as an eagle (without the need for
religious justification). But for some reason a pre-born human is not a
human.
How has that worked out? Courts have been tied up ever since with the repurcussions of probate law as it applies to eagles. Let's learn a
lesson from that fiasco abd not go there for human life.
On Feb 14, 2026 at 7:29:18 PM PST, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
On Feb 14, 2026 at 6:01:40 PM PST, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> 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-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? Human life with live birth was being
practical. Common law was not implementing religious belief about when
the soul enters.
I just saw that under the United States Code, you can get up to 10 years in prison and/or a $100,000 fine for disturbing, injuring, or destroying a bald eagle. The code also defines "bald eagle" as a member of the species Haliaeetus leucocephalus, at any stage of its development, including its eggs.
So the law defines a pre-born eagle as an eagle (without the need for religious justification). But for some reason a pre-born human is not a human.
On 3/3/2026 3:02 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Feb 14, 2026 at 7:29:18 PM PST, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com>
wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
On Feb 14, 2026 at 6:01:40 PM PST, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> >>>> wrote:
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> 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-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? Human life with live birth was being
practical. Common law was not implementing religious belief about when
the soul enters.
I just saw that under the United States Code, you can get up to 10 years in >> prison and/or a $100,000 fine for disturbing, injuring, or destroying a bald
eagle. The code also defines "bald eagle" as a member of the species
Haliaeetus leucocephalus, at any stage of its development, including its
eggs.
So the law defines a pre-born eagle as an eagle (without the need for
religious justification). But for some reason a pre-born human is not a
human.
Yes, ornithology doesn't invoke theology.
On Mar 3, 2026 at 1:26:58 PM PST, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 3/3/2026 3:02 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Feb 14, 2026 at 7:29:18 PM PST, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> >>> wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
On Feb 14, 2026 at 6:01:40 PM PST, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> >>>>> wrote:
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> 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-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? Human life with live birth was being
practical. Common law was not implementing religious belief about when >>>> the soul enters.
I just saw that under the United States Code, you can get up to 10 years in
prison and/or a $100,000 fine for disturbing, injuring, or destroying a bald
eagle. The code also defines "bald eagle" as a member of the species
Haliaeetus leucocephalus, at any stage of its development, including its >>> eggs.
So the law defines a pre-born eagle as an eagle (without the need for
religious justification). But for some reason a pre-born human is not a >>> human.
Yes, ornithology doesn't invoke theology.
Nor does anthropology.
On 3/3/2026 4:35 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Mar 3, 2026 at 1:26:58 PM PST, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 3/3/2026 3:02 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Feb 14, 2026 at 7:29:18 PM PST, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> >>>> wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
On Feb 14, 2026 at 6:01:40 PM PST, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com>
wrote:
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> 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-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? Human life with live birth was being >>>>> practical. Common law was not implementing religious belief about when >>>>> the soul enters.
I just saw that under the United States Code, you can get up to 10
years in
prison and/or a $100,000 fine for disturbing, injuring, or destroying a >>>> bald
eagle. The code also defines "bald eagle" as a member of the species >>>> Haliaeetus leucocephalus, at any stage of its development, including its
eggs.
So the law defines a pre-born eagle as an eagle (without the need for >>>> religious justification). But for some reason a pre-born human is not a >>>> human.
Yes, ornithology doesn't invoke theology.
Nor does anthropology.
No, just armchair anthropologists who seek to "define a human".
On Mar 3, 2026 at 3:27:04 PM PST, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 3/3/2026 4:35 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Mar 3, 2026 at 1:26:58 PM PST, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>
On 3/3/2026 3:02 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Feb 14, 2026 at 7:29:18 PM PST, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com>
wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
On Feb 14, 2026 at 6:01:40 PM PST, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com>
wrote:
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> 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-pregnancies-9d2f1fb895a17511a920cc42d480668e
It can be but it doesn't have to be based on religion.
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. >>>>>>
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.
I just saw that under the United States Code, you can get up to 10 >>>>> years in
prison and/or a $100,000 fine for disturbing, injuring, or destroying a
bald
eagle. The code also defines "bald eagle" as a member of the species >>>>> Haliaeetus leucocephalus, at any stage of its development, including its
eggs.
So the law defines a pre-born eagle as an eagle (without the need for >>>>> religious justification). But for some reason a pre-born human is not a
human.
Yes, ornithology doesn't invoke theology.
Nor does anthropology.
No, just armchair anthropologists who seek to "define a human".
And yet it didn't take armchair ornithologists (or even professional ones) to define an eagle.
On 3/3/2026 6:32 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Mar 3, 2026 at 3:27:04 PM PST, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 3/3/2026 4:35 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Mar 3, 2026 at 1:26:58 PM PST, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 3/3/2026 3:02 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Feb 14, 2026 at 7:29:18 PM PST, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com>
wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
On Feb 14, 2026 at 6:01:40 PM PST, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com>
wrote:
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> 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-pregnancies-9d2f1fb895a17511a920cc42d480668e
It can be but it doesn't have to be based on religion.
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. >>>>>>>
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.
I just saw that under the United States Code, you can get up to 10 >>>>>> years in
prison and/or a $100,000 fine for disturbing, injuring, or destroying a
bald
eagle. The code also defines "bald eagle" as a member of the species
Haliaeetus leucocephalus, at any stage of its development, including its
eggs.
So the law defines a pre-born eagle as an eagle (without the need for
religious justification). But for some reason a pre-born human is not a
human.
Yes, ornithology doesn't invoke theology.
Nor does anthropology.
No, just armchair anthropologists who seek to "define a human".
And yet it didn't take armchair ornithologists (or even professional ones) >> to
define an eagle.
Sure, because eagles can't talk back.
I know you are speaking to BTR but I think you've raised some very >>concerning issues. Are we really heading toward a point where the nanny >>state has full supervision of every pregnancy and can punish the woman >>(and anyone supporting her like a husband, other family, and close >>friends) if she doesn't do everything possible to have an optimum >>pregnancy? I'd find that very intrusive.
That is absolutely part of my concern with such a law in the criminal
code.
I remember reading about a woman in the Soviet Union who went into a
coma in 1952. I don't know if she needed any specific machinery to keep
her alive like a vent or only needed to be fed but she stayed in that
coma until 1986, then regained consciousness. I don't know what became
of her after her 34 year coma but I've always wondered what she thought
of how the times had changed during her "absence". After all, Stalin was >still in charge and was still having enemies done away with when she
lost consciousness and she regained consciousness during Gorbachev's
massive reforms. The contrast must have been truly mind-boggling.
Women are the ones that carry the babies and usually do the lion's share
of the child care. (I'm sad to say that one of my friend's proudly
declared that he'd never changed his daughter's diaper even once when
she was young.) In my opinion, it's ultimately up to them to either use >birth control themselves or insist that their (male) lovers do.
Or maybe I do. I'm just remembering the case of a little boy that
suffered from hydrocephaly ("water on the brain"). The situation was >>discovered when he was still in the womb and there was so much water in >>his brain that his brain was compressed into only 3% of the space
normally occupied by a brain. Doctors said he'd be a complete vegetable >>when he was born and there was only one slim shot for him if they did an >>in utero procedure that drained much of the water. The parents agreed to >>the procedure and the boy turned out to be very close to normal even >>though they hadn't succeeded in improving the volume of the brain very >>much. Apparently, the doctors/scientists were astounded at the level of >>"neuro-plasticity" (ability of the brain to rewire itself) this boy showed.
With this law, the mother would not be allowed to abort and required to >undergo such a procedure, the intended consequence of making foetal life >"human" and tnerefore superior to the mother's.
I believe sperm donors have been sued but I don't know if there have
been support awards or inheritance rights. We do know that such fathers
have been tracked down by their spawn wanting to know where they came
from, which sounds like a horrid invasion of privacy.
On Mar 3, 2026 at 3:58:47 PM PST, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 3/3/2026 6:32 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Mar 3, 2026 at 3:27:04 PM PST, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>
On 3/3/2026 4:35 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Mar 3, 2026 at 1:26:58 PM PST, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 3/3/2026 3:02 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Feb 14, 2026 at 7:29:18 PM PST, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com>
wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
On Feb 14, 2026 at 6:01:40 PM PST, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com>
wrote:
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> 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-pregnancies-9d2f1fb895a17511a920cc42d480668e
It can be but it doesn't have to be based on religion.
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. >>>>>>>>
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.
I just saw that under the United States Code, you can get up to 10
years in
prison and/or a $100,000 fine for disturbing, injuring, or destroying a
bald
eagle. The code also defines "bald eagle" as a member of the species
Haliaeetus leucocephalus, at any stage of its development, including its
eggs.
So the law defines a pre-born eagle as an eagle (without the need for
religious justification). But for some reason a pre-born human is not a
human.
Yes, ornithology doesn't invoke theology.
Nor does anthropology.
No, just armchair anthropologists who seek to "define a human".
And yet it didn't take armchair ornithologists (or even professional ones)
to
define an eagle.
Sure, because eagles can't talk back.
Whether an organism can talk back or not seems irrelevant to whether a definition of its existence requires religious basis.
On 3/3/2026 8:28 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Mar 3, 2026 at 3:58:47 PM PST, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 3/3/2026 6:32 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Mar 3, 2026 at 3:27:04 PM PST, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 3/3/2026 4:35 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Mar 3, 2026 at 1:26:58 PM PST, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 3/3/2026 3:02 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Feb 14, 2026 at 7:29:18 PM PST, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com>
wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
On Feb 14, 2026 at 6:01:40 PM PST, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com>Where else can it come from? Human life with live birth was being
wrote:
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> 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-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. >>>>>>>>>
practical. Common law was not implementing religious belief about when
the soul enters.
I just saw that under the United States Code, you can get up to 10
years in
prison and/or a $100,000 fine for disturbing, injuring, or >>>>>>>> destroying a
bald
eagle. The code also defines "bald eagle" as a member of the species
Haliaeetus leucocephalus, at any stage of its development, >>>>>>>> including its
eggs.
So the law defines a pre-born eagle as an eagle (without the need for
religious justification). But for some reason a pre-born human >>>>>>>> is not a
human.
Yes, ornithology doesn't invoke theology.
Nor does anthropology.
No, just armchair anthropologists who seek to "define a human".
And yet it didn't take armchair ornithologists (or even professional ones)
to
define an eagle.
Sure, because eagles can't talk back.
Whether an organism can talk back or not seems irrelevant to whether a
definition of its existence requires religious basis.
Eagles don't offer resistance when humans define them. Humans do.
On Mar 4, 2026 at 8:26:29 AM PST, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 3/3/2026 8:28 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Mar 3, 2026 at 3:58:47 PM PST, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>
On 3/3/2026 6:32 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Mar 3, 2026 at 3:27:04 PM PST, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 3/3/2026 4:35 PM, BTR1701 wrote:And yet it didn't take armchair ornithologists (or even professional ones)
On Mar 3, 2026 at 1:26:58 PM PST, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 3/3/2026 3:02 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Feb 14, 2026 at 7:29:18 PM PST, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com>
wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
On Feb 14, 2026 at 6:01:40 PM PST, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com>Where else can it come from? Human life with live birth was being
wrote:
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> 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-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. >>>>>>>>>>
practical. Common law was not implementing religious belief about when
the soul enters.
I just saw that under the United States Code, you can get up to 10
years in
prison and/or a $100,000 fine for disturbing, injuring, or >>>>>>>>> destroying a
bald
eagle. The code also defines "bald eagle" as a member of the species
Haliaeetus leucocephalus, at any stage of its development, >>>>>>>>> including its
eggs.
So the law defines a pre-born eagle as an eagle (without the need for
religious justification). But for some reason a pre-born human
is not a
human.
Yes, ornithology doesn't invoke theology.
Nor does anthropology.
No, just armchair anthropologists who seek to "define a human". >>>>>
to
define an eagle.
Sure, because eagles can't talk back.
Whether an organism can talk back or not seems irrelevant to whether a >>> definition of its existence requires religious basis.
Eagles don't offer resistance when humans define them. Humans do.
And that means defining life at beginning at conception requires belief in god?
Walk me through that cataclysmic leap in logic step-by-step.
| Sysop: | Tetrazocine |
|---|---|
| Location: | Melbourne, VIC, Australia |
| Users: | 15 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 234:24:47 |
| Calls: | 207 |
| Files: | 21,502 |
| Messages: | 83,204 |