J.C.MacSwell

Surely now that he's no longer the president there can no longer be any overwhelming national interest argument to limit them.

Who said they were? You're the one suggesting there's conspiracy behind it all.

So...a bunch of white supremacists are conspiring to make it difficult for nonwhite fetuses to be aborted...that's quite a theory...

I wouldn't have known to look. That's why the thanks and +1. (for the quoted portion of your post, not the comment) Has anyone here advocated for that?

Well. That's beyond F'd up IMO and though I'm willing to acknowledge there is still latent racism everywhere, that sounds like conspiracy theory territory to me. Also off topic and not really relevant. I don't hear anyone advocating for different abortion rules for different races. Certainly not here.

I never actually used the term in this thread, at least to my knowledge. I have used the term "late term fetus", which I usually intended to mean full or near full term. But thanks Peterkin for the info, I will try to keep it in mind.

About 5,000 a year.

Your objection is silly. Lawmakers, not medical personnel, get to choose the guidelines of whether the rights of a fetus take precedence over that of the mother, or vice versa. If that was not the case, why would the Parties even attempt legislation on it? Now, the federal lawmakers could make laws to allow to allow medical professionals to abort with impunity, or some reasonable compromise so that your whole nation has access to abortions the way the majority think they should. But they haven't, and they haven't.

Trained engineers don't get to build bridges wherever they like, and medical associations can't grant themselves the right to allow abortions in any circumstances they choose. The rules should be left to lawmakers, scrutinized by the Judiciary, and the procedures executed by the medical or Engineering professionals based on their guidelines. They can't just do what they like, even as a professional group, just because they think they know best. Is this not obvious? If you can recognize this for restrictions on trade of organs, how can you not see that the same principle would apply for abortions? The federal lawmakers, with their all or none partisan positions, are the problem here, but just because they lack the competence to get the job done does not mean the medical associations get to determine the rules. That falls to the State lawmakers. Sucks that many of them will do no better, but that doesn't change the above.

LOL. Another legal opinion?

I think it was some paddling event: It's actually the topic

Right. Thus the requirement for restrictions on their options. Because being a medical professional does not automatically raise you above everyone else morally or ethically. Last I checked, they were human too. Should we leave it with Engineers what guns should be developed and made available? They are the ones required to put the limits in place, and outline the basis for what might be considered necessary and with that the procedures that may be allowed. (With them of course limited by any constitution and the Judiciary) Why would you suggest otherwise?

None of course. Health providers are all honest, have only the best of intentions, morals, and ethics beyond reproach, and need no laws in place to limit anything they deem correct.

Since you aren't discussing moral issues...of course it's not equivalent. The score was 5-4.

Without considering them, how are you able to favour one side over the other?

More possibilities for the most humane way to execute the infanticide as well.

At some point terrorist attacks might come to Russia itself. Hate begets hate.

"Sufficient cause to be outraged" seems to be in the eye of the beholder...with condoned violence not looking good for either side.

Yeah. I hate it when they do that. They make it seem like it wasn't an isolated incident. How's that working out?

Harry Potter just evolved from a long line of hairy potters.

Hadn't realized I was so unique in considering such an obvious question. Who's yelling slogans and breaking windows now? https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/violence-extremists-occur-weeks-wake-supreme-court-decision/story?id=85664462

Why? Will it help us determine if a premature baby is more or less alive than a full term fetus? More or less human? Do you have something in mind that would be helpful for the discussion? Certainly. Pro choice advocates can simply stop advocating for choice right up to birth for viable fetuses. Might take the wind out of the sails of those that feel compelled to protect them, and allow the focus to be on a women's choice where she is overwhelmingly the biggest shareholder in the pregnancy, before that shifts toward a viable fetus.

Is it unattended and in obvious distress? You can make human rights laws as different from fetal rights laws as you like, but it doesn't change the moral equation.

It effectively does, and is is what most people believe they are considering when discussing animal rights. I made no claim animals had a Bill of Rights. Humans had rights prior to any Bill of Rights.

I'm of the opinion that if a law prohibits certain cruelties to an animal, to the degree it is enforceable that law is extending a right to the animal to not have the described cruelties done to it. Generally this would be described as animal rights.