Peterkin

Not big on irony, huh? https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/27/opinions/trump-rally-roe-white-life-miller-obeidallah/index.html

Aside from your loose interpretation, which parts of my quoted remarks are factually incorrect?

You may not hear it, but it was mentioned here as not-so-incidental outcome. Where states are making these Draconian laws, they have also gerrymandered voting districts, defunded or shut down family planning services, made access to birth control and prenatal care inaccessible to poor people and applied all law-enforcement unevenly among the population. It's no mystery what demographics have been, are and will continue to be most severely affected by new legislations and prosecutions.

Information is readily available to all who care to know.

FYI https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/fact-sheet/abortions-later-in-pregnancy/ The more that fish is dragged across the trail, the worse it smells.

So would America...

Your brush is too broad. Baby strokes!

And lots of other things. Which may account for the 1,000,000+ Covid deaths in the country with the world's best medical expertise and highest medical cost. The social cost of these decisions is enormous. The economic cost is huge. The personal costs will be incalculable. The cost in already frayed national unity is yet to be determined. But, hey, it's a big step toward unabashed fascism, so the political gain makes up for everything. White women, rejoice! You are the designated incubators of a doomed master race.

No, that one's personal, and not on topic.

ever so cute! Nothing quite so funny as watching other people suffer; nothing quite such fun as the anticipations of it.

And for that matter, to any sense at at all. On one hand: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/rep-miller-thanks-trump-victory-white-life-campaign-says-misread-remar-rcna35359 and on the other https://ttps://crowsneststpete.com/2019/02/18/whites-will-soon-be-outnumbered-but-theres-a-twist/ Haven't you already got HMO's doing that?

The technology is not at issue. Conception routinely takes place without a biological womb. Gestation is not far behind in achievement. https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms15112 It's not a scientific issue. It's not a religious issue, since devout Catholics wouldn't abort anyway, and the ones who would are lost to the church already. Certain aspects of reproduction are social issues , like, just how many more people can the planet support?) and how will a collapsed health-care system cope with all the preemies? The moral aspects go far beyond the conception/gestation/termination/live birth question. The issue before was legal and has been dealt-with in considered legal deliberations. The present situation is political - and that's a jurisdiction impenetrable to reasoned argument.

I'm not quite seeing the consideration of various moral positions regarding infanticide as necessary to weighing the activities of political factions as regards protest. What was the sport? Goalpost shifting world series?

I'm considering "them" - by which I suppose you mean the various moral positions. I'm just not discussing them in this venue, since it's meant to be about the legal decision, and my tolerance for thread deraliment doesn't stretch that far. . And by what authority am I required to favour a side? I dodged the same herring I've been batting away for pages now. And I'm still not 'advocating'. I offered the supposition that most women who had already brought a baby to term would not choose to kill it, unless they believed that every other option available to them was worse. If you believe those "sides" to be equivalent, you are woefully underinformed.

I'm not arguing at all. I'm delineating the legal, medical and social issues involved in decisions that are - instead - made on political and 'moral'* grounds. Healthy, bonnie babies may be included among the unwanted and unwelcome, and afaics, no provision is being made for them, which will have long-term social consequences as well as personal. Should the society that insists of bringing them to term make provision for such healthy babies, I do believe we could safely let the mother decide whether to give birth. It is, however, far more likely that late-term abortions will be of unhealthy, unsightly, unviable infants whose brief post-partum would be a misery in any case. (As the Vat has point out on several occasions) BTW - none of them bounce. You're the one painting the picture. Obviously. Has anyone said otherwise? But infanticide - whether it's euthanasia or murder - was not in this discussion.... ...up to now... Yet another dark realm opens, and none of us with a flashlight. * Morals are amorphous, subjective, partisan, ill-defined and difficult to discuss - which is why I haven't.

How'm I supposed to know?

I think most of us have been aware that the egg fertilized by a human male in a human female has a 99.99% probability of being human. Now, it's the people with sufficient cause to be outraged. Makes a change.

Degree of aliveness is not the issue; it is not a legal question. Degree of humanness has never been anyone's issue but yours. The medical position is to decide at what stage of development a foetus is viable - 22+ weeks of gestation. This is a contentious line, since the infant in question is so premature as to need the most advanced technological intervention to survive. Which opens the further question as to the stage of viability in different conditions, locations and circumstances. There is a further medical complication in that a viable unwanted foetus is still unwelcome in the womb it's inhabiting: those who want to 'save' it also want to leave it in situ; she who wants to be rid of it considers it a parasite there. (Yes, parasites are alive and many of them are human.) A further social complication is that nobody else wants the premature babies, either - least of all the medical community, who have enough problems just now. Hardly anybody wants the full-term ones, or has shown any indication of making provision for them, and the decisions about their long-term future do not seem to be a concern for the pro-lifers so het on saving them from 'a painful death' they don't even know about, for a painful life they - not the pro-lifers - will have to suffer through. The legal position is much simpler. What is a citizen? At what point in its development does a human qualify for citizenship in its own person? At what stage of life and what circumstances does a citizen lose power of attorney over their own life and become a ward or the state? What pro-choice advocates say or don't say has no influence on what the the so-called pro-life advocates want. That political banner was unfurled, ready for war, in the 1970's, and they've been yelling slogans and breaking windows too loudly to hear anyone's argument, ever since.

Rocks.

No, they meant arms in general. They knew stuff like that had replaced earlier stuff and later stuff would replace that stuff and the militia would always use the latest stuff. Give them some credit!

It just says "Arms" - easily interpreted as everything from spears to nuclear missiles.

It does sound similar to the fawn and the baby seal mentioned earlier. I guess mothers can't take any chances.

God never put in an amendment formula; they did.

So, we move into yet another realm... Yes, there are obligations and responsibilities imposed on citizens, and laws that curtail, limit and condition the rights of citizens. If a society as, a legal unit, has taken on the obligation to protect its members, then it becomes incumbent on each capable member of that society (not just the ones who voted for that law) to fulfil those obligations. Every such obligation decreases the individual's freedoms and rights. So, if a society, as a legal entity, decrees that all of its members have a right to medical attention, then all the members, whether they voted for universal health care or not, have an obligation to contribute. The society may even decree that no member has a right to refuse treatment on behalf of a patient who can't exercise their rights. If that society decrees that human kidneys are community property, then members with failing kidneys may claim one from a healthy member, and the healthy member has no right to refuse. If all uteruses are community property, then presumably women who cannot carry a foetus to term may have a right to colonize someone else's for the gestation period; presumably, men whose spouses are infertile have a right to impregnate handmaids, etc.

Okay. Say they do. There is baby wearing diapers lying on the grass in the park, crying. We all leave it alone, because it's not breaking any laws: its genitals are covered, there is no Keep off the Grass sign and public weeping is legal in my district. Nobody's violating its rights by walking past. There were legal documents prior to the bill of rights that outlined which humans had which rights.