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: | Jacob Catayoc |
|---|---|
| Location: | Pasay City, Metro Manila, Philippines |
| Users: | 5 |
| Nodes: | 4 (0 / 4) |
| Uptime: | 116:04:02 |
| Calls: | 125 |
| Calls today: | 125 |
| Files: | 489 |
| D/L today: |
856 files (365M bytes) |
| Messages: | 76,423 |
| Posted today: | 26 |