re: #225 ObserverArt

“it is a Constitutional thing about religion not ruling the state. Talk about freedoms and rights.”

this exactly (in the usa)

the question is not when life begins and all that - never accept that as the premise of the question

it’s when does a second, discrete, constitutionally protected human life begin. because before that, like it or not, it does not have rights. (hence the push for “personhood” - to define the indefinable when you aren’t otherwise winning constitutionally)

hence my comments at #149 dangerman re seek spiritual support if you are uncomfortable with other people behaving legally

so - there are in fact two competing sets of rights:
the mother’s and the developing life. i choose “developing life” because it is neither always a clump of cells, or a fetus, or a preborn or whatever) we all know the two entities we’re talking about.

the mother’s rights are full, guaranteed and unchanging throughout the process

the nature of the developing life changes over time and that has to have some consideration. clearly a one day blastoycst is fundamentally different from a three-days-before-normal-delivery fetus. it may or may not have some rights and/or protections depending on “when” we are talking about, and it’s condition).

because the rights and protections of the developing life change over time clever folks have then raised the question of when / if /why the mother doesnt have the absolute right to speak for the 2nd life as in other maternal circumstances. this is a valid constitutional rights argument.