(07-31-2022 08:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I’m not sure why I’m responding, frankly.

There was no construing here - there was me asking for clarification from Tanq as to the practical implication of his post. His post confused me as to what, practically, the difference was between federal law including those born alive, as opposed to defining what are those who are born alive.

It was Tanq’s explanation that seemed to create an open ended situation in the federal code - not the code itself. And it has nothing to do with the constitution or original intent or whatever. It was asking for clarification on Tanq’s comment about the word include calling define/mean.

And once again, I can't understand what your confusion is or why you 'aren't sure why you are responding'. You certainly gave your interpretation of what was happening in the law... How that isn't construing something, I don't know.

Most of what I said was simply noting how two people can look at the same thing and see completely different things/be concerned in completely opposite directions.

I WILL note the following....

Here is what you said:
edit: Tanq, this line of... whatever this is, goes back to a comment by Frizzy "Given laws recognizing a fetus as deserving legal protections, it would be radical for doctors to have unfettered discretion." to which I responded that I wasn't aware of laws that actually conferred a fetus as deserving legal protections (i.e., personhood).

And although I am having internet issues so i won't requote the original text, Roe along with all of the decisions that followed it allowing states to regulate abortion in ANY way certainly gave legal protection to the unborn.... Recognizing a state's interest in doing so. 'Personhood' seems to be a different, albeit related issue...

Your concern seems to be that these laws are applying personhood to the unborn, when the reality is that even under Roe, they were given legal protection... even from the mother and her doctor after a certain period... The period is now different. In Texas, once a heartbeat is detected and in California, once it can vote Democrat. If they weren't considered persons before, I don't see any reason for them to be considered persons now... and if recognizing the states interest in protecting a life today is a step on that path, it only affirms that specific recognition afforded to them 50 years ago under Roe, so no change in that status.

What do you see that a now (say) 12 week pre-birth child has the right to do/be/have protected without Roe that a 2 week pre-birth child didn't under Roe? And what wording gives you that concern?