Jason_Protell

True.

I don't have the energy to continue engaging with these conversations, but I'd just like to point out one inconsistency in your comment.

"In the eyes of roughly half the country..."

61% of the country believes abortion should be legal. 39% is closer to 1/3 than 1/2.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/06/13/about-six-i...

My claims are concise and straightforward, so I don't know what you're talking about. I also didn't ask any rhetorical questions.

Like I said in another comment, I'm done with this conversation, have a nice day.

I've entertained this discussion in good faith, yet now you're belittling my diction and accusing me of wasting time.

I'm done here.

Have a nice day.

First, you can't call a fetus a baby just because it can become a baby. (Just as you can't call a child an adult just because it has the potential to become an adult.)

Second, pregnancy varies from person to person. You can't reasonably assume that all fetuses that are 279 days old will survive and become healthy babies.

Third, there are substantial physical differences between fetuses and babies. I'm sure you're aware that fetuses receive most of their nutrients through the umbilical cord, whereas babies do not.

Maybe I'm wrong and you're right, maybe "nothing physically changes about the baby whether it's inside the womb or outside." Let's test this hypothesis. Go feed a baby through its belly button and see how that works out.

Do you dispute that American women are citizens and people?

Do you recognize that there isn't consensus about whether fetuses are citizens and people?

That second "fact" is not a fact. Baby is the term we use to describe children soon after they are born. Did you mean fetus?

Fertilized eggs have the potential to become fetuses, and fetuses have the potential to become babies, but fertilized eggs are not fetuses, and fetuses are not babies.

I think the spirit of your argument is that we cannot decide when to call a fetus a human. Like I mentioned in another comment, this grey area does not preclude undisputed humans from their constitutional rights.

14A gives protections to citizens and persons, not lives.

What absolutism are you talking about?

Have a nice day.

The issue here is that this belief is not based in reality. A fertilized egg is not a human.

I feel like I am talking to a brick wall.

Any state law that deprives someone of life and / or liberty is unconstitutional.

If someone needs a life-saving abortion, the state cannot deprive that person their constitutional right to life.

Did you read my comment? I don't dispute the existence of the grey area.

You are incorrect.

"This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or ... in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether to terminate her pregnancy."

— Roe, 410 U.S. at 153

This is a separate conversation, but I believe organ donation should be an opt-out system.

Did you read the amendment? There doesn't need to be explicit protection for medical procedures or abortion. 14A protects people from being deprived of life and liberty by state action or legislation. Eliminating access to abortion can deprive someone of their life and / or liberty, so eliminating access to abortion contradicts 14A.

If you believe a fetus is a person, then you are simply incorrect.

This doesn't affect the reasoning. American women are indisputably citizens and people, whereas fetuses are not.

The existence of this grey area doesn't preclude obvious constitutional rights.

For those who say this is the logically correct decision, how exactly did you conclude that?

-

USA Constitution

14th Amendment

Section 1

...no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws...

-

The constitution clearly says that states cannot enforce laws that deprive citizens of their lives and liberties.

Now, states have renewed authority to deprive at-risk women their right to life-saving medical procedures. Please explain to me how this doesn't violate 14A.

They don't have to pay for brick and mortar presence.

Tyvm

I'll need to read more about PineTime. Thanks for the feedback.

Is there a specific YouTube channel you'd recommend? Also, your assumption was correct, but I still appreciate the SaaS review website suggestion.

Honestly I don't care too much about the style, I'd just like to have a larger display. Round displays are sort of awkward, they don't have enough surface area. Rectangular displays seem to be less popular, but I think they're easier to use.

Now that you mention it though, I am very disappointed with the battery life of my current watch (Galaxy Watch4) which seems to last for a few days tops...

Seems like an excellent series, I wish they made rectangular faces for these models.

A young girl created "Edible Taco Tape" over 20 years ago. Her invention was featured on the Nickelodeon show Figure It Out. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLFjuVyP_n0

I love it. Thanks for sharing.

Freedom Phone comes with Newsmax and OANN apps pre-installed. This takes red flags to a whole new level.

https://www.freedomphone.com/

for a car, for a door, etc.

are you referring to this? https://hackaday.com/tag/key-fob/