J.C.MacSwell

He does seem to have been suffering some confabulation for quite some time now. I'm not sure how fast he's declining. Considering the position he has questionably been elected to, he seems to holding up better than many expected, opinion polls notwithstanding.

Right. That's why we need laws that we can accept. We certainly need inputs from professionals in their areas of expertise but they can't pass them. (unless of course, we elect them) On topic, this current dilemma is lawmaker fail, not SCOTUS fail.

We essentially have that with control and guidance, due to lawmakers, and avoid spontaneous viewpoints of politicians, due to lawmakers (and our constitutions and our courts...also due to lawmakers) Of course...when I say we have that...we can debate whether that includes Americans... The medical fraternity didn't simply plant a flag and gain that right and responsibility.

There are medical personnel on this planet that would be more than happy to harvest your organs against your will to "donate" to someone they feel is more in need, more deserving, or simply willing to pay enough for the service. Fortunately there are "moral lawmakers" that won't allow it.

Just comes down to Peterkin Economics of Abortions 101. 2 kids cost more to bring up than 1.

Is "whatever" infanticide? Gun control? Just wondering what point you think it's fair to start forcing your beliefs on others. What makes it morally okay to support aborting a fetus while protecting her twin brother born 5 minutes earlier? Why can't your guardrail include her?

What happens in the labour room, stays in the labour room? No restrictions?

Close. That of their constituents...but you are slowly getting there despite your extreme polarizing mindset. Both mothers and medical personnel need restrictions on their choices. Without it infanticide would be legal. ...and that has been done, illegally, in our country.

I guess in fairness I can claim that you believe medically trained persons should be unrestrained by any laws made by legislators? Why is it all or none with you? After giving your head a shake, try looking at these two choices, one which I agreed with and one I rejected: - taking medical decisions away from physicians - a morality-based judgement system controlled by law-makers Is my position getting any clearer to you?

Right. But you made your list with that exactly as one of options. I answered your question. Your welcome. The majority fall in neither of those strict categories. Surely it's apparent that if the majority had their say, though few might be fully satisfied there would be a much more satisfactory situation than what we have currently. You only get to vote during elections. You can refuse to support the current Parties at any time and signal openness to "voting better" to better options. I'm quite aware that it's complex and difficult. Electoral reform could be worthwhile as well, but you can certainly improve the lot of pregnant women and fetuses without it.

The one I bolded when quoting CY. It's in all our job descriptions...at least those in democracies. Many, many, and many...Both sides have presented it this way.

Which is how it should be...so why don't you find some reasonable law makers? The vast, vast majority of Americans agree with the objections to the extremes of both sides, including: 1. No abortions under any circumstances and 2. Abortions by choice under any circumstances I think that law might point to why each of the Parties should sew their shirt together, rather than hope the other Party can be made to look worse...assuming they have any actual interest in improving outcomes and maintaining anything worthwhile they have in place.

What law allows someone to abort a tumour?

I guess as long as you don't call it an abortion it's okay... The Parties sure like their extreme positions. How about "I can't really define abortion but I know it when I hear about it".

My only assumption was that any State law that differed would have to be an unreasonable one. I'm certainly not naive enough to assume all State (or other) laws are reasonable.

What makes you think I would?

I would say Putin for starting it all, but I guess one could always say society is to blame...Russian society. Anything else you might like to ask?

How could any reasonable State law differ with that?

That was of course a rhetorical question.

Maybe they could suggest a part of Germany they could offer Putin?

I've worked in areas requiring tyvek suits in humid conditions. Hot enough to get myself to blow air up one leg of the suit using a vacuum in reverse.. Unbelievable cooling effect (though I've been generally drenched in sweat inside the suit before doing it). Looked like the michelin man as the suit expanded. I've also used positive pressure breathing apparatus powered by a battery strapped to my waist which gave a cooling effect as well, albeit just in the head area. I haven't done it but thought some combination of the two would work to good effect and be practical. Some sweating may still apply.

Better to name your kid Lee Harvey Booth?

Hopefully soon all the Ferdinand's remove Vladimir from lists of possible baby names as well...

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/asia/2022/07/08/attack-on-former-japan-pm-stuns-nation-known-for-gun-control.html Japan’s tight gun laws add to shock over Abe’s assassination "Abe’s security team may face serious questions. But because such attacks are extraordinary in Japan, relatively light security is the norm, even for former prime ministers."

Water has excellent heat capacitance, and it's cheap, so it's kind of a shame you can't use a preheat tank at low to usable temperatures for hot water. What you can do is have water storage tanks kept in a closed system that can be used for winter heating and/or summer cooling with a heat pump, especially if saved for times where the temperature differential makes heat pumps inefficient. Of course, the water may be cheap but the system and storage may not be. Not sure if it was here on this site, but I seem to recall discussing a small community version of this being potentially efficient and easier to insulate (cube square rule) where much of the insulation can then be the ground itself as long as there were no underground water flows near the reservoir to steal the heat. More or less an augmented geothermal system.