Some states protect women's rights

But when you say "That is at the extreme of the discussion" you are saying that it is NOT entirely a body integrity issue.

Your "last paragraph" is"There is an issue that a parent cannot harm their child through neglect, but whatever the issue involved in obligating parental care it doesn't involve bodily autonomy so isn't quite the issue here."But isn't this rather a matter of degree than of kind? That's why I don't think of "bodily autonomy" in this case.

I quite agree that the legal question is a different question.

In one case, the fetus is still connected to the mother, drawing nourishment from her body, disposing of its waste through her body, at this point adding several pounds of weight to her body, and so forth.In the other case, the infant is a free living individual who in no way is parasiticing anyone else's body. Requiring the mother to occasionally pick it up and stick a bottle in its mouth in no way compares to "hooking the kid up" physically to anyone's body, and it's even possible to find someone else to take over these duties.Perhaps you don't see an essential difference here, but I don't think I can help you here. All I can point out is that to me, this is the essential difference.-I should also point out that, leaving aside these abstract arguments, in real life if a pregnancy gets to the ninth month and then a termination is being considered, it's because some very serious complications have come up that threaten the health or life of mother or child.

No, Sarah. Not good enough.39-week is a hell of a difference from 15-25 week partial-birth IDX.Remember, at 39 weeks the kid is already demanding a cell phone and the car keys.I can imagine a 39-week abortion but only under the most extreme circumstances like an accident that leaves the kid stillborn. Eminently justifiable for removal.With that in mind... The one is crying and pooping her pants, the other is already dead.Unless you can come up with a reasonable scenario I don't think a 39-week abortion is a reality.

That is why I cited Roe-v-Wade. SCOTUS has ruled the state has an interest to limiting abortion in the third trimester except in cases of the mother's health. They split the political hair.Regardless. Late term abortions are rare ( <1% at 24+ weeks ) and, I can imagine, are contemplated for justifiable health reasons. I consider those bodily integrity decisions as well.Unless you have some other data.So, yes, the bodily integrity issue is still paramount even in late term situations.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Yes, they recognized that so why don't you? Well, no. They built their democracy more or less from scratch. They could see what didn't work when despots did it but they were less certain about what would work. Hence, the possibility of, and need for, change. You contradict yourself. Remember when you said, "They provided means for changing whatever doesn't keep pace with changing times"? No, we're advocating "changing whatever doesn't keep pace with changing times."

As I said, they provided MEANS for changing the Constitution, llberals don't just get to change it as they please, we all get a say in it.And no, they did NOT make it from scratch, it was the product of centuries of political experience in Europe.

And that is what is happening. Why are you complaining about it? The only democracy they had as a model was the one they broke away from.

There is no process underway for amending the Constitution. Stop saying dumb things.Democracy is NOT what the Founders established, but a Republic, and breaking away from England didn't stop them from incorporating the best of English institutions.Again, stop saying dumb things.

Of course there is. Stop saying dumb things. The process is there even of nobody is voting on an amendment at this very moment. A democratic republic.

Stop saying dumb things.

If you could point out how something was dumb, you wouldn't look so dumb.

Ringo writes: If I'm not too far off, I think we only need 1 more state to ratify the ongoing process for the ERA Amendment and then it will become part of the living Constitution.

That may be debatable. Depends on whether Idaho, Kentucky, Nebraska, Tennessee, and South Dakota, who originally voted to ratify, actually rescinded their ratifications.We may still be 6 states short.The constitutional issue is whether a state can actually do that. Is the first “Yes” final? Is a state allowed to change its mind prior to full ratification?Since this is the ERA, whose main constituency is the female half of our population, I have a suspicion that the phrase “the right to change your mind” just took on a new dimension.I did not just say that.Then, there is the problem of the original ratification process and Congress' reluctance to extend it yet again. Republicans.That timetable has already expired.But we're still trying so your point is taken. There are indeed ongoing efforts to change the Constitution.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.