I was on 8chan in the New World Order Research Thread. I found the following that I thought was really interesting for anyone into research...
SUPER HIGH RESOLUTION VERSION OF ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA 1771 EDITION
This is a few years before 1776, it's before the Wars of Napoleon. What secrets and symbols are left exposed here?
The 'Encyclopaedia Britannica' was originally issued in 100 weekly parts, forming three volumes, published in Edinburgh between 1768 and 1771 by Colin Macfarquhar and Andrew Bell. Edited by William Smellie.
Engravings by Andrew Bell. Editions in the 19th century were expanded, with more volumes and contributions from leading experts in their fields. Managed and published in Edinburgh up to the 9th edition, published in 25 volumes from 1875-1899.
view the rest of the comments →
redtoe_skipper ago
Cool!
Given the arguments about common law in Roe v Wade, I was interested in looking up what was considered abortion at the time.
Interesting.
srayzie ago
Oh that would be interesting. Feel free to share.
redtoe_skipper ago
In midwifery: the birth of a foetus before it has acquired a sufficient degree of perfection to enable it to perform respiration and the other vital functions.
I am on the move, so I have a limited ability to link. I refer here to the Roe v Wade decision where first an investigation into 18/ 19th century common law practice was entertained. In conclusion, based on common law both in UK and US there has never been a prohibition, although.certain limits to abortion were considered.
The whole discussion in this decision was about:
Whether abortion needs to be enumerated based on several ammendments to the constitution
the right.of the state to prescribe abortion or the state interest in limiting abortion for two reasons: health.of the mother and viability of the unborn.
Abortion was ruled to be an inherent right, a right reserved by the people, not needing of enumeration.
In the whole.abortion discussion this is often missed. For.those in favor, it must be a relief. For.those.against, there is not a mandatory push to rob any citizen of any rights.
The devil is in the details, as the state interest is interjected.
Eventually, the court held, though there exist a reasonable timeframe where abortion in consultation with the medical profession should be able to be.performed based on viability, the first semester was the timeframe.
After the first semester state interest becomes a heavier weight in the consideration. It basically also allows.for advancement in medical development. But I personally highly doubt, the court.would be swayed, on our current abilities, a late term abortion would be warranted. Rather the opposite....
The whole discussion now is whether the state should use taxpayer money to facilitate abortions. That was not under review. Yet, although I am vehemently against such brutal interjection of stateinterest in personal affairs, based on the same view as the esteemed justices have promulgated in their investigation of past held views, regulating the medical procedure is a state function, as it concerns the health of the mother. In my view that is more a facilitating matter to strike a balance between health of the mother and the way in which it is done.
It.leaves open the question of funding and private money instead of public.money being used.
The quote from the 1771 eb, shows that abortions in them days were performed. And no one went to jail if.....
It also allows stillborn to be regarded as such, aborted by nature.
srayzie ago
Everything about abortion just breaks my heart 🥺