Well, I have certainly seen the opposite. I have seen a number of cases where a parent has chosen to leave a significantly bigger portion of their estate to a disabled child because that child would need it.

Ethics is not an area in which there are right and wrong answers – just ethical principles that do or don’t appeal to you. For me, I think parents should have the right to decide how their wealth should be distributed without any “must be even for all children” constraints. But I would never choose to leave my least able-bodied child less for that reason.

No.

Starting a war is astonishing unwise.

Also, what will happen with South Korea’s strongest military ally (the US) in less than a month?

Because Donald Trump is above the law – laws simply don’t apply to him.

(Or at least that is how much of the country is acting, INCLUDING the US Supreme Court.)

If two states disagree, what alternative would you suggest? “Flip a coin and move on” or “Just give in to the other side” are solutions that are likely to be abused: one rogue state can wreck havoc by making unreasonable demands. Going to war over it seems worse than spending millions in court. The courts ARE our inexpensive, fair way of resolving disputes (even if they aren’t as inexpensive as we might like).

Interesting. When I have sized a wedding ring (something I have done several times because of a combination of not fitting, and of me losing a ring twice over the past 28 years) I obviously had to work to get the right size. Like you, I chose rounded edges which made it easier for me to get the ring on and off my finger. Originally I had a width of 4 mm, and moving to 3 mm worked much better for me. (My fingers are particularly narrow and long compared to most men’s hands.) But I have never been asked what “height” to use.

I would speculate that it affects the weight of the ring. (In my experience, too heavy a ring can be a problem. For instance, a heavy ring May vibrate against the steering wheel on long drives and make my fingers sore.) No one can really see the “height”, so why not go with the thinnest that makes the ring still sturdy?

He can appoint two new members to the Supreme Court and then have them rule that Trump, as President, is immune to being prosecuted or held responsible for any state or federal crime but like Bush v. Gore it isn’t a precedent and doesn’t apply to any other President.

Yes, that is exactly what he is saying. Yes, it is completely absurd and would undermine the bedrock principles of our legal system. However, apparently somewhere between 3 and 6 members of the US Supreme Court may be seriously considering it.

(To be fair, he does claim that this absolute immunity would go away if half of the House and 2/3 of the Senate decided to impeach the President.)