Counterpoint: stripping citizens of their rights is bad. Hopefully the federal government will step in and protect authoritarian overreach.
Do you mean the "authoritarian overreach" of the Supreme Court admitting that it's not their authority? That's something to ponder.
The brain-dead Monkey has a tendency of saying just random raging things because it doesn’t actually understand the legal arguments here, so it simply bloviates.
It will be disappointed to learn that the Whitehouse made it clear it will just quietly pass the buck to congress. Senators have little incentive to run on the abortion platform, especially in red states, so federal abortion legalization is unlikely to get 60 votes.
You really think fathers are not a significant stakeholder in all of these cases: IVFs or natural birth or aborted pregnancies?
They're stakeholders but not stockholders.
You can't think it ethical if a woman doesn't want to be pregnant and her partner does, and for him to force her to continue with it, do you?
It’s his child too if it does come to that disagreement. Also its little different from legally forcing a man to pay half for the child for the better part of the rest of his life if he had zero legal say in its creation.
I’ve previously clearly stated in bullet point form how to handle every scenario of agreement or disagreement in a sex-equal and democratic manner. Read up if you actually care.
You can't think it ethical if a woman doesn't want to be pregnant and her partner does, and for him to force her to continue with it, do you?
It’s his child too if it does come to that disagreement. Also its little different from legally forcing a man to pay half for the child for the better part of the rest of his life if he had zero legal say in its creation.
Oh and I forgot to add in your favorite language: the part in bold would be just punishing the father for sex and because society wants to control men.
Do you mean the "authoritarian overreach" of the Supreme Court admitting that it's not their authority? That's something to ponder.
The brain-dead Monkey has a tendency of saying just random raging things because it doesn’t actually understand the legal arguments here, so it simply bloviates.
It will be disappointed to learn that the Whitehouse made it clear it will just quietly pass the buck to congress. Senators have little incentive to run on the abortion platform, especially in red states, so federal abortion legalization is unlikely to get 60 votes.
Twist reality all you want but it's quite clear the overturning of Roe results in a net loss of rights for Americans. That's a fact. You can justify it all you want but your words carry little weight, regardless. You admitted that you think killing an unimplanted embryo is murder, but you're fine with IVF clinics slaughtering them by the thousands.
Your focus on voluntary abortion is completely disproportionate under your moral framework and basically topples all your rhetoric into a trash heap.
He contributed 23 and she 23 and they both had fun doing it, so why not?
How old are you? Do you really think pregnancy is equally shared between man and woman? I had you pegged for college age yesterday now im thinking high school. No one mature is this naive about pregnancy.
The brain-dead Monkey has a tendency of saying just random raging things because it doesn’t actually understand the legal arguments here, so it simply bloviates.
It will be disappointed to learn that the Whitehouse made it clear it will just quietly pass the buck to congress. Senators have little incentive to run on the abortion platform, especially in red states, so federal abortion legalization is unlikely to get 60 votes.
Twist reality all you want but it's quite clear the overturning of Roe results in a net loss of rights for Americans. That's a fact. You can justify it all you want but your words carry little weight, regardless. You admitted that you think killing an unimplanted embryo is murder, but you're fine with IVF clinics slaughtering them by the thousands.
Your focus on voluntary abortion is completely disproportionate under your moral framework and basically topples all your rhetoric into a trash heap.
The pro-choice spin on that is it’s because of a dishonest morality and wanting to control women’s bodies, presumably because they have blinders on and publishing articles with that spin gets more eyeballs for their audience.
How about it’s a matter of competing but synergistic principles: sanctity of life and the undeniable goodness of motherhood (and apple pie)? Women wanting to have children but can’t without IVF is an understandable situation but we just don’t know how to make that happen without producing several times more fertilized eggs than implanted. If we could, we would.
Jumping from there to saying being anti-abortion is primarily to control women’s bodies and punish them for having had sex is a leap not in good faith, one that’s made in the humanities and social sciences hallways, and one that seems oblivious to the fact that the consequences of parenthood impacts fathers too.
This is exactly what I expected to be honest. You approve the decision of the women at the IVF clinic because they're trying to be mothers and the women at the abortion clinic aren't.
Its entirely about control and women's role in society. The decision to be mothers is theirs, not yours.
I said many many pages ago that IVF should be illegal.
He contributed 23 and she 23 and they both had fun doing it, so why not?
Because it's growing for 9 months inside a woman's body. The female of the species has more parental investment, that's basic evolutionary theory.
That’s just temporary rent for facilities, forced by nature, and more than easily offset by the greater monetary expense borne by fathers in most (not all) households.
Sounds like you don’t understand evolutionary theory, sorry.
I said many many pages ago that IVF should be illegal.
there goes your theory on that one.
Yes, Yawn has been consistently purist on sanctity of life.
Yeah, he also thinks that raped mothers should be forced to carry to term and that abortion shouldn't be allowed for non-viable pregnancies when the life of the mother is at risk.
Because it's growing for 9 months inside a woman's body. The female of the species has more parental investment, that's basic evolutionary theory.
That’s just temporary rent for facilities, forced by nature, and more than easily offset by the greater monetary expense borne by fathers in most (not all) households.
Sounds like you don’t understand evolutionary theory, sorry.
No, the courts do not assign extra child support to males simple because of their sex. There is no 'offsetting' of the burden of pregnancy.
Nature 'forces' women to bear the burdens of pregnancy, therefore they lay claim to more natural rights over the child inside them. Makes perfect sense.
Yeah, I know how prosecution commonly works. This South Dakota policy seems completely backwards to that.
Why isn't the person who initiates the murder, often pays for it, and without whose participation the murder cannot occur, considered the highest value target? And even if they are somehow (and I can't imagine how) considered a lower value target, why would there be no prosecution at all? This is murder we are talking about. When has it ever been prosecution practice to let someone off completely with murder? South Dakota can't at least charge the de facto principal player in the murder conspiracy with, for example, some lower degree of manslaughter?
It makes no sense. Your explanation makes no sense. I can't figure out the policy or factors behind deciding not to charge a murderer with murder. Like I guessed before, it must be some theory that women are being coerced or unduly influenced to commit the murder, but that is factually wrong and seems hypocritical.
What’s not to understand? It’s much higher value to go after doctors because it would stop them and other doctors from doing illegal abortions for any woman.
“This is murder” *you* ”are talking about”, not we or SD law as I said in my second bullet that you omitted.
I told you what's not to understand. How does one reconcile equating abortion with the murder of an innocent baby, yet decide to not even prosecute the principal actor in a conspiracy that results in that very murder? Even if you subjectively decide, against the facts and logic, that the pregnant woman -- the one who initiated and decided to commit the murder (and likely paid for it) -- is not the "higher value" defendant, what possible values or policy would lead to not charging the "lower value" defendant at all? I'm not aware of any reasonable or common sense argument for that, and you have not provided one. South Dakota, at least, seems to entirely refute any argument that abortion is murder of any kind, even misdemeanor manslaughter.
----------
Below is your second bullet point that I omitted for clarity, and because it seemed irrelevant. It still does. We don't know what various state laws will label abortion, but one of the primary arguments of pro-life is that abortion = murder. So whatever the various state laws label abortion in their criminal laws, why would the person who initiates the crime, and without whose cooperation and actions the crime simply cannot be committed, NOT be charged with any crime at all? It makes no sense, and you have been unable twice now to explain it.
What’s not to understand? It’s much higher value to go after doctors because it would stop them and other doctors from doing illegal abortions for any woman.
“This is murder” *you* ”are talking about”, not we or SD law as I said in my second bullet that you omitted.
I told you what's not to understand. How does one reconcile equating abortion with the murder of an innocent baby, yet decide to not even prosecute the principal actor in a conspiracy that results in that very murder? Even if you subjectively decide, against the facts and logic, that the pregnant woman -- the one who initiated and decided to commit the murder (and likely paid for it) -- is not the "higher value" defendant, what possible values or policy would lead to not charging the "lower value" defendant at all? I'm not aware of any reasonable or common sense argument for that, and you have not provided one. South Dakota, at least, seems to entirely refute any argument that abortion is murder of any kind, even misdemeanor manslaughter.
----------
Below is your second bullet point that I omitted for clarity, and because it seemed irrelevant. It still does. We don't know what various state laws will label abortion, but one of the primary arguments of pro-life is that abortion = murder. So whatever the various state laws label abortion in their criminal laws, why would the person who initiates the crime, and without whose cooperation and actions the crime simply cannot be committed, NOT be charged with any crime at all? It makes no sense, and you have been unable twice now to explain it.
These types complain that DAs won't prosecute petty property crime, drug deals, etc but are apparently OK with not prosecuting murder.
What’s not to understand? It’s much higher value to go after doctors because it would stop them and other doctors from doing illegal abortions for any woman.
“This is murder” *you* ”are talking about”, not we or SD law as I said in my second bullet that you omitted.
I told you what's not to understand. How does one reconcile equating abortion with the murder of an innocent baby, yet decide to not even prosecute the principal actor in a conspiracy that results in that very murder? Even if you subjectively decide, against the facts and logic, that the pregnant woman -- the one who initiated and decided to commit the murder (and likely paid for it) -- is not the "higher value" defendant, what possible values or policy would lead to not charging the "lower value" defendant at all? I'm not aware of any reasonable or common sense argument for that, and you have not provided one. South Dakota, at least, seems to entirely refute any argument that abortion is murder of any kind, even misdemeanor manslaughter.
----------
Below is your second bullet point that I omitted for clarity, and because it seemed irrelevant. It still does. We don't know what various state laws will label abortion, but one of the primary arguments of pro-life is that abortion = murder. So whatever the various state laws label abortion in their criminal laws, why would the person who initiates the crime, and without whose cooperation and actions the crime simply cannot be committed, NOT be charged with any crime at all? It makes no sense, and you have been unable twice now to explain it.
Apologies, having trouble with quote function. Here is what I hope is your second bullet point. My comments regarding it are above.
"2) You are mixing law with moral principles. Law doesn’t work knee-jerk. Until last week, abortion was legal. All abortions = murder is just not what the state law says, so that’s a false equivalence, and not all murder is equivalent anyway even outside of the abortion context."
What’s not to understand? It’s much higher value to go after doctors because it would stop them and other doctors from doing illegal abortions for any woman.
“This is murder” *you* ”are talking about”, not we or SD law as I said in my second bullet that you omitted.
I told you what's not to understand. How does one reconcile equating abortion with the murder of an innocent baby, yet decide to not even prosecute the principal actor in a conspiracy that results in that very murder? Even if you subjectively decide, against the facts and logic, that the pregnant woman -- the one who initiated and decided to commit the murder (and likely paid for it) -- is not the "higher value" defendant, what possible values or policy would lead to not charging the "lower value" defendant at all? I'm not aware of any reasonable or common sense argument for that, and you have not provided one. South Dakota, at least, seems to entirely refute any argument that abortion is murder of any kind, even misdemeanor manslaughter.
----------
Below is your second bullet point that I omitted for clarity, and because it seemed irrelevant. It still does. We don't know what various state laws will label abortion, but one of the primary arguments of pro-life is that abortion = murder. So whatever the various state laws label abortion in their criminal laws, why would the person who initiates the crime, and without whose cooperation and actions the crime simply cannot be committed, NOT be charged with any crime at all? It makes no sense, and you have been unable twice now to explain it.
I don’t have much more to say. You seem to be confusing “value” with the blamability of the initiator of the illegal act. There’s thousands of times more value to prosecution in deterring similar future crimes than to punish one individual.
I told you what's not to understand. How does one reconcile equating abortion with the murder of an innocent baby, yet decide to not even prosecute the principal actor in a conspiracy that results in that very murder? Even if you subjectively decide, against the facts and logic, that the pregnant woman -- the one who initiated and decided to commit the murder (and likely paid for it) -- is not the "higher value" defendant, what possible values or policy would lead to not charging the "lower value" defendant at all? I'm not aware of any reasonable or common sense argument for that, and you have not provided one. South Dakota, at least, seems to entirely refute any argument that abortion is murder of any kind, even misdemeanor manslaughter.
----------
Below is your second bullet point that I omitted for clarity, and because it seemed irrelevant. It still does. We don't know what various state laws will label abortion, but one of the primary arguments of pro-life is that abortion = murder. So whatever the various state laws label abortion in their criminal laws, why would the person who initiates the crime, and without whose cooperation and actions the crime simply cannot be committed, NOT be charged with any crime at all? It makes no sense, and you have been unable twice now to explain it.
I don’t have much more to say. You seem to be confusing “value” with the blamability of the initiator of the illegal act. There’s thousands of times more value to prosecution in deterring similar future crimes than to punish one individual.
We've reach the 'apologia for letting murders walk free' stage of the pro-life bloviating merry-go-round.