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.
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.
Barbaric.
Better than being a baby killer.
All scenarios forcing a choice between the lesser of two evils including those silly ethical conundrum scenarios involve some evil. If Monkey truly cares, almost all states will have legislation allowing rape/incest and life of mother exceptions sooner or later, and those narrow rights also have the best chance of federal passage.
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.
No, I wasn't confusing the concepts of higher and lower prosecution value and "blamability" that you introduced. My question was and is straightforward and unanswered with ideas about target value and "blamability." Again, we have an act that is alleged to be MURDER, and the announced policy of South Dakota is that the principal actor in that murder will NOT being charged with anything at all. There is an enormous inconsistency in the state's messaging about abortion, and it significantly undermines the argument that abortion = murder.
And I don't know where you are getting this hyperbolic "thousand times more value" evaluation, but one of the primary ways to deter a particular crime in society is to charge the perpetrators. If a person want to commit murder, they are MUCH more likely to do so -- lets call it a thousand times more likely to do so -- when the governor of the state announces they will not be charged with anything at all for committing the murder.
(At the risk of having you take things out of context, you can see in real time in California what I am saying regarding deterrence and criminal charges, where various officials have announced policies that certain crimes will no longer be prosecuted - the crime rates for those crimes immediately go up.)
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.
No, I wasn't confusing the concepts of higher and lower prosecution value and "blamability" that you introduced. My question was and is straightforward and unanswered with ideas about target value and "blamability." Again, we have an act that is alleged to be MURDER, and the announced policy of South Dakota is that the principal actor in that murder will NOT being charged with anything at all. There is an enormous inconsistency in the state's messaging about abortion, and it significantly undermines the argument that abortion = murder.
And I don't know where you are getting this hyperbolic "thousand times more value" evaluation, but one of the primary ways to deter a particular crime in society is to charge the perpetrators. If a person want to commit murder, they are MUCH more likely to do so -- lets call it a thousand times more likely to do so -- when the governor of the state announces they will not be charged with anything at all for committing the murder.
(At the risk of having you take things out of context, you can see in real time in California what I am saying regarding deterrence and criminal charges, where various officials have announced policies that certain crimes will no longer be prosecuted - the crime rates for those crimes immediately go up.)
Maybe try more carefully re-reading my responses involving the word “murder” to identify one of the two big points of disagreement between you and SD here. Noem’s strategy seems legal and smart to me, so I’m good.
No, I wasn't confusing the concepts of higher and lower prosecution value and "blamability" that you introduced. My question was and is straightforward and unanswered with ideas about target value and "blamability." Again, we have an act that is alleged to be MURDER, and the announced policy of South Dakota is that the principal actor in that murder will NOT being charged with anything at all. There is an enormous inconsistency in the state's messaging about abortion, and it significantly undermines the argument that abortion = murder.
And I don't know where you are getting this hyperbolic "thousand times more value" evaluation, but one of the primary ways to deter a particular crime in society is to charge the perpetrators. If a person want to commit murder, they are MUCH more likely to do so -- lets call it a thousand times more likely to do so -- when the governor of the state announces they will not be charged with anything at all for committing the murder.
(At the risk of having you take things out of context, you can see in real time in California what I am saying regarding deterrence and criminal charges, where various officials have announced policies that certain crimes will no longer be prosecuted - the crime rates for those crimes immediately go up.)
Maybe try more carefully re-reading my responses involving the word “murder” to identify one of the two big points of disagreement between you and SD here. Noem’s strategy seems legal and smart to me, so I’m good.
I read your responses carefully. They don't explain what you think they do.
Once again, because you can't seem to address it -- on its face, South Dakota's policy that it will not prosecute women who deliberately seek abortions is glaringly inconsistent with the entire reason, purpose, emotions and morality behind the abortion law that the governor of South Dakota and others wanted so much. They finally prevailed on the argument that abortion is murder, but immediately announce that the murderers are absolutely free to commit the now prohibited murders. That Catch-22 like paradox seems to grow more absurd each time I'm forced to reexplain it for you.
Maybe try more carefully re-reading my responses involving the word “murder” to identify one of the two big points of disagreement between you and SD here. Noem’s strategy seems legal and smart to me, so I’m good.
I read your responses carefully. They don't explain what you think they do.
Once again, because you can't seem to address it -- on its face, South Dakota's policy that it will not prosecute women who deliberately seek abortions is glaringly inconsistent with the entire reason, purpose, emotions and morality behind the abortion law that the governor of South Dakota and others wanted so much. They finally prevailed on the argument that abortion is murder, but immediately announce that the murderers are absolutely free to commit the now prohibited murders. That Catch-22 like paradox seems to grow more absurd each time I'm forced to reexplain it for you.
“Emotions and morality” != law, and SD law disagrees with your calling it murder, as I noted both in my first response. Try explaining your confusion again without calling it murder unless you can point to a SD law that says it’s murder.
I read your responses carefully. They don't explain what you think they do.
Once again, because you can't seem to address it -- on its face, South Dakota's policy that it will not prosecute women who deliberately seek abortions is glaringly inconsistent with the entire reason, purpose, emotions and morality behind the abortion law that the governor of South Dakota and others wanted so much. They finally prevailed on the argument that abortion is murder, but immediately announce that the murderers are absolutely free to commit the now prohibited murders. That Catch-22 like paradox seems to grow more absurd each time I'm forced to reexplain it for you.
“Emotions and morality” != law, and SD law disagrees with your calling it murder, as I noted both in my first response. Try explaining your confusion again without calling it murder unless you can point to a SD law that says it’s murder.
I'm discussing the often made argument that abortion is murder. I'm positive you have seen the argument expressed here in this thread and many other places, including the national political stage. You may have even made that argument yourself in this thread, or at least supported it.
So I'm not really concerned with what label South Dakota puts on a woman who illegally aborts a baby, but rather, as I've explained to you many times, how one can reconcile the fact that a state, such as South Dakota (and undoubtedly many others), having finally prevailed on the argument that abortion is murder, then announces that the murderers are absolutely free to commit the now prohibited murders. You have not attempted to answer that. Directing me to the South Dakota statute is a dodge. It doesn't matter what it says, and if it actually says women who have abortions are not murderers, its actually proves my point, not yours.
Have you argued abortion = murder? If so, how would you reconcile or justify criminalizing abortion as some degree of murder, and then telling the murderers who commit the now prohibited murders that that are free to commit the illegal murders? If you can't answer that, please resist your impulse to respond with tangents and irrelevancies.
“Emotions and morality” != law, and SD law disagrees with your calling it murder, as I noted both in my first response. Try explaining your confusion again without calling it murder unless you can point to a SD law that says it’s murder.
I'm discussing the often made argument that abortion is murder. I'm positive you have seen the argument expressed here in this thread and many other places, including the national political stage. You may have even made that argument yourself in this thread, or at least supported it.
So I'm not really concerned with what label South Dakota puts on a woman who illegally aborts a baby, but rather, as I've explained to you many times, how one can reconcile the fact that a state, such as South Dakota (and undoubtedly many others), having finally prevailed on the argument that abortion is murder, then announces that the murderers are absolutely free to commit the now prohibited murders. You have not attempted to answer that. Directing me to the South Dakota statute is a dodge. It doesn't matter what it says, and if it actually says women who have abortions are not murderers, its actually proves my point, not yours.
Have you argued abortion = murder? If so, how would you reconcile or justify criminalizing abortion as some degree of murder, and then telling the murderers who commit the now prohibited murders that that are free to commit the illegal murders? If you can't answer that, please resist your impulse to respond with tangents and irrelevancies.
I told you to explain without using the word “murder”, so come back after you’ve done that. It is a false premise to day “South Dakota finally prevailed on the argument that abortion is murder”. It was Mississippi that prevailed on a different case last week.
As this thread shows, the view of the Right is that the nation's founders wrote the Constitution with every item in the present-day Republican wish-list in mind. Furthermore, as the abortion issue shows, there are none more expert on the subject of women's rights than a bunch of guys. So much wisdom beneath their turbans.
I’m confused. Is Amy Coney Barrett a “guy”? I thought she was a female Supreme Court justice. Maybe a bit of misogyny to disregard her opinion on the matter?
This thread proves that a lot of people are unable, or unwilling, to agree with a principle while simultaneously understanding that a ruling regarding that principle can be on shaky ground.
Why is it that someone as pro-choice and pro-feminism as Ruth Bader Ginsburg could see this, yet most people in this thread refuse to? She knew Roe could not hold up long term under the right to privacy argument.
The anti-abortion blowhards on this thread are all male. Aspiring Taliban recruits.
I’m confused. Is Amy Coney Barrett a “guy”? I thought she was a female Supreme Court justice. Maybe a bit of misogyny to disregard her opinion on the matter?
This thread proves that a lot of people are unable, or unwilling, to agree with a principle while simultaneously understanding that a ruling regarding that principle can be on shaky ground.
Why is it that someone as pro-choice and pro-feminism as Ruth Bader Ginsburg could see this, yet most people in this thread refuse to? She knew Roe could not hold up long term under the right to privacy argument.
None of these decriers have actually even read the majority opinion, which is why they can’t articulate substantive legal objections to the arguments therein. Six scotus justices’ comprehensive decision justification is way more compelling than virtue signaling by Roe apologists. All they know is they have to be against the decision, but they don’t care to understand and conscientiously refute the decision.
The “right to privacy” argument never made sense to me long before 2022 even back when I considered myself a supporter of Roe. It’s not hard to see why. If it is, Alito’s report explains why in simple language, and I have as well several times in this thread.
The decision is easily understood. 6 unelected officials have gone against majority wishes in the US to take away the long established rights of millions of Americans - all women. Without firing a shot. How democracy disappears through the abuse of institutional authority.
I'm discussing the often made argument that abortion is murder. I'm positive you have seen the argument expressed here in this thread and many other places, including the national political stage. You may have even made that argument yourself in this thread, or at least supported it.
So I'm not really concerned with what label South Dakota puts on a woman who illegally aborts a baby, but rather, as I've explained to you many times, how one can reconcile the fact that a state, such as South Dakota (and undoubtedly many others), having finally prevailed on the argument that abortion is murder, then announces that the murderers are absolutely free to commit the now prohibited murders. You have not attempted to answer that. Directing me to the South Dakota statute is a dodge. It doesn't matter what it says, and if it actually says women who have abortions are not murderers, its actually proves my point, not yours.
Have you argued abortion = murder? If so, how would you reconcile or justify criminalizing abortion as some degree of murder, and then telling the murderers who commit the now prohibited murders that that are free to commit the illegal murders? If you can't answer that, please resist your impulse to respond with tangents and irrelevancies.
I told you to explain without using the word “murder”, so come back after you’ve done that. It is a false premise to day “South Dakota finally prevailed on the argument that abortion is murder”. It was Mississippi that prevailed on a different case last week.
No, that's not the issues I'm asking about. I've made it clear what I'm asking about. You are unable to provide any adequate explanation, or any explanation at all. Your posts above that are deemed non-responsive will be stricken during the next board maintenance period.
Come back when you can explain the glaring inconsistency between arguing abortion is a degree of murder, on the one hand, and then announcing that murderers are free to commit the act considered a degree of murder, on the other. Until that time, you are instructed to keep your mouth firmly shut regarding this topic or any related topics.
None of these decriers have actually even read the majority opinion, which is why they can’t articulate substantive legal objections to the arguments therein. Six scotus justices’ comprehensive decision justification is way more compelling than virtue signaling by Roe apologists. All they know is they have to be against the decision, but they don’t care to understand and conscientiously refute the decision.
The “right to privacy” argument never made sense to me long before 2022 even back when I considered myself a supporter of Roe. It’s not hard to see why. If it is, Alito’s report explains why in simple language, and I have as well several times in this thread.
The decision is easily understood. 6 unelected officials have gone against majority wishes in the US to take away the long established rights of millions of Americans - all women. Without firing a shot. How democracy disappears through the abuse of institutional authority.
The highest court in the land has sent a major issues back to the states for them, through the democratic process, to decide how to handle said issue. But yeah, total kill shot to democracy.
If the right to abortion really is as popular as people say it is, the constituents of each state will make their voices heard and state reps will either address the concern or find themselves out of office. That sounds pretty democratic to me.
The decision is easily understood. 6 unelected officials have gone against majority wishes in the US to take away the long established rights of millions of Americans - all women. Without firing a shot. How democracy disappears through the abuse of institutional authority.
The highest court in the land has sent a major issues back to the states for them, through the democratic process, to decide how to handle said issue. But yeah, total kill shot to democracy.
If the right to abortion really is as popular as people say it is, the constituents of each state will make their voices heard and state reps will either address the concern or find themselves out of office. That sounds pretty democratic to me.
Not when you have the filibuster preventing a change in the law and a gerrymandering minority party defeating the majority. Democracy is about rights, not about formal processes. Even Hitler used those - to take away people's rights. Just like the SCOTUS has done.
I told you to explain without using the word “murder”, so come back after you’ve done that. It is a false premise to day “South Dakota finally prevailed on the argument that abortion is murder”. It was Mississippi that prevailed on a different case last week.
No, that's not the issues I'm asking about. I've made it clear what I'm asking about. You are unable to provide any adequate explanation, or any explanation at all. Your posts above that are deemed non-responsive will be stricken during the next board maintenance period.
Come back when you can explain the glaring inconsistency between arguing abortion is a degree of murder, on the one hand, and then announcing that murderers are free to commit the act considered a degree of murder, on the other. Until that time, you are instructed to keep your mouth firmly shut regarding this topic or any related topics.
Please try writing a few more paragraphs explaining your thoughts clearer.
The decision is easily understood. 6 unelected officials have gone against majority wishes in the US to take away the long established rights of millions of Americans - all women. Without firing a shot. How democracy disappears through the abuse of institutional authority.
The highest court in the land has sent a major issues back to the states for them, through the democratic process, to decide how to handle said issue. But yeah, total kill shot to democracy.
If the right to abortion really is as popular as people say it is, the constituents of each state will make their voices heard and state reps will either address the concern or find themselves out of office. That sounds pretty democratic to me.
Ha ha ha, the wannabe American New Zealander further confirms that he hasn’t read the opinion, bloviating like a kid who hasn’t actually read the book he supposed to summarize. The dictatorship that scotus apparently is is the same one that enshrined Obergefell, but the NZ’er probably thinks that’s the name of a vegetable 🍆 🥦 or something.
Hardly the first time SC has gone against “majority wishes” (aka opinion polls). Thank goodness the SC is more intellectual than being into Instagram likes.
