Suppose the moon was made of blue cheese?
It would still have no bearing on this discussion.
It is in the state’s interest to punish murderers. The law establishing first-degree murder penalties is the state’s instrument for punishing murderers. It is more popular, and less liekly to be repealed, because Italian-Americans are exempted from prosecution.
Good law?
How does it differ from exempting pregnant women from prosecution from what can only be described as murder?
Do you ever get the impression that we’re just repeating ourselves? And that no one’s mind is going to be changed here?
I still want to know the answer to my question.
If I’m willing to risk death rather than be pregnant, what potential punishment could you possibly threaten me with that would stop me from aborting?
Because it needn’t only be described as murder. Roe v. Wade itself identified a compelling state interest in restricting abortions:
So, the very decision that overturned absolute state restrictions against abortion likewise recognized a compelling state interest to do so at a certain point. Say the SD law effectively overturns Roe v Wade. To say that it is illogical to do so–how can there be a compelling state interest to regulate abortion absent a charge of murder?–well, the same could be asked of Roe v. Wade, couldn’t it? Roe allowed for the possibility of restricting abortion to protect “potential life,” not actual life. Whether or not the SD law was crafted properly, there is already SC precedent for recognizing a state interest without recognizing an existing human life.
That would work for me.
So what? Should we dispense with any crime on the books where there are people who would rather risk death than not commit the crime? How about terrorism? Should we make that legal?
Fox News? Maybe I am showing my bias here, but enough of us have caught the various "news"casters and talking heads of Fox News in so many “spins”, editorializings of news, outright lies and blatant falsehoods. that you’ll excuse me if I totally ignore anything they have to say on ANY subject. On the other hand, if there is something from the AMA (about the medical aspects) or the American Bar Association (on the legalities), I’m all ears.
If we are going to start drawing our “facts” from Fox news, I’m outta here.
That depends upon your goal.
If you want to stop abortion, and threats of punishment won’t do it, then what?
Punishment will not stop abortion from happening. I doubt it will even cause a significant reduction in them. Supposedly the goal of the anti-choice people is stopping abortion from happening, right? Threats of punishment will not deter desperate women. It will not save the embryos. It won’t do a damn thing to protect ‘life.’
One doesn’t dispute facts by throwing stones at the source, not unless you’re prone to logical fallacies. This isn’t an editorial. It’s a survey with a certain statistical precision noted. If you find fault with the survey method, please point it out. “I’d prefer not to believe this” isn’t a counter.
Perhaps it won’t stop you. That is not at all the same as saying it won’t significantly reduce abortions.
Laws against armed robbery don’t stop armed robberies from occurring either.
Upon what do you base this counter-intuitive doubt? It certainly minimized abortions prior to Roe v Wade.
Right, 'cause you say so. And this “anti-choice” bullshit is really tiresome. Whenever I hear it, I generally find that meaningful debate is not possible. :rolleyes:
Reading this same decision, it does not open the door for an outright ban, which I fear we are headed. It still puts the burden on the state to prove a compelling interest and justify it. It goes further to say SOME state regulation may be permissible. Again, regulation is not necessarily the same as banning. We have regulations for gambling in some states - they are not banning gambling, they only regulate it. Big difference. It also says the privacy right is not absolute. That is true in so many other areas too. We have a right to privacy in our homes, persons, property and effects. But, with a legal warrant, that can be overridden. Again though, a warrant has to be requested and issued.
South Dakota though, is an attempt to “go all the way”. No regulation, just a ban. No right to privacy in “our” persons, just a law. The Supreme Court allowed some wiggle room for real life situations. SD does not. “They” want all or nothing" and this is just the first step.
Take a salami. Take off the first slice. Then take the next slice later on. Repeat until nothing is left.
[QUOTE=Stratocaster]
As for Fox News, it may just as well be the Free Republic or News Max. Like momma always said, “consider the source”. The other saying, also appropraite to Fox News is “fool me once, shame on you. fool me twice, shame on me”. I choose not to rely on a “news” source that has already shown a dependable record of slanted and partisan truthiness.
Yes, but if it is overturned, that’s not relevant. My point was that the holy grail of SC pro-choice decisions recognized a compelling state right to prohibit abortions without recognizing the existence of human life. If Roe v. Wade could so so, why couldn’t another SC decision? And why aren’t the pro-choice posters in this thread equally outraged over this “non sequitur” embedded in Roe v Wade?
Yes, and if Roe v Wade is held a sacrosanct, they will fail. If it is not, then there is the possibility of an SC decision that would permit the restiction of abortions based on a compelling state interest, differently defined, while not establishing the human rights of the fetus.
Fine. We’ve firmly established your affection for this particular logical fallacy. Gotcha.
Funny, I get the same hives when I hear someone describe themselves as “pro-life”–does “anti-abortion” offend you in the same way that “anti-choice” does?
This is an honest question, and not an attempt at a jab.
Self-created propaganda terms
Pro-Life, Pro-Choice
Innacurate derogatory terms
Pro-Abortion, Anti-Choice
Neutral terms
Pro-abortion rights, anti-abortion
But would Roe v Wade be overturned? I don’t think so. As written, it already supplies some wiggle room for both sides, and is as much of a “compromise” as can be hoped for right now. The problem is, there seems to be no interest in any compromise at all. There is regulation, there is restriction, there is outright ban. Each is different. I see SD (and activity in other states) as a first attempt, in order to get closer to a total ban. Further, if the states “chicken out” and avoid having a fetus clasified as a human being with all the attendant rights, then they have a hard time proving that the laws do NOT have some underlying religious basis. Even the point when this fetus becomes a living sentient being is subject to some nasty religious debate and not all religions agree. We can’t pinpoint it scientifically yet, that’s for sure. So where does that leave us?
The better course would be to ensure that people never get into this situation. better sex education, easier access to birth control and medical insurance/care, etc. But oh. That might cost effort and money. That might offend the “holy rollers”. My bad.
No. While I generally see it as yet another means of avoiding calling pro-lifers what they’d prefer, at least it isn’t “loaded” in the way that “anti-choice” is.
I don’t think it will be now.
The SC’s job, as much as some would prefer otherwise, isn’t to find comprimise. It’s to determine what is constitutional. On good days they base their decision on something actually in the Constitution.
Right. Because religious people are against spending money and exerting themselves. Everyone knows that.
It’s a hell of a lot more honest than either, too.