prospect.org
Something being a right means you can't ban it. Something not being a right does not mean that you have to. Football is not a right, which does not mean we have to ban it, but that we can reasonably do so if there is a good argument for it. Do you disagree with the sentence: "Governments don't have to ban football, but they could do so if they wanted without violating anyone's human rights."?
I'm not.
Yes, true. It could also lead to more violence. Either are possible. I suggest to you that the cases where people deserve worse outnumber the cases where people deserve better by a good margin. We live in societies that like the "better 10 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man be punished" concept, and while I would personally advocate for even more forgiveness and less punishment in the world, in terms of absolute justice delivered, we way, way underpunish people for their crimes.
I'm glad we can agree on that point. I've been saying for pages that "deserve" isn't the issue, and you've been the one pushing that concept.
Which makes a potential case for allowing abortions in the case of rape.
So you are making the case that in order to ban something, there should be a good argument for doing so. This, of course, is not particularly exciting as it is a very basic concept agreed by both the entirety of the left and right (although they may differ heavily on the boundaries of where good argument applies).
I'm going to be 100% honest with you: Abortion and law is one of the legal issues I do not consider myself capable of doing an impartial legal analysis of due to my own personal biases.@CM156
Gonna find out if this kind of ping works.
Mississippi’s Originalism
Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health and the attack on sexual freedom
How much quackery is in this?
From my reading this looks like using the logic of the abortion ruling being used to strike down semi-related privacy precedents.
Yes? Yes. All agreeable. Just with an addition, that "don't kill people" is a pretty good argument for banning something.
In the same way the we don't save somebody's life by strapping an unwilling person down to scrape their bone marrow for a transplant, sure. Whatever helps you sleep at night.
Do you really not see the differences between strapping someone down and removing pieces of their body versus not aborting natural processes within them?
Nope. If that "natural process" is a person, it doesn't have the right to anybody else's body without consent, and if that "natural process" is not a person, then fuck it, who cares what somebody does with their own body?
Cancer is a natural process, and we attempt to cut out or put a stop to that.
Fetuses aren't people any more than acorns are oak trees.
As I've stated previously, I think a fetus is close to person before the birth. And not at all at conception. It's a spectrum that builds up and each person can probably have their own version of when it's close enough to human. Like, I wouldn't be advocating for abortion (except in extuating circumstances) in the third trimester as that's my line.
Fair enough. I dont mind hearing your opinion anyway, as you've declared you bias. But am fine if you dont want to still
This is an issue that it's really best for me not to talk about directly. I personally don't think there's anything closely enough analogous to abortion in either a medical or non-medical context that makes any of the comparisons good. For either the pro-choice or pro-life side.
pro-choice wouldn't need to make comparisons if their opponents recognized the patently obvious correctness of the pro-choice position apart from analogy.
Is not cutting out cancer morally equivalent to strapping someone down and sucking out their blood?
An acorn is an oak. Different levels of development do not change the species of something. You may as well say "a puppy isn't a dog". Using the word "tree" is a tired old trick for making it ambiguous, because a tree is sometimes used to describe a species of plant and sometimes used to describe a plant as fully grown, but if you're calling the type of plant "oak tree", an acorn is an oak tree.
95% of the argument against abortion is "don't kill people". If you think that's an exclusively religious position, you're not gonna have many support your arguments thereafter.
No, it is absolutely not, and you would have to be legitimately insane to think it is. Thanks for asking!
