Generally the aim of controlling people is not for the sake of controlling them, it is to achieve an external objective. If the state will accomplish that objective, that's fine.
So you say. But this is not 'objective', and you're just calling it that because you like the outcome. In truth, the SCOTUS comes to politically convenient conclusions regardless.
That's right, you're halfway there. And no pro-choicers talk about how great murder is, but you're happy to disregard what they do say to demonise their position in those terms.
Have a go at understanding your opponents, and you might receive an answer! My point from the start of this is that there's no point in you asking these questions if when your opponents reply, you insist they must just be wilful murderers lying about what they believe.
Nope, that's how you objectively interpret the law. The reason I used baseball is because an umpire on just a routine play like that can call the play anyway they want. They are basically political appointees and actually can't get fired if they suck at their job (see Angel Hernandez). However, based on the rules of baseball, there is a correct objective way every play should be called.
Yes. Would you care to reconsider your original point of contention?
The point Maher was making is that abortion is killing and he knows it, and he finds that to be an acceptable loss. I'm not saying anyone talks about how great murder is, you are exaggerating the point into a strawman. Pro choice arguments aren't pro-killing, they just see the killing as an acceptable loss, if they're being honest.
You cannot 'objectively' interpret a law which does not directly and unambiguously provide the answer to the question. If it were direct and unambiguous, there would be no call for interpretation at all, and no case to consider.
I've literally never seen anybody argue that there isn't life in some form. What's happened here is that people have made other arguments (it's not 'a human life'; its not an independent organism; its not alive in a meaningful sense that warrants protection) and you've reduced and simplified that.
You're making exceptionally huge interpretive leaps here.
Some spectacular hair-splitting. You said they were fine with murder. The moral smear, and the assumption that the target must share your own moral framework ("murder"), are clear.
So please tell me which federal law objectively and unambiguously lays out that states cannot exclude candidates from state primaries.
You are nitpicking the words I replied to as if I personally and carefully phrased them that way.
You chose to respond to them and to express that, in your opinion, your opponents must either believe that or be dishonest. You chose to make that accusation. If you want to back off it now, feel free.
They can't exclude candidates based on interpretation of a federal law...
If states could just interpret any federal law any way they wanted, then what's the actual point of federal laws when they can just be overruled willy-nilly?
