If only there was a word that could be used interchangeably with "murder" or "homicide" that is judgement neutral.
I propose the word 'kill' or 'killer' be used thusly.
The cope over being mocked for your poor word choice is epic with you.
Ah, well, I can kill a man by accidentally slipping on a banana peel and dropping an anvil on him. Kill doesn't imply intent, in the way that homicide does.
Even homicide does imply "deliberate and unlawful killing," though "justified homicide" also exists as a concept, making it the best word choice here. You did a semantic gatcha, I changed the wording, and you keep rolling back to the gatcha. With the wording changed and a literal example, we arrive at:
Finally! See, we disagree on this point, as we went into before. They're both immoral and unjustified to me. Otherwise, we resolve all of our problems by daisy-chain shooting the offender on our own judgment until someone pusses out. AKA, we start applying ghetto morality.
We already covered that you think location determines morality.
For the fetus versus newborn? Well, yes, in that the location also determines whether the thing is a glob of cells or a fully-formed human (with duration also influencing this, nevertheless).
Herein you declare incorrectly that courts decide the definitions of murder and justification.
A manifestly untrue statement, the democratically enacted law based on popular moral opinion does that.
The courts are for applying the agreed upon definitions, except when they refuse to and invent excuses.
If only it was actually done that way.
Too bad it's not.
Since Marshall the courts have had to interpret the meaning of laws and definitions in ways that could serve as de facto ruling from the bench. Judicial review will continue until such a point as the Congress itself begins updating outdated laws to match modern circumstances and sensibilities to the point of pre-empting them.
Does online shopping constitute "interstate commerce?" Seems like a no-brainer, but the Court still has to clarify that or get the Congress to clarify it.
Does the second amendment mean I cannot be barred from buying fully-automatic weapons?
I suppose this begs the question of whether you think the Court should be deciding this or the Congress in itself. I am personally fine with judicial review.
The "Right to Privacy" is tangentially related to judicial review, but it seems to be an extreme perversion of it. Rather than trying to clarify the exact definitions, as review does, this one introduced an entirely new concept out of whole cloth with no real precedence either from the courts or from congress upon which its arguments could be made.
Ahh. Now we have apples and oranges wherein you conflate the difficulty level of passing an amendment to override an invented right with winning a simple majority of the House and Senate.
The "bloc" in support of full legalization without restriction, can't get a simple majority when the "choice" party is in total control.
Totally similar.
Has the 'ban it wholesale' bloc gotten a majority in Congress such that they passed a bill which sailed through both the House and Senate, the President, and was struck down by the SCOTUS since the implementation of RvW? Genuinely curious on this one, as that would be an even more damning thing for RvW's longevity.
But for the current moment, yes, you have to overcome the bloc to get an amendment, but you're still free to try fighting it in the other ways. The 'bloc' I speak of is the bloc that stops the amendment; I have never meant that the bloc is large enough to push through its own pro-abortion stance.
You're free to do a lot of things that are doomed to failure, like trying to ban wholesale or permit wholesale abortion in the US federal government. You're free to try to get enough people on your side of the aisle and convince enough of them to vote with you - and you're just as free to keep making appeals that will fall flat on anyone that doesn't subscribe to your same system of morality.
My stance is that the survival of the species is a universal and killing utterly helpless human young is antithetical to that.
This is probably a better appeal for the middle-ground people than appeals to morality, but I don't see fetuses as helpless human young until the second and third trimester - at which point I'm fine with the current system of bans.
Agreed as long as we get rid of Wickard v Filburn at the same time.
Ripping it out wholesale would be best, but I would settle for extremely specific and precise interpretations of the commerce clause's intention and coverage similarly, perhaps as a prelude to full repeal.
Nice dodge. Guess you can't think of a reason to defend state genocide as moral.
I can, based in that pesky survival of the species thing.
THE race, or A race? I don't think South Sudan, the Tutsis, the Rohingya, the Jews, the Armenians, the Uighurs and so-on would have brought about the end of the human race if the state hadn't attempted to exterminate them, no.
I don't subscribe to the obsession with individual races, either (I know, I know, we're in A&H) - so no, there's no avenue by which I view state genocide as a moral imperative.
Strange thing to assert when the same concepts keep coming up and have been incorporated in various religions and laws globally throughout human history.
By that same metric, each state that reaches a certain level of development begins to loosen up its restrictions on abortion, contraception, sexuality, and women working all at once -- so these same concepts keep coming up and being incorporated in various laws and cultural attitudes throughout human history.
Unless you're saying that these older ideas cropped up absent of communication between the various civilizations, barring missionaries and limited commerce between them. It would be interesting to see how the developed world might have veered off in different directions had communication remained primitive as life quality improved (so as to suggest that these developments were not universal), but that's something we'll never fully be able to behold.
No way at all to argue that narrowing the gene pool is universally bad.
Can't be done.
And they'd argue that it's their freedom to narrow their own gene pools as their religion dictates.
In the end, they bowed the knee and changed for the advantage of access to the rest of the US after failing to win a court fight about it, and they failed to get anyone else on board with their idea of morality.
By contrast, the abortion people argue that it is their freedom to terminate their pregnancies as they dictate - and they are succeeding in getting people on board with their idea of morality.
So it is that it isn't the fact that polygamy was outlawed which made it bad, but that it was bad for the gene pool and thus survival of humanity and was bad.
Which means you need to be able to convince people that abortion's lowering the population rate (or anything about it, really) is bad for the survival of humanity, and thus the whole is bad, and thus it should be outlawed to follow the same path. Your side is failing at this, leading into:
If only it was actually done that way.
Too bad it's not.
Well, what's the alternative? Fantasizing about authoritarianism or open conflict that allows your take on abortion to be forced downwards, so you don't have to appeal to anyone? Most people are on board with banning 2nd & 3rd trimester, but conversely fine with 1st trimester.
I don't believe you've made any appeal to religion, really, thusfar - but that is one of the main opponents of first trimester abortion, and religion is in decline in virtually every developing and developed country. I've no idea how many people subscribe to abortion-opposition on the basis of it being directly against the survival of the human race, but I don't get the impression that that ideology is making strides, either.
If anything, it seems like the majority of people in developed countries are increasingly fine with first-trimester abortions. The pushback against it doesn't seem, to me, to be very effective.
We know you have incorrect assertions about what our individual arguments are. Move on.
I mean, I disagree with you. You're mostly making arguments that are not registering on my moral scale, because we have different moral system. I'm trying to impress that you make better arguments for people who don't share your moral system, because I am distressed at the number of people who want laissesz-faire abortions and for whom the weakness of the pro-life's argument simply makes them go deeper to the pro-abortion side. The economic points, as well as the general idea that humanity should sooner learn discipline than to stray dangerously close to disregard for what-could-be-life -- those have more heft to me, and I feel could have more heft with people I've seen drift closer towards Lena Dunham.
If things continue as they are, I believe that pro-life will continue to be a dwindling minority which will struggle to make the case for second and third-trimester bans. This strikes me as a disastrous result, yet for now certain.
Did we solve abortion yet?
Maybe double the amount of walls of text will do it
do you go into smoke shops and complain that people are smoking cigarettes, too?
