Search results

I mean, pandering, sure. But they actually were arrested, at least for a little while, AFAIK.

Hmm ... I have heard that the European model leans this way, putting the lie to the official time limits.

:rolleyes: "prohibits the state from denying or interfering with a person’s right to choose or obtain an abortion before viability of the fetus, or when the abortion is necessary to protect the life or health of the person." Whoever misconstrued "viability" as "birth" knowingly lied to you...

Some are advocating for that. Not the Secretary of Defense.

It is picking a side, but it's not ignoring the decision. Like, imagine a highway going from A to B. You're king of the highway. You decide you don't want anyone going from A to B, so you put up a roadblock. I want to go from A to B, and I know of a side road, so I use that instead. I'm not...

Since Abhorsen's not getting through, let me try something simpler: "Is it okay to enslave a woman for nine months if that is the only way to save a human life?"

If the "critical moral question" (of the fate of another human being) is what distinguishes abortion from the other issues decided on similar reasoning, what would preclude states from forbidding gay couples to adopt? Since raising a child, I'd imagine, is also important to the fate of a human...

Eh, I've been hearing all along that Roberts wanted to uphold Mississippi's law but didn't want to officially bulldoze the technical constitutional right to abortion. From what I've heard so far that's exactly what his separate opinion argues so he stood his ground however stupid that ground...

I'm not convinced about wide scale riots on this issue. We'll find out soon enough.

What about the teleportation thought experiment? (Where they "teleport" you by creating a perfect copy of you somewhere else and destroying the original in the exact same instant) Would that be murder, even though there is no time when both bodies have consciousness?

Obi Wan Kenobi

I think it's very appropriate for laws to be written in such a way that rare cases don't get fucked over. and 200,000 per year is not honestly that rare. I am not sure the numbers on "elective" abortion vs. serious fetal defects etc. are reliable on account of, if there is no reason required...

That sounds like the number that says they're not in favor of overturning Roe v Wade, but it's an open question how much of that is just reflexive aversion to changing the status quo. Which is now, it seems, getting changed, but how much do they actually care? Would we see the same percentage...

From skimming the article, if activities are pushed from "this is considered church business" to "this is considered state business", that alone isn't caesaropapism. It's when the state tells the church how to do what is still considered to be church business. (e.g. "You must allow women to...

I gotcha. Not sure how I missed that. Probably was tired.

Yeah so 54%, not 80%, in Mississippi which is definitely going to skew more in the direction of favoring restrictions on abortion. I don't see how this supports the claim that was made.

Does it actually mean that though? There's a lot of wiggle room between "all circumstances" and "no circumstances" and any poll that doesn't make some kind of attempt to suss that out is only good for determining the percentage of absolutists on both sides. And to my understanding when a poll...

Sure, and I wouldn't be that surprised if they do kill the filibuster if they still hold Congress in January. But my thinking is that, if the filibuster is dead, they would have plenty to occupy themselves with via legislation rather than risk the infighting that would result from court-packing...

They can only "enact abortion" if they have the willpower to kill the filibuster, and if they do that there's much less need to pack the courts rather than go on a legislative tear. God knows there's enough backlog on both sides of the aisle that would pass and never be held unconstitutional by...

Perfect answer except for one thing: Mississippi.