re: Prior to Roe v Wade being overturned I had no idea that abortions were that common.

quote:

---

How do you give a DA the discretion to NOT prosecute a Rittenhouse, while preventing a prosecutor from refusing to prosecute the McMichael boys? Sorry, but there IS no easy answer.

---

The respective bars should remove bad actors and create a feedback loop of decency or punishment for lack there of.

But the institutions are trash so.

Also, I generally laugh at the "someone I don't like is the alter of someone else I don't like" claims.

But can you just log back in as Hank? Or are you banned?

quote:

---

Imagine murdering someone to prevent responsibility

---

"Boy, these conservatives are really something aren't they? They're all in favor of the unborn. They will do anything foe the unborn. But once you're born, you're on your own. Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that, they don't want to know about you. They don't want to hear from you. No nothing. No neonatal care, no dat care, no head start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you're preborn, you're fine; if you're preschool, you're fricked." - George Carlin

quote:

---

(He) doesn’t understand the implications of his ask.

---

I assure you that I do. I have analyzed this issue from every angle for 40 years, and I have found what I believe to be the most-sensible approach to the issue. You need not agree with it, any more than I need agree with the "viability" approach.

To me, the ultimate questions are "Why is it deemed wrong to kill another human being, but acceptable to kill other organisms? Why should humans have 'rights' but other organisms not?" It is only sensible that all other analysis must flow from there.

After decades of consideration, I decided that the answer to this question lies in the ability to think and thus in the ability to UNDERSTAND "rights."

You seem to believe that the answer to those questions lies somewhere between the biological and the metaphysical. I don't fault you for the analysis. In fact, I understand it completely. I just do not see it as the most-rational approach.

quote:

---

(He and one other poster is bad about this) just creates the definitional systems and then just insults if you don’t use their sophomoric premises, tests and definitions

---

I use the terminology and the "definitions" that best-fit my overall set of premises, and you do the same. It would be stupid to try to argue velocity using measurements of mass or to measure time in inches.

I TRY to always be respectful of other opinions, but I admit that doing so is often difficult when the responses to my posts are almost uniformly both childish and insulting.

quote:

---

his positive and negative rights would only make since if the state was ordering the abortion.

---

Nonsense. An organism/individual with a negative right not to be killed has a right not to be killed EITHER by the State or by another individual. True, the State is usually tasked with ENFORCING that right, usually through the criminal law.

quote:

---

His framework doesn’t read on current law

---

No, it does not. I have never claimed otherwise. I am discussing an alternate system of analysis, which I believe to be superior to the current jurisprudential approach. When existing policy proves ineffective, only an idiot would refuse to at least examine another approach.

quote:

---

It also is hyper legal and doesn’t address the moral issues raised by others.

---

Also true. I am proposing a legal approach to a legal problem for people with VERY different moral and ideological values.

If you want to discuss morality, talk to your priest.

quote:

---

I assure you that I do.

---

With all your text, you admit your analysis has no support under existing law, and does not incorporate morality. As I mentioned, the primary reason is because vesting would later require defease ent which is judicially impractical and near impossible. Thus we are just left with it being “this gee whiz idea I made out of whole cloth” tgat would be fine if you didnt then do to this type of thing

quote:

---

If you want to discuss morality, talk to your priest.

---

You are totally oblivious to the fact that is what most people are discussing, and generally the types of items that people come to this board to discuss. What I discuss with a priest is silly hyperbole whic neither adds to your point nor makes you appear more erudite.

You are demanding people use your solipsistic worldview ( which lies not in law, morality or implementable system), and then insult them for not discussing items using your rules

Your attributions on others are usually false and unfounded. I’ve not stated an opinion, just merely showed that vesting is not a compatible model under existing law or in judicial efficiency. You decline to even discuss its morality. Your only discussion is in Hankworld—a place that I don’t want to enter

quote:

---

the primary reason is because vesting would later require defease ent which is judicially impractical and near impossible.

---

Not at all. If society says “we agree that a negative right vests at 16 weeks gestation,” it does so automatically … just as it now vests at birth. Defeasance is a red herring argument.

quote:

---

You are demanding people use your solipsistic worldview ( which lies not in law, morality or implementable system), and then insult them for not discussing items using your rules

---

Where have I attacked anyone ifor not adopting my theories and/or analysis? I present my thoughts, and I respond to questions about them. I do not even respond to most of the childish personal attacks.

quote:

---

You decline to even discuss its morality.

---

OK, let’s discuss.

The analysis I outline is completely amoral. Concerned neither with morality nor immorality because the population of our country has such vastly differing concepts of morality.

It is concerned only with creating a rational set of rules which balance competing rights. With creating an environment in which everyone can live together because everyone knows the rules, even if everyone dislikes one element or another OF those rules. It is inherently a compromise lying between the extremes, and those with extreme positions are thus certain to dislike parts of it.

You and others doubtless see that as problematic. I see it as the only practical approach in our modern, heterogenous American society.

quote:

---

The analysis I outline is completely amoral.

---

What the hell are you talking about? The entire concept of human life having value worth protecting is based on morality.

quote:

---

In my opinion, in a society with notions of morality as heterogenous as ours, any universally-applicable set of rules MUST be independent of any one group’s proprietary notions of “morality.”

---

It may not be based on the morality of any single group; it may be a compromise of sorts with input from the largest groups. There will be small enough minorities whose morality will be completely ignored because they're just too far from the majority, and they will have the morality of the majority forced on them.

One thing it will not be is amoral.

quote:

---

Anything else is just a soft theocracy.

---

What an incredibly stupid, simplistic thing to say.

To be so good at cutting and pasting and some retention, you absolutely SUCK at any sort of abstract or analogous thought.

If there isn't a script for you to follow, you're lost.

You are very much like Barack Obama in that regard.

quote:

---

I do not see any US state ever adopting a standard that allows termination of an infant born healthy.

---

Not for lack of trying by your Democrat brethren.