Whether or not women can rape depends on the legal nuances of the definition of rape in the jurisdiction in question. That doesn’t change the fact that as a practical matter women are essentially never charged with rape. Although men make up a meaningful portion of rape victims, for practical purposes, all rapists are men.
As far as whether or not men have traditionally made rape laws, that’s just a result of the fact that historically almost all laws were made by men. My point is that no one is arguing that men should make rape laws because they have the equipment to be rapists. Yet that is precisely why the argument is made that women should make abortion decisions.
Modern medicine is essentially founded on the postulate that doctors can better assess the health of individuals than those individuals can themselves. Your assertion to the contrary seems backwards.
It’s rather tenuous to assert that anyone has an interest in the wellbeing of the person they have chosen to kill.
Countering my statement by suggesting what you think the appropriate counter to your argument should be is very rich of you, but ultimately a straw man.
The UK used to have the most adult form in the world. The decision could only be delivered by a full jury (even on dissenter would void it) and the jury had to be clearly instructed that this was the affect of the finding of guilty.
It wasn’t public, and a long hanging would ensue a few weeks after the sentence. It did lead UK criminals to personally disarm prior to robberies for fear of the gallows.
Cop killers were also handed over with alacrity by London gangs. This is no longer the case.
Does rape affect the victim and the rapist or just the victim? How many people are affected by pregnancy? It is either one, the mother, or two if you include whatever stage of development you believe is a human being. Rape is still a poor analogy.
I suspect a lot of people are affected by rape ( including the rapist, probably). Pregnancy also affects lots of people such as the mother, the child, the father, the families of the mother and father, and probably their friends. In neither case is it sensible to give arbitrary dictatorship to a single person.
I don’t have a moral problem with the death penalty, but practically it isn’t really working. Between false convictions, the decades of appeals, and the expense of the actual execution, they don’t really serve the public good or act as a deterrent. It’s an issue that ultimately isn’t worth fighting about.
I wouldn’t equate the effects of rape on the rapist with those on the victim. Just as I wouldn’t equate the effects of being pregnant on the woman with its effects on anyone else.
There are methods that could correct that without depriving society of the ability to strike down the most evil.
I think prosecutorial misconduct should be punished like the fist of an angry God was falling.
Similarly, legal aid could be expanded to make the arms more equal. Further, the British controls on it made it rare, and robust. Juries were reticent to find guilty unless absolutely sure after the judicial instruction that death would be the affect.
As for the deterrent effect, well, it’s a hard thing to assess. The UK’s murder rate has gone up since, but there are myriad factors involved there.
Though, this is neither the time nor the thread for the debate, so I’ll drop the issue here.
The inequality of effects doesn’t logically support giving one person unilateral decision making power (unless you are arguing that all other effects are superficial, which death likely isn’t).
It seems absurd that one judge in some far off district can wield that kind of power.
“Nationwide injunctions mean that each of the more than 600 federal district judges in the United States can freeze a law or regulation throughout the country — regardless of whether the other 599 disagree.”
I wonder what its going to take, if anything, to revert the 3 branches to acting in the ways they were meant to. Do Americans even care about the branches playing in the wrong pool these days?
They also illustrate a derelict legislative branch that prefers to see critical issues punted to courts rather than representing the wishes of their constituents by passing laws
People are very clueless about the branches and what they do. That, I believe is why Congress gets a low score. Most of the time they are dealing with mundane issues or protecting us from the executive before it makes it to a vote.
It’s not sexy work, but Congress has saved us from a lot of bad legislation, stuff that doesn’t make the news. Stuff that should be the law.
That is why I like Congress. They are our wall against tyranny. I don’t always like them, but most of the time they do the shit work that needs to be done.
They don’t need an ego boost, per se, but they deserve credit for protecting us from excruciatingly stupid ideas.
It all starts with Congress. They must re-assert themselves to the primary spot they were meant to occupy, or forever be the gimpy younger brother of the executive and judiciary.
What’s hilarious to me is that the media circus went straight to overturning Roe v. Wade. As if it was the next case up.
Oh the panic! Lol!
You know, let them have their panic attacks all the time. Then, when they’ve cried ‘wolf’ enough that no one listens anymore, maybe we can get some meaningful legislation passed.
Right now, this is a numbers games. Cold and unparticular.
The good news is that the number of abortions have dropped a tick or two from years past. That’s a good thing.
The bad news is that still approximately 1 million human lives are taken every year. It’s both 1 too many and 1 million too many.
I need those numbers to go down. We cannot have the numbers of human life taken equalling anything the NAZI’s ever did.
These facts are in play:
The life inside a woman through pregnancy is a human life.
Once an abortion is done, a human life is taken.
Should the chance arrive that we can make the abortion statistics similar to DUI fatalities, we have won a great victory. If by law, nature, God, or human goodwill, nothing bad happens if we save more lives.
However, connecting the dots from a SCOTUS retirement to the over-turning Roe v. Wade is really funny.
My plea to the MSM is panic and freakout at every corner! Make yourselves irrelevant, you are not far!