Fine, but if you want to get technical, neither is overturning Roe making abortion "illegal." Not even a little. It's remanding it to the states. Now if you don't think it should be decided on a state-by-state basis - because some states will make it illegal - that's fair. A lot of pro-lifers, ironically, don't think that's right either…
Fine, but if you want to get technical, neither is overturning Roe making abortion "illegal." Not even a little. It's remanding it to the states. Now if you don't think it should be decided on a state-by-state basis - because some states will make it illegal - that's fair. A lot of pro-lifers, ironically, don't think that's right either, btw. From a pro-life perspective, why should it be legal to kill a baby in Massachusetts, and not in Arkansas? Is that fair to the baby in Massachusetts? Which is not a completely frivolous moral inconsistency protestation. But what I don't get, in your otherwise supple approach, is how does the meat cleaver vs. scalpel distinction actually work itself out on the ground? What would that actually look like and is it even possible? At some point, do lines not actually have to get drawn? Or undrawn? Aren't these absolutes we're speaking of? (Either it's a life, or it's not, and you can either take it, or you can't?) As you yourself just said, "Abortion terminates life. It's wrong." So why play semantic games? What does it look like on the ground to address the "wrongness"? Because as I had Randall do in my piece, he addressed many of the other societal concerns. Which are real concerns, admittedly. But if a law becomes a law, or 50 laws become the law, a lot of other hard realities get dried in cement. So what should that look like?
Fine, but if you want to get technical, neither is overturning Roe making abortion "illegal." Not even a little. It's remanding it to the states. Now if you don't think it should be decided on a state-by-state basis - because some states will make it illegal - that's fair. A lot of pro-lifers, ironically, don't think that's right either, btw. From a pro-life perspective, why should it be legal to kill a baby in Massachusetts, and not in Arkansas? Is that fair to the baby in Massachusetts? Which is not a completely frivolous moral inconsistency protestation. But what I don't get, in your otherwise supple approach, is how does the meat cleaver vs. scalpel distinction actually work itself out on the ground? What would that actually look like and is it even possible? At some point, do lines not actually have to get drawn? Or undrawn? Aren't these absolutes we're speaking of? (Either it's a life, or it's not, and you can either take it, or you can't?) As you yourself just said, "Abortion terminates life. It's wrong." So why play semantic games? What does it look like on the ground to address the "wrongness"? Because as I had Randall do in my piece, he addressed many of the other societal concerns. Which are real concerns, admittedly. But if a law becomes a law, or 50 laws become the law, a lot of other hard realities get dried in cement. So what should that look like?