Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
Main issue to me is, we now have two main invlved camps standing on the opposite sides of a path and screaming at each other, allowing for no deviation amongst themselves, and certainly not allowing that this question of preferenc eis going to have to be characterized by compromise. Neither side seems willing to compromise.
|
True enough. But your first two posts (As I read them) consisted entirely of you raging at him for raging at the other side, and criticizing him for not including disclaimers acknowledging that the other side fundamentally disagrees with him. (As if that would somehow make the law ok -- it makes the law understandable). Your own position on the issue didn't appear until about your third or fourth post. Not conducive to discussion.
Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
Look at how AG characterized this. The MN leg intentionally sought to hurt these 68 women. He spouts this knowing why the statute is written as it is. It's sloganeering at its worst.
|
Well, I don't think he said that. But, according to your plausible theory:
The Minn legislature knows that there would be some cases just like this. However, the pro-life majority drew up the law as written, and jammed it through because they couldn't trust the other side or find compromise language. They believed that the effort to save soem unknown number of lives by discouraging abortion was more important than whatever suffering is imposed on the women compelled to jump through extra painful hoops when they wish to have an abortion because the child that they desperately desire is severely deformed, or missing a brain, etc.
So -- actually, the Minn. Legislature did make a knowing decision to hurt those women -- they just didn't know their names at the time. Omlettes/Eggs, etc. As for intent -- under the law, one is presumed to intend the natural consequences of one's actions. As for morality - the women were just collateral damage, but that is no comfort to them and their families.
S_A_M
