Just war and Iran

[NorrinRadd]

So, let's say you're a drone operator sitting in your office in the states, and your predator drone is circling a daycare from which missiles had been fired.
You are given the green light to fire on the day care, and you can see children outside playing.

You execute?

I will say "probably."

If I were a sniper on overwatch and saw a kid wearing an explosive vest running toward a group of soldiers I was protecting, I'd definitely drop him.

[Watermelon]

In that case she gets away with it. Unless they make it a crime to leave the country to have an abortion. Plug the loopholes. It still doesn't mean you should drop the law.

Let's say it is legal to buy and use Heroin in India but not the USA. Should the USA make Heroin legal just because someone rich can fly to India to get Heroin where someone who is poor cannot?

She hasn't gotten away with it because she hasn't committed a crime to begin with. Abortion is unique in its circumstances and I can't think of any real life situations that could reasonably be comparable. Its the consequences arising out of a legal action and criminalizing an option to deal with it. So your heroin example would be closer if the situation was that its legal to buy heroin but illegal to use heroin in USA but you can do both in India. Not perfect but closer to the point I'm trying to make.

The point isn't about dropping a law because loopholes exist, it whether the law is performing its function. Making abortions illegal is to criminalize it. What is the purpose of criminalizing something? Is the purpose to prevent abortions from happening or to punish the people who get abortions? Is the benefit to public interests outweighed by any negativity?

[Cow Poke]

I will say "probably."

If I were a sniper on overwatch and saw a kid wearing an explosive vest running toward a group of soldiers I was protecting, I'd definitely drop him.

You honestly aren't conflating the two, are you?

A) A kid wearing an explosive vest running toward a group of soldiers
2) A daycare from which a rocket (not missile) was fired

You honestly believe those are in the same category?

[Sparko]

She hasn't gotten away with it because she hasn't committed a crime to begin with. Abortion is unique in its circumstances and I can't think of any real life situations that could reasonably be comparable. Its the consequences arising out of a legal action and criminalizing an option to deal with it. So your heroin example would be closer if the situation was that its legal to buy heroin but illegal to use heroin in USA but you can do both in India. Not perfect but closer to the point I'm trying to make.

The point isn't about dropping a law because loopholes exist, it whether the law is performing its function. Making abortions illegal is to criminalize it. What is the purpose of criminalizing something? Is the purpose to prevent abortions from happening or to punish the people who get abortions? Is the benefit to public interests outweighed by any negativity?

You basically ignored my post and repeated yourself.

Your point DOES seem to be "if loopholes exist, drop the law"

Just because a few rich people could skirt the law doesn't mean the law is inneffective at saving babies.

What if New Zealand legalized infanticide up to 3 months old (something Starlight pushes for, by the way) and rich people were flying to New Zealand to kill their infants legally. Does that mean we shouldn't have laws against infanticide because poor people can't afford to fly to New Zealand to kill their infants?

Try answering this before ignoring my post again. It is exactly the same as an abortion law, the only difference is the location of the baby.

[Watermelon]

You basically ignored my post and repeated yourself.

Your point DOES seem to be "if loopholes exist, drop the law"

Just because a few rich people could skirt the law doesn't mean the law is inneffective at saving babies.

What if New Zealand legalized infanticide up to 3 months old (something Starlight pushes for, by the way) and rich people were flying to New Zealand to kill their infants legally. Does that mean we shouldn't have laws against infanticide because poor people can't afford to fly to New Zealand to kill their infants?

Try answering this before ignoring my post again. It is exactly the same as an abortion law, the only difference is the location of the baby.

I didn’t ignore your post, I didn’t think it was relevant to the point I was trying to make and I explained why. This question on infanticide only sounds similar but actually isn’t. To both questions I’d answer no.

The heroin question isn’t a loophole. The infanticide question would be easy to control since the infant is identifiable and there is only one destination.

Abortion is legal in most developed countries and pregnancy can be concealed. So many destinations, unidentifiable and affordable. It’s not a loophole that can be realistically closed.

My point is actually the opposite of what you think. If a loophole exists then plug it up by all means but what if a loophole can’t be plugged, is easily accessible to everyone who can afford it and everyone is able to afford it? Is the law doing it’s intended purpose?

[simplicio]

You basically ignored my post and repeated yourself.

Your point DOES seem to be "if loopholes exist, drop the law"

Just because a few rich people could skirt the law doesn't mean the law is inneffective at saving babies.

What if New Zealand legalized infanticide up to 3 months old (something Starlight pushes for, by the way) and rich people were flying to New Zealand to kill their infants legally. Does that mean we shouldn't have laws against infanticide because poor people can't afford to fly to New Zealand to kill their infants?

Try answering this before ignoring my post again. It is exactly the same as an abortion law, the only difference is the location of the baby.

While I do disagree with the poster, he does bring in important points, found at the end of his post (last two questions).

Is the goal of anti abortion laws about preventing them or punishing miscreants who break the law?

What is the public interest in such a law?

I know, I know, if you have to ask......... but they are useful questions anyway.

[Sparko]

I didn’t ignore your post, I didn’t think it was relevant to the point I was trying to make and I explained why. This question on infanticide only sounds similar but actually isn’t. To both questions I’d answer no.

The heroin question isn’t a loophole. The infanticide question would be easy to control since the infant is identifiable and there is only one destination.

Abortion is legal in most developed countries and pregnancy can be concealed. So many destinations, unidentifiable and affordable. It’s not a loophole that can be realistically closed.

My point is actually the opposite of what you think. If a loophole exists then plug it up by all means but what if a loophole can’t be plugged, is easily accessible to everyone who can afford it and everyone is able to afford it? Is the law doing it’s intended purpose?

Oh please, now you are just making excuses and nitpicking. The discussion is whether any law should remain a law if a rich person has a way around it and a poor person doesn't. That is what you have been claiming. Now all of a sudden, it only applies to abortion and nothing else. Just admit defeat. Your claim has no teeth.

[Sparko]

While I do disagree with the poster, he does bring in important points, found at the end of his post (last two questions).

Is the goal of anti abortion laws about preventing them or punishing miscreants who break the law?

What is the public interest in such a law?

I know, I know, if you have to ask......... but they are useful questions anyway.

The goal would be to prevent them. Any law will have consequences if broken, but that is never the goal of a law.

The interest is in protecting innocent human lives.

[Watermelon]

Oh please, now you are just making excuses and nitpicking. The discussion is whether any law should remain a law if a rich person has a way around it and a poor person doesn't. That is what you have been claiming. Now all of a sudden, it only applies to abortion and nothing else. Just admit defeat. Your claim has no teeth.

That isn't my claim that's the claim from the principle of legal equality. If a crime doesn't apply to rich people then its a breach of legal equality. That isn't the discussion, that's literally a pillar of the modern legal system.

The discussion was that since abortions are legal in so many countries, would making it illegal have the effect of discriminating against people who can't afford to travel? I'm arguing whether this law, in practice, could be considered a breach of legal equality. You seem to be trying to argue against the legal principle.

[Sparko]

That isn't my claim that's the claim from the principle of legal equality. If a crime doesn't apply to rich people then its a breach of legal equality. That isn't the discussion, that's literally a pillar of the modern legal system.

The discussion was that since abortions are legal in so many countries, would making it illegal have the effect of discriminating against people who can't afford to travel? I'm arguing whether this law, in practice, could be considered a breach of legal equality. You seem to be trying to argue against the legal principle.

Maybe things are different in Australia.


Even if murder was legal in another country (say Mexico started one of those Purge nights) and rich people could afford to leave the country to kill people, murder would still be illegal in this country (USA).

Now if they made a law that said, "rich people can abort their babies legally but if you make less than $30K/year it is illegal," then yeah, that would be an unequal law and wouldn't be passed. But you can't claim a law is unequal just because someone can get around it and others can't. Abortion would still be illegal for rich and poor people. That is equality.