Awesome. But it's a half-measure. NY ought to expand its shield law, making it a criminal offense in NY to attempt to enforce out-of-state abortion laws in NY against people for actions they took in NY. The statutory penalty should be whatever the penalty the perpetrator tried to inflict was. So the next time Paxton and Landry try this stunt they'll personally face $113,000 fines if they ever set foot in NY.NY county clerk refuses to file Texas' fine for doctor accused of prescribing abortion pills
A Texas judge last month ordered Dr. Margaret Carpenter, who practices north of New York City, to pay the penalty for allegedly breaking that state's law by prescribing abortion medication via telemedicine.abc7ny.com
f tx
No, that's not what the word means, and you are displaying an extraordinary level of ignorance of the historical development of freedom. Having legal rules is not authoritarian; quite the reverse -- lack of legal rules puts everyone's freedom but the strongest's at the mercy of the arbitrary impositions of anyone stronger. Lack of laws didn't mean a peasant could do as she pleased; it meant the local lord could do as he pleased and if she didn't cater to his every whim there was no law against him hanging her for it. When central government arose and the king's writ came to be respected throughout the land it was the greatest increase in human freedom mankind ever saw before or since.
Which would be relevant if we were still living in the Middle Ages.
"Neither will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a course. Similarly I will not give to a woman a pessary to cause abortion. But I will keep pure and holy both my life and my art." - Hippocrates
I guess our lawless strongman DOGE government that is undoing all brakes on strongman corruption is perfectly okay then to make us truly free.
Elizabeth Warren wanted to address these abuses. Lina Khan was trying to push the FTC in the right direction. But here we are with Musk and the king of grift running their scams show.
That also explains why they want to shut down agencies such as the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau that protect vulnerable lower and middle class consumers. Also the FDA that protects the food we eat. As you say, most of those agencies are already compromised.
I'm not following your reasoning there. How do you get from my praising rule-of-law to it being perfectly okay to have rule by a lawless strongman?
Hippoocrates was making a personal statement. That statement does not say abortion should be restricted as a general rule. It is my meager understanding of history, that the sanctity of unborn life became an issue with the advent of Christianity. Certainly it was not an issue in ancient Greece or Rome.
Where on earth did you get the notion that I "had to" delve back to the 13th century?
which would seem to allow lawful killings being not included in “murder”. So an abortion can be a killing without being murder.
Murder in California law - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
The Code defines murder as "the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought"
Yes, exactly.which would seem to allow lawful killings being not included in “murder”. So an abortion can be a killing without being murder.Murder in California law - Wikipedia
The Code defines murder as "the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought"
Perhaps, but as a wise man once observed:
So we can conclude that freedom is also a fantasy of fools.
(bold added).
True, but the practice that developed of exacting his Oath from would-be doctors probably made access to it more generally restricted.
That wasn't original with Christianity -- not much was, after all. Abortion was considered a great sin in the ancient Hindu and Zoroastrian scriptures; in the Persian Empire it was illegal.
It wasn't illegal, true; but as the Aristotle quote shows, that was already a controversial issue. Also keep in mind there was no notion of fetal rights being outweighed by a woman's right over her body. Both the right to abort and the right not to have a pregnancy terminated were seen as rights of the father.
Why are you debating against a Nazi position? It's bad faith. They will always contort and twist until they can justify a gross violation of autonomy.which would seem to allow lawful killings being not included in “murder”. So an abortion can be a killing without being murder.
Murder in California law - Wikipedia
The Code defines murder as "the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought"
Correct. Authoritarianism is real and is a bad thing. But that plus you misdefining authoritarianism is not even remotely sufficient to show Emily's desire to have a legal rule is "authoritarian" and therefore a bad thing. You very much have burden-of-proof on that.
That's patently ridiculous. I hope I don't offend your sensibilities too much by returning to the 13th century, but back then a popular public entertainment was catching cats and setting them on fire. Thankfully we now have laws against that sort of monstrosity. It's painfully obvious that we do not need laws against cruelty to animals in order to protect ourselves from tyrants -- we need them to protect animals from tyrants. This is not rocket science.
There are two things wrong with that line of argument. First, no, that's not what the word means.
Do you genuinely think that the reason this does not happen very much today, is that there is a law against it?
You have some implicit assumptions in there - that democratically elected means that all voters are allowed to vote, that the pro-goatee faction are allowed to make there case anywhere in public for as long as they wish and that opposition candidates are chosen by the opposition. There are plenty of authoritarian governments that met your standards as written.Correct. Authoritarianism is real and is a bad thing. But that plus you misdefining authoritarianism is not even remotely sufficient to show Emily's desire to have a legal rule is "authoritarian" and therefore a bad thing. You very much have burden-of-proof on that.
That's patently ridiculous. I hope I don't offend your sensibilities too much by returning to the 13th century, but back then a popular public entertainment was catching cats and setting them on fire. Thankfully we now have laws against that sort of monstrosity. It's painfully obvious that we do not need laws against cruelty to animals in order to protect ourselves from tyrants -- we need them to protect animals from tyrants. This is not rocket science.
There are two things wrong with that line of argument. First, no, that's not what the word means.
"Authoritarianism is a political system characterized by the rejection of political plurality, the use of strong central power to preserve the political status quo, and reductions in democracy, separation of powers, civil liberties, and the rule of law."
Authoritarianism - Wikipedia
So Emily could outlaw goatees and it wouldn't qualify as authoritarianism as long as it was democratically enacted and the pro-goatee faction are allowed to make their case to the public and field opposition candidates in free elections.
