Somewhere along the line somebody decided it would be a great "gotcha" argument to pretend that all naturalists were determinists and did not believe in free will. Here we see that straw man again being knocked around.

Excellent analogy.

Might I suggest ignoring (or Ignoring) the childish, pseudo-libertarian trolling?

I agree. very good analogy.

Much better and informative piece on that:
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/08/teens-jailing-shows-exactly-how-facebook-will-help-anti-abortion-states/

This is why I never post on my FB page or twitter. I never post anything anywhere I don't want the entire world to see. Some people should learn this.

Exactly right. I learned early on in my career that ANY communications system can be tapped and/or monitored. ANY.

If you stick with that assumption, you won't be surprised when your communications ARE tapped or monitored. Lawfully or not.

Do you, though? What is criminalized is not the absence of a vaccination, but the social interaction done by those who are unvaccinated. You can argue that the handicap here is so great that it amounts to the same thing, but tantamount does not equal "the same."

More to the point, there's well established justification to criminalize some acts that are unacceptably risky to others. BobTheCoward may wish that people could endanger fellow citizens all they want and only risk that plays out badly and can be traced back to them matters. But there's no basis to reject it except that he doesn't personally agree. Next: you can't prohibit pollution. If someone gets harmed by pollution they can always trace the exact molecule that did it to the company that supplied it and sue them. If they still exist. That will surely be adequate deterrent.

Deleted....replying why you are incorrect will just go off topic.

With the gunshot example, that shows that government constrain the actions of others against their will all the time. Arguing that anti abortion laws constrain the actions of the mother just doesn't amount to much if you believe the fetus has a soul and it is murder.

No, it shows that the government has a right, no a duty to protect society from indiscriminate reckless behavior or indifference. It is not analogous to a woman carrying a fetus for 9 months and delivering it.

It's one thing to say you must get a shot or wear a mask or not fire a gun recklessly. It's another thing entirely to demand that a female endanger herself and put her in a position to damage the rest of her life for a clump of cells.

I don't know how to talk about this. You and I, and most here, agree it is a clump of cells. But we are in the current situation because a lot of people don't think it is a clump of cells. So while me pointing out that they don't think it is a clump of cells isn't making a logical argument, it also means it isn't tackling the issue that they are driving and winning (ish) the outcome.

Otherwise known as "laws". What significant conclusion can you draw from "laws exist"? Is your argument there truly "some things are prohibited, so why object to this being prohibited?"

I mean, questioning the idea of absolute free will is arguably the best indicator that a person is capable of abstract thought. These sorts of criticisms are kind of a giveaway.

This is only an issue if your idea of free will is incompatible with determinism. Not all notions of free will are incompatible with it.

But most are. The kind of determinism you're talking about is known as soft determinism. That isn't what Bob was referring to wasn't soft determinism.

Are they winning? They certainly got into the game with Dobbs. But they got crushed in Kansas last week. This war is nowhere near over.

...which is why I wrote "(ish)"

I think the Republicans learned their lesson; Democracy is Bad.

Yeah I doubt any other state is going to put abortion to a popular vote again.

I don't doubt it.

Take deep red Oklahoma for example, where popular plebiscite has overruled the majority party around half a dozen times since the turn of the millennium. (Kane lists four, but leaves a couple of them off, most notably Blaine Amendment retention.)

They won't need to...voters will still put anti abortion politicians into office

Hmmm, maybe I was wrong.

USA Today: Most Americans want chance to support abortion rights on state ballot, USA TODAY/Ipsos poll finds

Link: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...l/10284741002/

They are trying:
https://www.mississippifreepress.org/26378/mailing-abortion-pills-punishable-by-five-years-in-prison-mississippi-ag-argues

Throw enough **** against the wall & hope that something sticks (and something will... probably not this time but eventually):

Bets on when we get back to it being illegal to get condoms through the mail?

Again this is one of those things "They've already admitted it, we don't have to ask" things.

Birth control is next. That was already said in Thomas's disposition.

How many of his conservative colleagues signed on to that opinion?

About as many as were willing to indicate their opposition to Roe v. Wade at their confirmation hearings.

What if they are sent by FedEx, DHL, etc.?

I doubt that this particular thing will stick.

That said, the texts of the laws are referenced in that article so we can check for relevance.

For the first, it refers to mailing or mails, etc.. It's unclear whether that's a term of art, legally, that would have to involve the USPS or whether it just means using some kind of delivery method to get from point A to point B. My guess is that it wouldn't be sppecific to the USPS. If they meant only the USPS, I Would think that the USPS would be specifically mentioned in the actual text in (it's not like the USPS did not exist back whenever this was originally written).

The second is clearer on this:
That would seem to indicate it would make no difference.

There is a long tradition—going back at least to RBG—of carefully avoiding straightforwardly stating which precedents one might hope to overrule during confirmation hearings. This is not true of judicial opinions, as we've seen with Thomas in particular but also in minority opinions from the Chief Justice.

So? They may want to vote on abortion rights. They may want to keep abortion safe and legal. But they're not going to get the chance.

Michigan organizers petition to enshrine abortion rights in state constitution
 

https://www.npr.org/2022/07/12/11111...e-constitution

Manufacture a line with Trump’s picture on them and watch Republican heads a’splode.

It Begins: Facebook helps police snag a teen and her mom over abortion
 

The incident is yet another reminder that the anti-abortion surveillance machine is just starting to rev up.

https://www.msnbc.com/the-reidout/re...rant-rcna42384

Police in states with anti-abortion laws are going to use your devices and communications against you, so I have some advice for any young girl and her parents who would consider abortion as an option - try to make your digital footprint as small as possible, for example, using burner phones to communicate.

Remember the Nightwatch in "Babylon 5"?

They have other ways of fighting back.
See Prohibition for details.
Hard to enforce a law when most people are against it.

Yup!

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/idaho-top-court-allows-near-total-abortion-ban-take-effect-2022-08-13/