stonebender | (no subject)

The legal definition of self-defense (which I believe is the exception you're thinking of)

It isn't.

On the point about whether criminal law can be used to express disapproval, there is some difference I think you're overlooking between expressing "We disapprove of this act" and "We have a legitimate interest in preventing this act, and that interest can only be adequately protected if there are as many legal barriers as possible in the way of its violation."

Excuse me?

Did you really just say that you think I'm overlooking the difference between "we don't like this" and "we have a legitimate interest in preventing this"?

No, I didn't. I said I think you're overlooking the difference between seeking to express one or the other of the views I described in the law. I think that because the points you made give no indication that you're addressing the latter type of expression, only the former. And while I realize that you *don't* believe society has a legitimate interest in protecting pre-viable fetuses, I'm still responding to the part where you called "crazy" a position rooted in the belief that it does. Unless all you mean is that that belief is itself crazy (which I think would be far beneath you), I don't see the applicability of your arguments about what a free society can and can't do via its criminal law. Thus, I guessed that you misunderstood the type of expressive function to which I was referring.

Anyhow, you sound like you're beginning to be upset by this discussion, so I'd like to bow out before I offend you further. I do get email comment notifications, so I'll still see any response you might choose to make, but unless you require further clarification, I don't think it's wise for me to continue responding.

No, I didn't. I said I think you're overlooking the difference between seeking to express one or the other of the views I described in the law. I think that because the points you made give no indication that you're addressing the latter type of expression, only the former. And while I realize that you *don't* believe society has a legitimate interest in protecting pre-viable fetuses, I'm still responding to the part where you called "crazy" a position rooted in the belief that it does.

Yes, that clarifies things.

I had conceded that, if my understanding of the law was incorrect, the original statement was "reasonable" - i.e., "not crazy", but still, IMHO, wrong due to other circumstances.