Neil_oz, I live in Texas, a state that energetically employs capital punishment. Personally, I don't defend or support the practice, nor do I oppose it strongly... I'm neutral on the issue.

Occasionally, friends from Blue states confront me on the issue. My usual tack is not to defend my state, but to turn the tables... ask them how they can defend putting a criminal in prison, a horrible and traumatic, as well as long-term devastating fate.

This argument usually stuns and confuses them. Especially when they realize that the arguments against death also apply to prison, albeit less drastically.

For example, you canot return an innocent man back to life, whereas you can let an innocent man out of jail. But of course, you can't give him bact the years he lost. Death is cruel and harsh, but incarceration and prison rape is also cruel and harsh, and for a longer period of time. True, society needs to get criminals into prison to protect itself, but if the motive is the benefit of society, then execution is also useful, if not more so.

The truth is that every human society is ethically imperfect... there are no perfect and good choices, only the best among the bad choices... and none of us is morally superior enough to whatever society we are in...

No need for a holier-than-thou attitude.

This must be the first time there has been a "hot" topic on Fodor's about South Dakota! In any case, you may not have to boycott our state for too long, because the local consensus is that we will have a referendum on the state law outlawing abortions. And everyone seems to agree that the vote on the referendum will be overwhelmingly against the ban.
And, ekscrunchy, are you a friend of Wild Bill's?

<<<And everyone seems to agree that the vote on the referendum will be overwhelmingly against the ban. >>>

If that is what happens, then what do you make of the hostility and rush to judgment of those who want to lash out prematurely at South Dakota?

And what if South Dakota had in fact been punished by the outraged? Wouldn't that tend do harden its attitudes in favor of the ban?

<<<Discrimination based upon political affiliation is probably OK, because that is not a protected class.

Not being a lawyer, I could be mistaken>>>

I heard of a case in which a landlord refused to rent to an attorney. His explanation was that the landlord would be at a disadvantage in a legal dispute... the tenant would be able to personally advance his case, due to his legal training, but the landlord would have to spend money on an attorney.

Of course the tenant lawyer sued. The judge dismissed the lawsuit since attorneys were not a protected class that needed the intervention of the state to survive...

Does anybody want to argue that Republicans should be a protected class who need special legal privileges to compensate them for years of prior hostility and discrimination?

I am starting a boycott of this thread until it goes away=;

<<< am starting a boycott of this thread until it goes away>>>

You only extended its life just that much longer.

:((

I have read most of the posts here and I must say that this thread is really moving away from the South dakota query?
I must have typed a thousand responses because this issue has really bugged me. I can't believe that in 2006, the issue of abortion is still being discussed as a political issue that is as always decided by men.

See what I mean? A boycott doesn't solve problems, just makes them worse.

Ye gads, a state dominated by women? Now that's something I'd definitely boycott.