[SamBam]

No, the two strategies differ in whether they are in concordance with a constitutional right or against a constitutional right (to take a strictly legalistic view).

Limiting access to abortion is counter to the Supreme Court's decision that abortion is a right.

Limiting the methods of execution is to prevent undue suffering, which violates the constitutional right against cruel and unusual punishment.

[deogeo]

> No, the two strategies differ

That "No" is unwarranted - the strategies differ in the way you say, but they coincide in the way the post your responded to says.

[SamBam]

The "no" was responding to the suggestion that there is a moral equivalency to the two scenarios, and I was disagreeing that there is one.

[javajosh]

There is a moral equivalence between the method, not the goal.

[SamBam]

That makes no sense. Morality applies to the goal (or the result, including side-effects, which may or may not have been the goal).

If I scratch you to relieve an itch you can't reach, or I scratch you to violently gouge out your eyes, it's a meaningless comment to say "There's a moral equivalence to the method."

The only "equivalence" between the two original scenarios is that they both involve the verb "limiting," but there is no "moral equivalence" that automatically applies to any action using that verb. Or is there a "moral equivalence" between the laws to limit abortion and my attempts to limit my kid's screentime?

Are you just arguing for the sake of arguing?