Abortion and Big Government

Restrictions on abortion highlight slippery slope of government intervention

“Pray to end abortion,” say many pro-lifers. Given that abortion is a regrettable necessity at best, this is a noble sentiment. Unfortunately, politicians are not inclined to leave an outcome to the Almighty, who might mess it up.

Because they cannot ban abortion outright, conservative politicians have tried to discourage it in heavy-handed and sometimes humiliating ways. Thirty-four states impose regulations specific to abortion providers; 35 require counseling, and 26 impose waiting periods. Eight states, including Virginia, now require women seeking abortions to have an ultrasound. Last year lawmakers in the Old Dominion drew national scorn by proposing a law that would have mandated an invasive transvaginal ultrasound.

Indiana wants to top them all.

Last week the health committee of the Indiana Senate approved a bill to require not one transvaginal ultrasound, but two – one before the abortion, and one afterward – for medical, rather than surgical, abortions. (Medical abortions are those induced by drugs such as RU-486.)

The full Senate later dropped the second ultrasound. But it kept in place requirements that establishments dispensing pills such as RU-486 meet the same construction standards as those performing surgical abortions. As the Indianapolis Star reported, “That requirement means the clinic must have operating and sterilization equipment along with widened hallways and doorways. And that, said Planned Parenthood of Indiana, likely means that its clinic in Lafayette will have to close.”

As elsewhere, the lawmakers backing the bills have tried to portray them as efforts to protect women’s health. But that pose is pretty hard to sustain when you’re demanding wider halls and doorways for handing out pills.

It got harder still when Indiana Democrats suggested the same treatment for men seeking vasectomies or pills to help, ah, turn their floppy disks into hard drives. Surely, Democrats said, men ought to be lectured about the risks – perhaps undergo a prostate exam, even. State Senator Mike Young, sponsor of a bill requiring informed consent, ultrasound, and other restrictions on abortion, was not amused. “I don’t find these things funny or humorous,” he said. There’s a shock.

Indiana might not require two ultrasounds this year. Yet just by introducing the measure, Hoosier Republicans have raised the bar for lawmakers in other states.

Perhaps one day we’ll see a three-ultrasound requirement. Or a bill requiring not just hospital building-code standards for abortion clinics, but the construction of an entire hospital. Mike Young’s bill requires auscultation of a fetal heartbeat; if an abortion patient would rather not listen to it, she must sign a form to that effect. Perhaps some enterprising lawmaker in another state will require pregnant women seeking abortions to write letters to their unborn children. We eventually might even get around to requiring scarlet letters, too.

This brings up a much broader problem in American politics: Call it the auctioneer effect. Having approved a new law or program to address a circumstance in one year, politicians confront a dilemma in subsequent years: What next? Often – almost always – the problem does not disappear. It wouldn’t do to conclude that, since previous laws and programs have failed, perhaps the problem lies beyond government’s ability to solve. Answer: Write more laws and fund more programs! As in a genuine auction, the winner is the pol who can propose the most.

You can see the auctioneer effect all over the place. You can see it in public education, where ever-increasing expenditures produce flat test scores, which are then met with calls for even more spending. You can see it in the war on poverty, which now boasts 126 separate means-tested programs at the federal level alone. You can see it in gun control, where “high-capacity” once referred to 20- or 30-round magazines but now applies (in New York, and perhaps elsewhere soon) to those holding as few as eight.

And you can really see it in the war on crime, in which politicians seek to out-Roy Bean one another by perpetually ratcheting down thresholds for offenses – and perpetually ratcheting up penalties for same. A couple of decades ago states across the country began passing three-strikes laws, which mete out life sentences after a third offense. Having done that, some then began to demand two-strikes laws. (“Two strikes and you’re out!” bellowed Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell back in 2005, when he was running for attorney general.) How about one? Anybody for one strike?

Humorist P.J. O’Rourke once asked: “When can we quit passing laws and raising taxes? When can we say of our political system, 'Stick a fork in it, it's done'?” Given Indiana’s latest shenanigans, the answer to that is: God only knows.

This article originally appeared in The Richmond Times-Dispatch.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Ugh.

  • Eric||

    Conservatarian Response: Yeah, but progressives are the real Authoritarians. Nothing to see here.

  • Almanian!||

    It's different when your rights are stolen from the right rather than the left! Duh!

  • AlmightyJB||

    Yes. Government regulations are necessary and important to ensure businesses have the proper..wait what? Wasn't talking about us!

  • Doctor Whom||

    That argument doesn't work because, as all right-thinking people know, abortion exists on a completely different moral plane from everything else. (In case you haven't guessed, I think that both sides are prone to using loopy arguments.)

  • buybuydandavis||

    The argument against abortion and infanticide really are a different kind of moral issue than the preferred capital gains tax rate.

    Pretending it's not is really just dishonestly dismissing the arguments of the other side.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    "ensure businesses have the proper.."

    Labor relationships and amount of competition.

  • Almanian!||

    Man, that Indiana law is an abortion...

  • some guy||

    As elsewhere, the lawmakers backing the bills have tried to portray them as efforts to protect women’s health. But that pose is pretty hard to sustain when you’re demanding wider halls and doorways for handing out pills.

    What about this "obesity epidemic" I've been hearing about? Huh? Won't someone please think of the obese!

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    It will be hilarious to me when "Big Marijuana" finally happens.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "It wouldn’t do to conclude that, since previous laws and programs have failed, perhaps the problem lies beyond government’s ability to solve."

    It wouldn't do to point out that the federal courts have imposed serious limits on the government's power over abortion. Prolife legislatures try to work within these court-invented rules, giving the unborn child as much protection as is feasible. If you actually believed that a human being in the womb has human rights, including the right not to be arbitrarily placed beyond the protection of the law, then of course you'll support such laws.

    Incidentally, are you suggesting that three-strikes laws for violent felonies have actually "failed?" I'm not talking about prison terms for drug offenses, but prison terms for rapists, burglars and other violent felons, including life sentences for those who commit three violent felonies. I have read European works which comment on America's low crime rate and casually attribute it to higher American prison sentences. So maybe you're picking the wrong example.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Think he's simply making a slippery slope argument albeit poorly.

  • Fluffy||

    If you actually believed that a human being in the womb has human rights, including the right not to be arbitrarily placed beyond the protection of the law, then of course you'll support such laws.

    Well, no.

    If you believe that a fetus is a human being with rights, then you should favor including abortion in the crime of murder.

    Full stop.

    You can only favor using laws granting the state microcontrol of the use of private property to inhibit the ability of women to obtain abortions if you endorse and approve of the state's assertion of the power to micromanage private property in the first place. And once you do that, I never want to hear you complain about any other state restriction on the use of property, ever again. And you can never assert the existence of a private property right ever again.

  • Harvard||

    So, opposition to murder is an endorsement of property laws. Who knew?

  • Fluffy||

    No, it's two different questions entirely.

    I am opposed to murder, but I won't violate the 1st, 2nd, or 4th amendments just because you try to waive the possibility of murder in my face.

    That means I won't violate your property rights, either. My read of the 5th amendment is stricter than yours.

    If it's OK for the state to micromanage property this way in this context, it's OK in every context - and I don't want to hear Eduard argue otherwise ever again. He has no right to.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Wow, that's really deep thinking!

    "If you believe that a fetus is a human being with rights, then you should favor including abortion in the crime of murder."

    Well, it should please you to know that prolifers tend to believe that abortion is...murder.

    Of course, the federal courts won't allow a flat ban on abortion, so prolifers have to content themselves with lesser laws.

    I would think that, if you were OK with a flat ban on abortion, you would be OK with a ban on *some* abortions. If you clutch your pearls at a law requiring informed consent before an abortion, then by extension you would oppose a law banning all non-lifesaving abortions.

    Under the principle that "the greater includes the less," if you are willing to ban all (non-lifesaving) abortions, then you would be willing to accept a lesser law banning *some* abortions.

    But allow me to speculate...you don't actually want to ban all abortion, do you?

  • Agammamon||

    How about this then - since murder is wrong (and illegal) why don't we require that all homeowners install cameras linked to the local PD for monitoring.

    We'll require that all homes and businesses provide the local police with duplicate keys to all exterior and interior locks.

    To prevent crime we'll mandate that all colothing must be worn with a unique identifying number.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    The vast majority of women seeking abortions end up getting abortions. The vast majority of homeowners do NOT commit murder.

    The 'elephant in the room' of the abortion debate is that IF you accept the premise that abortion is child-murder, there really isn't anything in the way of tactics to prevent it that is beyond the pale. Just as little or nothing, including serial murder, would be beyond the pale to prevent another "Final Solution".

    Nobody really wants to examine this. Nobody really wants to look at the fact that IF YOU ACCEPT THE IDEA THAT ABORTION IS CHILD-MURDER, firebombing an abortion clinic is a natural reaction.

    As it happens, I don't think that abortion is child-murder. I don't think that newborns are people, except in potential. Hell, I've met bipedal apes in their latter 30's who haven't achieved personhood. But I get tired of the standard Liberal Left position that the Religious Right cannot possibly actually believe that a fetus is human, and must be opposing abortion because they are evil and want to hurt women. It makes me contemptuous of the people who hold it, who cannot believe that anyone could seriously and sincerely disagree with their wonderful selves.

    *ptui*

  • buybuydandavis||

    "But I get tired of the standard Liberal Left position that the Religious Right cannot possibly actually believe that a fetus is human, and must be opposing abortion because they are evil and want to hurt women. "

    Me too. I'm for abortion until the 57th trimester.

    But the Left is contemptible in their caricaturing and condemnation of anyone who disagrees with them on the line between infanticide and abortion as being evil and anti woman.

    There's a real issue there, and pretending it doesn't exist is just intellectually dishonest.

  • Fluffy||

    The greater doesn't include the less.

    Let's say I believe two things:

    1. Abortion is murder.

    2. People have the right to use their property for commercial purposes as they see fit.

    If I believe those two things, I will try to make abortion illegal. But if I fail in my attempt to make abortion illegal, I won't turn around and try to do an end run around that failure by passing a law saying you can't sell RU-486 from any building that has ceilings less than 5000 feet tall.

    You might think it's a clever workaround, but it's not. I'm estopped from making that attempt by belief #2. And if I attempt the workaround, I no longer get to claim I subscribe to belief #2. It's gone. Forever.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Absolute bullshit concern-trolling.

    Thanks to the federal courts, we can't ban all abortions. But we can ban *some,* like those performed without informed consent, or outside the premises of properly-licensed facilities, etc.

  • Fluffy||

    Absolute bullshit concern-trolling.

    Go fuck yourself.

    No libertarian believes in licensing commercial facilities.

    Full stop.

    Basically you want to be able to claim that you believe in private property rights, "...but not in this case, because this is really important."

    Fuck you. That's what the progressives and statists say, too.

    So, let's just mark the page and remember that Eduard doesn't get to claim to believe in property any more. Duly noted.

  • some guy||

    Informed consent laws are such bullshit. They are pushed exclusively by hypocritical pro-lifers. You claim that a woman must carry her unwanted child to term because she was adequately informed about the potential consequences of unprotected sex when she did it. But you also claim that she's not adequately informed about the potential consequences of an abortion. Which is it? Is she informed or not?

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Like you, the pro-lifers have difficulty believing that anyone who is fully informed can sincerely come to conclusions that differ from their own.

    They aren't hypocrites. They are people trying, by any means that they think has a chance, to prevent the murder of innocent children.

    I happen to think they are wrong. I happen to think that humanity is something that a newborn child MAY develop. But I am secure enough in my beliefs that I don't need to gratuitously insult people who have different opinions.

  • buybuydandavis||

    I salute you for being able to disagree with someone on an important issue without consigning them to hell.

  • Harvard||

    [because you try to waive the possibility of murder in my face.]

    Possibility?? I thought the whole point of abortion was to kill the fetus. It is suicide then? Manslaughter?? Assault????

  • Zeb||

    Well put, Fluffy.

  • rickl7069||

    Am I mistaken or are you not charged with murder if you attack a woman and kill the unborn child?

  • Zeb||

    In most states, I don't think so.

  • ||

    It depends on the state. Pro-choicers sometimes criticize laws that criminalize the death of the unborn child separately from that of the mother.

  • Virginian||

    Obviously I oppose this law, but my cold dark heart loves watching progressives discover that "simple, common sense regulations" have far reaching consequences.

  • ||

    watching progressives discover

    I think you give them too much credit.

  • some guy||

    How about one? Anybody for one strike?

    Brings to mind a ST:TNG episode, from before Wesley went all God-Child.

  • Hugh Akston||

    You mean the one where everybody got laid except Wesley and then they almost executed him for stepping on some flowers?

  • ||

    That's my favorite episode. I mean, the dream version of it where Wesley actually does get executed is my favorite episode.

  • Hugh Akston||

    My favorite episode was the one where Worf was shifting across different alternate realities, because it made you realize that there are an infinite number of realities in which Wesley dies horribly.

  • ||

    But Hugh, then there are also an infinite number of realities in which Wesley is rich, famous, and banging superhot chicks all day long.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Fuck that. Subatomic particles only spin one way: toward Wesley's demise.

  • some guy||

    And I thought I hated Wesley...

  • ||

    BEST. EPISODE. EVER.

  • Hugh Akston||

    I also like the episode where Okona arranges to hook up with Dr. Crusher after her shift, but she gets delayed so when he enters her quarters and starts making love to her, he realizes halfway through that it's actually Wesley. Then he keeps going.

  • ||

    I liked the one with the holodeck.

  • ||

    Come for the political commentary, stay for the TNG slash fic.

  • Doctor Whom||

    As elsewhere, the lawmakers backing the bills have tried to portray them as efforts to protect women’s health.

    Concern troll is deeply, sincerely, passionately concerned.

  • some guy||

    If you actually believed that a human being in the womb has human rights, including the right not to be arbitrarily placed beyond the protection of the law, then of course you'll support such laws.

    Unless you also believe that the mother is a human being that has human rights which must be weighed against the rights of the unborn child. Then you might realize that unborn children aren't being "arbitrarily placed beyond the protection of the law" and you might not support a legislature's efforts to limit access to abortions.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    That's like saying that if you believe that white people are human beings, then black people cannot have any rights which the white man is Bound to Respect.

    It's like we're in the 1850s, and supporters of slavery and opponents of rights for black people said that they were simply advocating for white rights.

  • $park¥||

    Wait, are you saying black people live inside white people for a certain period of time in which they are wholly dependent on the white host? Weird.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Well, the President of the United States is a black person, and he lived for a certain period of time inside a "white host." Are you saying that she should have been subject to being arbitrarily killed?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    *he* should etc.

  • Eric||

    If you presented this argument on both Fox News and MSNBC, I suspect that the abortion debate would suddenly reverse polarity...At least for the next four years.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I think I get your point, but are you saying that Fox News would be for abortion if they thought Obama could have been aborted.

    I am not a Fox viewer, certainly not a fan, but I am not aware of evidence that they are that murderous.

    With respect, I think you are simply trying to posit a false moral equivalence.

    And regrettably, I don't think MSNBC would change its choicer views based on something as mundane as mere logic. Any more than it stopped Obama himself from being a choicer.

  • Eric||

    It was a jest, not a position paper.

    Just pointing out that each side seems more interested in politics than position right now. Notice how the left isn't up in arms about war any more now that Obama's in office? Or how the right only started caring about fiscal responsibility once Bush was out?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    OK, but to follow the analogy - fiscal responsibility is a good thing *even if* rightists are opportunists. So even if (contrary to evidence) we think all pro-lifers are opportunists, then their position is still the correct one.

  • some guy||

    The reverse is also true. Even if we think all pro-choicers are opportunists, then their position is still the correct one.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    If their position can be defended on the merits. But despite the (regrettable) sincerity of many choicers, I don't think that's the case.

  • Eric||

    The problem to me is that we treat pregnancy (or fetal development) as a singular, as opposed to multi-staged event.

    I can absolutely see where a third trimester abortion could be construed as murder. However, I can also see where a first trimester abortion could be construed as the removal of a non-sensient clump of cells with potential to form into a human being.

    Thus, if I see it this way, I can be both pro-life, and pro-choice dependent upon circumstances.

  • Harvard||

    [However, I can also see where a first trimester abortion could be construed as the removal of a non-sensient clump of cells with potential to form into a human being]

    You're picking fly shit out of pepper it seems. With fetal surgery in the first trimester ever increasing it would seem these surgons are chasing a fool's errand??

  • Eric||

    [You're picking fly shit out of pepper it seems. With fetal surgery in the first trimester ever increasing it would seem these surgons are chasing a fool's errand??]

    This is a strawman type argument Harvard. I never equated viability with the value of an embryo.

  • Harvard||

    "Value" of an embryo as in "non-sensient clump of cells"?? Sounds like value to me.

  • Eric||

    There's that beaten strawman again Harvard. You're emoting upon my original statement.

  • Gordilocks||

    THIS

  • Gordilocks||

    In response to Eric @1248

  • Enough About Palin||

    I just figure that sometime during the last 40 years, the next Martin Luther King Jr. was aborted and I take solace in that.

  • $park¥||

    Are you saying that he wasn't subject to being arbitrarily killed? Did his mother not have a choice to get an abortion?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Not in 1961 she didn't.

    And is it "mother" or "host"? I appreciate your shifting to the less dehumanizing term.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    It wasn't until 1970 that Hawaii legalized abortion on request.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A.....ted_States

    Prior to that time, Hawaii actually provided protection to the unborn.

  • $park¥||

    And is it "mother" or "host"? I appreciate your shifting to the less dehumanizing term.

    Your the one talking about black people and white people. Like all white people have rights therefore black people can't. Can a black man live inside a white man? Don't ask me why you made a stupid analogy.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "Host" evokes thoughts of the *Alien* movies, and psychologically primes the reader to be willing to kill the "parasite." The term "mother" doesn't trigger the same response - quite the contrary, since there's an instinctive revulsion at the idea of a mother killing her own children. Abortion involves suppressing that natural instinct, an instinct which reflects reality better than sci-fi-themed references to "hosts."

  • $park¥||

    Abortion involves suppressing that natural instinct, an instinct which reflects reality better than sci-fi-themed references to "hosts."

    So you realize you made a stupid analogy and are now going to nitpick the words I used. Well done.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    The analogy with slavery is only wrong because slaveowners at least acknowledged that a slave could not be arbitrarily killed. They may have supported pseudoscience to promote the idea of the slave as an inferior order of humanity, but they didn't deny he was human, or pretend that it was an insoluble issue justifying arbitrary killing.

  • $park¥||

    Your analogy can be interpreted two ways:

    White Man:Black Man::Mother:Fetus
    or
    Master:Slave::Mother:Fetus

    I'm shocked that you can't see the problem with either of those.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "A white man has no intrinsic right to kill a black man (or slave) just as a mother has no intrinsic right to kill her child in the womb or out of it."

    That wasn't so difficult.

  • some guy||

    Let's say you wake up one day and find another man attached to you via a series of tubes. Neither of you wanted this happen. Medical examination reveals that if the tubes are removed you will recover quickly, but the other man will die. You will be bedridden for as long as the tubes are in. Are you obligated to leave the tubes in?

  • ||

    You will be bedridden for as long as the tubes are in.

    You forgot the part where if you don't remove the tubes, you have a better chance of dying or being seriously maimed than if you do.

  • Bobarian||

    Let's say you voluntarily hooked those tubes up to yourself, but didn't think out the consequences of your action. Medical examination reveals that if you leave the tubes connected, both people will recover in a short period of time. You will only be bedridden for a some small periods of time, but you will be inconvenienced quite often. Are you obligated?

  • some guy||

    Let's say you voluntarily hooked those tubes up to yourself, but didn't think out the consequences of your action.

    Most mothers did not voluntarily conceive. They merely put themselves at risk of conception, just like you put yourself at risk of weird medical experiments when you decided to get black-out drunk in a Moscow ghetto. Doesn't mean you consented to the tubes.

  • ||

    Doesn't mean you consented to the tubes.

    BULLSHIT FLAG! Sure the fuck does. Your voluntary action resulted in a fertilized egg.

  • ||

    Your voluntary action resulted in a fertilized egg.

    The one thing that Catholics get right in some sense is their criticism of contraception as leading people to have sex who are not (what they call) "open to life." I don't think your average pro-choice woman who believes contraception is acceptable thinks that the voluntary action of having sex has anything to do with consenting to pregnancy.

  • some guy||

    BULLSHIT FLAG! Sure the fuck does. Your voluntary action resulted in a fertilized egg.

    I know that if I go walking in the woods there's a chance I might get mauled by a bear. But that doesn't mean that I'm consenting to being mauled every time I go in the woods.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    You will be bedridden for as long as the tubes are in.

    Whose pregnancy are you thinking about?

  • some guy||

    Whose pregnancy are you thinking about?

    I didn't say it was a perfect analogy. Just take the "bedridden" part as a stand-in for all the negative physical aspects of pregnancy (morning sickness, weight gain, swollen feet, bleeding, pain, tearing, etc.)

  • crashland||

    Did I spread my legs for him to fuck me first or did he just appear? Could I have taken preemptive action to stop this? Like using a contraceptive or remaining chaste?

  • Enough About Palin||

    "Let's say you wake up one day and find another man attached to you via a series of tubes."

    So like we're gaming on the Internet?

  • some guy||

    No, the analogy with slavery is wrong because the slaves were demonstrably sentient and capable of surviving independent of their masters. In a world where abortions are illegal the unborn are demonstrably (up to 3-4 months or so) not sentient and are incapable of surviving independent of their slaves (mothers).

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "up to 3-4 months or so"

    You're aware that the *Roe* decision allows abortions beyond the 3-4 month point, on broadly-defined grounds of "health"?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    And a 1-year old infant would have trouble surviving independently of its parents. Is that an argument for infant exposure?

  • $park¥||

    And a 1-year old infant would have trouble surviving independently of its parents.

    A one-year-old infant could also be placed in the care of another person.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    We'll soon reach that point with fetuses, too, so that particular argument will be moot.

  • some guy||

    We'll soon reach that point with fetuses, too, so that particular argument will be moot.

    If we get to this point, then there is no excuse for having an abortion, so long as there is someone willing to fund the care of the fetus.

  • ||

    so long as there is someone willing to fund the care of the fetus.

    And so long as we don't make any really stupid laws that say people can track down their birth parents even if the birth parents don't want anything to do with them.

  • $park¥||

    We'll soon reach that point with fetuses, too, so that particular argument will be moot.

    And in that hypothetical future time, it's possible that fewer people will even seek to have abortions.

    Since we're talking of the future, how about if we just give people some kind of drug that makes them incapable of getting pregnant? Then they can not take it when they want to get pregnant and won't have to worry about abortions. Because it's the future, this drug will work 100%, not like the ones that exist now that don't always work.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    PS - is a sleeping person "sentient?" Or can you cut his throat in his sleep?

  • $park¥||

    is a sleeping person "sentient?"

    Are you saying that a sleeping person is incapable of feeling? Is that why people don't wake up when you shake them or make a loud noise? I guess I'm lucky that I just happen to wake up in the morning right at the same time that my alarm goes off.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    When someone's asleep, they're not engaging in higher-order thinking as we understand it. But he has the *potential* for such. Even if he's in a coma, and thus closed to higher-order thinking for the indefinite future, there's still that potential, because he's human.

    Likewise with a human being at an earlier stage of development. The potential is there because he's* human.

    *Or "she" - most abortion victims are female.

  • $park¥||

    When someone's asleep, they're not engaging in higher-order thinking as we understand it.

    You don't think a person in REM sleep is engaged in higher-order thinking? Are you making the argument that when your body goes into sleep mode you are no longer sentient? Does a cluster of cells that doesn't even possess a brain qualify as sentient?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Ask Joe Biden.

    But seriously, sentience is useful when you're conscious - it's not firing on all cylinders when you're asleep, however we describe it technically. But the potential for conscious, intelligent action is there even when you're asleep or in an earlier stage of human development.

  • $park¥||

    But the potential for conscious, intelligent action is there even when you're asleep or in an earlier stage of human development.

    An earlier stage of human development like a bundle of cells with no brain? How about a tumor? Does a tumor have the same potential for sentience as a sleeping person? Can I go shake a fetus and have it wake up and start talking to me?

  • some guy||

    Likewise with a human being at an earlier stage of development. The potential is there because he's* human.

    Then why stop at fertilization? Why not protect every single egg or sperm as a human? They all have the potential to become a sentient being one day.

  • ||

    I feel a song coming on!

    Every sperm is sacred

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I am discussing the potentialities of living human beings. Some are in an early stage of development, some are asleep or comatose, some are mentally limited, but they basic design of humanity involve higher-order thinking. Hence, potential.

  • some guy||

    I am discussing the potentialities of living human beings. Some are in an early stage of development, some are asleep or comatose, some are mentally limited, but they basic design of humanity involve higher-order thinking. Hence, potential.

    I assume you're responding to my comment about not extending protection to gametes.

    How is a fertilized cell a "living human being" but an unfertilized cell is not? Both require a great deal of time, energy, resources and luck to become anything resembling a human being. Both have the potential to go through this process. It can't be "information" (DNA) that defines a human because then we'd have to carefully protect every cell in our bodies. Do you refuse to protect gametes simply because it would be impractical to do so?

  • Bobarian||

    Because I committed genocide this morning?

  • ||

    "What you are losing in your fingers, [Bobarian] is a human being!" --Martial

  • gaoxiaen||

    Don't use that line when you're trying to pick up a girl in a bar.

  • some guy||

    You're aware that the *Roe* decision allows abortions beyond the 3-4 month point, on broadly-defined grounds of "health"?

    I am aware of that. I happily admit that the only difference between a 9 month old fetus and a 2 day old baby is location. That's why I advocate making abortions legal up to the 23 week mark. No child has ever survived such a short gestation. Yet 23 weeks is plenty of time for the mother to realize she is pregnant and make a decision. I feel it is an excellent compromise between the rights of these two individuals.

  • wareagle||

    I feel it is an excellent compromise between the rights of these two individuals.
    -----------

    you presume that the potential for such exists between either side's champions.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    No, the analogy with slavery is wrong because the slaves were demonstrably sentient and capable of surviving independent of their masters.

    Interestingly, pro-slavery types and even a few abolitionists made the opposite argument. That slaves were so helpless and childlike that they couldn't possibly survive in America without the firm and loving hand of Massa Colonel to guide them.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Exactly - if they weren't slaves they would just starve to death. People actually believed this - or convinced themselves of it.

  • $park¥||

    That slaves were so helpless and childlike that they couldn't possibly survive in America without the firm and loving hand of Massa Colonel to guide them.

    And then they proved it by releasing slaves whereupon they immediately dropped dead.

  • wareagle||

    to a degree, there was helplessness. After the South had been largely razed, many had nowhere to go, no place to live, no idea what to do next. I think even Jefferson had contemplated how to bring about the end of slavery with regard to what might happen to the slaves.

  • $park¥||

    to a degree, there was helplessness.

    Well, that's certainly exactly the same as complete and utter dependence. Like, they would die without their masters dependence. Seriously, any attempt to equate a living slave with an unborn fetus is just ridiculous. The two aren't even close to the same thing.

  • gaoxiaen||

    North Koreans have the same problem. Maybe we should be thankful that Kim Jung-Un is so kind.

  • ||

    Alien movies...childbirth... Meh.

    In both the end result is a screaming monster.

  • ||

    Other than rape the mother exercised her rights when she chose to engage in reproduction.

  • $park¥||

    Like when you go to the store and buy a new fridge, then the next day you realize you shouldn't have bought a new fridge so you try to bring it back. Sorry sucker, you voluntarily bought that fridge.

  • some guy||

    Why does one bad decision condemn her to 9 months of servitude and physical torture? Even if a fertilized egg has the same rights as a competent adult (I don't believe it does), it has no right to enslave its mother.

    There is an internal inconsistency in a pro-life libertarian. On the one hand he insists that initiation of force is bad and that all interactions should be entering willingly by both parties. But on the other hand he insists that a fetus has a special right to unilaterally impose a contract on his mother (a contract that is criminally enforceable, rather than civilly).

  • Virginian||

    . But on the other hand he insists that a fetus has a special right to unilaterally impose a contract on his mother

    _______

    Not sure if trolling, or just stupid.

  • Jordan||

    Yeah, just like that guy walking down the street that I wanted to stab unilaterally imposed a contract on me preventing me from stabbing him. Derp. I'm "pro-choice", but this argument is retarded.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Why does one bad decision condemn her to 9 months of servitude and physical torture?

    You must have taken sex ed. at a Catholic high school.

  • some guy||

    You must have taken sex ed. at a Catholic high school.

    You must have never seen a woman with a "bad" pregnancy.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    You must have never seen a woman with a "bad" pregnancy.

    The exception by which we should make the rules. Brilliant.

  • Mickey Rat||

    There is an internal inconsistency in a pro-choice libertarian. On the one hand he insists that initiation of force is bad. But on the other hand he insists that one person has a right to kill another human being despite the fact that the latter had no say in the circumstances of its existence.

  • some guy||

    I'm against abortions after 23 weeks because there's a good chance that a fetus is a human being by that time. A fertilized egg cell, though, is not a human being any more than an unfertilized egg cell, a skin cell or a sperm.

  • Mickey Rat||

    "A fertilized egg cell, though, is not a human being any more than an unfertilized egg cell, a skin cell or a sperm."

    Which is a debatable and highly dubious assertion. A fertilized ovum is a complete organism in itself, the other two are not.

  • Mickey Rat||

    "Why does one bad decision condemn her to 9 months of servitude and physical torture?"

    Because bad decisions usually come with varying degrees of undesired consequences. That's why they are called "bad decisions" instead of "decisions".

  • some guy||

    The pregnancy is the undesired consequence. Forcing the mother to carry the baby to term is slavery.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Nonsense on stilts.

  • ||

    Foreseeable consequences are not unintended only applies to situations where you didn't accidentally get knocked up, I guess. So much for iron laws...

  • Zeb||

    Why should the mother's intention matter? If it is murder, it is murder even if the baby was conceived when she was raped by her father. If the argument against abortion is that it is murder, then there should be no exceptions. And every miscarriage should be investigated as a potential murder.

  • some guy||

    Exactly. A solution not based in compromise is bound to be ridiculous.

  • gaoxiaen||

    I engage in sex. You can call it what you want, but I try to avoid reproduction.

  • ||

    "Unless you also believe that the mother is a human being that has human rights which must be weighed against the rights of the unborn child."

    Rights aren't something that have to be weighed. Either they exist or they don't. The child is not the aggressor. He/she was taken into the mother's property through the action of the parents. Therefore, the mother is the agressor in this situation. The only instance in which abortion is morally justified is when the child presents an imminent threat to the mother's life, in which case the child is the aggressor. It's just as if you were brought aboard someone's airplane through no choice of your own. The property owner is not justified in throwing you off his/her plane unless you are attempting to do likewise to him.

  • some guy||

    The child is the aggressor. The child is guaranteed to cause the mother great harm when it is born, if not sooner.

    The only instance in which abortion is morally justified is when the child presents an imminent threat to the mother's life, in which case the child is the aggressor.

    You're being inconsistent. If the mother took took the child in knowing the potential consequences then surely she knew the child might pose a risk to her life at some point in the future. To be consistent you would have to say that abortion is always wrong, except in cases of rape.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Foolish consistencies being the hobgoblin of social liberal libertarian mind.

  • ||

    I'm pro-life but if it is legal abortion should be subject to the same standards as any other healthcare provider (and obviously I think healthcare is way over regulated).

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I'm prolife and I think that abortion should be as illegal as possible until the courts can be persuaded to accept a flat-out ban.

  • gaoxiaen||

    I think the Earth already has too many people and do not want to subsidize other people's "reproduction".

  • sarcasmic||

    I've always found it curious that most who oppose abortion on the grounds that it ends innocent life are among the most passionate defenders of the death penalty, while those who oppose the death penalty on the grounds that innocent people might die are among the most passionate defenders of abortion.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I'm not a fan of the death penalty, but I reject the phony moral equivalence by which killing a person who has been convicted of the most serious crimes is equated with killing an innocent human being who hasn't been convicted of anything at all.

  • sarcasmic||

    You missed the word "might" in there. Reading comprehension fail.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    That's one reason I oppose the death penalty, but it's still not morally equivalent.

  • AlmightyJB||

    I don't find abortion and death penalty comparable issues. I've heard that argument forever but just don't buy it. You do not just the death penelty through no fault of your own (or at least you're not supposed to). That's not an argument for the death penelty but as to one of the reasons it is not comparable to abortion.

  • lap83||

    Yeah I agree. Sort of how imprisoning a bank robber and kidnapping a small child are not comparable.

  • Mickey Rat||

    The former position has a certain internal consistency to it, the latter only does if unborn humans are considered to have no intrinsic moral value.

  • ||

    The former position has a certain internal consistency to it only if unborn humans are considered to have intrinsic moral value, the latter only does if unborn humans are considered to have no intrinsic moral value.

    It's almost like...there are two sides that disagree about something.

  • Mickey Rat||

    No, that couldn't be it! People who against abortion or for the death penalty are statist scum!

  • AlmightyJB||

    I'm certaily not pro-abortion, but I am anti-prohibiton because history has shown that outlawing activies that vast numbers of people engage in and will continue to engage regardless of the law results in the "cure" being worse than the "disease". It especially complicates matters that there are legitimate reasons to have an abortion (other than as your default birth control method) and intertwining the government into that decision making process seems to me to be a pretty bad idea. I would think that if you are going to have abortions than the RU486 pill would be one of the better ways to go. It's a complicated issue and I'm certainly sympathetic to other opinions on it.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I would question whether the government has the authority to decide arbitrarily who is entitled to legal protection. We had a Magna Charta which banned arbitrary outlawry.

    As to enforcement difficulties, punishing "honor killings" also imposes enforcement difficulties, because the family of the victim is complicit in the killing and they'll try to shield each other from punishment.

    Enforcing laws against killing when the killer is a leader of a ruthless criminal gang also poses enforcement difficulties, given the intimidation of witnesses.

    Yet it's only in the case of abortion that I hear calls to legalize the underlying crime because of enforcement difficulties.

  • AlmightyJB||

    One of the differences though is that in your examples those killings are never justified. In the case of abortion there are situations where it would be appropriate. We can debate what those are but I would say almost everyone agrees at least that the life of the woman takes precedent. Putting the government in the middle of that decision making process seems a lot more probmatic to me than investigating homicides that you know are homicides.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Well, I can imagine situations in which a girl tries to kill her brother and he kills her in self-defense. It does not follow that the brother can kill his sister whenever he judges that she has "dishonored the family."

    Similarly, if lifesaving surgery for the mother leaves the child to die, that doesn't mean the mother has a right to kill the child because she doesn't want it, it reminds her of the father, etc.

  • AlmightyJB||

    I'm not sure what the statistics are for honor killings per year in the US but I'm sure that they are not in the millions. Your talking about creating a government bureaucracy to interject itself in over a million medical decisions per year. That's huge difference. Quite frankly once you open that door who's to say the tide won't turn and the bureaucracy doesn't start dissallowing births for children with expensive complications

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    The medical bureaucracy in this and other countries is *already* doing this, thought not in a thoroughly systematic way in the U.S. But doctors are already suggesting to parents of disabled fetuses that an abortion might be a good idea.

    So we see the direction in which we're going with our present, "prochoice" policy. I don't see how it would be worse if the government does a mea culpa and says it was wrong to outlaw millions of human beings merely because of their stage of development. That would discourage, not encourage, the scenarios you posit.

    In countries where honor killing is a tradition, they could just as well say that they don't want the government interjecting itself into "confidential family matters," or whatever euphemism focus-groups better. They can even define killing wayward women as a medical procedure.

  • Crystal||

    I am pro-life. I once was not because I bought into this notion of a "women's right to choose". But because I am a libertarian it is not my place to tell another what to do or how to do it. Educating someone who is considering an abortion is more powerful than trying to lecture them into a making the choice you would make. Explaining the Eugenics Agenda that has plague to nation for years, also the quotes of the Margaret Sanger about what she thought of the black population or any other ethnicity other that white, show photos of what is done to the human being when pulled out of the womb. Political agendas will never change the moral thinking or the moral doing of the American culture. I believe that governmental over reach has crushed the moral compass in the country and that is why we have so many focusing on this issue and not real issues like our debt and the scope of the military industrial complex. I believe that the state you live in should set the precedent for the people. If you do not like the laws that state makes then you have every ability to leave that state. This is the way things were intended when this country was established as FREE.

  • Zeb||

    What Margaret Sanger or some eugenicists think is completely irrelevant.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    I fully endorse not making a big deal about abortion right now.

  • $park¥||

    Until abortion is completely banned by every government everywhere then you must fully commit to one side or the other and make the biggest deal possible about it. Sorry, dude.

  • ||

    It may be the only issue in the world that I have no opinion on.

  • Homple||

    "Restrictions on abortion highlight slippery slope of government intervention."

    Pretty soon you won't be allowed to have any fun at all with your weewee.

  • lap83||

    Considering how strongly many people feel about abortion being wrong, it's fucked up that Planned Parenthood continues to receive federal funding. When over half of Americans are against abortion to some degree (i.e. late term), why should they be forced to support an organization that engages in it?

  • $park¥||

    If there were no Americans who were against abortion, it would still be wrong to fund Planned Parenthood with federal money.

  • sarcasmic||

    If there were no Americans who supported abortion, Planned Parenthood would still receive federal money.

  • $park¥||

    No doubt. And the reason would be, as is now, fuck you, that's why.

  • Zeb||

    And have no abortions to spend it on.

  • SugarFree||

    If only there was some way to abort a deep-dish pizza using prog rock... Best thread ever.

  • $park¥||

    Only if Christians are getting circumcisions while adamantly insisting that God exists. Then it would be the thread to end all threads, and possibly even the Internet.

  • SugarFree||

    Nah, we'd have to work in Israel and Ke$ha.

  • $park¥||

    A Ke$ha concert in Israel where free deep-dish pizzas are being distributed by the prog rock opening band while Christians are proselytizing and giving circumcisions to newborns who were born because their parents didn't have abortions.

  • SugarFree||

    A Ke$ha concert in Israel where free deep-dish pizzas are being distributed by the prog rock opening band while Christians are proselytizing and giving circumcisions to newborns who were born because their parents didn't have abortions because they didn't have free birth control.

  • $park¥||

    You do realize that we are about to attain Singularity, don't you?

  • SugarFree||

    Meh. We haven't even worked in gun control, gay marriage or Trayvon Martin yet.

  • WTF||

    The lack of gun control resulted in Trayvon Martin's post-partum abortion.

  • Enough About Palin||

    Someone had to stop Trayvon from drinking his own piss.

  • Ted S.||

    NEEDZ MOAR LABELZ!

  • ||

    The real thread to end all threads is the one where I ask someone to explain to me what principle allows circumcision but not infanticide, let alone circumcision but not abortion.

  • SugarFree||

    Tulpa often enters those threads to call anyone who opposes default circumcision Anti-Semites. Good times.

  • ||

    It's sad when people don't realize my intactivism comes not only from an aversion to aggression, but also from a love of men and sex. I just want everyone to be happy and have more and better handjobs and fucking, okay? OKAY?!?

  • $park¥||

    I just want everyone to be happy and have more and better handjobs and fucking, okay? OKAY?!?

    This is why you're not cut out to be a feminist.

  • ||

    This is why you're not cut out to be a feminist.

    Well played.

  • ||

    Zod bless female libertarians!

  • Robert||

    Ask me instead. I'm for legal infanticide, but not baby circumcision. I figure an infant doesn't know what's coming when you kill it, hence doesn't mind. But when you're circumcized, first of all it hurts more than being killed (if you do it nicely), second, you're stuck with it the rest of your life.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Thirty-four states impose regulations specific to abortion providersgun buyers; 35 require counseling, and 26 impose waiting periods.

    Reasonable, common sense, rational, sensible, full of reason, sensibly common regulations.

    Amazing how TEAM Red and TEAM Blue look about the same in the cold light of day.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Buying a tool, such as a gun, doesn't kill anyone. Abortion, on the other hand...

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Yes, back to the question of "what is a person" where I, unlike most of the abortion squawkers, withdraw because I have no satisfactory answer.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    If only people would withdraw in time, the whole abortion issue would be moot.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    The best way to avoid getting pregnant is to not have sex. If you can't live without getting the D, take it in the A.

  • Mickey Rat||

    "But that pose is pretty hard to sustain when you’re demanding wider halls and doorways for handing out pills."

    If memory serves, the process by which RU-486 is used is a little more complicated and physically intrusive than merely handing out pills. Can we chalk this up to Hinkle's ignorance or ideological hackery?

  • Zeb||

    And in what way does it require wider hallways?

  • crashland||

    Do liberals have more abortions than those on the other side of the political spectrum? Does this mean that there are now less liberals than there would be if abortions had been illegal over the past 40 years? Is that not a good thing?

    I'm pro-choice, no woman should ever be forced to copulate against her will. She has the right to choose who gets to fuck her and who doesn't. She has the right to use contraceptives. Poor choices have consequences, which is why women should choose wisely. The choices are to copulate with or without contraceptives, a poor choice may result in being stuck bringing a baby to term, at which point, the mother can choose to give up the baby for adoption. Women have lots of choices and complete control over their own body.

    If I make a poor choice, like downing a bottle of Dalwhinnie and then going for a drive. If that poor choice results in a bad consequence, I crash the car and kill somebody. Can I get a "do over?" Why should I have to live with the consequences of my poor choice?

  • SugarFree||

    If I drive a nail into my foot, I can't go get it pried out at the emergency room? I mean, I should live with my bad choices, right?

    Besides, you forgot a "when you get raped you better stay raped" clause. Can't little those little whores get away with walking around all tarted up.

  • crashland||

    Some poor choices have more dire consequences than others. Killing a baby isn't the same as removing a nail from a foot. Rape is a horrid crime, but the baby to be killed isn't guilty of any crime.

  • SugarFree||

    I'm going to take a wild stab in the dark and guess you are a guy.

  • crashland||

    Oh the shame, I'm cursed with a penis.

  • Harvard||

    Maybe he's black, inasmuch as abortion was intended to solve the "african problem".

  • ||

    "I'm going to take a wild stab in the dark and guess you are a guy."

    Relevance?

  • sarcasmic||

    Does this mean that there are now less liberals than there would be if abortions had been illegal over the past 40 years?

    Politics is not hereditary.

  • $park¥||

    The choices are to copulate with or without contraceptives

    The good news here being that contraceptives are always 100% effective.

  • ||

    I know, it's so cool how they work that way Sparky.

  • Eric||

    I'm thinking abortions are one of those things that conservatives have just as much as liberals, only they don't talk about/admit to it.

  • SaltySeaCaptain(LAOL)||

    I'm pro-life and anti-death penalty. What does that make me?

    A consistent libertarian.

  • Fluffy||

    I have no problem saying that a 6 week old fetus is not a human being based purely on its physical characteristics.

    And I'm not afraid of the "But what about the severely handicapped?!" counterargument, either. If someone gets hit by a car and has the same amount of brain tissue left as a 6 week old fetus, go ahead and pull the fucking plug. You'll get no argument from me.

    A 5 month old fetus? Then maybe we're having a different conversation.

    "But oh no, it's a potential human being, genetically!"

    So is a couple of your skin cells, once the South Koreans get the kinks out of their experiments. But I don't weep for my dandruff.

  • Mickey Rat||

    "A 5 month old fetus? Then maybe we're having a different conversation."

    That means you are perhaps more pro-life than the current state of law is.

    Through science, your dandruff could possibly be made into a human organism. From fertilization to death at whatever age is a human organism. Calling one a potential human being is sophistry.

  • Harvard||

    "A 5 month old fetus? Then maybe we're having a different conversation."

    To be sure. At a mere 14 weeks:

    http://pregnancy.doctissimo.co.....weeks.html

  • Zeb||

    "Calling one a potential human being is sophistry."

    How do you figure? Once people have cloning all figured out, every one of your cells is a potential human being. It's just a fact. If life begins at conception, then it's the genes that make the human being. There is nothing else about a zygote that makes it human.

  • Mickey Rat||

    It would have to undergo a process equivalent to conception. A skin cell is not going to spontaneously develop into a child just because the technology exists. Equating an untreated skin cell to a fertilized ovum is a false equivalency.

  • Nuked||

    Fluffy,

    You and I are on the same page here.

  • ||

  • General Butt Naked||

    Jesus, I can't bear another abortion debate. Why would anyone want to bring life to one of these threads; Reason should stop the comments and drown this thread in a bathtub. Nobody's mind is changed because the people arguing are too pregnant with self-importance to see the other side. It's like trying to row through a swamp, and who wants to wade through that! Most abortion arguments aren't even well conceived.

  • SugarFree||

    I support the abortion of puns.

  • General Butt Naked||

    That's because you're a fucking monster.

  • General Butt Naked||

    But I labored so hard over my comment...

    ha!

  • SugarFree||

    [starts looking for coathanger]

  • General Butt Naked||

    Strange you say that, I was born with one wrapped around my head...

  • $park¥||

    Like one of those egg dippers?

  • SugarFree||

    He has to drink RIT dye every day to keep his colors vibrant.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Me and Boehner split a case of orange a month. We're going for that "Carribean-Hepatitis" look that's so popular nowadays.

  • gaoxiaen||

    Mangoes work better.

  • Ted S.||

    No wire hangers!!!!!

    [takes wire hanger and starts beating SugarFree with it]

  • SugarFree||

    I'll be good, Momma!

  • SaltySeaCaptain(LAOL)||

    This^

    +1,000,000 internets.

    This is just another Barton Hinkle cosmotarian article. Its what cosmos do best, sympathize with the left whenever possible even though there's ALOT more to worry about fiscally.

  • SugarFree||

    Yes, because the creation of state and federal miscarriage police wouldn't cost a dime.

  • SaltySeaCaptain(LAOL)||

    I guess we dont need the police or courts to prosecute rapists and murderers...

    /your train of thought

  • $park¥||

    CAHSMERTERIANZZZZ!!!!

  • ||

    Can't we just compromise on this issue? Split the difference?

    /Solomon

  • David Bailey||

    "I support NAP, except when it comes to killing babies. I'm totally for killing innocent babies." -Most Libertarians

  • Zeb||

    Oh, shut up. You know damn well that that is not the point of disagreement.

  • ||

    So now that we've solved the abortion issue and everyone is in agreement...

    Should I have my kid circumcised?

  • Harvard||

    Better to buy him a gun.

  • General Butt Naked||

    What about a foetus? Should you circumcise them after abortion? You don't want the little fella to show up in foetus heaven with a freakish member.

  • gaoxiaen||

    If it's not baptized in the Catholic Church, it's going to hell, just like all those heathen Protestants, Mormons, Buddhists, Jews, Moslems, Hindus, and Zoroastrians. After all, only 144,000 souls are going to go to heaven.

  • Enough About Palin||

    "Should I have my kid circumcised?"

    Depends. Male or female?

  • some guy||

    Only if you can prove that you're doing it for health reasons and not because a book written by crazy dead men told you to.

    It's like inoculation, but with a knife...

  • Agammamon||

    "As elsewhere, the lawmakers backing the bills have tried to portray them as efforts to protect women’s health."

    Its amazing how often reproductive freedom is conflated with women's (never men's) health.

    Are there times when controlling pregnancy is needed to preserve a woman's health -- sure. But most of the time abortion is used as a form of birth control because a condom was too much trouble.

  • Zeb||

    Could a fetus pass the gom jabbar? Hell no. Therefore it is not human. So abortion is OK. No one can possibly argue with that.

  • crashland||

    Yeah but you're still just a worm

  • Mickey Rat||

    Can a woman who wants an abortion pass the gom jabbar?

    That is debatable, as in most cases she has demonstrated an inability to weigh her instincts against the likely consequences and act accordingly.

  • Yerkov Markakis||

    Questions for you liberal libertarians who supposedly believe in personal responsibility...

    What responsibility to you place on a pregnant mother for the life in her womb?

    If babies are viable at least 5 months premature, how is it not a tyrannical act for a woman to abort the life of those babies?

    If science says that babies are viable human beings before birth then religion need not ever be used as a defense of saving babies lives, right?

  • Kurbster||

    and how exactly is a government forcing pregnant mothers to give birth isn't considered tyrannical, either?

    abortion is an issue that should be dealt with at a community level

  • Yerkov Markakis||

    PJ O'Rourke is anything but humorous.

  • Waterside||

    Kendall. if you, thought Francisco`s stori is shocking, on tuesday I bought a great new Saab 99 Turbo after making $6459 this - 5 weeks past and just a little over $10 thousand this past-month. this is really the most financialy rewarding I have ever done. I started this 8-months ago and straight away was making more than $83, p/h. I follow the details here, http://www.wow92.com

  • bobby oshea||

    its an innocent human being. stop kidding yourselves. you can't call kill it just b/c you don't want it. maybe this will help you liberaltarians who just don't want to face the truth. http://voices.yahoo.com/an-obj.....79562.html

  • dj kumquat||

    life liberty. abortion is murder. no sense trying to rationalize the practice. pregnancy shouldn't be thought of as a death sentence for the mother, nor should it be one for the child. we're the most prosperous and charitable nation on earth - really no "need" to abort, when we can easily provide for every unwanted pregnancy.

  • Hunter5||

    til I saw the receipt four $6575, I be certain that...my... friends brother was like they say realey bringing home money in their spare time on their apple labtop.. there sisters roommate started doing this less than fifteen months and a short time ago paid for the morgage on there home and bought a top of the range Citroën DS. I went here, http://www.wow92.com

  • lucasw908||

    my friend's step-mother makes $63/hr on the computer. She has been fired from work for six months but last month her payment was $15870 just working on the computer for a few hours. Read more on this web site
    http://qr.net/ka6n

  • buybuydandavis||

    "As elsewhere, the lawmakers backing the bills have tried to portray them as efforts to protect women’s health. "

    The solution being health care freedom for patients, so that they can buy the medicines they want from the people they want to buy it from without the permission of a deputized government regulator.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement