Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
And Imus Rejoiced
The first three pages of the newspaper are now accounted for for the next week.
The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the federal ban on partial birth abortion/late term abortion/a-certain-type-of-abortion-procedure/insert your preferred euphemism here.
VM|4.18.07 @ 10:56AM|#
It all makes sense now:
waited too long? Can't abort? Send 'em to Va Tech! Get a
"ChoSeungHui-ortion"
|4.18.07 @ 10:57AM|#
The law bans a method of ending a pregnancy, rather than
limiting when an abortion can be performed.
a certain method? what, hitting a women in the stomach with a
bat?
I wouldn't worry though. When Obama/Guliani becomes president,
abortions for everybody.
|4.18.07 @ 11:15AM|#
Just out of curiosity, where did the court find the constitutional authority for this? Or don't they even bother looking anymore?
|4.18.07 @ 11:22AM|#
waited too long? Can't abort? Send 'em to Va Tech! Get a
"ChoSeungHui-ortion"
Too soon! Too soon!
|4.18.07 @ 11:23AM|#
Nobody argued the Commerce Clause issue to the Court, Warren. You would hope the Supremes would bring it up "sua sponte", but (except for Clarence Thomas) nobody mentioned it.
|4.18.07 @ 11:23AM|#
where did the court find the constitutional authority for
this?
I suppose the same place they found a woman's constitutional right
to an abortion in the first place.
|4.18.07 @ 11:25AM|#
Cab:
That's a zinger. Personally, I don't mind when the court expands
freedom as much as when the court takes away freedoms. That's just
me though.
|4.18.07 @ 11:31AM|#
I prefer "larval parasite removal", kill it before it reaches
the pupal stage and well before it can become a mature parasite
capable of producing more.
*This tag is for the sarcastically impaired... excuse me.. 'persons
without sarcasm'*
SugarFree|4.18.07 @ 11:43AM|#
Fine by me, Lamar. My work wife is a hormonal horrorshow. (Home wife, not so much.)
|4.18.07 @ 11:46AM|#
"Just out of curiosity, where did the court find the
constitutional authority for this? Or don't they even bother
looking anymore?"
Fuck the rules
WE WIN!!!
|4.18.07 @ 11:50AM|#
Instapundit notes that Thomas' opinion explicitly states that this law may not pass muster on Commerce Clause grounds, but that the litigants didn't raise the issue, so the Court didn't address it. I'd love to read Scalia's rationalization of why the procedure in question comes under the heading of interstate commerce. Maybe he would just call fetuses human beings and say they cannot be deprived of life without due process.
|4.18.07 @ 11:54AM|#
Lamar, my comment was less about abortion than it was the Supreme Court's ability to find whatever they want to find, when they want to find it. I agree with you about erring on the side of expanding freedom.
|4.18.07 @ 11:57AM|#
insert your preferred euphemism here
Because using actual medically descriptive terminology like Intact
Dilation and Extraction is so fucking hard.
|4.18.07 @ 12:02PM|#
My oh my . . . Warren, don't you get it? The Constitution declares that ALL people are entitled to a defense against undue deprivation AND that all are entitled to life and liberty. If ANY of you are so ignorant, in this wonderful age of scientific knowledge, as to deny that a fetus is ,at a very early stage ,a sentient and living creature worthy of the protections which you enjoy and fight to preserve, then God/Allah/Buddha/Hindu floaty thing help you! I am tired of so-called libertarians , whose liberty-loving inclinations generally incline them to reason and science, denying the naked truth of life in the womb. How can you love liberty and yet advocate the death of innocents? Is it not our duty as libertarians to uphold the creed of non-aggression? Get with it . . .
|4.18.07 @ 12:10PM|#
TrueLib: get back to me when these creatures can live on their own. Otherwise, I'll have to view them for what they are. Amoebas' first cousin.
|4.18.07 @ 12:13PM|#
"If ANY of you are so ignorant, in this wonderful age of
scientific knowledge, as to deny that a fetus is ,at a very early
stage ,a sentient and living creature worthy of the protections
which you enjoy and fight to preserve,..."
The usual question, at least in libertarian circles, is not whether
a fetus is human life or at which point it becomes such, but
whether it is a human BEING and at which point of development it
becomes such.
|4.18.07 @ 12:22PM|#
Lamar . . . your idiocy is stunning. If "live on their own" was the qualification for what we value as being truly worthy of protection, then you would obviously have no problem lining up every child under the age of five against a wall and killing them, considering the fact that they are incapable of living " on their own ". Or what about the elderly and infirm for that matter? Do they not breathe and live? Medical science has demonstrated emotion, pain, pleasure, and the viability of fetal life OUTSIDE of the womb as early as 16 weeks. Your statement is vaporous and indicative of a true attachment to blood-lust. Go join your Stalinist brethren in Europe . . . you certainly have more in common with them than with anyone that truly believes in liberty.
|4.18.07 @ 12:22PM|#
If ANY of you are so ignorant, in this wonderful age of
scientific knowledge, as to deny that a fetus is ,at a very early
stage ,a sentient and living creature...
Living, we agree on. Sentient, not so much.
|4.18.07 @ 12:24PM|#
The True Libertarian,
You may not want to hang your hat on a fetus' sentience for your
arguement. Unless you're okay with second and third trimester
abortions, but my guess is that you're not.
The True Libertarian|4.18.07 @ 12:31PM|#
De Stijl . . . good point. So, not sentience . . . but brainwaves and heartbeats?? Is not the absence thereof the definition of the absence of life? Ergo, the existence of these is the definition of life, with it's already self-perpetuating and kinetic element of movement and action? Any attempt to parse FACTS is an attempt to deny the centrality of a given truth. Best to face truth with reason and move on . . .otherwise, we are no better than the Big Machine operators who view all of us as mere cogs in the order of things. That is what we are supposed to be against . . . anyways, de stijl, I like the name . . . the art movement and the W.S. album.
|4.18.07 @ 12:39PM|#
Folks, I wasn't talking about the "ability to function within
society" or "ability to perform certain activities." I was merely
talking about the scientific fact that a fetus removed from the
womb in the first three months of pregnancy will die (i.e., lose
that heartbeat/brainwaves) without a miraculous intervention. So
comparing a fetus to a 5 year old misses the mark. And if the
elderly or infirm choose to end their life, then let 'er rip. Terry
Schiavo is vegetative? Then the next of kin speaks for her. Falsely
convicted of murder in Texas, then the state will kill you.
TrueLib: your desire to be in everybody else's business highlights
the absurdity of your handle. Abortion laws in this country
already restrict abortions after 16 weeks, so that
argument you made is a throwaway. Your problem is that you see this
in terms of irresponsible sluts using late-term abortions as birth
control. You really have no idea of the practical implications of
your position. This is serious medicine, not a condom-break
insurance policy.
|4.18.07 @ 12:40PM|#
...but brainwaves and heartbeats?? Is not the absence
thereof the definition of the absence of life? Ergo, the existence
of these is the definition of life...
Error: Does not compute.
SugarFree|4.18.07 @ 12:47PM|#
ABORTION FLAME WAR! WOO!
The same people making the same arguments they always make!
Woooo!
Let me run home and my camera.
Abortion threads should be the next Godwin's Law.
|4.18.07 @ 12:48PM|#
Fetuses are not "self-perpetuating." Before a certain point,
they couldn't perpetuate themselves if they tried.
And no, I'm not talking about securing resources in the cold, cruel
world. I'm talking about carrying out respiration, digestion,
excretion, and the other processes of life.
|4.18.07 @ 12:53PM|#
"Let me run home and my camera."
Is there an error in this sentence? I think you meant to say
"chimera."
SugarFree|4.18.07 @ 12:55PM|#
Lamar...
And get my camera.
It's hard to type when you are endlessly amused by your own snark.
It's all I have left, really...
|4.18.07 @ 1:07PM|#
I have an idea. To spice this up, let's start spelling it "foetus" and calling each other "confounded old chum."
|4.18.07 @ 1:17PM|#
I have an idea. To spice this up, let's start spelling it
"foetus" and calling each other "confounded old chum."
I actually like that a lot.
I mean: Capital idea, old chum! Capital!
SugarFree|4.18.07 @ 1:20PM|#
Lamar and smartass,
Wow, did we just find a formula for killing abortion flame wars? Of
course, the churchies and the godless heathens might just be having
lunch.
|4.18.07 @ 1:36PM|#
"Of course, the churchies and the godless heathens might just be
having lunch."
They're probably off somewhere making new foetuses.
D.A. Ridgely|4.18.07 @ 1:57PM|#
I mean: Capital idea, old chum! Capital!
"I say, Jeeves, what an astonishing afternoon! I just popped into
the Drones for a quick G & Tonic when Bingo Little let the cat
out that Tuppy Glossip, of all unlikely chaps, has gotten Madeline
Bassett in a family way, if you know what I mean, Jeeves."
"How very distressing, Sir."
"Indeed so, Jeeves. One shutters at the thought. I mean really,
Madeline Bassett? I wouldn't have believed old Tuppy had it in him.
Not, I dare say, the act of the prix chevalier."
"Decidedly not, Sir."
"And now this telegram from Aunt Dahlia insisting that I -- I, of
all people! -- motor down at once to East Bumbley to arrange with
that pustulent boil of a blight on the English fundiment, Sir
Roderick Glossop to have the little nipper nipped out, if that's
the phrase I seek here, Jeeves."
"It conveys the point quite adequately, sir."
"Well, there's just nothing to be done about it, I suppose. What's
that wiz of yours Jeeves about 'twere done 'twere done at
once?"
"Not mine, I'm afraid, sir, but Mr. William Shakespeare from his
play Macbeth. 'If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere
well it were done quickly.'"
"Exactly so, Jeeves. Better pack the two-seater."
"Very good, sir."
lunchstealer|4.18.07 @ 2:39PM|#
So what would happen to the spacetime continuum if Bertie Wooster were to ask Dr. House to perform said nipper-nipping?
lunchstealer|4.18.07 @ 2:43PM|#
God I hate to intrude on the peace of a flame war ended, but
damn if I can resist posting something here.
The Constitution declares that ALL people are entitled to a
defense against undue deprivation AND that all are entitled to life
and liberty. If ANY of you are so ignorant, in this wonderful age
of scientific knowledge, as to deny that a fetus is ,at a very
early stage ,a sentient and living creature worthy of the
protections which you enjoy and fight to preserve
The problem here, for thoughtful libertarians, is how to apply
this. We accept numerous age-based limitations of various rights.
The constitution's last age-based restriction of rights expires at
age 35. Even libertarians grant parental exceptions to individual
liberty for children. While abortion can be interpreted as a
violation of libertarian principles, so is parental authority. But
libertarianism doesn't advocate preventing parents from exercising
authority over children.
So clearly libertarianism isn't quite about absolute freedom from
all coercion. There are exceptions based on age, species
(libertarianism doesn't apply the non-agression principle to pets,
livestock, or game animals, either - much to the chagrin of
whatever weird mutant LP/PETA members are out there) or at least
sentience of species, and possibly some other criteria that escape
my mind. My point is that we have, on occasion, a need to draw some
arbitrary lines.
What libertarianism DOES hold as a central tenet is that
government, where possible, should make as few restrictions on
freedom as possible. This sets up a natural logical conflict
between the parent's rights and the foetus's rights. It's a no-win
for libertarian principles. But there's one clear distinction -
parents are living, breathing people. Foetuses might be living, and
might be people, but they're certainly not 'living, breathing
people'. It's a distinction that most libertarians recognize as
giving us some guidance on the issue. Most libertarians decide to
award rights to mothers because in their minds there's no
controversy over whether they're people. A few award rights to
fetuses because in their minds there's no controversy over whether
or not there's life.
Neither are absolutely right, and in a case where government can't
see an absolute right, libertarian principle suggests that each
individual must make up their own mind as to what is the moral way
to procede. We do not coerce people to have abortions, nor to give
abortions. We simply allow individuals to make that choice.
To fail to even acknowledge that there is a dilemma for
libertarianism at all is pretty questionable. To proclaim a
libertarian to be an idiot for failing to fall on your side of this
debate on absolutist terms is especially odious.
|4.18.07 @ 2:58PM|#
"God I hate to intrude on the peace of a flame war ended, but
damn if I can resist posting something here."
Didn't get laid at lunch, didja Lunchstealer? ;-)
SugarFree|4.18.07 @ 3:00PM|#
lunchstealer,
It's two tar
babies having a fight; just sit back and try not to get any on
you.
Reason and argument will never settle any argument that basically
stems from emotional opinion. This what I've been trying to get the
notion of "Abortion threads are the new Godwin's Law" across.
Godwin's Law, as I understand it, is a hyperbole speed limit.
Comment thread cops try to slow hyperbolic ad hominem
attacks down by employing it as a shortcut refutation of technique.
Abortion threads should be avoided for the same reason. They always
devolve into "Murderer!" and "Christard!" eventually. They turn
everyone involved into trolls. And, really, don't we have enough of
them already?
Anyway, please don't take offense at any of this, you seem to be
trying to have a reasonable debate about a subject 99% of people
refuse to be reasonable about. I applaud that, I really do.
|4.18.07 @ 3:08PM|#
What??? What is this country coming too when it no longer permits a clump of cells to be destroyed mid-birth??? What's next?? The crimialization of lynchings???
SugarFree|4.18.07 @ 3:11PM|#
lunchstealer,
Exhibit fucking A.
Even if he's just being funny, what has Bill added to the debate?
(Sorry, Bill, I'm not trying to be mean...)
|4.18.07 @ 3:13PM|#
Jebus Lunchstealer,
Way to try and interject reason and thought into what is clearly an
emotions only argument. You, pack up your toys and go home!
lunchstealer|4.18.07 @ 3:19PM|#
SF - I know, I know. Pissin' into the wind.
But if I can't light a candle, then I'd like to at least
occasionally curse the darkness*.
*Not that "Givin' Up" isn't my favorite heroin-related song ever,
but y'know...
SugarFree|4.18.07 @ 3:24PM|#
Kwix,
You're not working are you? That always screws with my
timing.
I'm editing photographs today, so I can always bounce back to the
boards while they are churning away. That and Ms. Bosslady is out
of town. (It's odd to have a female boss named Bosslady, but I'm
lucky like that.)
|4.18.07 @ 3:31PM|#
Of course I'm working! Why else would I be spending time here instead of out and about?
|4.18.07 @ 3:44PM|#
Nobody argued the Commerce Clause issue to the Court,
Warren. You would hope the Supremes would bring it up "sua sponte",
but (except for Clarence Thomas) nobody mentioned it.
Not surprising. Whatever bad one might want to say about Thomas, he
*does* have a good appreciation of the Commerce Clause. Regulation
of medical procedures is such a traditional function of the states
that I'm surprised the Commerce Clause wasn't argued at some point.
That's my position on Roe v. Wade (and I'm pro-choice)--the U.S.
Constitution is silent on the issue of abortion regulation by the
states but does not contain any provision allowing the feds to get
involved.
|4.18.07 @ 4:16PM|#
"Exhibit fucking A.
Even if he's just being funny, what has Bill added to the debate?
(Sorry, Bill, I'm not trying to be mean...)"
Perhaps Bill was pointing out the slow positive evolution of
society vis-a-vis the barbarity of both PBA and lynching.
|4.18.07 @ 5:19PM|#
The point: libertarians should not be wishy-washy. Odious or not, if you are not going to accept Facts, your never going to be taken seriously. Which is why Libs lose time and again, and why we will never be able to muster more than .05% of the vote . . . we come across as passionately devoted to ... nothing. Other than live and let live, which is great in the fantasy-land of your head, but in the real world, the closest we will ever get to that is to start by acknowledging simple truths, fighting for them with aplomb, and joining ourselves to the fight for maximum liberty for ALL. Otherwise, many potential allies/converts will brush us off as hippie-wannabe wishy-washy scam artists.
lunchstealer|4.18.07 @ 6:10PM|#
The point: libertarians should not be
wishy-washy.
So you agree with me that no person should ever be prevented from
making their own medical decisions? Excellent.
|4.18.07 @ 6:36PM|#
"Otherwise, many potential allies/converts will brush us off
as hippie-wannabe wishy-washy scam artists."
Or make us one of the most highly courted demographics in many
election cycles. Besides, which part of "your medical treatment is
none of my business" is wishy-washy?
SugarFree|4.18.07 @ 6:50PM|#
SugarFree | April 18, 2007, 4:24pm | #
Exhibit B
Media Marvin | April 18, 2007, 4:47pm | #
Exhibit C
Way to both miss the point and prove it. [golf clap]
|4.18.07 @ 7:42PM|#
Lamar . . . you and every other relativist Mengele that purports to believe in liberty AND state-sanctioned murder can only be described as a hopelessly lost and disturbed soul . . . and yes, I am a libertarian that stands for something other than my right not to stand for anything at all. If you cannot understand the importance of acknowledging what "life" is, then how can you, or anyone for that matter, understand and advance any notion related to the protection and promotion of "life, liberty, and property"? Are we to revise that famous libertarian proviso to include your terribly confused and ultimately perilous view of a logically impossible opinion of what life is? No . . . we may as well say life begins at eighteen, or fifty, or any time we so choose: we are freedom-loving relativists who can change the laws of science and call it an informed opinion! Yippee! Right? How sad . . . how terribly sad.
|4.18.07 @ 7:54PM|#
Just out of curiosity, where did the court find the
constitutional authority for this? Or don't they even bother
looking anymore?
While I like the outcome, I agree that this isn't the best way to
bring it about. However, the SCOTUS has in previous cases struck
down every state partial birth abortion ban at the state level that
came before them; I'm interested in how this ban is different from
those (or whether it's just a matter of O'Connor's "swing vote" now
being held by Alito).
|4.18.07 @ 8:00PM|#
Abortion laws in this country already restrict abortions
after 16 weeks, so that argument you made is a
throwaway.
As I noted in a thread the other day, that is a fantasy. There have
been no successful prosecutions for third-trimester abortions in
the US since 1973, whatever laws are technically on the
books.
RvW requires that any restriction on late-term abortions include
exceptions for cases where the health of the mother is at risk.
This sounds reasonable until you realize that they define "health"
as including her mental, emotional, economic, and familial
well-being. Any such exception would be broad enough to apply to
anyone who wants to get an abortion, so in practice there could be
no restriction on abortion at any time during pregnancy (until
today).
D.A. Ridgely|4.18.07 @ 8:16PM|#
Just out of curiosity, where did the court find the
constitutional authority for this? Or don't they even bother
looking anymore?
Nothing has changed except that as membership on the high court
shifts over time there are new assholes perspectives
from which the law is pulled discerned.
|4.19.07 @ 5:23AM|#
The True Libertarian writes: you and every other relativist
Mengele that purports to believe in liberty AND state-sanctioned
murder can only be described as a hopelessly lost and disturbed
soul
Relativist? Fuck you. Just because I don't go around ascribing deep
moral standing to every two-bit clump of cells with forty-six
chromosomes doesn't make me a relativist.
What, are you a fucking Jain? Do you take care not to step on a
pillbug? Or do you think that just because normal adult humans have
rights, therefore it magically follows that a Homo sapiens zygote
is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment? I mean, if you think
unimplanted human blastocysts have more moral worth than an adult
gorilla, then you're a dumb piece of shit, and I suspect you aren't
raising hell about gorilla rights.
Get your head out of your ass.
|4.19.07 @ 10:03AM|#
TrueLib: are you addressing my arguments or just repeating your refuted diatribe? As the famous saying goes, sticks and stones may break my bones, but unless I start playing NCAA basketball, names will never hurt me.
Robert|4.19.07 @ 2:05PM|#
Nobody argued the Commerce Clause issue to the Court,
Warren. You would hope the Supremes would bring it up "sua sponte",
but (except for Clarence Thomas) nobody mentioned it.
That's because the statute itself applies only to persons "in or
affecting interstate commerce" (just like the ban on organ sales).
It doesn't purport to apply to persons generally. Therefore it's a
question for the trial court (a jury in a jury
trial) in any given case, based on the facts, whether the doctor
being prosecuted was in, or affecting, interstate commerce.
So the only way for the law to be struck down on
that basis would be to find that any conceivable person performing
partial birth abortions could not possibly be in,
or affect, interstate commerce. And that'd be awfully difficult to
find!
It's pretty clear that a doctor who crossed state lines to perform
such a procedure would be in interstate commerce. It would be very
interesting to see what facts get argued in trial court regarding
whether an abortionist affected interstate
commerce.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245