Freedom in the 50 States Report Should Have Considered Abortion

JunoJuno/Fox SearchlightIt was inevitable that abortion would come up as an issue when the Mercatus Center released its latest Freedom in the 50 States report rating North Dakota as the freest state in the union roughly an eyeblink after that state passed arguably the tightest abortion restrictions in the country. And nevermind that the otherwise-excellent report, which was based on data up through the end of 2011, couldn't possibly have included that law, or a similar Arkansas measure, in its calculations. Abortion is a hot-button issue, it's in the headlines, and the decision by report authors William P. Ruger and Jason Sorens to completely exclude the matter from consideration couldn't help but be taken as what it is: a cop-out.

Ruger and Sorens are right to note that libertarians, like Americans in general, are conflicted on this issue:

According to one view, a fetus is a rights-bearing person, and abortion is therefore an aggressive violation of individual rights that ought to be punished by the government. According to another view, a fetus does not have rights, and abortion is a permissible exercise of an individual liberty, which entails that government regulation of abortion is an unjust violation of a woman’s rights.

But instead of coming down one way or the other  (which would have risked alienating part of the audience), or including data on abortion laws in the online personalizer (which would have been my preference) so that people could toggle it on or off, Ruger and Sorens "coded the data on state abortion restrictions and made them available online at www. statepolicyindex.com, but have not included the policy in the index of freedom." Ouch. That's a great way to dodge the issue without dodging any of the flack generated by the battle over the issue.

Maybe abortion seemed like a relatively safe bet for exclusion because Ruger and Sorens are guys. Whichever side of the debate men come down on, abortion is always going to be a bit of a hypothetical for us. I know more than a few guys who have little interest in this particular debate, but all the women I know, probably because they have to take the bullet, so to speak, have strong opinions on the matter. That doesn't mean they all end up agreeing on the issue — not a damned chance — but they all seem to have given it serious thought.

Because of my cultural background, most of the women I know are pro-choice (as I am). A high proportion have actually terminated pregnancies. You can bet that they consider abortion restrictions, or the lack thereof, important in deciding just how free any given jurisdiction is.

Yes, abortion is controversial and people who care about freedom disagree about it. But ignoring the issue doesn't make it go away. Including data about the issue as an option for people to consider in personalizing their own rankings would have made a good report even better.

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.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Whichever side of the debate men come down on, abortion is always going to be a bit of a hypothetical for us. But women carry the bullet.

    Sort of like rape is just a hypothetical for women, I suppose, since they never are in a position to make the rape decision.

    Also, adults who don't have kids have no right to an opinion on child abuse, since they're never involved in the child-beating decision.

  • ||

    One of these things is not like the other... One of these things is not quite the same...

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    What Tulpa is addressing is the facile argument that being a particular gender precludes you from having an opinion on the subject. Amusingly enough, since women tend to be pro-life at a slightly higher rate than men, that would be quite beneficial for the pro-life movement.

    However, though I am pro-life, I'm not going to pretend that being a pro-choice male means that you have no grounds on which to argue your point with a pro-life female.

  • ||

    I don't see that argument anywhere in the blog post. Methinks Tulpa just had his jimmies rustled a bit.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    It's possible. We all have hair triggers. That's how I interpreted his reply, though.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Then please enlighten me on what a smart, objective person like you thinks Tucille's point with the italicized text was.

  • ||

    That males on average have less strong opinions on abortion than women. Because we don't know what it's like to be pregnant, have an abortion, or give birth.

    You know, pretty much exactly what he said. Not "MEN DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO HAVE AN OPINION!"

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Because we don't know what it's like to be pregnant, have an abortion, or give birth.

    Ok, let's all take a breath and stop sniping at each other. That assertion is one that's actually worthy of debate.

    As I remarked downthread to Suthenboy, I don't think that argument holds water because, as intelligent beings, we men are capable of observing the effects of pregnancy, et al. and using our ability to think abstractly, to conceptualize the mental and emotional states of a pregnant woman, and placing ourselves in her shoes, speak on what we would do if we were in her situation.

    I reject any essentialist argument that one cannot meaningfully contribute to a discussion of morality or ethics because one is a different race or gender than the person involved in the dilemma.

  • ||

    Yes, men are certainly able to understand pregnancy if they want to. But the average man doesn't have to, so he doesn't. And because of that, the average man has a less strong opinion on abortion.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    "Yes, men are certainly able to understand pregnancy if they want to. But the average man doesn't have to, so he doesn't. And because of that, the average man has a less strong opinion on abortion."

    Or, if one wanted to, one could make the argument that, since men are alive, they have fully realized opinions on murder.

    I don't happen to think that abortion is murder, but I don't think that I can prove my position through logic. Further, I have never seen an argument FOR EITHER SIDE that didn't devolve into a matter of emotion and faith.

    Telling anti-abortion men that their opinions should't count as much is not an argument. It is a provocation.

  • ||

    Then maybe you should read the argument in this thread.

    Telling anti-abortion men that their opinions should't count as much is not an argument. It is a provocation.

    But notice that no one here actually said that.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    If that was his point it's flatly contradicted by observation.

  • ||

    How so?

  • ||

    Also, even if that were true, it hardly justifies your convenient interpretation of his words.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    That males on average have less strong opinions on abortion than women.

    That depends on whether or not the man in question wants to spend a lifetime supporting that child.

  • RightNut||

    It takes two to tango, I'm not sure why a decision like abortion shouldn't include half of the equation.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Assertion, the glibster's best friend.

  • ||

    Your jimmies are SO rustled right now.

  • Bingo||

    u aware?

  • Matrix||

    They may take our lives, but they cannot rustle our jimmies!!

  • IceTrey||

    WTF are you talking about? An adult woman having sex with an underage boy is rape.

  • ||

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    including data on abortion laws in the online personalizer (which would have been my preference) so that people could toggle it on or off

    1. Everyone who quoted the article was using the default rankings, so the personalizer isn't really going to defang the criticism.

    2. IIRC the personalizer just lets you turn on or off the category. It doesn't let you choose which side you're on (ie, if I consider pro-life to be the pro-liberty position, I can't increase pro-life states' scores).

  • buybuydandavis||

    This is the right answer for a personalizer - give us the data, and let us apply our own values.

    It would also give them an incredibly interesting and detailed data set. Hint hint.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Maybe I wasn't clear.

    They should take the data from the 50 states, query us for our values, and show us what we think is the freest state based on our values.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    What would be interesting would be for people to be able to apply negative weights. Would make the personalizer a good test for how progressive or conservative state is, respectively.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Because of my cultural background, most of the women I know are pro-choice (as I am).

    No offense, 2-Chill, but what the fuck does that even mean? Are you from Abortolandia or something?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    An enthusiastic explorer of the American Southwest's deserts, mountains, and forests, Tuccille lives in rural northern Arizona with his wife, a pediatrician, their son, and their two dogs.

    He let the pediatrician who knocked up his wife move in with them; what do you expect?

  • ||

    Uh oh, Tulpa is butthurt. This event is so rare I have nothing prepared at all.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Heh. Amphibology is fun.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Leave the salamanders out of this.

  • KevinP||

    LOL, that is funny! And the pediatrician brought his dogs too!

  • jdtuccille||

    It's a really fucking awkward way of saying I was raised around a bunch of New York liberals.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Get the fuck out of Arizona, carpetbagger. It's people like you who ruin the state that so many of us with multi-generational ties to the land have spent so much time and effort building.

    /Puerto Rican Tucsonan carpetbagger :)

  • SIV||

    So were all these women who needed scrape jobs unlucky,couldn't follow contraceptive directions, poor pregnancy planners, or just failed to coerce the sperm donors into a more permanent relationship?

  • ||

    So were all these women who needed scrape jobs unlucky,couldn't follow contraceptive directions, poor pregnancy planners, or just failed to coerce the sperm donors into a more permanent relationship?

    How about, just fucking irresponsible?

  • DJK||

    How about their birth control failed (this happens fairly frequently) and they just decided they didn't want the kid and that abortion squared with their moral viewpoints?

  • DJK||

    The failure rate of oral contraceptives is approximately 2%, even if used completely correctly. It's about 5% for male condoms. Let's say a couple used both and used them perfectly every time. Then they'll still have a failure rate of something like 0.1%, or once every thousand times. If you have sex every night in a relationship (not all that difficult to achieve), that's a pregnancy every 2.5 years or so. For couples who are taking every possible precaution not to get pregnant. What more should they do? Not express their love through sex? Get sterilized? This whole idea that they're irresponsible is ridiculous. Take the moral judgment elsewhere.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Not an excuse. We all have to rise above our origins.

    I was raised in a devoutly left-wing family and the vast majority of my current social milieu is leftist; but I don't let that contaminate my thinking.

  • ||

    You are such a rebel! I find that sexy.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    It's a really fucking awkward way of saying I was raised around a bunch of New York liberals.

    Ah, me too. I guess we're both ex-pat, Abortolandians!

    Though, I'm pro-life, myself, for what it's worth.

  • Chris Mallory||

    Cosmotarian

  • ||

    Is that you Cletus?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Cletus has never molested his daughter like Chris Mallory has.

  • SIV||

    You can't call it molestation when it is mandated by the Kentucky State Constitution.

  • Chris Mallory||

    Got enough guts to sign your real name to that post? I didn't think so. About what I would expect from a half breed.

  • ||

    But your real name is Cletus, you hypocrite.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Whichever side of the debate men come down on, abortion is always going to be a bit of a hypothetical for us.

    Sure. If a man considers abortion to be murder, and a woman aborts his child, that's a "bit of a hypothetical." I mean, in his eyes she just murdered his child, but it's all hypothetical, right?

    The men you know don't care because they're pro-choice, know that whatever they want will be overridden by the woman anyway, and therefore don't invest a lot of time worrying about it. I'm pro-choice myself, but I assume it's a bit different for somebody who believes abortion is taking a life.

  • DJK||

    Perhaps a pro-life man should have a conversation about abortion with the woman prior to getting her pregnant?

  • Mike M.||

    Nobody bitches, whines, and pouts more when he's getting his ass kicked than Krzyzewski. And I love watching it every single time it happens!

  • ||

    I was wondering what was missing from this amazing week on H&R. An abortion thread, of course.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    I was hoping for a thread about abortion and circumcision-performing Ethiopian mohels who were having their businesses suicide bombed by radical Palestinian Muslims. Also, a deep dish pizza formed in the likeness of the best Star Trek captain is involved somehow.

  • mr simple||

    Do the mohels prefer console or pc gaming?

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Actually, they spend most of their free time calling each other paleos and cosmos on an internet forum. Weird, I know.

  • mr simple||

    So they're anti-carb?

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Nah, man. They have this big debate going about which diet is most "alpha", and anti-carb is consistently rated a beta diet. See, there's this site called heariste...

  • Sevo||

    "Also, a deep dish pizza formed in the likeness of the best Star Trek captain is involved somehow."
    And one group of college kids scored more points in some game than another group! Yippee!

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Don't you know, circumcision is just a hypothetical for women and men who've already been cut.

  • ||

    Tulpa quit beating that dead horse unicorn.

  • Irish||

    What the fuck does circumcision have to do with anything? Do you just throw random analogies out into the world and hope some of them make sense?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    The comment I was responding to mentioned circumcision, another topic on which some H+Rers are thin-skinned.

  • Irish||

    Seriously? Sorry, I didn't see what you were responding to.

    I would ask why anyone cares about circumcision, but that sounds like it would start a flame war even worse than the other ones we've seen this week.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    What would cutting off an innocent and incapable of consent person's body part that will never grow back have to do with liberty?

  • ||

    Right Tulpa, because parents don't make decisions for their children ever, except when it comes to cutting off a "body part." Pffft

  • Irish||

    So if I were born with a tail my parents wouldn't be allowed to cut it off until I was 18?

  • ||

    Hey you might want that tail! You could join a freakshow and make much moolah without doing anything!

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    So if I were born with a tail my parents wouldn't be allowed to cut it off until I was 18?

    As with children-issues in general, there aren't easy answers. Unless you think it's OK to cut your newborn baby's arms off on a whim, you have to limit parental decisions of that type somewhere. The question is where you draw the line.

  • ||

    As with children-issues in general, there aren't easy answers. Unless you think it's OK to cut your newborn baby's arms off on a whim, you have to limit parental decisions of that type somewhere.

    Actually, the answer is incredibly easy: Cutting of an arm is maiming the baby. Circumcision, on the other hand, does no harm. Your attempt to muddy the issue with such ridiculous philosophizin' proves once again you are an asinine individual.

  • Almanian!||

    Dude, you ain't lived till you've seen an H y R circumsion thread.

  • Almanian!||

    What? Spelling - how does it work?

  • ||

    The internet is nutso for circumcision debates, for some reason. It's not just here, trust me.

  • AlexInCT||

    I see what you did there... nutso.. circumcision.. pretty sure not the part they cut, thank someone.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    I miss the good ole days of 1,000 comments on Sarah Palin.

  • mr simple||

    Ann Coulter called aborted fetuses who get gay married a bunch of pussies.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Which Star Trek doctor made for best abortionist?

  • Irish||

    And how many points did he put up against Ohio State?

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Who gives a damn, clearly Picard was the best craft brewer on the Enterprise.

    Asshole.

  • ||

    I thought Picard was actually a Vintner.
    Either one is good in my book.

  • mr simple||

    Clearly the hologram doctor on Voyager as that whole show was an abortion.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    The Doctor. He was a hologram, so he could give like less than 2 fucks.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    I'll play devil's advocate and say that as a synthetic lifeform, the Doctor might have been in the sympathetic position to defend the rights of emergent/questionable sentient beings and lifeforms.

    Sadly, I have watched every damn episode of that show. My wife is a big fan, and she owns all of the seasons... ugh.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Perhaps. So, Crusher, then, because she was a typical Proggie shrew.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Pulaski was worse IMHO. but I still have to post this

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Picard and Riker tried to push Troi into having an abortion in the first episode of season 2.

  • ||

    You know Tulpa, Dr. Crusher could have had an abortion. Instead we got Wesley. Thanks, asshole.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Wesley Crusher is a pro-life argument. Without him, the crew would have died in the first season multiple times. Moral of the story: don't kill smarmy assholes just because they're assholes: they could end up saving your life. Also, they'll end up getting touched by the Traveler, and in the end isn't that way funnier than getting Tasha Yarred out of existence?

  • ||

    But was it really worth living if it had to be with Wesley Crusher?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Didn't stop them from killing Lt. Remmick, the bastards. He was one of my favorite characters, after whom I've modeled much of my own personality.

  • ||

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    That was insensitive.

  • ||

    You certainly do appear to have a neural parasite.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    They were supposed to be the major antagonists whose role was eventually taken by the Borg.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Phlox, he aborted an entire species because of his deep faith in evolution.

  • SIV||

    Whichever side of the debate men come down on, abortion is always going to be a bit of a hypothetical for us

    A bit more than a hypothetical in the context of our laws and culture.

  • ||

    "...abortion is always going to be a bit of a hypothetical for us."

    It has never seemed that way to me. A child of mine is as real to me before it is born as after. It is my child, my flesh and blood, a life, not a hypothetical.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Oh silly Suthenboy, don't you know that since you could never feeeellll that life kicking inside your womb, it will always be an abstraction to you until it's born?

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    But you don't have the right to force a host to carry it for nine months.

  • SIV||

    But she has the right to force you to subsidize her "choice" for 18 years.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    If you're referring to child support she is the dealer and has that advantage.

    Also the answer for below too.

    (if you're referring to state subsidies then that is sadly determined at the ballot box)

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    If you're referring to child support she is the dealer and has that advantage.

    Not all of us have to beg for sex, shrike.

  • Irish||

    Not all of us have to beg for sex kidnap women and hold them in our sex dungeon, shrike.

    Fixed.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    What is the meaningful difference between that and forcing a woman to take care of and not murder a newborn until she can find some way to transfer care of the child?

  • Ghetto Slovak Goatherder||

    I'm currently having a discussion about abortion with an objectivist and arguing like this exactly. He's showing differences (between an embryo and a baby, for example) which no one is denying exist, but he's failing to show why these differences are meaningful in terms of what we deem deserving of the protection of life.

  • ||

    I would say that your objectivist opponent has a good point.

    Few here would argue that zygotes deserve the same regard as a five year old child. What about a two week old fetus? a six month old fetus?

    Clearly there is a line there somewhere. For me, any critter that is even hypothetically viable outside the womb is over that line. I would even argue that when brain development begins to show the most rudimentary signs of sentience we should draw the line there.

    Am I going to have to dig out my dusty old embryology text? I havent looked at that thing for 30 years and I am sure it is out of date.

    As for 'forcing the host to nurture a parasite', I say that is nothing but mendacious rhetoric. Any woman who became pregnant with my child ( notice I said 'my child') and didnt want to be burdened with it would have no problem. Birth the kid and give them to me and never look back.

  • Ghetto Slovak Goatherder||

    I agree there is a line, and Roe vs. Wade set it approximately at viability.

    But I could just as easily set it elsewhere, for example at conception.

    Why? Because at conception we become genetically human. We, for the first time, have the genetic "bar code" that makes us unique from any other human.

    Why is one distinction morally meaningful while another is not? On what moral basis is the distinction made arguable?

  • ||

    Well first of all, being human is not the same thing as being a human being. For example, my thumb is human, it has my unique human DNA, but it is not a human being. A fertilized egg, in the same way is not a human being.

    From a moral standpoint, viability is important because until viability, the fetus is simply an organ of the mother. It needs to be physically attached to the mother in order to survive. And the mother should be able to do with her body as she wishes.

    Does the fetus have unique DNA? Yes, but that is not what determines individuality. Identical twins have the same DNA. Are they the same person? You have small clumps of cells that contain your mother's DNA, and your mother has clumps containing your DNA (this is called microchimerism, caused by tissues transfering during gestation). Are those clumps not part of your body because they have your mother's DNA?

  • Ghetto Slovak Goatherder||

    "From a moral standpoint, viability is important because until viability, the fetus is simply an organ of the mother. It needs to be physically attached to the mother in order to survive. And the mother should be able to do with her body as she wishes."

    What's the moral distinction between physical dependence and material dependence?

    "Identical twins have the same DNA."

    Not quite true.

  • ||

    What's the moral distinction between physical dependence and material dependence?

    You don't own your kids, you do own your body.

    Not quite true.

    Minus about 60 mutations each, but essentially true.

  • Ghetto Slovak Goatherder||

    To your first point:

    What about conjoined twins? Are two conjoined twins a single person? Does one have the right to kill the other because of a physical dependence?

  • ||

    Are two conjoined twins a single person?

    No, you have two persons who are attached. A fetus isn't analogous to a conjoined twin, since the fetus doesn't have cognizance. In most cases, killing one twin would cause the death of the other. Separating twins is extremely difficult, risky, and is only undertaken if one's life cannot continue conjoined. There's also a case of twins who were separated, knowing that this would cause one twin to die but the other to live, because if they were not separated, they would both die. But again, this is not an analogous situation since you may or may not have viability and you may or may not have cognizance.

  • Ghetto Slovak Goatherder||

    Ok, so you added another requirement. Suppose you have two mentally disabled conjoined twins, to the extent that they aren't cognizant, but for all practical purposes are viable.

  • ||

    Suppose you have two mentally disabled conjoined twins, to the extent that they aren't cognizant, but for all practical purposes are viable.

    Suppose what exactly? If neither are cognizant, one is going to decide to kill the other, so your analogy is even farther removed. Are you asking what the parent should do?

  • ||

    And that requirement was implicit in my argument. The only reason the mother is able to abort is because she is cognizant. If you have two cognizant entities then you can't distinguish between one having rights over another.

  • ||

    For example, my thumb is human, it has my unique human DNA, but it is not a human being. A fertilized egg, in the same way is not a human being.

    Your thumb is not unique, it is the same as the rest of your body. A fertilized egg on the other hand is unique. I hope that people who make this argument know it is asinine.

    the fetus is simply an organ of the mother.

    Only if you don't know what an organ or a fetus is.

    And the mother should be able to do with her body as she wishes.

    But it the fetus is not part of her body and outside of rape she already made the decision of what to risk putting into her body.

    Does the fetus have unique DNA? Yes, but that is not what determines individuality. Identical twins have the same DNA. Are they the same person?

    And were backed to person-hood, which is the actual crux of the matter. You could have just skipped all the bullshit above.

    The rest is irrelevant. Yes, the whole 'unique DNA' thing is pushed to hard when take to far. Fact is that a fertilized egg is the beginning of individuality. When does that individual have the right to live? That is the question.

    The focus on clumps of cells ignores the whole argument. Every day that individual is becoming more and more complex. Taken to a literal conclusion were all clumps of cell. What degree of complexity is too much? At some point you can't kill morally kill it.

  • ||

    Your thumb is not unique, it is the same as the rest of your body. A fertilized egg on the other hand is unique. I hope that people who make this argument know it is asinine.

    Umm... if you read that sentence again you'll see that the only thing I said was unique was my own DNA. Not the thumb.

    Only if you don't know what an organ or a fetus is.

    Well are you going to argue that it isn't?

    But it the fetus is not part of her body and outside of rape she already made the decision of what to risk putting into her body.

    But the fetus is part of her body and her choosing to one thing to her body doesn't somehow invalidate her right to further choose what to do with her body. Not to mention that women don't just decide to get pregnant and then decide to have an abortion. Abortion's are used to terminate accidental pregnancies, which are not decisions.

  • ||

    And were backed to person-hood, which is the actual crux of the matter. You could have just skipped all the bullshit above.

    All of that "bullshit" is key to the argument. If you don't get that, you don't understand the argument.

    Fact is that a fertilized egg is the beginning of individuality.

    I don't see that as a fact. Not much more than I see "every sperm is sacred" as a fact.

    When does that individual have the right to live? That is the question.

    No it's even more basic than that, the question is "what is an individual?"

    The focus on clumps of cells ignores the whole argument.

    I wasn't focusing on clumps of cells. That's just an example of how DNA is not equivalent to individuality and your body is not equivalent to your DNA.

    What degree of complexity is too much? At some point you can't kill morally kill it.

    You mean what degree of complexity is individuality. It makes sense that the individual has to be complex enough to live as its own body. And then you or someone else will probably miss the point and go back to talking about how children need their mothers to feed them. That is a non-sequitur when we are talking about bodies.

  • entropy||

    The idea that the fetus is an appendage or organ of the mother is biologically ignorant.

  • ||

    Have you ever dissected an embryo? Have you read any texts on embryology? Maybe you should study biology at the same level I have before you claim I'm ignorant of it.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Well, not exactly. Microchimerism occurs most often to place fetal cells in the mother--at a rate of about 50-75%. But the rate of maternal cells entering the fetus is less than half that.

    And, since those 'clumps' are thought to cause autoimmune diseases, then no, they are not part of one's body.

  • ||

    So if you get an organ transplant, that organ is not part of your body?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    But you don't have the right to force a host to carry it for nine months.

    Which is why I support throwing rapists in jail (actually I support applying the DP to them, but that's another matter).

  • ||

    I'm sure you're a hit at all the rape victim cocktail parties, Tulpy.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    I'm sure you're a hit at all the rape victim at all the cocktail parties, Tulpy.

  • ||

    Don't flatter yourself.

  • Killazontherun||

  • ||

    There you go, furiously polishing a turd again.

    That is right, I am like a cockroach. I force my sperm into her even if I have to hold her down and incise her abdomen, inserting it directly into her womb.

    Host? Parasite? Forcing? Fuck you.

    I am not entirely against abortion.....take you for instance...had your mother been of a different mind....well, you see where I am going with this.

  • cavalier973||

    No, but the child does.

  • CaptainSmartass||

    It's not your child until it's born. Until then it's a drain on the health and resources of the mother; if she doesn't want to go through with taking care of the little monster for nine months you have no right to force her to do so.

    Don't like it? Better make sure she's up for carrying the creature to term before you knock her up.

  • SIV||

    If a woman choses to carry a child to term that I don't want it is my responsibility. Can I then choose to put the child up for adoption and split the profits in lieu of paying 18 years of child support?

  • Irish||

    I would say that this is the least important subject anyone has ever written a blog post about, but I've been to Salon.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    It is naturally important to women and inexplicably important to the Santorums of the world.

  • Irish||

    Yes, but this isn't even about abortion. It's about the fact that abortion was left out of a random study of 'freedom' among the 50 states.

    What's the point?

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Yeah, that is boring.

    Freedom study finds that densely packed people want more rules than rural people!

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Freedom study finds that densely packed people want more rules than rural people!

    Thomas Jefferson could have told you that.

  • Irish||

    Which would be okay if they didn't try to use the federal government to force those rules on the rest of us.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    You're adopting Tony's population density argument? Good grief.

    It's not at all clear they actually want all these rules; it's more likely they just don't have the juice to stop the powerful elites from foisting the rules upon them. You seriously think most New Yorkers favor a ban on transfats and big gulps?

  • ||

    Yeah I think it's that bigger cities draws bigger egos. More people = more power, so the politicians are real sociopaths.

  • prolefeed||

    I think it's more that people in big cities are finding themselves in conflicts with their neighbors more often than people who live way out in the sticks, and instead of trying to resolve their differences peacefully, they drag government into their squabbles.

  • prolefeed||

    For example, if your nearest neighbor lives a mile away, your playing your stereo loud late at night isn't going to cause any conflicts, even if your neighbors would be inclined to be statist arseholes.

    While in a big city, the same statist fucks would try to pass a noise ordinance law instead of just talking with their neighbors and working out their differences.

  • Irish||

    The population density argument fails miserably. It doesn't explain incredibly statist periods of the past when people were much more spread out. It doesn't explain hyper-dense areas like Hong Kong and Singapore, which nonetheless are very capitalistic.

    It doesn't explain why the places that Socialism and Communism have spread most often have actually been sparsely populated compared to the west. Why did Russia and China become Communist when neither was anywhere near as densely populated as England? Hell, why was England more free than France and Germany, despite the fact that it had a higher population density? Why was the most socialist part of America in the early 1900s Kansas?

    It's really a miserable failure of an argument if you even try to look at it.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    It doesn't explain hyper-dense areas like Hong Kong and Singapore, which nonetheless are very capitalistic

    Liberty is more than the free market. You try chewing gum in Singapore. Or try running against the ruling party. Or even try selling your apartment to someone of the wrong ethnicity. (In Singapore, the vast majority of housing is government-owned, and in the name of "racial harmony" the demographics of the building must be close to 1/3 Chinese, 1/3 Indian, and 1/3 Malay. If you're a mixed family, you can do what you want though...)

  • General Butt Naked||

    @HM

    If you believe that liberty extends beyond low corporate tax rates, then you are in fact one of those dreaded cosmotarians.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I have never denied my love of cocktails.

  • ||

    Heroic Mulatto| 3.31.13 @ 8:20PM |#|–|filternamelinkcustom

    I have never denied my love of cock...

    It's on the internet forever now.

  • Irish||

    You're obviously right about Singapore. I stand by the rest of my arguments though.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Here's some more information about Singapore's "Ethnic Integration Policy" for those who are interested. I didn't remember the ratios correctly.

  • Mickey Rat||

    All those countries were pretty well broken by WWI or WWII at the time the totalitarians took over.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    There is something to that -- and to Tony/shrike's argument about pop density -- but it doesn't explain transfat bans and foie gras bans, etc.

  • Mike M.||

    And good night, it's over. The best moment of every Big Dance is when the Dook gets flushed down the toilet.

  • ||

    I thought Louisville was going to lose for sure after watching their teammate's broken fibula trying to break out of skin prison.

  • Ice Nine||

    Is it just me or was all the weeping a bit much?

  • ||

    Dude, he might never play basketball again!

  • Ice Nine||

    Dude, he'll play next year.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Dude, he'll play next year.

    It's basketball. The sport where a stubbed toe is a major injury.

    I bet he'll hold a press conference in a few week to say that he's retiring to work on his communications degree and work on his terrible hip hop album.

  • Ice Nine||

    The sport where a stubbed toe is a major injury.

    Perhaps that explains the teammates' crying. After the initial pain shock Ware was jacking them up, telling them to go kick ass, etc.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Who?

  • Ice Nine||

    Who what?? Who's ass to kick? Duke.

  • Sevo||

    So is "March Hype(tm)" over?

  • wakeup||

    one more weekend, amigo

  • Sevo||

    So it's "April Stupid(tm)"?

  • wakeup||

    feel free to ignore it.

  • Sevo||

    As I have...

  • wakeup||

    yet you keep talking about it

  • Sevo||

    'yet you keep mocking it'
    Fixed

  • wakeup||

    mocking is not ignoring.

  • ||

    For once I agree with wakeup.

    Sevo what exactly is your problem with people competing with each other over the internet, vicariously, through college athletes?

    Not manly enough?

  • The Late P Brooks||

    but I don't let that contaminate my thinking.

    Oh.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    What's the point?

    That hobbyhorse won't ride itself.

  • prolefeed||

    Whichever side of the debate men come down on, abortion is always going to be a bit of a hypothetical for us

    So if I were to get a woman pregnant, and she waited until waaay late in the pregnancy to kill the fetus / person inside her, well point the past where it could survive on its own, and I considered it a person and wanted to raise it, by myself if necessary, that would just be a hypothetical for me?

    Seriously?

  • Mike M.||

    Yes, men are just worthless sperm donors to be mocked and ridiculed by Hollywood, Madison Avenue, and Beltway scum.

  • Almanian!||

    What difference, at this point, does it make!!!!1!

  • ||

    Ssssh. The internet, can you hear it?

  • General Butt Naked||

    I don't see how anyone can be pro-life.

    If you read the comments here everybody spends a good amount of time bitching about the shit that the living and their government put us through. And they want more them!?

    Jesus.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Well, in the case of abortion there's already life, so it's a bit too late to prevent that.

    You can be anti-conception AND anti-abortion.

  • General Butt Naked||

    I'm sorry, but all the fucks I give about abortion were sucked out of my skull with a vacuum cleaner.

  • ||

    You win an internetz

  • ||

    Well, in the case of abortion there's already life, so it's a bit too late to prevent that.

    Citation required.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    BTW, I had to unfollow Iraqveteran888 because of a recent video I found offensive.

  • General Butt Naked||

    That was the only one I haven't watched.

    The kids today's memes are a waste. Fucking little monsters.

    If there were more abortions, we may have never had to ever experienced the abomination of "harlem shake". Didn't the creator's mom ever hear of a goddamn coat hanger.

    Jesus.

  • ||

    Thank god that was a short video.

  • Generic Stranger||

    Stupid and mildly dangerous, I see, but how is it offensive?

  • David Housholder||

    There are two humans involved here. As in every other human interaction, both of them count equally. One cannot have freedom at the expense of another. We either all have it or we don't. Abortion is an initiated act of aggression against a human with a beating heart, brainwaves, full-on DNA, and the better part of a century of potential. Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Yes for the mother. Yes for the baby. It's not a zero-sum game. We don't get to pick winners or losers in the liberty game. It's inalienable.

  • Sevo||

    If only.

  • Hyperion||

    One cannot have freedom at the expense of another

    Well, apparently you haven't talked to any progressives lately. Freedom is all about having it at the expense of another.

  • Ghetto Slovak Goatherder||

    What if another value was taken away? Let's say the mother's liberty because she was raped.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Then you punish the rapist. Let's say I broke into your house and chained up some guy I grabbed from the street with a timed lock to go off tomorrow. After I finish this you catch me and have the police take me off for breaking and entering. So far so good. But now you find the guy trapped in your house. You want him to leave. He's trespassing in your house, but because I put him there. Do you have the right to chop him into pieces to get him out of the chains (and then your house) immediately?

  • ||

    Well no. But the guy isn't a fetus.

  • Ghetto Slovak Goatherder||

    Let's say I drug you and connect you to a dying person via a vein in your arm. The only way the person will survive is if you stay connected to him. Do you have the moral responsibility to not sever your venous connection?

  • General Butt Naked||

    Do you have the moral responsibility to not sever your venous connection?

    Not this, but does the government have the moral authority to make you, at gunpoint, not sever the connection?

  • ||

    There are two humans involved here.

    That's arguable.

  • Ghetto Slovak Goatherder||

    Whether or not a genetically unique zygote is "human" is not arguable. Whether or not that human is a person deserving of protection is arguable.

  • ||

    Note the sentence is using human as a noun, not an adjective. So I win.

  • Ghetto Slovak Goatherder||

    If it's human it's a human.

  • Ghetto Slovak Goatherder||

    Sorry, if it's human it can be a human.

  • ||

    But not necessarily. Hence, "That's arguable."

  • ||

    There are two humans involved here.

    Citation required.

  • AlmightyJB||

    abortion. yawwwwwwnnnnnnnn.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    This abortion shit is all well and good, but:

    I hear gallows being hammered together in Cyprus.

    Cyprus’ President-related company transfers €21 mln to London prior to bailout agreement – report

    A company owned by in-laws of Cypriot President Nicos Anastasiades wired €21 million from Laiki Bank to London days before the Eurogroup’s crisis-triggering levy proposal, claims a Cypriot newspaper. The president demands an investigation.

    During two days, 12 and 13 of March, the company A.Loutsios & Sons Ltd., co-owned by Loutsios John, the husband of Nikos Anastasiadis’ daughter, Elsa, took five promissory notes worth €21 million from Laiki Bank. The money was then transferred to London, reported Cypriot newspaper Haravgi, affiliated to the communist-rooted AKEL party.


    The withdrawal was fulfilled just three days before the Eurogroup meeting when euro finance ministers agreed a 10 billion euro ($13 billion) bailout for Cyprus.


    The company, however, has firmly denied the reports.


    The newspaper recalls that Cyprus Finance Minister, Michalis Sarris, publically admitted that the government was aware in advance about the Eurogroup’s intentions to impose a “haircut” on bank deposits of more than 100,000 euros.
  • Sevo||

    "A company owned by in-laws of Cypriot President Nicos Anastasiades wired €21 million from Laiki Bank to London days before the Eurogroup’s crisis-triggering levy proposal,...
    -----------------------------------
    Hard telling who are the bad guys here; deposit money in a failing bank, and you could lose all of it.
    But, contrarily, the claim was the haircut was 25% or so. Well, the check's in the mail too:

    "Bank of Cyprus big savers to lose up to 60 percent"
    "Big depositors at Cyprus' largest bank may be forced to accept losses of up to 60 percent, far more than initially estimated..."

    Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/news/wor.....z2PAi12CAx

  • Hyperion||

    I hear gallows being hammered together in Cyprus

    One can only hope so...

  • wakeup||

    Is North Korea just distracting us from Syria?

  • wakeup||

    Cyprus, Gold, and the World's Moneymasters

  • wakeup||

    9/11: Illegitimacy of US government

  • wakeup||

    China downplays new bird flu fears

  • Hyperion||

    Well, apparently they aren't up to speed on the fear mongering. Odumbo is going to have to have a talk with those slanty eyed bitches.

  • Sevo||

    So, wakeup, was that you on the grassy knoll?
    Are you Elvis's alien love-child?
    Do you have news for us regarding the dangers of cell phones?

  • Hyperion||

    Cell phones are only dangerous if you listen to them with your left ear. Geez, everyone knows that.

  • Sevo||

    Damn! I need to keep up on this stuff!

  • Hyperion||

    Interwebs, dude! You can learn about anything!

  • wakeup||

    It looks like cell phones may be dangerous

  • Sevo||

    No, wakeup, cell phones are not the third person on the grassy knoll.
    How stupid are you?

  • Hyperion||

    I think that WOD should have been way higher up the list, which would have raised CO and WA up a few spots.

    I dunno about TN being 3 overall. I just got back from there. I love the state overall, but the cops are a little scary.

    I got pulled over down there for having a headlight out(I didn't have a clue it was out). Overall, the cop was pretty polite, but the questions that he asked seemed a little strange for a routine traffic stop. Especially this one:

    Cop: Do you have any illegal narcotics in your car?

    Me: Nope

    Cop: No?

    Me: No

    Cop: Ok, have a nice stay (walks away, and drives away)

  • Fatty Bolger||

    He could smell the libertarian on you.

  • wakeup||

    it's a combo of Old Spice and Artisan Mayo

  • OldMexican||

    the Mercatus Center released its latest Freedom in the 50 States report rating North Dakota as the freest state in the union[,] roughly an eyeblink after that state passed arguably the tightest abortion restrictions in the country.


    That's because the people of North Dakota want people to be born to enjoy all that liberty. Progressives know by heart their "paradises" are so awful, they give a wink and a nod to women to rip their children out of their wombs before letting them suffer.

    I thus see no contradiction. Oh, by the way: NO, a woman does not have the right to kill. End of story.

  • Hyperion||

    What? The only important rights are to be geh and to kill babies! Unenlightened fool!

  • Hyperion||

    Oh, wait, I forgot... and the right to be given stolen stuff that others have worked hard for, without any effort on your own part whatsoever, especially if you claim to be a victim, .... especially by the virtue of not being male, or white...

  • SIV||

    Voting is the most important right.

  • Irish||

    That's my favorite lefty canard. "If people voted for it, it's always okay! It's totally alright that Hugo Chavez's policies resulted in half of Venezuelan Jews fleeing the country! He got 55% of the vote! Hoozah!"

  • Sevo||

    "End of story."
    Nope, not that easy.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Sevo,

    Nope, not that easy.


    Yes, that easy. Unless you want to argue that, at one point of your life, your life was worthless.

  • ||

    Worthless to Sevo? Yes, since he had no conception of his own life to value. Worthless to his mother? Obviously not.

  • Irish||

    At one point of his existence he could not possibly have had any conception of what was going on.

    Or do you think wearing a condom is murder too? I mean, all the pieces of Sevo were right there in some form, so if his dad had worn a condom Sevo would not be here. But wearing a condom clearly is not murder.

    I agree that there is a point in pregnancy where abortion becomes murder, but I don't think abortion is inherently murder.

  • ||

    Of course, every sperm is sacred.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Ohhh, snap.

    Look at that.

    I shoulda refreshed...

  • General Butt Naked||

    I'll leave this here.

    Old Mex can't seem to shake his latin-catholic roots.

  • Irish||

    This is just too precious.

    Heller and General Butt Naked are like the same person!

  • General Butt Naked||

    I have a confession to make...

    Heller, ummm, errr...

    I'm your real dad.

  • ||

  • Irish||

    And Heller, I have something to tell you.

    I'm your mother. Butt Naked should have worn a little rubber sheaf on his johnson, but we're Catholic and it wasn't allowed.

    If only we were Protestant, and not controlled by the middle age dogmas of the papacy.

  • General Butt Naked||

    If only I were a protestant, I could have walked down to Harry's and proclaimed, "Harry, I want you to sell me a con-dom..."

  • ||

    Well why don't you?

  • ||

    You'll always cum second to me ;D

  • Sevo||

    "Yes, that easy. Unless you want to argue that, at one point of your life, your life was worthless."
    Sorry OM, the operative term is "life".

  • Randian||

    Old Mexican always always always steals the argument in this debate.

  • ||

    NO, a woman does not have the right to kill.

    So no hunting allowed for women?

  • OldMexican||

    Re: heller,

    So no hunting allowed for women?


    What planet are you on? When it comes to women, it all comes down to the 2 C's: Cooking, Kitchen(*).

    (*)Old "Married... With Children" joke.

  • ||

    Shouldn't it be 3 C's? I'll leave you to guess what the third C is.

  • wakeup||

    I bet it's not Calculus

  • ||

    Careful with those zingers, I herd JFK was struck by one from the grassy knoll.

  • John Galt||

    Juno sucked, but Juno II was amusing.

  • OldMexican||

    Whichever side of the debate men come down on, abortion is always going to be a bit of a hypothetical for us.


    I'm pretty sure a woman is just as well equipped to judge the morality of turning a man into a eunuch by force, like a man is equipped to judge the morality of killing a defenceless child, even if it is a "bit of a hypothetical" for either. There's a reason we have minds and reason: so we can generate and judge ideas.

  • ||

    Or a defenseless sperm.

  • Butler T. Reynolds||

    Actually glad that they left it out. It is good to know in and of itself, but it does muddy the index any way you look at it given that which ever way most people take their positions on the issue, they do not do it from a libertarian foundation.

  • lap83||

    Does a woman have a right to "abort" the dentist's hands if they're in her mouth and inconveniencing her? Her body her choice right? They're just a bundle of cells.

  • ||

    Only if he's planning on keeping it there for a few months.

  • Irish||

    No, but if a dentist were growing out of her mouth I assume she'd have something to say about it.

  • General Butt Naked||

    No, but if a dentist were growing out of her mouth I assume she'd have something to say about it.

    Jesus man, don't say that sort of thing.

    Fuck.

  • lap83||

    She probably would find it difficult to say anything.

    I've just always thought the "it's my body!" argument is ridiculous. The fetus is not the woman's body. That's how humans are made. Abortion is just feminist privilege.

  • Irish||

    I think early on it's essentially a part of a woman's body. I think once a fetus begins having other signs of life, that it should be treated as an independent being.

    To be honest, I don't know enough about the growth of the fetus to know when I'd draw that line. I just don't believe that it's a separate 'life' worthy of equal protection for at least the beginning of the pregnancy.

    When would I draw the line? I honestly don't know. I just don't think life begins at conception.

  • Azathoth!!||

    An egg is part of a woman's body, as a sperm is part of a man's body.

    A fertilized egg is a separate individual, not part of either.

  • Brandybuck||

    I'm willing to guess you would draw the line somewhere before childbirth. Which would make you one of those eebil reactionaries who want to patriarchalize womyn.

  • Irish||

    For the record, I somewhat agree with you. I agree with you in that the 'women's rights' issue is overblown.

    It's a human rights issue. If the child is alive, it should be protected and its rights are more important than the mothers. You don't have the right to kill something that inconveniences you.

    On the other hand, if it isn't sentient enough for its life to 'count' yet, then the woman should be allowed to do what she wants, since every person has the right to regulate what's going on in their body.

    That's the issue and I think that 'women's rights' obfuscates the actual issue.

  • BuSab Agent||

    I've always thought the line should be drawn the same place they drew it traditionally for death. You're dead when your heart stops beating; and you begin to be a person when it starts beating. IRC that's about about 10 weeks after conception. So wymmyns, get 'er done before 10 weeks while it's still a heartless blob.

    On another note I think abortion is voluntary self-selecting eugenics. Any woman capable of killing her offspring doesn't need to be contributing to the gene pool.

  • ||

    But that's the standard (actually not the standard anymore) for a person being alive. And a fetus is not a person. Your organs can be alive while you are dead, because there's a distinct difference between your tissues being alive and you being alive.

  • Mickey Rat||

    "And a fetus is not a person."

    A mendacious begging of the question that is based more on what is convenient to you beliefs than is factual.

    By and large, a fetus has developed organ and brain function. You cannot categorically dismiss the personhood of a fetus out of hand without calling into question the personhood of infants, mentally disabled, etc.

  • ||

    A mendacious begging of the question that is based more on what is convenient to you beliefs than is factual.

    I could say the same thing about your belief that a fetus is a person. But I won't because it's not a relevant argument.

    By and large, a fetus has developed organ and brain function.

    A fetus has developed sufficient organ and brain function to survive around the end of the second trimester. 90% of abortions are in the first trimester, when fetal development hasn't even started or barely begun.

    You cannot categorically dismiss the personhood of a fetus out of hand without calling into question the personhood of infants, mentally disabled, etc.

    Well I just did.

  • yonemoto||

    there are some 30-year olds who aren't sentient enough for their life to 'count' yet, often enough entirely dependent on adults for their subsistence...

  • Ted S.||

    Especially because the whole "Our body, our choice" thing doesn't seem to matter for any choice other than abortion.

  • wakeup||

    Four people were hurt Sunday when a driver crashed his vehicle into a Wal-Mart in California and assaulted people in the store, police said.
    After the crash, the driver got out his vehicle and used a blunt object to attack people, said San Jose police Officer Albert Morales, a department spokesman.


    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013.....z2PBBqGLOj
  • ||

    See, it's not just a cosmotarian issue! Shopping at WalMart could get you brained by an assault vehicle.

  • SIV||

    Walmart approves of its customers carrying sidearms so you aren't exactly defenseless. Many people in my state, upon securing their GFL, first carry in Walmart for some reason.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    This new season of Mad Men is confusing so far. Why is it so cold, and why is Jon Hamm so short all of a sudden?

  • Randian||

    Wha? It hasn't started yet.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    Then what did I just watch?

  • ||

    Game of Thrones started tonight.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    that explains the dragons.

  • SIV||

    If the Game of Thrones chicks wore early/mid 1960s foundation garments it would come close to being the perfect show.

  • ||

    On Mad Men the only dragon is in John Hamm's pants.

  • Irish||

    Little known fact: Jesse was straight until he saw John Hamm.

  • ||

    Are you kidding? That thing looks terrifying flaccid. One can only hope that he's a shower and not a grower.

  • Bingo||

    Pretty sure you need to append that with (no homo) even if homo.

    Just sayin.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    Jessica Paré can tame my dragon any day.

  • Irish||

    Jessica Paré can tame my dragon any day.

    Also, Alison Brie. Fact.

    And if I were gay for a day, John Hamm. That pretty much goes without saying.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    also a new show called "The Village" anyone have any ideas on it?

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    apparently it's about Limeys

  • ||

    I saw Moffat and was excited, but then saw it was the wrong Moffat. Is this gonna be Downton Abbey slow?

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    I'm 10 minutes in and it's slow

  • ||

    Let me know, I'll add it to my list of things I think I should like and will repeatedly force myself to try to get into, but find unbearable and give up on quickly.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    Yeah, being 9 in 1914 sucked.

  • ||

    1. Let the bad color not be seen. It attracts them.

    2. Never enter the woods. That is where they wait.

    3. Heed the warning bell, for they are coming.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    It's not about the movie.

  • ||

    Yeah, that was teh joke.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    well, after watching the first episode I'm still not sure

  • Ted S.||

    Who is #1?

  • SumpTump||

    OMG I love that movie Juno!

    www.GimmeAnon.tk

  • Brandybuck||

    I ran across this argument this weekend. The core problem with libruhls is not that abortion was excluded, it was that North Dakota was ranked so high. Paraphrased quote: "How the fuck can North Dakota score higher than New York on a freedom index?!?!"

    Yeah seriously.

  • David Emami||

    How much do abortion laws really vary, in libertarian terms, from state to state? There's not much point in making it part of the index if it doesn't vary enough. Also, looking the raw spreadsheet for abortion issues on statepolicyindex.com site, a lot of the factors are iffy.

    For example, "Abortions must be performed by licensed physician", "some abortions required to be performed in a hospital", "some abortions require involvement of second physician" are indeed restrictions, but those kinds of things apply to all sorts of medical procedures. They belong in the "occupational licensing" category.

    As for "State requires parental consent" and "State requires parental notification", these are abortion issues only if the state requires them above and beyond those required for other, similarly-risky non-emergency medical procedures. Indeed, in many states the opposite is true: a minor can't so much as get a teeth cleaning without a parent/guardian signing off on it, but if she's pregnant and wants an abortion, no such consent is needed, and depending on your view of the rights of minors (a grey area for libertarianism), that waiver can be seen as government interference in the rights of the parents.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement