Abortion is a Low-Risk Procedure That Doesn't Require Onerous New Medical Regulations

Laws passed in Texas and elsewhere in the name of increasing patient safety are doing an effective job of shutting down abortion clinics. As Reuters reports

Two more Texas abortion providers said they will shut down this week, saying their doctors were unable to get admitting privileges to nearby hospitals as required under new restrictions enacted by the state last year....

Whole Women's Health will close two of its five clinics in the state, shutting facilities in McAllen and Beaumont because they cannot meet the new regulations, including one that a physician have admitting privileges at an appropriately equipped hospital within 30 miles.

The reduction will cut the number of abortion providers in the state to 19 from 32 before the restrictions went in place, according to the group and state data.

Read more here and here.

These sorts of regulations are likely to have a more lasting effect on the number of abortion providers than bans on abortions after the first fetal heartbeat is detected (as Alabama is pursuing) or other laws that cut into the first-trimester zone first articulated in Roe v. Wade. North Dakota, for instance, has passed a ban on abortions that could limit the procedure at six weeks after fertilization. That's because the new regulations don't specifically attack abortion rights per se, but instead focus on supposed medical risks for women.

While a large majority of Americans believe that abortion should be legal in at least some situations - only 20 percent say abortion should always be illegal, according to the most recent poll on the issue - there is wide and growing agreement that it should be more restricted.

From a CNN poll:

According to the poll, 27% say that abortion should be legal in all circumstances, 13% say it should be legal in most circumstances, 38% say that it should be legal in few circumstances, and 20% say abortion should always be illegal.

Whatever your perspective on abortion (an issue that divides libertarians along with Americans of every other ideology), however, it's clear that abortions as performed in clinics is an incredibly safe procedure for the women involved. The video above, which Reason TV released in December, focuses on Virginia's experience with new restrictions:

In a reversal of conventional positions, SB 924 has political conservatives arguing for increasing regulations on small businesses and liberals arguing against them. The bill initially passed the Democratic-controlled state senate in 2011 by a vote of 20-20 (Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling, a pro-life Republican cast the tie-breaking vote). Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell eventually signed it into law after numerous rounds of political back-and-forth....

Defenders of the new regulations say that they are simply protecting the safety of women.

"This is really necessary to ensure that woman are treated with care consistent with their human dignity,” says Mallory Quigley of the Susan B. Anthony List (SBL), a pro-life organization. A woman who chooses to have an abortion, says Quigley, should be able to do so without fearing for her health and safety. 

While horrific cases of unclean and disgustingly run abortion mills in Philadelphia, Houston, and elsewhere lend credence to the safety issue, they are clearly outliers. In Virginia, for instance, "since 1974 state data show only three deaths during legal abortions. For first-trimester abortions, the complication rate is 0.3 percent."

Again, that isn't an argument per se for or against abortion. But everyone interested in good-faith arguments should acknowledge that piling on regulations that do not demonstrably improve safety are mistaken at best and disingenuous at worst.

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.

  • Mickey Rat||

    There is not much discussion here about what these supposedly onerous regulations are, nor how they compare to regulations on clinics that offer other surgical procedures.

  • Hunthjof||

    That is what I have been saying. I know in some states abortion clinics are not held to the same standard as other outpatient clinics. On a free and fair market basis the clinics shouldn't get a pass on safety regs if others don't.

  • swampfaye||

    amen

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Can't we all just get along?

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Whee!

  • Aloysious||

    This comment section isn't going to be pretty, is it?

  • Riven||

    From what I've seen, the comment sections are never pretty.
    However, they are usually informative and interesting, which is better than pretty, IMO.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Is anyone else having a problem with the Hit& Run main page crashing?

  • The Late P Brooks||

    NEEDZ MOAR INSIPID NITPICKING!

  • wareagle||

    another round of the culture wars. great.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    You realize that most of the politicians who roll their eyes at the abortion controversy as an icky "culture wars" issue also consider guns to be a culture war issue? These are the same "centrists" who want "common sense" gun regulations and deplore the "extremism" of gun-rights advocates.

    How can you define culture wars in a way that includes abortion but leaves out guns (and dope)? Unless "culture wars" simply means "a position I disagree with"?

  • wareagle||

    I can do it this way - guns are accounted for in the Constitution. Abortion is mentioned nowhere, or it wasn't until Harry Blackmon found a right to privacy, one that sane people might not need spelled out for them.

    I'm not a rabid pro-lifer; what you do in the first trimester or so is up to you. Beyond that, the waters get murkier. Point is, this is an issue where neither side will ever persuade the other. It is tedious.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    By that measure, neither side of the gun debate will persuade the other. Should we wait on gun rights until *everyone* supports them?

  • wareagle||

    the 2nd Amendment protects your right to keep and bear arms. Not that the left sees this is an obstacle to big to at least try and overcome, but it stands anyway. And I left out your earlier part on drugs, which plays right into a choice position on abortion - if you don't have ownership over your own body, then you are the opposite of free.

  • Wasteland Wanderer||

    By that measure, neither side of the gun debate will persuade the other. Should we wait on gun rights until *everyone* supports them?

    With abortion, we've been stuck on more or less the same status quo for 40-some years.

    Gun rights? Not so much.

    Looks to me like pro-gun people have done a very good job of spreading their message, recruiting people to their side and affecting change. Anti-abortion activists haven't been nearly so successful.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Support for some restrictions on abortion has been steadily growing. The difference between the pro-abortionists side and the gun controllers is that the pro-abortionists have been able to control the opinions of the judiciary.

  • -Umbriel-||

    Part of the problem for the pro-lifers is their polyglot constituency -- There's probably a much broader base of support for restrictions on second and third trimester abortions (on a more secular sort of "fetal personhood" basis) than there is for restrictions on first trimester abortion or things like RU-486, which tend to be rooted in a religious or abstract philosophical "personhood" definition.

    If the pro-life movement would focus on the element of their argument with the broadest appeal (late term elective abortion), they'd probably have more support in the general public, but their more extreme religious base would likely sense that they were being abandoned.

    This is somewhat mirrored on the Gun Control front, where the anti-gun constituency did have some more success in getting more limited, reasonable sounding legislation passed against "assault weapons" and high-capacity magazines, and requiring background checks and databases. The problem they've run up against recently is that unlike the Pro-Lifers, their cause is ostensibly results-driven, but their regulations haven't demonstrated any positive results. Their efforts to keep moving the goalposts therefore no longer look reasonable, and just look like the incremental fundamentalist cause that they are.

  • Concerned Citizen||

    Clinics have closed due to the pro lifers praying outside. We'll continue to pray, until this holocaust ends.
    Never again.

  • ernieyeball||

    It was not appeals to nonexistant supernatural forces (prayer) that closed those clinics, it was a political process. You do not speak for any god because god does not exist. If the god that you claim actually existed no woman would have ever stuck a wire clotheshangerinto her womb to self abort and those clinics would have never opened.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    There wasn't a SCOTUS decision banning concealed carry in 1986.

  • Lord Peter Wimsey||

    But I'm confused. Isn't this what government is supposed to do? Pass regulations to protect us all from the private sector? Are libs, feminazis, and "classical liberals" like Palin's Buttplug really going to thumb their nose at some baseline medical standards that keep greedy clinics from harming defenseless citizens?

    Thank God for those regulations. Otherwise the clinic might take out the pancreas instead of the fetus.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    The irony of how you conservatives yammer 24/7 about "freedom" yet see no problem with building a police state to enforce contraception, prostitution, and drug laws is always amusing.

  • MSD62581||

    Wow that was wrong. There is no police state being proposed to handle contraception. Conservatives simply believe that the government shouldn't force your employer to pay for it. Or give it to you for "free" as the left puts it. There is no conservative effort to restrict or limit contraception. Just issue it free of worthless government mandates. But of course, in the world the left lives in, if the government doesn't provide it to you, it is the same as if it has deprived you of it.

  • Cristobal||

    You'll have to remind me about this "War" on contraception - who is marching against conforms, again?

  • Cristobal||

    Condoms, not conforms.
    This comment system sucks.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    "only 20 percent say abortion should always be illegal"

    Or, using the statistics you cited, a majority of respondents want to ban the vast majority of abortions. Add the 38% who want abortion legal only in a few cases to the 20% who want it illegal in all cases, and you get 58% who want to ban the great preponderance of abortions being performed today.

    I don't think an unborn child's right to life should be the subject of majority rule, but if we're going to discuss public opinion, let's acknowledge that the public opposes the abortion status quo and wants to protect the unborn much more than current law does. That's why the choicers keep running to court to overturn laws passed by the people's representatives. One day, I hope, the courts will get tired of pulling the choicers' chestnuts out of the fire, and if they won't affirm the constitutional right to life of the unborn, at least they'll let legislatures restrict abortion.

    "In a reversal of conventional positions, SB 924 has political conservatives arguing for increasing regulations on small businesses and liberals arguing against them."

    Oh, pull the other one! Abortion mills are "small businesses" in the same sense that chop shops are small businesses or fences are harmless shopkeepers. They make their money from the proceeds of violating others' rights, just as the chop shops and fences profit off theft.

  • So very tired||

    " and you get 58% who want to ban the great preponderance of abortions being performed today."

    No, actually, you don't. The 38% that want it legaql in only a few circumstances could be quite satisfied that the current list of circumstances when one can get an abortion as sufficiently "few."

  • So very tired||

    *is sufficiently few

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    No, the current abortion regime means most abortions are legal. If you mean the 38% have misinterpreted *Roe* to allow bans on most abortions, that's one thing. But Gillespie himself (a choicer) says "few."

  • So very tired||

    No, I mean you're reading, an interpreting your stats wrong.

    This isn't a debate, you're simply reading them wrong and assuming things you cannot possibly assume.

  • So very tired||

    You clearly didn't even understand my objection.

    the 38 isn't saying "fewer than current circumstances" they're saying "few" circumstances.

    It is possible that the current set of circumstances are sufficiently few for that 38%, the statt make NO MENTION of their satisfaction with the current state of affairs.

    If they had responded "fewer than current circumstances" you could support your claim that they "want to ban the great preponderance of abortions being performed today." but that wasn't what was asked, so you're pulling things out of thin air.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    The status quo cannot by any stretch of the imagination be interpreted as allowing abortion only in a few circumstances. Most abortions are "elective."

    The poll question was.

    "Do you think abortion should be legal under any circumstances, legal under only certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances?" If "legal under only certain circumstances": "Do you think abortion should be legal in most circumstances or only a few circumstances?"

    13% chose "most circumstances," which is the status quo.

    38% said "a few circumstances." Add to that the 20% who said no circumstances, and you get a majority against the status quo. duh.

    http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

  • So very tired||

    "The status quo cannot by any stretch of the imagination be interpreted as allowing abortion only in a few circumstances."

    ACCORDING TO YOU. YOU ARE NOT THE RESPONDENTS OF THE SURVEY.

    Why are you not getting that? If THEY think they're sufficienty "few" then your assumptions fall apart.

    And you cannot know they don't because you're NOT THEM.

    I'm not going to repeat myself a third time, have a great day.

  • Mickey Rat||

    "If THEY think they're sufficienty "few" then your assumptions fall apart."

    Your killer argument requires that a sufficiently large portion of that 38% are ignorant of what the status quo of the law is. While possible, without any statistical evidence of to support it, it is wild speculation and Notorius's interpretation is not unreasonable.

  • wareagle||

    so what are those 'few circumstance?' It may be the usual rape/incent/mother's life or the list may be longer. Maybe it's a question of viability.

    You could make a good argument that support for abortion on demand is not strong, but that's not what you're doing.

  • Cytotoxic||

    This. Nothing anti-choicers like more than torquing opinion polls to claim a false shift/majority.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    You know what I hate? Ground Zero mosques.

  • Wasteland Wanderer||

    Nothing is worse than deep dish. Except for deep dish circumcisions. And possibly the Wrath of Khan.

  • OneOut||

    Deep dish mosques at ground zero ?

    That'a a casserole.

  • Jeff D||

    When performed correctly, abortions are 100% fatal.

  • OneOut||

    Yeah.

    The babies don't think it's a very low risk procedure.

  • Cytotoxic||

    The babies don't think at all. They're not real people.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    You never have trouble unpersoning people, Cyto.

  • Cytotoxic||

    It's not unpersoning if they aren't people.

  • ||

    If thinking becomes the standard for personhood, you may be up a creek.

  • Marshall Gill||

    From what I have seen of his comments, he clearly doesn't think and is an "unperson" and by his own standard we should be able to kill him.

    As usual, Cytotoxic is the best opponent a pro-lifer could want. Discussing morality while admitting to being an evil piece of shit doesn't exactly strengthen your "arguments".

  • Mickey Rat||

    "But everyone interested in good-faith arguments should acknowledge that piling on regulations that do not demonstrably improve safety are mistaken at best and disingesSnuous at worst."

    The hubris of the Roe v Wade decision taking abortion out of the normal course of politics and federalism, while the majority of the public wants some kind of restriction and regulation of abortion has necessitated such tactics to express the will of the people. SCOTUS's heavy hand was the original bad faith argument, and everything else flows from that.

  • lap83||

    Well said

  • BlueWillow991967||

    "has necessitated such tactics"

    That's not "well said," that's just an obfuscated re-statement of: "The ends justify the means."

    Regardless of one's position on abortion, "the ends justify the means" is always a dangerous, slippery slope that people are eager to slide right down--if there's a chance of getting their own way.

    TEJTM is, itself, a restatement of the toddler credo: "Because I want it, and I want it now."

    Everybody wants things, or wants the rules a certain way. Americans generally agree that most things should be the way the majority voters want them, but that some deeply individually specific things should be reserved to the way the individual wants them no matter what the majority wants.

    "Because the majority wants it" adds nothing to the debate of which category a specific issue--one that touches on very fundamental individual zones--should fall in.

    Personally, I favor a technological answer to most of the problem.

    Just because I'd be one of that 38% doesn't mean I support the means the radicals want to take to get there.

    If we spent half the money on research funding they spend on fighting, we'd already have the tech to provide a person-wearable, strap-on, artificial womb. Mostly, adoptive families would just get their future son or daughter a bit earlier.

  • Mickey Rat||

    "TEJTM is, itself, a restatement of the toddler credo: "Because I want it, and I want it now."

    Which is, what the tortured logic of the Roe decision was. That usurpation by the court has corrupted the political process on this issue, and has been all around bad for the politics of the nation.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    So basically, you argue that our "right to privacy" does not exist.

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

  • Mickey Rat||

    I would argue that abortion is a case of rights in conflict, and I find that the mother's right to privacy always trumps the child's right to life unconvincing. That does not mean I believe a right to privacy does not exist.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    So now you are acknowledging that abortion is about rights and that the SCOTUS is in fact the proper body to settle the question instead of the "normal course of politics".

  • Mickey Rat||

    No, all branches of government have a responsibility to protect rights. In Roe, SCOTUS came up with a bizarre theory of rights that ignored the rights of one of the parties involved and is vaguely supported by the Constitution at best. In that, they took away the ability of the political branches to come to a compromise on the conflict of rights that was acceptable to most people, which makes abortion the heated issue it is today. Roe corrupted the process which results in these "wink, wink, nudge, nudge" exercises that Gillespie is complaining about.

    What SCOTUS did in no way settled the question.

  • BlueWillow991967||

    People are still deeply divided at where to draw the line of protected, individual life. A natural part of mammalian reproduction is that our systems deal with lethal combinations and lethal spontaneous mutations by spontaneous, early abortion.

    I would have extreme objections to any legal theory that declared a human zygote protected as "human life" _before_ that natural period is passed.

    It would raise horrible bioethics and financial issues with assisted reproduction techniques. For example, what do you do with an embryo with two genes for Tay Sachs? If the parents can't afford it, is government to be morally and legally obligated to pay for gene surgery on that 25% of 8-celled, frozen embryos in the batch so they can be implanted in an artificial womb or adoptive surrogate mother?

    I'm not sure exactly what we should protect, but I'm sure we should NOT protect a human blastula at the level we protect an infant or toddler.

  • Mickey Rat||

    "A natural part of mammalian reproduction is that our systems deal with lethal combinations and lethal spontaneous mutations by spontaneous, early abortion."

    So what? In any other case where does a human dying naturally justify deliberately ending their life?

    "It would raise horrible bioethics and financial issues with assisted reproduction techniques."

    As if there not already bioethical issues associated with most methods of those techniques.

    "I'm not sure exactly what we should protect, but I'm sure we should NOT protect a human blastula at the level we protect an infant or toddler."

    Which is where the acceptable compromise comes in or at least a mutually unacceptable compromise comes in, which we do not have.

  • BlueWillow991967||

    The dilemma of whether we consider something "human life" determines our moral obligations to it. One of our fundamental keystones of morality is that each "human life" is equal to each other. That's not "obvious" and it's not been true in all cultures.

    Making some human lives more valuable than others has extremely dangerous social implications.

    That's why the fundamental question is about what do we protect as a human life and when and why. The answer to why is either, "We do it because it's like us (our same species)" or "We do it because there are attributes of humanity that are special" or "We do it because my religion says so."

    Protecting all humans equally means we have an equal moral obligation to assist the disabled poor, medically, in society.

    That means that a baby's blindness is equally serious with a 20 year old's blindness is equally serious as the incipient blindness of....what? A conceptus? A blastula? A conceptus that has multiple problems and a high chance of dying? Do we do gene surgery to mitigate disabilities of a conceptus that _might_ survive? How much can we afford?

    And, more to the point, who do we NOT help based on the same arguments for NOT helping a conceptus we've declared human rights but not quite as human as others?

    You're not just talking about "right to life" when you talk about when life begins. You're talking about "right to health" of the disabled misfortunate.

  • BlueWillow991967||

    So, again, we get back to _why_ is human life valuable? At the later stages of life, when someone's brain is damaged to a certain extent, we declare it "dead" and we declare the person "dead."

    A "brain dead" person isn't actually dead, you know. We just don't know how to get the cell death in the brain to stop progressing and how to get the not-yet-dead brain tissue to start producing healthy tissue and healing.

    It's only a "simple" moral question if you still have training wheels on your worldview---like the training wheels on math and physical science when you're still working the problems "neglecting friction."

    In real life, when you "neglect friction," your engine burns up.

    It's a complicated question deserving of a carefully considered answer, not a simplistic "rule of thumb" that neglects real collateral damage to real people's lives.

  • Michael Ejercito||



    A "brain dead" person isn't actually dead, you know. We just don't know how to get the cell death in the brain to stop progressing and how to get the not-yet-dead brain tissue to start producing healthy tissue and healing.


    Is such a thing possible even in theory?

  • ||

    You're not just talking about "right to life" when you talk about when life begins. You're talking about "right to health" of the disabled misfortunate.

    Presuming that a "right to life", in the vague sense of a right not to be killed, necessitates a right to be cared for by society at large. Since libertarians don't believe that about fully developed human beings after they are born, why would we presume it to be the case with developing humans before they are born? In the case of the genetically mutated fetus, the parents can avail themselves of every option of care they can possibly afford, the same as I can avail myself of every option of car that I can possibly afford if I, say, fall and break my leg. The "right to health" is only implied by the "right to life" if you actually subscribe to a "right to health". The "right to health" is a positive right - it requires action on the part of someone else to provide it. The "right to life", as in the right not to be killed, is a negative right. It requires only inaction on the part of any third party. Your right not to be murdered doesn't imply my obligation to pay for your ER visit. The same arguments apply in the abortion debate, the only question is whether a fetus is entitled to the same negative rights as anyone else.

  • OneOut||

    That procedure is covered by the ACA on page 7,342 para 7

    But I think that's been delayed fr a year so the timing is critical.

  • SIV||

    disgustingly run abortion mills

    Spoken like a true SoCon, Nick.

  • Taco||

    58% of Americans believe that abortion should be illegal in most or all circumstances. Nick Gillespie believes that this constitutes a consensus to expand abortion access.

  • So very tired||

    When did "few" become "most"? What if most of the current circumstances are "few" enough?

    I don't particularly care one way or the other, but that kind of disingenuous shit grinds my fucking gears.

    Do you honestly think stupid, inaccurate rhetoric is going to win the day?

    Or shitty statistical methodology?

    Let me let you in on a secret, as someone with no dog in this fight, you're not winning me as a convert with crap like that.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    "What if most of the current circumstances are "few" enough?"

    What if Cecile Richards joins Operation Rescue? See, we can do counterfactual hypotheticals, too.

  • So very tired||

    You're the one assuming facts not presented.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    The current regime allows abortion in "most circumstances." That position was available in the poll, and 13% chose it. 27% went for "always legal." 38% went for few, which, again, is not the status quo. 20% went for never legal.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    The poll didn't *ask* if the respondents were aware that the status quo allows abortion in most circumstances. Some of the 38% may have been under the misapprehension that the status quo banned most abortions. But they would be wrong.

  • So very tired||

    Hey look you got it.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    When did "few" become "most"?

    Good question -- maybe you should ask yourself, since you're the one confusing the two.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    David Gregory is chatting with the archbishop of New York.

    Fuck you Dolan, you sleazy shitbag. And the Pope you rode in on.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    So, what shocking doctrines is the Cardinal expounding today?

  • Mickey Rat||

    Do you have something you want to share about what Dolan is saying, or do you just dislike him, or hate Catholics in general?

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Meat is bad, children, mmmkay.

    It’s understandable for concerned consumers to feel helpless in the face of these complex industrial and global realities. But in the case of agriculture and drought, there’s a clear and accessible action most citizens can take: reducing or, ideally, eliminating the consumption of animal products. Changing one’s diet to replace 50 percent of animal products with edible plants like legumes, nuts and tubers results in a 30 percent reduction in an individual’s food-related water footprint. Going vegetarian, a better option in many respects, reduces that water footprint by almost 60 percent.

    It’s seductive to think that we can continue along our carnivorous route, even in this era of climate instability. The environmental impact of cattle in California, however, reminds us how mistaken this idea is coming to seem.

    Also, trade is bad. A lot of that beef is being exported to Asia. Those damn dirty Chinamen are stealing our beef. Why can't they stick to rice and fish heads?

  • Wasteland Wanderer||

    I'm allergic to most of the protein alternatives to meat (soy and most nuts). Vegetarians can suck my carnivorous cock.

  • wareagle||

    wouldn't that violate their anti-meat feelz?

  • Wasteland Wanderer||

    On many different levels, yes.

  • OneOut||

    If you replaced that 50% of animal with INedible plants it would reduce your food related water footprint even more ( weeds don't need watering)

  • HighOnCraic||

    Looking around at the regs for my state -NY- a few months ago when these stories started to break, the regulations are basically the same as any Dr office that does in patient surgeries such as vasectomies. When I first began looking into it I was surprised the bar was set so low for abortions.

    Also, compared to many EU countries like Denmark, Spain, France, Switzerland, Sweden, and others the proposed restrictions are much less than countries like those have. Most progressive countries like those restrict abortion strongly after 12 weeks.

  • anon||

    Abortion is a Low-Risk Procedure

    For whom?

  • lap83||

    for abortion doctors?

  • Gene||

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    It's not risk if you're guaranteed to die.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    The Women's Christian Temperance Union was right

    A pre-St. Patrick's Day celebration near the flagship campus of the University of Massachusetts spiraled out of control, pitting police in riot gear against thousands of drunken and unruly revelers at the annual "Blarney Blowout." There were more than 70 arrests and four officers were injured in the clashes that included some students throwing beer bottles, cans and snowballs, officials said.

    Amherst police said early Sunday that 73 people had been arrested after authorities spent most of the day Saturday attempting to disperse several large gathering around the UMass campus for the party traditionally held the Saturday before spring break. The partying carried through Saturday evening into early Sunday, and Amherst Police Capt. Jennifer Gundersen said in a statement that police were busy with numerous reports of fights, noise and highly intoxicated individuals.

    Gundersen called the daylong partying "extremely disturbing and unsafe."

    "Perhaps one of the worst scenes we have ever had with drunkenness and unruliness," Gundersen told The Republican in Springfield. "It is extremely upsetting. It is very dangerous."

    The HORROR.

  • lap83||

    I kind of sympathize with those cops. College drunks are annoying.

  • Slammer||

    Something tells me if 4000 people gathered out in the wilderness and got drunk, started fighting each other, and groped each other (I'm not counting forceful sexual assault, which is a moral violation), the cops would still find a way out there to fuck with it, because...

  • Mickey Rat||

    Fighting each other is assault.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    It was inevitable that, in the wake of the Kermit Gossnell mess, a lot of States would pass new regulations on Abortion. The Pro-Choice side of the Political argument failed spectacularly to get out in front on that. They reflexively defended the indefeasible, and now they pay the political price.

    This doesn't make what is happening on the regulatory front right, just inevitable. I can't tell from what I read about the Gossnell mess whether it was a failure of the regulations or of the regulators. If it was the former, then some new regulations are clearly necessary. If, as seems highly likely, it was the latter, then the Pro-Choice crown needs to get on top of policing their own side, or they are going to lose. They absolutely cannot afford to allow legal abortion to resemble the nightmare their narrative has persuaded people illegal abortion was.

  • Hunthjof||

    I have read that Gossnell's clinic had been reported. However Philly and PA authorities did not investigate or take actions cause of pressure not to go after abortion clinics. It seems to be an attitude prevalent in states. They will not regulate or enforce regs cause they fear the ever present Planned Parenthood political arms to come in a smack any attempt. I am not saying the regs are right I am pro-choice(yet anti-planned parenthood) but like you said the pro-choice side seems to coddle anyone in the industry.

  • Cytotoxic||

    These regulations make more Gosnells. Only the cheapest and most willing to break the rules survive the regulatory clampdown. Anti-choicers are fine with women suffering if it means more control for them.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Similarly, regulations against murder cause whackings to be performed by cruel and lawless individuals, rather than humane law abiding citizens.

  • Cytotoxic||

    DUR DUR FALSE EQUIVALENCE TIME

  • Marshall Gill||

    Hurr Dur, killing living individual human beings that I have deemed "non-person" is totally different than killing living human beings that I, in my eternal wisdom, have declared "people"

    You really don't need to add the hurr, de dur, everyone knows you are an imbecile without it.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Possibly. And if they do, the Pro-choice people need to find them and close them down or the next step (or the step after that) will be to ban abortion one way or another.

    Those people who believe that abortion should be legal need to police it diligently, because every time there is a horror or a tragedy those people who are against abortion will use it to forward their agenda. And, furthermore, there is nothing wrong with that.

    Popular rule (off all styles) is SUPPOSED to be like this. Rules and regulations are supposed to change over time, and not in one direction only. I am (guardedly) Pro-Choice and the thing about my own side that angers me most is the tendency to a "Roe V Wade decided everything for all time, so everybody who disagrees with us should be silenced, dammit!" attitude.

  • Homple||

    "Abortion is a Low-Risk Procedure That Doesn't Require Onerous New Medical Regulations."

    A tonsillectomy is lower risk yet, but for some reason libertarians don't whoop nearly as loudly to deregulate tonsillectomies.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Excellent point.

    Just like libertarians are against funding scientific research with forcibly obtained tax dollars... unless it's embryonic stem cell research, in which case they call opponents of such funding murderers.

    It seems to have more to do with opposing sociocons than advancing liberty sometimes.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Do you really think most libertarians do not support regulation of doctors that do tonsillectomies? Libertarians like Nick talk about abortion regulations more because they are being talked about in the general news more.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Sure he does.

    Let's see what happens when a candidate supports rolling back regulations on medical procedures that aren't for the express purpose of killing human organisms, but opposes abortion.

  • Homple||

    Nah, abortion is a hot button because of the No Limits on Consequence-Free Fun With Our Weewees principle. Nothing wrong with that and nothing wrong with acknowledging it openly. Why so skittish?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "No Limits on Consequence-Free Fun With Our Weewees principle"

    As usual, no discussion without abortion is complete until a conservative finally admits to wanting to see women pay the consequences for having sex.

    And we wonder where the 'war one women' stuff comes from.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    There certainly ARE consequences to having sex. As there are consequences to ALL actions.

    That being the case, are you claiming someone else is responsible for the actions of another?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I do not think anyone should be responsible for the consequences of another's action, but I do not always lament someone taking steps to avoid a particularly terrible consequence of an action.

  • ||

    Foreseeable consequences aren't unintended, iron laws, something something, etc.

  • Homple||

    As I said, the Fun With Weewees principle is in force in all cases. Personal responsibility is waived for people in heat or rutting.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Just like libertarians are against funding scientific research with forcibly obtained tax dollars... unless it's embryonic stem cell research, in which case they call opponents of such funding murderers.

    [citation required]

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    http://reason.com/archives/200.....lls-babies

    and a gazillion other examples.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Once again, Tulpa has proven himself to be the most mendacious of cunts.

    Nowhere in that article does Bailey support government funding of stem cell research. He is supporting stem cell research in general.

    You are a lying piece of shit. Why the fuck are you still posting here? You've proven yourself a liar again and again. A vile disgusting piece of shit.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Bullshit. At the time Bailey was adamant that funding go forward, and unsatisfied with Bush's decision to allow existing stem cell lines to be used. Understandably it's hard to find links from 10 years ago.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Serve it up...

    Regardless, you finding one example of one libertarian who goes off the reservation on one issue doesn't justify the following statement:

    Just like libertarians are against funding scientific research with forcibly obtained tax dollars... unless it's embryonic stem cell research, in which case they call opponents of such funding murderers.

    You don't get to claim libertarian hypocrisy based on the opinion of one man.

    And your citation certainly didn't prove your point.

    So, either way, Tulpa, you are a lying cunt. Why anyone would extend you even a modicom of credibilty, is beyond me. You've been caught time and time again spouting bald faced lies, to include creating sockpuppets to fuck with people.

    You are a vile individual. Just leave and don't come back.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Bailey did indeed argue for government funding of embryonic stem cell research. Perhaps you were not around when that was the topic of the moment, but he was specifically for government funding of that area of research and accused anyone of being against it of being "anti-science". He admitted it being an area where he was not particularly libertarian.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    He admitted it being an area where he was not particularly libertarian.

    So then, Mickey, you'd have to agree that Tulpa's assertion that libertarians (as a group) support government funding for certain issues they happen to agree with, is a bald faced lie?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Here's Kerry Howley cheering Ron on and decrying the invasion of snowflake babies used as political props.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    As I said above, finding one libertarian, who supports public funding for his pet program DOES NOT make that a libertarian position as you claim:

    Just like libertarians are against funding scientific research with forcibly obtained tax dollars... unless it's embryonic stem cell research, in which case they call opponents of such funding murderers.

    [emphasis mine]

    You are STILL a mendacious weasel.

  • Mickey Rat||

    It is not a bald faced lie, but the type of libertarian who writes for Reason was generally for it. Others were lukewarm. How much that represents libertarians in general is another matter. It was, perhaps, an exaggeration.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "but the type of libertarian who writes for Reason was generally for it"

    And he said it was a particularly unlibertarian position of his to take, right?

    Just like how many paleolibertarians oppose immigration rights because yada yada yada.

  • Marshall Gill||

    It seems to have more to do with opposing sociocons than advancing liberty sometimes.

    And then the Botard shows up.

  • Dweebston||

    You clearly haven't read my sister blogs, liberatetonsils.com and redtapectomy.org.

  • Response||

    I'm curious what the various libertarian (please only those who consider themselves libertarians reply) beliefs on abortion. On one far side, I hear life begins at conception and therefore all abortions should be outlawed. On the opposite far side, I hear that the baby is a parasite (living off the mother) until it is born and that all abortions should be legal.

  • Mickey Rat||

    "On the opposite far side, I hear that the baby is a parasite (living off the mother) until it is born and that all abortions should be legal."

    Anyone who uses the term "parasite" is an obvious mendacious troll. The term "parasite" refers to a symbiote which has only a negative effect on the host. An unborn child is in a symbiotic relationship with its mother, but it is not a parasitic one. A parasite's host does not have an organ specifically there to nurture the parasite.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Very few people, perhaps a few people from certain strains of Objectivism, will talk about embryos and fetuses as 'parasites.' The more common pro-choice view among libertarians, or anyone, is that embryos and at least some fetuses are not sufficiently developed to possess the basic rights of a person, and therefore 'protecting' them is either nonsensical or at the least cannot outweigh violating the liberty of the pregnant woman.

    You might not know it from the commentariat here which is anomalously pro-life for libertarian circles, but the LP Platform has always been pro-choice, calling for government not to intervene in the matter.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Cool, Bo. I await an equally forceful defense of pro-lifers from charges of being anti-woman.

    The LP platform hasn't always been pro-choice, only for the last few years... and that was an extremely controversial change at the time.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    You're wrong, care to show us a pro-life version of the LP platform?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    It wasn't pro-life before either. It was neutral on the issue.

    You see, at one time the LP actually intended to become a viable political party and took care to keep pro-life libertarians like Ron Paul in the tent. After 30 years I guess they recognized it was just a glorified debate club and threw sense to the wind.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Not true, it has called for the government to stay out of the issue the entire time. You can not come up with something different, because it never did.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    1.4 Abortion

    Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.
    but the LP Platform has always been pro-choice
    The LP platform hasn't always been pro-choice, only for the last few years
    It wasn't pro-life before either. It was neutral on the issue.

    You are both full of shit.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    That's the current platform. The old platforms have been sent down the memory hole.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    [citation required]

  • Mickey Rat||

    "Recognizing that (homicide)(theft)(assault) (fraud) is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration."

    That is a chickenshit statement.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    (homicide)(theft)(assault)(fraud)

    All violations of the rights of another, whose prohibition can be argued from first principles. Abortion cannot as you need to prove personhood prior to giving a lump of cells rights.

  • Mickey Rat||

    All humans are lumps of cells. Prove that those things I mentioned violate the rights of a person. Why cannot people follow their own consciences on the matter?

    Why in the case of the unborn does one have to prove a human is a person rather than disprove that a human is a person? By your own admission, you cannot disprove the personhood of the unborn human.

    Sorry, but the Libertarian platform on this is irrational and craven.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Prove that those things I mentioned violate the rights of a person. Why cannot people follow their own consciences on the matter?

    Are you claiming humans after they are born are not people and have no rights?

    Why in the case of the unborn does one have to prove a human is a person rather than disprove that a human is a person? By your own admission, you cannot disprove the personhood of the unborn human.

    Because the impregnated person/mother ALSO has rights. There is NO DENYING a woman has the right to do as she wills with her own body. The question is, do her rights trump those of the zygote/fetus/baby.

    My claim is the lump of cells has no rights until it's a person and therefore the impregnated person's rights take priority. The instant that lump of cells is a person, the mother's rights no longer take priority as the right to life trumps the right to not be inconvenienced.

    And, as I said, I don't know where that happens.

    You are obviously arguing it happens at some point prior to birth. I've heard equally good arguments claiming it happens some time AFTER conception. Neither side can say with certainty. And that is why the law picked a point we can all agree a person is a person...birth.

    I personally doubt birth is correct. It most likely happens earlier. How much earlier, I have no idea and therefore have NO OPINION as to where the line should be drawn.

  • Mickey Rat||

    "Are you claiming humans after they are born are not people and have no rights?"

    Like I said, you cannot prove they are persons after they are born. You cannot explain why you believe that.

    My definition is based on being an individual member of the human species. Your definition of personhood is irrational and apparently you cannot even articulate it to yourself. I do not understand how the formulation of the LP platform on abortion does not apply to any other violation of the NAP. I don't think they would apply it elsewhere, but I do not think they have satisfactory reason for not doing so. Therefore, I find it utilitarian, it exists because it allows them to reach the conclusion they want but they would not apply that logic anywhere else. It is moral cowardice and unprincipled.

    "I have no idea and therefore have NO OPINION as to where the line should be drawn."

    You do have an opinion. You've drawn the line at birth, but you do not have the stomach to admit that is what you've done or intellectual backing to defend that position.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Your definition of personhood is irrational and apparently you cannot even articulate it to yourself.

    How many times do I need to say this? I DO NOT HAVE A DEFINITION OF PERSONHOOD! That is the entire point. It does exist, I just can't determine where.

    I do not understand how the formulation of the LP platform on abortion does not apply to any other violation of the NAP.

    We all agree that post birth humans are "people" with rights. Not everyone agrees on the period between conception and birth. You want to set it somewhere else, fine, make an argument and get the law changed. My argument isn't legal, it's moral. If you want to pass a law defining personhood and rights? Fine, have a nut. It'll STILL be a stab in the dark.

    You do have an opinion. You've drawn the line at birth

    I have repeatedly said I don't know where that line is. The default is birth as that's the point where everyone agrees. I'm not arguing that birth is correct.

    Why is this so hard for you?

    I'm not willing to infringe upon the rights of the woman based upon a hunch. You want to make it 4.5 months...fine,that's probably ballpark. But if you do that, you know what you'll get?

    100% of the population will disagree with the determination...50% will say it's 4.5 months too early and the other 50% will think it's 4.5 months too late.

    I couldn't care less.

  • Mickey Rat||

    "How many times do I need to say this? I DO NOT HAVE A DEFINITION OF PERSONHOOD!"

    Then by what reason can you hold anyone to a particular definition of personhood? How does not leaving it up to individual conscience which humans have rights is not the correct model in all cases?

    You made a claim that some humans are not persons therefore they do not have rights that can be respected, but you cannot articulate a reason for that assertion. That's the issue you are dancing around.

    "I'm not willing to infringe upon the rights of the woman based upon a hunch."

    "I couldn't care less."

    Those two statements are completely contradictory, which sums up your position in a nutshell.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    How does not leaving it up to individual conscience which humans have rights is not the correct model in all cases?

    Because no one is arguing that a child isn't a person after birth. The only time period in question is between conception and birth?

    You made a claim that some humans are not persons therefore they do not have rights that can be respected, but you cannot articulate a reason for that assertion.

    I have articulated a reason. My reason is only people have rights. A zygote at conception is two cells. It is a human organism, but it certainly isn't a person. It's a potential person. Hey, I have the potential to be the POTUS, do I get a taxpayer funded jet and bodyguards?

    Those statements are only contradictory when taken out of context.

    The first was about morality. The second about the legal definition based on compromise. Regardless, of where you set the legal definition, it will be based upon anything OTHER than morality as the moral decision is unascertainable given our current technology. Your bullshit theory is just as good as the proggy's bullshit theory. You're BOTH pulling it out of your ass. I prefer no law to one that's pulled from ones ass.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person"

    That is the pro-choice position.

  • ||

    That is the pro-choice position.

    Actually, it isn't. It's "a" pro-choice position, but not "the" pro-choice position. The vast majority of pro-choice advocates and advocacy organizations want the government deeply involved in the matter, mostly by securing a woman's access to abortion, sometimes by paying for it with other people's money. NARAL and Planned Parenthood, for example, aren't okay with a woman in bumfuck Nebraska having to drive 500 miles to visit a private abortion clinic. And Planned Parenthood would probably miss the 45% of its revenue it derives from federal grants and contracts. Just because government shouldn't be in a woman's uterus, doesn't mean it shouldn't be in her wallet.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "The vast majority of pro-choice advocates and advocacy organizations want the government deeply involved in the matter"

    Cite?

  • ||

    It's in the same post. Read past the headline.

  • ||

    Just in case Google is too confusing for you, NARAL's birth control page is a pretty good start:

    There are many ways to make sure that women get the birth control they need. Better access means fewer unintended pregnancies.

    - Emergency contraception (EC) can prevent pregnancy if used up to five days after sex.

    - Pharmacies should not be able to refuse to fill a woman's prescription for birth control.

    - The government should make sure that low-income women can afford birth control at family-planning clinics.

    - Insurance plans should cover prescription birth control without a copay. And they will, thanks to Obamacare.

    But I mean, I'm sure they didn't really mean "the government" when they said: The government should make sure that...

  • ||

    The pro-choice plank has been in the LP platform from the beginning.

    The first softening of the rhetoric started in 1987 to make the Ron Paul newsletter readers who flocked to the party (and mostly flocked out within five years) on his nomination feel more welcome. Those who remained bolstered Doris Gordon's Libertarians For Life and lead to the more waffly plank of today.

    Ron Paul was basically able to keep dissent within the ranks low by remaining silent on the issue by saying that it was not a federal issue whenever it came up.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Tonio made the parasite comparison last week.

  • Response||

    Sorry, I did not see it.

    When I read the use of parasite as the justification for absolution of all abortions I was shocked to read it - it was also the only reference that I had seen that attempted to justify abortion up to the point of birth. But I could understand (though do not agree) that someone who had been raped could feel that a baby is a parasite - and if someone could feel that way about such a horrendous situation, I'm sure there were others that could feel that way in lesser situations. Outside of being physically forced to keep such a fetus to near term, I question anyone's criminal sanity who would willingly hold a fetus 9 months just to abort it before birth.

    Ultimately I guess I fall in line with the LP platform mentioned above only because I do not know where in the sand I could draw a line and force someone to comply. But with technology now able to keep alive babies born after short gestation periods (75% survival rate for babies born after 26 weeks), the blurry line seems to keep inching earlier.

  • ||

    You might not know it from the commentariat here which is anomalously pro-life...

    Lol!

    SOCONZ!!!!!!!(!!!!)!!!!!!!

    Jesus fucking christ, bro. You seriously need to learn a new joke.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    It is lousy with people that leave the libertarian reservation on issues of importance to conservatives. Call that what you will...

  • ||

    Leaving your "libertarian" plantation != leaving the "libertarian reservation".

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    I'm curious what the various libertarian (please only those who consider themselves libertarians reply) beliefs on abortion.

    There is no official Libertarian (big "L") position on abortion. It is up to each individual to decide. I am a small "l" libertarian. Here is my position:

    The debate hinges on one unanswerable question. When does the lump of cells become a person? Only people have rights, so prior to that lump of cells becoming a person, the rights of the person impregnated take priority. After that lump of cells becomes a person, the small person's right to life takes priority over the mother's right to not be uncomfortable for 9 months.

    I cannot answer that question (no one can) which is why I agree with big "L" Libertarians. Each person must choose their own definition of when a person becomes a person and act in accordance with their conscience.

  • Mickey Rat||

    "I cannot answer that question (no one can) which is why I agree with big "L" Libertarians."

    If that question is truly unanswerable, then the question of what qualifies as a person at all is by definition unanswerable. Therefore, by the logic you are employing, no one is a person and no one has legally enforceable rights, since there can be no legal definition of what a person is. You cannot have rights if each individual can have their own definition of what a person is. You are wanting to have your cake and eat it too.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    I'm certain you are a person after you're born. I'm uncertain prior. I therefore have no opinion in the matter.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    What is it about passage through a vagina that changes your uncertainty into certainty?

  • Mickey Rat||

    Your opinion then is irrational and convenient for the result you want.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Your opinion then is irrational and convenient for the result you want.

    1. No more so than yours.
    2. What result do I want? I have stated repeatedly that the matter is indeterminable. There is no result.

  • Mickey Rat||

    That's the problem. You and the LP have come to a result while claiming that you cannot come to a result. Effectively, an unborn child is legally a nonperson under the Libertarian regime. It is a cowardly logic.

  • Mickey Rat||

    So, you are certain a human is a person after they are born. OK, and the person who thinks an infant is just a bigger lump of cells has to accept that opinion...why? Why at that point is the definition of a person legally enforceable no one can act on their on conscience if they disagree with it?

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Is there anyone here claiming a born child isn't a person? Are you claiming that? I simply picked a point we can all agree on.

    Is there anyone on this thread who thinks a child isn't a person at birth?

  • Mickey Rat||

    "I simply picked a point we can all agree on."

    I am saying that you have no rational basis for fixing personhood at that point other than perceived consensus. Therefore you have no argument if the consensus moves up or down the timeline, or excludes other classes of humans for other reasons. The LP position you are touting is unprincipled.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Just because I disagree with you, doesn't make me unprincipled.

    Do you agree that only people have rights?

    If so, we agree in principle. The only thing you are arguing about is where personhood happens.

  • Mickey Rat||

    I did not say you were unprincipled because you disagree with me. I am saying that the reasons you gave for fixing personhood at birth are unmoored from any principle. Consensus is not a principle.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    I DID NOT fix personhood at birth.

  • Mickey Rat||

    For legal purposes, you do. You effectively concede the debate to the most radical pro-abortion rights position. That's what leaving it up to individual conscience means.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I think Francisco just picked birth as a point which everyone agrees personhood exists while noting that points before that are hotly debated.

  • ||

    Not everyone agrees that personhood begins at birth. And no person can do so with any sort of moral or intellectual consistency. The actual biological difference between, say, an 8 month old fetus and a 2 month old baby are trivial enough not to matter. Viability is pretty well off the table at that point. No physical characteristics, including brain function, become markedly different in that amount of time.

    Let's say in libertopia the law perfectly reflects the LP platform position on the issue. What do you do if a guy smothers his 2 month old baby with a pillow because it is his individual moral viewpoint that personhood does not begin until, say, permanent memories form? For legal purposes, leaving moral definitions up to individual conscience is more or less meaningless. The law is going to take a moral position at some point, at which point your individual conscience doesn't mean shit. The LP position is a conveniently ambiguous way of saying it supports abortion in all circumstances in which the mother would seek one while at least nominally tolerating the views of pro-lifers (so long as they do not carry any legal or moral authority). It's letting pro-lifers sit at the cool table, as long as they sit at the end and wear their dunce hat. Which is fine as far as politics goes, but is a naked appeal to consensus from a philosophical standpoint. "Everybody knows birth confers personhood" doesn't really get us anywhere in the situation above, for example.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    I don't give a hairy rat's ass what the legal definition is.

    I'm speaking from a position of morality. One would hope, before making a law, one would first weigh the moral implications. That is what I'm doing. I'm weighing the rights of all "people" concerned. And my conclusion is there is not enough information to make a moral decision, let alone a law.

    THAT BEING THE CASE, everyone should be allowed to do what they believe to be correct based upon where THEY believe personhood begins, and not be FORCED to be held to someone else's bullshit theory.

  • ||

    I'm speaking from a position of morality. One would hope, before making a law, one would first weigh the moral implications.

    See my post directly above. That is precisely what you are actually not doing. "Everybody knows life begins at birth" is not a moral first principle. It's an appeal to consensus. The first time you run across a case where consensus is broken (like the person smothering their 2 month old born child), you are forced to confront the moral vagaries you've carved out and take a firm position - and by "you" I mean "the law" as well.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Are you arguing child isn't a person after birth PM?

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    "Everybody knows life begins at birth" is not a moral first principle.

    Nor did I claim it was.

    "Only people have rights" IS, and that's where I started.

    Nor, did I EVER say "Everybody knows life begins at birth". I simply picked a point that we all agree on. Unless someone here is contending that a human is not a person after it is born.

  • ||

    I simply picked a point that we all agree on.

    That's an appeal to consensus. What will you do if you ever run into someone who doesn't agree?

    Unless someone here is contending that a human is not a person after it is born.

    If it's not a human at 8 months of fetal development, or 9 months of fetal development for that matter, birth provides no meaningful biological differentiation, so it's an arbitrary marker, and I wouldn't find it at all unreasonable for a person holding that position to argue that a human is not a person after it is born. We've actually had a couple of particularly vociferous pro-choicers on here previously who have argued in favor of early infanticide. But since none of them seem to be around today, let's say I'm taking that position. There's no meaningful difference between a 9 month old fetus and a 2 month old born child, so I don't think a born child is necessarily a person. There, now somebody is contending that a human is not a person after it is born. And your response would be?

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    That's an appeal to consensus. What will you do if you ever run into someone who doesn't agree?

    Yes, it is. So what? Do you have a better methodology?

    You are a person (with rights) at some point. I contend that point is somewhere between conception and birth. Yes there will be a few nutjobs who believe the moon is made of blue cheese, but arguing about it is pointless, as killing an infant is no longer considered an abortion. Rights are no longer in conflict between the mother and child at that point either. She has the option to give it away.

    So you act IAW your conscience up to the point where there is no disagreement, and after that you have no choice but to treat it as a person.

    Until, of course, you can give me a better definition of "person" based on something more than speculation and dogma.

  • ||

    Yes, it is. So what? Do you have a better methodology?

    Yes. Act from first principles. Gather up all your cajones and dare to have a moral viewpoint. Because you're addressing a moral question, and you can't address it without a moral viewpoint from which to operate. Once you've put your moral viewpoint out there we can all debate it and disagree about it, but at least we have some place of commonality from which to argue. Pretending not to have a moral viewpoint is disingenuous. The very contention that life begins at birth is a moral viewpoint, as arbitrary as any other, and appeals to consensus do not make it any less so.

    ...killing an infant is no longer considered an abortion.

    Why? Because "everybody says so". This is yet another appeal to consensus trying to mask a moral principle. Own it, FFS. Your moral viewpoint is that life begins at birth. From the sounds of it, you're even willing to enshrine that moral viewpoint in law. That's well and good - the law has to take a moral stance at some point, as I said previously. But don't pretend your moral viewpoint is somehow more deserving of the sanction of law by disguising it as some universal truth. Or even if you're going to do that, find a better way of establishing universal truth than consensus of opinion.

    (cont'd)

  • ||

    So you act IAW your conscience up to the point where there is no disagreement

    We just established that there IS disagreement. Your choosing to ignore it doesn't make it go away. Not everyone believes that a magical trip out the birth canal confers previously non-existent rights. There's little consensus on what rights children possess in the first place, even within libertarian circles. What you really mean is, you've taken a moral position about when human rights begin, and you think enough people agree with you that it could safely be enshrined into law without controversy. But importantly, you're still making a moral judgment that will be imposed onto people who do not agree with it. In case the point hasn't been clearly made, that's the case for EVERYTHING. The NAP is a moral principle from which we would derive all our laws. But you first must acknowledge that it is, in fact, a moral principle.

    Until, of course, you can give me a better definition of "person" based on something more than speculation and dogma.

    I can't. But the thing you don't seem to understand is that: neither can you. Your definition of "person" is no less arbitrary than any other. You keep insisting that your definition is not actually a definition because "everybody knows it". Which works great when you're in the company of people who agree with you.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Until, of course, you can give me a better definition of "person" based on something more than speculation and dogma.

    I can't. But the thing you don't seem to understand is that: neither can you. Your definition of "person" is no less arbitrary than any other. You keep insisting that your definition is not actually a definition because "everybody knows it".

    No shit, I can't. I never claimed to. Everyone's position on this subject is arbitrary. WHICH HAS BEEN MY POINT FROM THE BEGINNING OF THIS DISCUSSION.

    Personhood begins sometime between conception and birth and I DON'T KNOW WHERE. And neither do you, nor does anyone else. HENCE, no law should be made that would restrict the rights of the impregnated woman, until we can agree where that point is. In the mean time, do what you think is fucking right.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Yes. Act from first principles.

    I AM acting from first principles. PEOPLE HAVE RIGHTS.

    You have to be a person to have rights. Where that occurs is NOT CURRENTLY determinable, therefore the morality is not determinable. PERIOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    But don't pretend your moral viewpoint is somehow more deserving of the sanction of law by disguising it as some universal truth.

    As I've said repeatedly, I HAVE NO MORAL VIEWPOINT ON THE ISSUE AS IT CANNOT BE DETERMINED! I certainly don't claim to have a legal position without first having a moral one.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Your moral viewpoint is that life begins at birth.

    For the love of Christ, have you even read my position? I HAVE NEVER SAID ANY SUCH THING!

  • ||

    Also:

    Rights are no longer in conflict between the mother and child at that point either. She has the option to give it away.

    Rights are no longer in conflict as soon as the fetus can be incubated or survive absent the mother, which due to the miracle of modern medicine is a point well before birth. So that's not a great argument for birth-as-personhood. It does bring up a somewhat interesting question of what rights a premature baby has though, if birth (or presumably the harvesting of a fully gestated baby by other means) is the point when rights are conferred. Also brings up some interesting questions about liability for doctors in prenatal care.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    So that's not a great argument for birth-as-personhood.

    JESUS CHRIST ON THE FUCKING CROSS! I am not saying, nor have I ever said that birth denotes personhood. Personhood happens between conception and birth.

    I simply claimed that after birth there is no longer any question of personhood. AND YES, that's based solely on overwhelming consensus, as you can base it on nothing else.

  • Azathoth!!||

    There's no meaningful difference between a 9 month old fetus and a 2 month old born child,

    Are you insane?

    Do you really believe that not being connected to another beings circulatory system is not a meaningful difference?

    That having functioning lungs is not a meaningful difference?

    That having suddenly unobstructed sight and hearing is not a meaningful difference?

    People go on about the passage thru the vagina being somehow magical--well those things are a helluvalotta radical changes--all over a very short time. And all occurring because of passage thru a vagina.

    FdA's position that 'most accept that it's a person once it's out' might have a bit to do with all that. Or maybe the demonstrable fact that, once out, it's clearly and visibly a separate individual, no?

  • Cytotoxic||

    I love abortion and have never seen an iota of evidence to demonstrate that 1) the clump of cells called the embryo is worth anything or 2) the fetus is any more human and deserving of human rights than a dog.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    We know you love killing people, Cyto.

  • Cytotoxic||

    I can't hear you over the sounds of the women whose lives you would effectively end for a *potential* being.

  • ||

    Yep. Every single woman who ever had an abortion would have died without it. You heard it here first.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Your sociopathic beliefs are well known.

  • mgd||

    My take is that at some point between conception and birth the result of conception stops being an embryo/fetus/whatever and is a human. At that point, the state has the same duty to protect that person's rights as to protect any other citizen's rights. Before that point, the state should have no role it.

    The only question is at what point does it stop being a clump of cells and become a person. I have my opinion on it, but that's all it is--my opinion. I will not seek to force that opinion on anyone else via government coercion; I must let them make their own decisions and mistakes.

  • Mickey Rat||

    "On the opposite far side, I hear that the baby is a parasite (living off the mother) until it is born and that all abortions should be legal."

    Anyone who uses the term "parasite" is an obvious mendacious troll. The term "parasite" refers to a symbiote which has only a negative effect on the host. An unborn child is in a symbiotic relationship with its mother, but it is not a parasitic one. A parasite's host does not have an organ specifically there to nurture the parasite.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    If Nick were living in Poland and the local authorities passed a law banning Nazi death camps on the pretext of protecting the guards, would he protest that the law's backers were being dishonest, that the guards were in little danger and their real problem with the death camps was with killing Jews and other disfavored persons?

    SCOTUS blocked discussion of the real issue in a nonsensical, unconstitutional decision 40 years ago. So yeah, people who think it involves murder are going to do some mental gymnastics to get around that obstacle. Sorry if that offends your totally objective sensibilities.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Well, let's concede that they are, in fact, gymnastics, and let us have the Right be quite open and out front about wanting to get Justices in there to overturn Roe rather than having so many conservatives and paleos regularly claim around election time that 'abortion is off the table anyway, so no need to fear those SoCons.'

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    As soon as your side comes clean about their real purposes for opposing school choice, raising the minimum wage, opposing RTW laws, etc.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    My side? I am consistently against raising the minimum wage laws and would like to see the NLRA abolished completely.

    Maybe you are thinking of your friend Rollo?

  • ||

    SOCONZ!!!!!!(!!!!)!!!!!

    (Only SOCONZ!!!!(!!!)!!!! oppose abortion. or anything else Bo favors)

  • Cytotoxic||

    Is this actual Tulpa or a parody of Tulpa? I mean I knew the anti-choicers were desperate but wow.

  • minarchist||

    Any serious libertarian should be in favor of infanticide.

  • Rich||

    Any serious infant should be in favor of libertarianism.

  • Charles Hurst Author||

    There is a simple argument why Roe vs Wade never should have come to light. It is not a woman's right. And it is no longer just her body.
    Because there is one factor that makes the fetus life--and no woman knows she is pregnant until this factor is prevalent.
    It is a heartbeat. period. That negates all arguments. It isn't a Christian stance--it is scientific. It is a heartbeat. And Roe vs Wade passed due to the same politically correctness that allows illegals to invade the United States. Never should have happened.
    When you opened the door to kill life you opened the door to everything else evil in this country. Note how nothing is sacred now. Why should there be? We kill the unborn after all. If we continue we will collapse as my own writing predicts. If we would like to save our country a good start would be the total repeal of Roe vs Wade.

    Charles Hurst. Author of THE SECOND FALL. An offbeat story of Armageddon. And creator of THE RUNNINGWOLF EZINE

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Before four to five weeks there is not even a heartbeat.

    I am not sure why heartbeat would be the line, vegetative brain dead people can have a heartbeat but they seem in a different place than other persons. I think it the line is going to be drawn somewhere other than birth, some kind of neural development is going to be the criteria upon which it should be based.

  • Cytotoxic||

    It's so cute when SoCons pretend they can do science.

    The heartbeat is a muscular reflex. It does not make for a being anymore than renal function.

  • swampfaye||

    So.. you're saying that people with pacemakers are not real people anymore?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Do all the posters here who are criticizing Roe also oppose Griswold? Because I think Roe, whatever else its flaws of jurisprudence, flows reasonably from Griswold.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    I agree, and Griswold was a terrible decision in itself. Along with Brown v. Board.

    That doesn't mean I support the laws these decisions struck down, of course.

  • ||

    Live by the penumbra, die by the penumbra.

  • taker||

    If it's safe and easy, why require an MD? I mean, you're not going to attract the best and brightest doctors to the abortion biz. (Gosnell, et al). So open the practice to anybody who can get liability insurance.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Do you have something you want to share about what Dolan is saying, or do you just dislike him, or hate Catholics in general?

    Centuries of institutionalized corruption, theft and murder. Tell me all about the Catholics' devotion to the meek and innocent of the world.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Ah, you are a wicked man who insults and hates Catholics. What a miserable wretch you must be.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    You have similar objections to slaveholders like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson's viewpoints, i assume.

  • swampfaye||

    And how can you be European, MEastern, Russian, American or Asian and claim to be free of institutionalized corruption, theft and murder. Caste System? Class system? Cutting the hearts out of slaves and captives? Which culture is it that is free of this 'institutionalized' corruption, theft and murder? I've not read about it.

  • Hadley V. Baxendale||

    I'm thinking that abortion should be neither legal nor illegal as a medical procedure, but legally all medical procedures should be subject to legal requirements of sterile and safe surgical work areas. Abortion is a moral issue that should be discussed and debated in the home and in the churches; not in the courts.

  • Ann N||

    how can something be neither legal nor illegal?

    you mean criminalizing and mandating it? that way govt can fuck you no matter what you do.

  • ||

    Penaltax!

  • ||

    Libertarian Party Platform of 1972

    Overpopulation

    We support an end to all subsidies for childbearing built into our present laws, including all welfare plans and the provision of tax-supported services for children. We further support the repeal of all laws restricting voluntary birth control or voluntary termination of pregnancies during their first hundred days. We shall oppose all coercive measures to control population growth.

  • Ann N||

    The strongest case for abortion would be a newborn child from Sandra Fluke and Michael Moore.

    Arguing about morality or safety is a quagmire.

    Everyone can agree we need less liberal vile spawn. This is who gets 'morally unaccepted' abortions.

  • swampfaye||

    Getting your tooth pulled is a 'low risk' procedure, but the dentist is still required to have these 'onerous' regulations. I don't understand why we hold a dentist to a higher standard than someone who is performing what is essentially a D&C. Look that procedure up and tell me if it sounds like its less risky than getting a tooth pulled...

  • CE||

    Low risk for one of the two people involved.

  • See.More||

    Just to get the mental gears working...

    If your womb is vacant... or not... do I have the right to crawl inside and take up residence without your consent?

    If not, but I do it anyway, do you not have the right to forcibly evict me?

    /puddin' stirring

  • See.More||

    Also, this is highly apropos: The Ethics of Liberty, Chapter 14 - "CHILDREN AND RIGHTS"

    Including libertarian justification of "postpartum abortion" (my term) via denial of sustenance...

    The law, therefore, may not properly compel the parent to feed a child or to keep it alive.[5] (Again, whether or not a parent has a moral rather than a legally enforceable obligation to keep his child alive is a completely separate question.) This rule allows us to solve such vexing questions as: should a parent have the right to allow a deformed baby to die (e.g., by not feeding it)?[6] The answer is of course yes, following a fortiori from the larger right to allow any baby, whether deformed or not, to die. (Though, as we shall see below, in a libertarian society the existence of a free baby market will bring such “neglect” down to a minimum.)
  • See.More||

    Note how recognition of rights is tied to self-ownership (i.e.: individual sovereignty). There is, or used to be, an explicit acknowledgement that self-ownership / individual sovereignty were precursors to recognizing, in full, an individual's rights. It is still tacitly acknowledged by various age of consent/majority/legal-to-drink/etc. laws as well as those that put individuals too mentally infirmed to care for themselves in the care of others (as 'wards-of').

    However, any more, it seems that the explicit understanding has been forgotten...

  • steve153||

    Start working at home with Google! Just work for few hours and have more time with friends and family. I earn up to $500 per week. It's a great work at home opportunity. I can't believe how easy it was once I tried it out. Linked here www.Pow6.com

  • See.More||

    Properly understood, from Natural Law philosophy, Natural Rights must meet three defining criteria.

    1.) They are understood to be possessed, equally, by all sovereign individuals. Any entitlements enjoyed by one (or more) group(s) of individuals and not by others are properly "privileges", not rights.

    2.) They confer no obligations upon others to facilitate their peacable exercise. A right to health care, for instance, cannot be considered a Natural Right as it necessarily obligates someone else to provide some resource (product, service, time, money, etcetera) to exercise it.

    3.) They cannot properly be exercised at the expense of others' Natural Rights. I cannot, properly, compel you to allow me to proselytize (i.e.: exercise my freedom of speech) on your doorstep. Here, your rights to your property "trump" my freedom of speech. I do not have the right to use your property/facilities without your consent, but you reserve the right to set conditions upon which you grant me the privilege of using your facilities. I have the choice to agree to those conditions or to not patronize your facilities. Either way, my rights have not been infringed upon.
    (Agreeing to not exercise a right != forcibly denying the ability to exercise a right.)
  • See.More||

    WRT Abortion: Re: #3: Whose rights "trump" here? Indeed, if I trespass upon your property, you reserve the natural authority to use force to eject me; even lethal force if I am invasive enough. There is a threshold where your property rights "trump" my right to life.

    Similarly, an unwanted embryo is, in effect, a trespasser. If we acknowledge her self-ownership, then the mother's womb is her property and residence there-in is subject to her expressed consent, including the right to, later, withdraw consent at any time and for any reason. If she does not, or withdraws consent, then the fetus is a trespasser and she reserves the right to use force to evict.

    It is, functionally, no different than you letting me live in your home and then later kicking me out for [enter your own reason homeowner]. Now I am homeless and gonna die of exposure, but... that's not your problem.

    To declare anything less is to deny a pregnant woman's self-ownership; denying a pregnant woman's self-ownership is to deny her self-ownership (regardless of her reproductive state or condition); and denying women self-ownership effectively declares that they are someone else's property.

    So, the real question is: Do you believe in self-ownership?

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