With Anti-Personhood Measure, Democrats Prove They Can Pass Pointless Abortion Bills, Too

Nevit Dilmen/WikimediaNevit Dilmen/WikimediaFor years, Republican state legislators have been proposing and pushing pointless abortion measures. I say "pointless" because the bulk of these are rooted not in medical or legal necessity but in some combination of desires to prevent women from getting abortions, to incite culture-war ire, and to force challenges in court.

But why should GOP lawmakers get to have all the fun here? In Colorado, congressional Democrats have introduced a feel-good, do-nothing abortion measure of their own. 

The measure, Senate Bill 175, sounds lovely on the surface. Deemed the "Reproductive Health Freedom Act," it aims to promote "freedom from government interference in an individual's reproductive health decisions." To this aim, no state or locality in Colorado shall pass a policy that "denies or interferes" with such decisions. Additionally, all reproductive health policies must be rooted in "current evidence-based scientific data and medical consensus." 

Though the bill doesn't explicitly say so, it's at least partly a reaction to abortion measures that have passed in other states recently (kinda like the legislative equivalent of a subtweet). In Texas, for instance, women seeking abortions may be required to listen to a fetal heartbeat first, just for funsies. And 12 states require women to view an ultrasound image before the procedure. 

As you might imagine, I'm no fan of these laws, which add burdensome, costly, and medically unnecessary steps to abortion procedures in the name of attempted emotional manipulation. But no one is requiring these steps in Colorado, and no one is suggesting requring them. This is a bill intended to ban the possibility of future bills.

That's a futile endeavor, of course: Were SB 175 to go into law, a future anti-abortion majority in the Colorado legislature could simply repeal it and proceed to pass all the personhood measures it liked. "It's one of the worst bills that I've seen in terms of public policy," Sen. Kevin Lundberg (R-Berthoud) told 9 News Colorado. "When the legislature puts something in statute, it's supposed to mean something."

"It doesn't create a crime and it doesn't cost money. What's the point of making this into law?" asked 7NEWS Reporter Marshall Zelinger, displaying a depressing but sadly accurate view of contemporary lawmaking.

Of course, state legislatures are frequently home to symbolic lawmaking. Politicians love to delcare the things they support in ways that can be easily referenced next campaign season. While a waste of time, these things are essentially harmless. But since I frequently complain when Republicans engage in this kind of abortion grandstanding, I figured highlighting this instance of Democrats engaging in similar silliness was only fair. 

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.

  • Hyperion||

    freedom from government interference in an individual's reproductive health decisions

    Am I the only ones who finds this more than just a bit ironic?

    The Democrats, on a straight party line vote with not one Republican vote, pass a bill giving the government the right to interfere in the health decisions of Americans, more than ever before, and they are now going to save people from that interference?

    Too fucking laughable.

  • ||

    It's never ironic, because the words they use don't mean shit. This is just KULTUR WAR grandstanding, just like TEAM RED does. The endless circle jerk of KULTUR WAR. It's fucking pathetic.

  • GILMORE||

    "Yes but for an ostensibly 'libertarian' magazine I find this repeated need to always highlight the pandering of Democrats over that of Social Conservatives to be unseemly; it must be an effort to appeal to the overwhelming number of Neocons who populate the commentary, as I have noted"

    (strokes goatee and twirls quill)

  • ||

    I cannot understand why you waste even a second of your time responding or even paying any attention to him. He's just trolling you.

  • ||

    Teenage girls cut themselves, Gilmore talks to Bo.

  • GILMORE||

    Everyone has their weakness

    Some people can't help but have bitch-slap fights with "'Murkin The SuperRacist" because they just find his thing unbearable. For whatever reason I can pass it by most of the time. Its boring.

    Poop-throwing Mary doesn't really get my Irish up either. She makes me sad the way developmentally disabled people generally do.

    "Pretentious moron", however, is a character-type that makes me see red. Its sort of reminds me of the kid in junior high school who takes 2 Karate lessons and suddenly thinks he's badass, and starts mouthing off to everyone. Retribution comes swiftly and without mercy.

    The odd part is that I'm convinced that Bo is a Tupla creation; yet it doesn't make me mad at him at all. In fact, I'd have to give him some literary credit for a well-crafted, uber-douchebag persona. if Bo were in fact a *real person*, however? Good god. Acute dick-cancer would improve him immensely.

  • Zeb||

    I still don't get the Bo hate. I just see him as a socially awkward weirdo with daddy issues, and who doesn't know when to quit a pointless argument, but whose heart is more or less in the right place.

  • Redmanfms||

    but whose heart is more or less in the right place.

    His heart isn't in the right place anymore than Tulpa/Rollo's is/was.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    "Yes but for an ostensibly 'left leaning libertarian' magazine I find this repeated need to always highlight the pandering of Democrats over that of Social Conservatives to be unseemly; it must be an effort to appeal to the overwhelming number of Neocons who populate the commentary, as I have noted"

    FIFY

  • SlV||

    Reason is a "right-leaning libertarian magazine" to the progs and commies and center-leftists who aren't employed as writers for the magazine. It's a stinkin left-libertarian com-symp Team Blue-apologizing rag to all decent liberty-loving Real Americans.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    *shakes head*

  • Adam330||

    Ah, but this only protects reproductive health decisions. For reasons I have never understood, those are the only ones that count for liberals.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Abortion tools for vaginas.
    Penises for men's rectums.

    These are the only two items Democrats will fight for your right to insert in your body.

  • Doctor Whom||

    Not necessarily even the latter before Team Blue noticed voting trends evolved on the issue.

  • BardMetal||

    That about sums it up. If it doesn't have to do with sex then they really don't give a shit about your freedom to do it.

    It's funny that the 50s are always depicted as being extremely uptight and restrictive, but other then things related to sex, what are we more free to do then people were in those times?

    Smoking, Drinking, Firearms, Knives, everything is more restricted now, not to mention how many more jobs require government licenses, and permits to do now.

    Ok tirade over.

  • John||

    The country is much more prudish and judgmental today than it was in the 1950s. It is judgmental about different things. No one in the 1950s would have thought to judge someone by the kind of food they ate or whether they smoked or what their garbage looked like.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Try getting a divorce in the 1950s.

  • Calidissident||

    Or marrying someone of a different race (which, even in states where it was legal, was heavily frowned upon and judged negatively)

  • Lord at War||

    FdA-

    There was always Reno.

    But, I don't care. If you invited the Gov't into your life, you got exactly what you paid for.

    FYTW!

  • R C Dean||

    Geez. What amateurs. If they had just said "health decisions", they at least wouldn't have been so obvious and could have pretended to have principles.

  • Mickey Rat||

    They could not have this law contradict their principles. Government interference in every other type of health decision is a Democrat principle.

  • Hugh Akston||

    The Blue Teamers in the Colorado legislature acts like they have had a solid lock on power for decades, rather than just having managed to gain a majority in the past few years that they are now clinging to by the thinnest of margins.

  • Drake||

    And they face a slaughter in October over their gun control overreach.

  • Sudden||

    They're banking on the endless stream of lefties from California relocating to Colorado to avoid the dystopian world they created here (and then recreate it there).

    I hope we manage to give them a critical mass, and thereby extinguish our own derp.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Don't you know what renewable means?

  • gruevy||

    As much as politics from both sides are just an excuse to grow government, I have to say that this particular culture battle truly does matter. Either a fetus is human life, or it isn't. If it is, then the law must protect it. If not, then abortion should never be limited except where medically required. I tend to think that a human fetus is both human, and alive, and therefore human life, making it necessary to protect.

  • WTF||

    Here we go.

    What's next, a post on deep dish v. pizza?

  • ||

    You mean deep dish v. pita?

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Here we go...

  • ||

    Well, when you can prove that, we can talk. What you think doesn't mean shit.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    And we're off!

  • BardMetal||

    Well a simple DNA test would show it's human, and observing it while it's in the womb would show that it's alive.

  • ||

    Yeah, the question isn't really whether it is a living human, because it obviously is. The question is whether it is a person with rights and how to solve the rights conflict with the mother.

  • BardMetal||

    I suppose that is the real tricky part. Tricky because I'm not sure how you would prove that scientifically.

    Regardless nobody is going to change their minds on this issue.

  • BardMetal||

    The best we can hope for is some kind of compromise, an arbitrary time limit on abortions, with possible exceptions in the case of medical emergencies, that would at least satisfy most people.

  • Sudden||

    Or, letting the states decide in accordance with the ninth amendment.

  • paranoid android||

    No one wants to show up to a protest with a sign that says "IT'S A COMPLICATED ISSUE AND I HAVE MIXED FEELINGS ABOUT IT"

  • BakedPenguin||

    "I AM UNCERTAIN HOW TO RESOLVE THIS COMPLEX PROBLEM!!!"

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    That would be awesome.

  • Zeb||

    No one wants to show up to a protest with a sign that says "IT'S A COMPLICATED ISSUE AND I HAVE MIXED FEELINGS ABOUT IT"

    Well, I sort of do now. I think it would be a great performance art project to go around to various protests with ambiguous or confusing signs.

  • Rhywun||

    "WHAT DO WE WANT? I'M NOT QUITE SURE! WHEN DO WE WANT IT? OH, WHENEVER!"

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I'm not sure how you would prove that scientifically.

    You can't. Rights, their definition and justifications for, are beyond the scope of science.

  • Zeb||

    It's not a scientific question. Or at least not a question current science can touch. Until we have a model for how sentience and whatever else it is that makes us human comes about through physical processes, it is a completely philosophical (or religious if you are into that sort of thing) question.

    It is rare, but people do occasionally change their minds about abortion.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Let's not confuse sentience with sapience. Sentience is the ability to sense, and as carol notes downthread, the fetus has been observed to react to painful stimulus at 9 weeks. (I know that sounds stilted but its more accurate than "at 9 weeks the fetus can feel pain") Sapience, on the other hand, is a whole other ballpark. Is sentience a sufficient condition for personhood, or is sapience necessary?

  • Zeb||

    OK, that's a good distinction to make.

    Consciousness is probably another necessary characteristic of humanity. And we are really far from understanding exactly what that is.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Is sentience a sufficient condition for personhood, or is sapience necessary?

    Animals are sentient (and yummy, btw). So that isn't enough. Sapience may be too much, as I'm not sure that happens until sometime after birth and may not happen at all to the severely retarded.

    I'm pretty certain personhood (and rights) happens sometime after conception and before birth. (Only attempting to be half smart-ass here, not really sure.)

    I guess for the sake of appeasing absolutely no one except myself, we could be pragmatic about it and split the difference and call it good at 140 days.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Sapience is too strict because we don't know exactly when that occurs either. I guess I'd have to go with viability, so 24wks today.

  • AlmightyJB||

    The only fact that matters is who has the most power to decide the rules.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Yeah, the question isn't really whether it is a living human, because it obviously is. The question is whether it is a person with rights and how to solve the rights conflict with the mother.

    THIS 1000 times this.

  • Mickey Rat||

    What other class of living human is not considered a person and why?

    Why is not the burden of proof on the side claiming an exception to the general rule that a living human organism is a legal person?

  • Mickey Rat||

    What other class of living human is not considered a person and why?

    Why is not the burden of proof on the side claiming an exception to the general rule that a living human organism is a legal person?

  • carol||

    Eighteen days after conception the heart is beating and at nine weeks the brain has activity and the unborn can feel pain. Sounds like life to me.

  • WTF||

    The real dispute is not over whether it's alive, it's over whether it is a person, with all of the rights a person is entitled to.

  • John||

    Good luck with letting the government get into the business of deciding who is and is not a "person" worthy of legal protection. I am sure that will turn out great.

  • BardMetal||

    Hey we just need the right top men in charge then it will work, and if not then we'll just try again and again...

    Damn history sometimes looks like a broken record of evil, and stupidity.

  • BakedPenguin||

    A fetus is not a person.

    It is a corporation!

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Government doesn't need to do shit.

    It can't be proven either way, so simply let people decide on an individual basis what's right for them.

  • John||

    Absolutely. That will never be used as an excuse to start killing the handicapped and the sick and the generally unwanted. There is really no danger here. I don't know why people get so upset about this stuff.

  • Mickey Rat||

    "...so simply let people decide on an individual basis what's right for them."

    Which, as a practical matter, is saying that the unborn have no personhood from conception to birth. With a shrug of the shoulders you come down on the same side as the most radical abortion rights advocate.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Because, like it or not, the woman has rights. A point which you seem to completely blow off with your subjective position of defaulting to conception.

  • Mickey Rat||

    So it is not whether personhood can be proven or not, it is that the child's possible personhood is inconvenient to unfettered abortion rights so it cannot exist.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    No, it's because if you are wrong about person-hood at conception (which I think you are), you are needlessly infringing on the woman's rights for that period.

    I realize that isn't important to you, but...

  • Illocust||

    So the situation is as stated. If we ban abortion and it turns out that fetuses don't have rights we've infringed on a woman's right to her body, but we are going to complete ignore its corollary that if we allow abortion and it turns out fetuses do have rights we been violating the fetus right to life. MurderAssault if we are going to truly come down in the neutral position we need to ban abortion as the cost is much greater for allowing abortion and being wrong than the other way around.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Right lead up, Illocust, wrong conclusion.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Except your shrugging off the issue is not just denying rights to the unborn from conception, it is denying those rights to birth as well, which you have stated before you think is wrong as well.

  • Mickey Rat||

    So if you are wrong about the personhood of the unborn at any stage of development, an abortion performed after that stage is a permanent violation of rights.

    As with any conflict of rights, this is not an issue conducive to an "everybody can decide for themselves" solution.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    As with any conflict of rights, this is not an issue conducive to an "everybody can decide for themselves" solution.

    Of course it is. It can't be proven that the "occupant" has rights. At this point in time, it's nothing but speculation whether it's a person or not. Your opinion is as good or full of shit as mine. So you want to leave it to the government? (And technically, we did leave it to the government and the government decided it wasn't a person. See where that got you?)

    My, full of shit, opinion is that personhood happens somewhere closer to the middle of the gestation period rather than the beginning or end and it has to do with consciousness, whatever that is, and I'm fairly certain you can't have consciousness before a brain. And, frankly, I think those choosing either the beginning or end are both out to lunch.

    Furthermore, I don't get the religious aspects of this either (which seem to be where most abortion objections originate). There is no reference to this in the Bible. Nothing saying "thou shalt not kill" means a fetus. Somebody made it up along the way. Far as I can tell, you can be pro-choice and be an upstanding Christian.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    it is denying those rights to birth as well

    Huh? You don't have the right to shit prior to being a person.

  • Mickey Rat||

    And at that point you are saying that personhood is acquired at birth, despite the fact that you are pulling that out of your hindquarters in order to get the conclusion you want.

    It is an unprincipled and utilitarian argument.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    And at that point you are saying that personhood is acquired at birth

    No, I'm not and it is not. It is adhering COMPLETELY to libertarian principle.

    And I'm about sick and fucking tired of YOU telling ME what the conclusion I want is.

    I have no desired outcome. I could fucking care less. What I AM telling you, is the libertarian argument comes down to one of rights and when a human becomes a person. When you have a scientific definition of when a person is a person, based upon some sort of factual data, THEN you can disregard the woman's rights in favor of the person's right to live.

  • Mickey Rat||

    "When you have a scientific definition of when a person is a person, based upon some sort of factual data, THEN you can disregard the woman's rights in favor of the person's right to live."

    There is no scientific definition of what makes any human being a person, it more in the realm of philosophy. You asking for a standard that is not applied to any other situation.

    You are telling me what the conclusion you want is. You just get upset when I state it baldly rather than hiding it behind the euphemisms and obfuscations you use.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Look asshole. For the 10th fucking time, I couldn't care less. It doesn't affect me and it never will. I have no dog in the fight. I told you my position based upon principle AND I told you my opinion based upon my best guess.

    Why do you have to be such a fucking dickhead? I haven't been an asshole to you until now, despite the fact that you've been hostile since your first fucking post.

    I'm not hiding behind shit. I have no position on regulating abortion because the right answer is based upon an unknown, and unlike you, apparently, I don't shit on other people's rights based upon something I pull out of my ass.

    Don't tell me what I think.

    Fuck off!

  • Juice||

    Good luck with letting the government get into the business of deciding who is and is not a "person" worthy of legal protection.

    Isn't that what they do now?

  • carol||

    Defining "personhood" seems pretty pointless to me. People who believe that it is okey dokey to stab a 39 week old fetus in the head could not care less if the child is a person or not.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Thank you for your opinion, on the matter.

  • carol||

    I take it from the bold italics that you disapprove of my opinion. Why? Do people who believe that abortion should be possible right up to the point birth care about the child's "personhood"? If somehow we could all agree that an unborn child is a person would it change the minds of those who are pro-choice? In my opinion, no.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    I take it from the bold italics that you disapprove of my opinion. Why?

    Because living things don't have rights, only people have rights.

    The entire abortion issue hinges on which rights take precedence. No one denies the fact that the woman has the right to not be inconvenienced for 9 months. The question is how her rights stack up against those of the zygote/fetus/child/parasite. If the "occupant" is simply a lump of cells, the woman's rights take precedence. If it is a person, then the right of the person to live take precedence over the woman's right to not be inconvenienced.

    SO, the ONLY question in this debate is whether the "occupant" is yet a person or not.

    And since there is no way to prove that, YET, I have no opinion on abortion with respect to law. That being the case, everyone should make their own best judgment as to when personhood occurs and act accordingly.

  • wadair||

    Well, if it must be killed to be aborted, then it must have been alive.

    Nonetheless, were it not for the mother's body, the fetus could not continue to live.

    So, we're back at the beginning.

  • lap83||

    If it wasn't for the mother's body, none of us would have been born. I don't think that argument works.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    So does a puppy.

    PERSON, not life.

  • Zeb||

    Yeah, unless you are a radical Vegan or Jain or something, that is not much of an argument. Unless you have sentience, pain is just a useful biological signal.

  • Illocust||

    If you go with that argument, do newborns really have sentience? I mean a cow has waaaaaay more self awareness than a newborn human, but we're cool with killing and eating them.

  • Homple||

    So, Episiarch, why does what you think mean more than shit?

  • Sidd Finch||

    I say "pointless" because the bulk of these are rooted not in medical or legal necessity but in some combination of desires to prevent women from getting abortions, to incite culture-war ire, and to force challenges in court.

    IOW you say "pointless" because you don't like the point.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Additionally, all reproductive health policies must be rooted in "current evidence-based scientific data and medical consensus."

    There's that word again.

  • WTF||

    The science is settled!

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    9 out of 10 dentists agree...

  • R C Dean||

    all reproductive health policies must be rooted in "current evidence-based scientific data and medical consensus.

    As technology advances and viability gets earlier and earlier, they may not like where this leads.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Three issues I have with this article:

    First, you say "pointless" only because you fail to acknowledge that the other side is (at least from their point of view) trying to stop murders.

    Second, this is retarded for pro-choicers to be pushing:

    Additionally, all reproductive health policies must be rooted in "current evidence-based scientific data and medical consensus"

    since there is zero question of the science of a fetus being a living human being. If you want to argue for abortion you need to go outside of science/medicine and argue that they aren't people.

    Third, and obviously worst of all, you aborted the alt-text.

  • Zeb||

    I don't think it necessarily follows that a living biological entity genetically of the species Homo sapiens is necessarily a human being. Depends a lot on your definition of "human being" I suppose. For me, it is the mind, not the genes that make a human being.

  • Mickey Rat||

    That should put the burden of proof of how an unborn human is not a human being, besides it being inconvenient to unfettered abortion rights.

  • Jordan||

    Additionally, all reproductive health policies must be rooted in "current evidence-based scientific data and medical consensus."

    Isn't that the opposite of leaving reproductive health decisions free from government interference?

  • John||

    Yes. Who decides what the "medical consensus" is if not the government?

  • John||

    Serious question. Why couldn't a future Republican Administration HHS just write regulations banning insurance policies from covering abortion or birth control? Under Obamacare HHS is dictating the terms of every health insurance policy in America. If they can mandate it cover something, I don't see why they couldn't mandate they not cover something.

  • ||

    I don't think you are supposed to talk about that. Given the way Jugears has been behaving, issuing edict after edict, changing the law to suit his needs as they arise, I see a R President doing things in the future that will cause much lamenting from these idiots.

    When it happens they will be in no position to complain or to do anything about it. I fully intend to rub their faces in it at every opportunity.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    I see a R President doing things in the future that will cause much lamenting from these idiots.

    I don't. They will simply attack the Republican for acting outside his power and ignore the fact their savior did EXACTLY the same thing.

    Their hypocrisy is without bounds.

  • John||

    They have no shame. And people don't pay a lot of attention and have short memories. The media will just lie and pretend Obama didn't do that or that it was somehow different.

    The future is going to be Democratic Presidents with virtual dictatorial powers and completely without any accountability with Republican Presidents who are made completely ineffectual by continuous and ongoing scandals and criminal investigations.

  • Juice||

    They will simply attack the Republican for acting outside his power and ignore the fact their savior did EXACTLY the same thing.

    Well, it's only what happened when Obama came into office. All the Repubs suddenly became nominal constitutionalists and the Dems switched back to being lawless tyrants.

  • ||

    By lamenting I mean they will wail, moan, gnash their teeth etc.

    I am sure then that they will admit that veering away from our constitutional form of checks and balances was a bad idea, that that is the natural end result of having too much power concentrated. In fact, I expect them to see that or that the constitution was written the way it was to avoid that very thing.

    Oh, wait. We are talking about these people:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZIKJjbXYAM

    And these people:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlOlwXy7OcQ
    (good part at 2:00)

  • AlmightyJB||

    I can see the commercials now. Thanks to ME women retain the right to choose.

  • Drake||

    The actual proposed law (2nd link) is pretty funny. It does not distinguish for age - so "EVERY INDIVIDUAL IS ENTITLED TO MAKE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CARE DECISIONS FREE FROM DISCRIMINATION, COERCION, OR VIOLENCE"

    Parents might object to kids in their early teens making "reproductive healthcare decisions".

  • AlmightyJB||

    Maybe that's the whole point of the legislation.

  • John||

    That is a good guess.

  • AlmightyJB||

    OT: Krugnuts getting paid big bucks to lecture about income inequality.

    http://hotair.com/archives/201.....nequality/

  • Juice||

    Damn, what a gig. $25k a month do maybe do some shit sometimes, maybe give a talk every once and a while?

  • Jerry on the sea||

    I guess this animal is just a lil bit more equal than the others.

  • DEATFBIRSECIA||

    "It doesn't create a crime and it doesn't cost money. What's the point of making this into law?"

    Would that all laws were this pointless.

  • ||

    "It doesn't create a crime and it doesn't cost money. What's the point of making this into law?"

    As a libertarian, I don't know that I'm entirely opposed to this. Aside from the consumption of taxpayer money I only see 'win'. Even then it's time spent on a law that has no effect rather than 'improving' the State's health exchange.

  • R C Dean||

    What's the point of making this into law?

    To give the plaintiff's lawyers the cause of action they need to start suing providers who refuse to do abortions, would be my guess. Take a look at this:

    IN KEEPING WITH THAT RIGHT, EVERY INDIVIDUAL IS ENTITLED TO MAKE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CARE DECISIONS FREE FROM DISCRIMINATION, COERCION, OR VIOLENCE

    That reference to "discrimination" is going to be the foundation for lawsuits against hospitals and others who refuse to perform abortions.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    Assume all us prolifers are wrong and that which is in the womb isn't a fully person with human rights.

    At least it should have the same protection as a nonhuman animal! What if a nonhuman animal were treated like an abortionist treats a fetus, wouldn't that be animal cruelty?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    What if a nonhuman animal were treated like an abortionist treats a fetus, wouldn't that be animal cruelty?

    Veterinarians will euthanize dogs just because you ask them to. I'm not sure that's the tack we should be taking.

  • Zeb||

    Yeah, if that is the standard, then you could certainly come up with an abortion procedure that is not cruel even if some techniques used now could be considered so.

  • ||

    Veterinarians will euthanize dogs just because you ask them to. I'm not sure that's the tack we should be taking.

    I am skeptical about that, at least as a broad statement. I don't know but I suspect they have a general code of ethics. Finding a veterinarian who will put down a dog for no reason other than the owner finds it to be an inconvenience is probably easier said than done.

  • lap83||

    That's different because nonhuman animals look cuter on motivational posters.

  • lap83||

    Also, there's nothing cute about overpopulation and making Gaia cry.

  • SlV||

    in some combination of desires to prevent women from getting abortions, to incite culture-war ire, and to force challenges in court

    Saving human lives doesn't make the list?

  • Homple||

    No. Abortion opponents always act in bad faith. I know this because libertarians and progressives believe it and say so all the time.

    Pro lifers want to use the power of the state to stop us having fun with our weewees. Nothing to do with ambiguities about personhood or the rights thereof. Weewee fun trumps all.

  • lap83||

    Every time the "bad faith" argument is used, it's like they're admitting they have no intention of understanding the pro life view. The argument is used for subjective situations, not matters of life and death. Pro lifers are just taking their opinions too far.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Homple,

    No. Abortion opponents always act in bad faith. I know this because libertarians and progressives believe it and say so all the time.


    I'm a libertarian and I say that abortion opponents act based on principle. I am an anti-abortionist. I believe abortion violates the NAP. It violates a person's right to life. It is the result of a moral failing, that of feeling superior to another person, in this case superior to the unborn. It is the most heinous crime imaginable.

    By the way, I am not religious; my stance is not based on belief but on the strict libertarian principle of "do no harm."

  • OldMexican||

    As you might imagine, I'm no fan of these laws, which add burdensome, costly, and medically unnecessary steps to abortion procedures in the name of attempted emotional manipulation.


    We can't have women fall in love with their unborn child, can we????? What would happen to the abortion industry if that ever happens?????

    Really, how the author dismisses the personhood of an unborn humna being just creeps me out. Not only is it ethically and logically inconsistent (pretty much the same as denying her own personhood(*) in a perfunctory way) it is just gross.

    (*)You don't believe me? Try this: Say "I am not a person." Then ask yourself, who is making that assertion, if not A person? If denying your own personhood is illogical, then what about denying the personhood of another human being? If you say you can do that, then *I* say *I* can do that too, about YOU. Let's see how far we get with such "logic" without making a hell on earth.

    Want to deny that a fetus is a human being? Ok, then *I* deny that YOU are a human being. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Evil people have justified their evil deeds by hiding behind "science" (like Eugenics). So do abortionists.

  • Mickey Rat||

    The pro-abortion side tends to beg the question of why the unborn don't have rights that don't need to be respected, and most fall back on rather emotion based arguments.

  • Mickey Rat||

    "I say "pointless" because the bulk of these are rooted not in medical or legal necessity but in some combination of desires to prevent women from getting abortions, to incite culture-war ire, and to force challenges in court."

    I say that characterization is dishonest. Is it really that dangerous to the abortion rights cause to accurately describe the motivations of the opposing side?

  • SlV||

    I say that characterization is dishonest.

    Either that or she's dumb as a fucking rock. I'm going with "dishonest".

  • Homple||

    Yeah, those we disagree with are either stupid or dishonest. No other possibility except, perhaps, "evil statist".

  • Mickey Rat||

    The motivations Brown ascribes to pro-lifers is simply wrong, and wrong in a way that puts them in a bad light, while putting the position she agrees with in a better light. Why do you think Brown did that?

  • RishJoMo||

    Sam Deeson says that will never happen.

    www.GotsDatAnon.tk

  • Azathoth!!||

    3 states require a woman to view an ultrasound image. 3. Read your cite.

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