New at Reason
Thirty-five years after Roe and about a month after Juno, Steve Chapman assesses which side is winning the abortion debate.
Comments to "New at Reason":
Dr. Freud | January 21, 2008, 7:25am | #
First Fred Thompson, now this !BillS | January 21, 2008, 12:22pm | #
I don't know of anyone who is actively for abortion. It is always an unpleasant choice.Maybe there are simpler reasons. Young middle-class women are not now ostracized for having a baby outside marriage, and their families can afford to support them and the child.
stephen the goldberger | January 21, 2008, 12:26pm | #
I also give credit to improved imaging technology, giving the fetus a more human appearance. Ultrasounds are now incredibly impressive looking, and give you a better idea of what the fetus actually looks like.As long as people have the choice, but choose not to exercise it because they don't like it, there's no problem.
Robert Seymour | January 21, 2008, 12:35pm | #
"Fred Thompson is a libertarian.""Abortion is wrong."
Wow. Nick Gillespe moves to Washington and all of a sudden Reason becomes an arm of the mainstream Republican party establishment.
Hey Reason, is distancing yourself from the Mises Institute and making friends in Washington more important than your principles?
If so, why work at Reason? Surely NR pays more.
It isn't surprising that attitudes on abortion have evolved. We've also elected George W. Bush, fallen behind the world in science and math education, and we can't keep our checkbooks straight as individuals or collectively. I agree with Episiarch, yet I suspect that we're moving towards are more cro-magnon society.
Steve Horwitz | January 21, 2008, 12:47pm | #
Acknowledging that abortion is a difficult choice and that it involves the death of a fetus doesn't necessitate that one waver in one's support for keeping abortion legal (and accessible). Whatever we think of the morality of the action, abortions will continue to be procured by some number of women and better they should do so in an environment that reduces the risks of doing so.I find it interesting when libertarians argue that legalizing drugs would be beneficial because it would cut down on drug-related violence and impure and dangerous drugs, while also making it easier for addicts to get help as they wouldn't have to worry about the legal issues even as they say "but I think using drugs are wrong" and then can't see that the argument for keeping abortion legal (even if you oppose it personally and think the fetus has some rights) has significant parallels.
My own view is that ultrasound technology and advances in our knowledge of fetal development have as much to do with young people feeling abortion is wrong than anything else.
I also cannot discount the so-called "Roe Effect." People who oppose abortion are more likely to have more kids than those who favor it, and if we assume that those kids are fairly likely to share their parents' views, the percentage of young folks opposing abortion will rise as a result.
Brent | January 21, 2008, 12:58pm | #
People are complaining about the Fred Thompson is a libertarian article - which they very well should - but I don't find this article offensive to libertarians.Abortion is a difficult issue, and libertarians are split on it (from the ones I know). You have Ron Paul and Andrew Napolitano on one side and Barry Goldwater and others on the other side.
I enjoyed this article though, good read. I'm not sure whether I am pro-life or pro-choice. Pro-choice 1st trimester pro-life 2nd and 3rd? I dono.
jj | January 21, 2008, 12:59pm | #
Good article. As a young person the article mirrors my feelings precisely, including that of many of my pro-choice friends.Karen | January 21, 2008, 1:01pm | #
I agree that abortion is never a pleasant choice. It's always the product of a set of bad things: a wanted pregnancy that goes wrong, a bad relationship, pregancy from a terrible or ill-advised sexual experience. That fact colors opinions of the practice in the abstract. The problem is that nothing ever happens in the abstract. If the woman-haters* ever succeed in banning abortion and everyone gets to see women going to jail or dying trying to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy, then expect opinions to change.As for improved ultrasounds reducing the number of abortions, that depends on the circumstances. Improved prenatal testing has meant that more than 90% of Down's Syndrome fetuses being aborted, so if improved ultrasounds make it less likely that teenagers with normal pregnancies decline abortion, it makes it less likely that fetuses with problems get carried to term.
*yeah, I know that's inflammatory language. It's also accurate. Antiabortion activists believe that woman are fragile helpless creatures in thrall to our uncontrollable emotions. The fact that this view can be summarized as "dimitted cowardly weaklings" should be enough proof that they really just don't like women.
jj | January 21, 2008, 1:01pm | #
At the very least I think that the fetus should be ejected from the metaphorical "boat" on which it is trespassing and be given a chance to fight for its life. With viability reaching as early as the first trimester, it's a sad state of affairs that some would insist on the fetus being sliced up rather than allowing it a chance to live independently.Why is it that in the media only two choices are considered, have an abortion or keep the baby? Why isn't adoption considered as an option? I suppose that anyone having a baby considers themselves to be the very best person to raise the child. Of course, they are often not the person to raise the child, the grandparents are saddled with the task. And if those people were such great parents, why are their children faced with this terrible decision?
A woman should have an absolute right to abort her child (at her own expense) for any reason whatsoever, up until the moment of birth. Then both parents have that right.
Daniel Reeves | January 21, 2008, 1:03pm | #
Abortion is not an easy issue, guys. There really is no libertarian stance. Most of the time, life and liberty and property can go together. Abortion is made into a life vs. liberty argument. This is a pretty moderate article.Now the Thompson one, that's completely different...
jj | January 21, 2008, 1:05pm | #
Warren: abort? eject? Or slice up. A tresspasser that wanders onto private property unintentionally should at least be offered the courtesy of a warning and an ejection, surely?some dude | January 21, 2008, 1:08pm | #
Star Trek went out of its way to tell stories on how the future society depicted in the show stamped out social injustices like poverty, crime, prejudice, and so on. As far as I know, it never touched abortion. In that future society, do people have free sex and have routine abortions? Maybe not, because contraception tech is so good and everyone uses it. But as far as I know, they never met a primitive planet where free sex and routine abortions. Would that make their socially just sensibilities squirm?Joshua Holmes | January 21, 2008, 1:09pm | #
Worse yet, the fetus didn't even "wander" into the womb. It's not a trespasser. By and large, fetuses come to be through the voluntary, if perhaps unintentional, actions of the person owning the body.You wouldn't think you could a starship owner could push anyone he doesn't like out of the nearest airlock. You wouldn't think you could shove someone into your crocodile-infested moat any time they overstay their welcome. Why would think you can butcher a child and eject it when it becomes inconvenient?
some dude | January 21, 2008, 1:10pm | #
Abortions cause global warming.If you could prove that, it would be an excellent way to get liberals to try to ban it.
R C Dean | January 21, 2008, 1:11pm | #
The abortion issue crosses up the usual libertarian template in so many ways.First, of course, the unresolvable issue of the personhood of the fetus.
Second, the issue of personal responsibility. Outside of rape, an abortion is the product of the woman's decision to have sex; many see an abortion as an attempt to avoid responsility for the foreseeable consequences of that decision.
Third, the inaptness of many of the usual libertarian tropes, such as treating the fetus as a "trespasser."
some dude | January 21, 2008, 1:11pm | #
Abortions cause global warming.If you could prove that, it would be an excellent way to get liberals to try to ban it.
Nevermind, I forgot for a second we were talking about liberals. If you could assert that convincingly, it would be a good way to get liberals to ban it.
Dave B. | January 21, 2008, 1:19pm | #
Just one thing I had to comment on from the article -In 1990, 30.4 percent of pregnancies ended in abortion. Last year, the figure was 22.4 percent.
If the use of contraceptives leads to fewer women getting pregnant, then a higher percentage of women who do get pregnant want to be pregnant. This statistic does not refute the idea that better contraception explains lower abortion rates.
Also, doesn't anyone else think that 22.4 percent of pregnancies ending in abortion seems absurdly high?
Dr. K. | January 21, 2008, 1:23pm | #
With viability reaching as early as the first trimester...A 12 week fetus isn't anywhere even close to viability.
jackanapestarian | January 21, 2008, 1:26pm | #
First, of course, the unresolvable issue of the personhoodIt's pretty resolvable that a sperm or an egg is not a person, and a zygote is not a person, and an embryo is almost but not quite a person. The only point in discussing it is when the clump of cells finally becomes a viable fetus. That's what anti-abortionists should concentrate on, and where they have the best chance of success.
Dr. K. | January 21, 2008, 1:27pm | #
Let's see. Abortions are:Safe
Legal
Getting Rarer
Sounds like a pro choice victory to me.
Michael Hardesty | January 21, 2008, 1:32pm | #
Rothbard as usual had the bestargument in The Ethics of Liberty.
What human being has the right to
remain inside the body of another
human being against that person's
will ? If males got pregnant abortion
would be a sacrament. The responsible
choice is to abort if you do not want
to be a mother. The irresponsible thing
is to bring these unwanted fetuses
to term.
Chapman has always been a conservative,
recall many pieces he penned for the
bloody Contras in the 80s, his "pro-life"
credentials are nonexistent.
crimethink | January 21, 2008, 1:51pm | #
Good article, but it would be nice to dig deeper into why people have a distaste for abortion. If an unborn is really just a lump of cells deserving of no legal protection whatsoever, why is removing it so distasteful?It's like when someone says, "I personally oppose abortion, but I think it should be a woman's right to choose," I ask, "Why do you personally oppose it?" They're pretty much never able to give me an answer to that question without admitting that the unborn have some right to life.
Daniel Reeves | January 21, 2008, 1:51pm | #
Abortion should be legal up until the 54th trimester.17 years of age?
LarryA | January 21, 2008, 1:51pm | #
The abortion rate among women of childbearing age has declined by 29 percent.Uh, who else has them?
Also, doesn't anyone else think that 22.4 percent of pregnancies ending in abortion seems absurdly high?
Yeah. One out of every five conceptions ends in abortion? Source?
What human being has the right to remain inside the body of another human being against that person's will?
What human being, placed in that position through no fault of his own, deserves the death penalty? If someone dumped a helpless, starving person in my home I doubt I'd be found justified in shooting him. I don't think even denying him food would be the moral choice.
Yet I don't want the government to prohibit abortion, because I believe that cure is worse than the problem.
Kolohe | January 21, 2008, 1:53pm | #
I don't know of anyone who is actively for abortion. It is always an unpleasant choice.Next week, Roe v. Wade is celebrating its 35th Anniversary. And Feministing wants to party.
crimethink | January 21, 2008, 1:54pm | #
A 12 week fetus isn't anywhere even close to viability.It's only a matter of time before that changes -- a 28-week fetus was barely viable at the time of RvW. Viability isn't an inherent characteristic of a fetus, it's dependent on the level of technology and skill of the surrounding society. Thus, it doesn't make sense as a criterion of "personhood".
Kolohe | January 21, 2008, 1:55pm | #
FWIW, I agree with Steve HorowitzSxCx | January 21, 2008, 1:56pm | #
For anyone seeking insight on how abortions are handled in the context of extreme prohibition, I suggest you watch a new Romanian film called Four Months, Three Weeks, and Two Days, directed and written by Cristian Mungiu.It's an incredibly blunt and well-told story, and has the potential to make both sides of the debate very uncomfortable.
SxCx | January 21, 2008, 1:57pm | #
It won the Palme d'Or in Cannes last year, if that's any incentive...jackanapestarian | January 21, 2008, 1:59pm | #
What it boils down to is not so much what constitutes a "person" but what constitutes "viability". Then there is "viable" on its own vs. "viable" with the aid of 2 months in intensive care and a couple million dollars worth of medical bills. So the issue will never be resolved satisfactorily. Indeed, advances in science and medicine have made the debate all that much more difficult.crimethink | January 21, 2008, 2:01pm | #
When the Supreme Court legalized abortion in 1973, most people had little understanding of fetal development.Exactly why it baffles me that pro-choicers can claim that theirs is the "scientific" position while the pro-life position is "emotional", when the developments in embryology in the past 35 years have all pointed to earlier and earlier development of human characteristics in the unborn. Seriously, the SCOTUS based their ruling that life begins at birth on the biological insights of Thomas Aquinas and the ancient Greek Stoics.
crimethink | January 21, 2008, 2:03pm | #
It won the Palme d'Or in Cannes last year, if that's any incentive...Film festival liberals approve of pro-choice propaganda? You've got to be kidding me.
Salvius | January 21, 2008, 2:04pm | #
In that future society, do people have free sex and have routine abortions? Maybe not, because contraception tech is so good and everyone uses it.Force-field condoms never break.
Shields up!
douglas gray | January 21, 2008, 2:04pm | #
It has always been a thorney issue for Libertarians; does the right to life extend to the fetus, or is it just the right of the mother to choose?Part of it is modern technology. My nephew and his girl just had a baby, and you can see the the fetus yawning, and doing other human things via sonagram.
The difference between abortion and infanticide is not huge in my mind. You're killing someone whose going to be a person fairly soon.
crimethink | January 21, 2008, 2:05pm | #
Then there is "viable" on its own vs. "viable" with the aid of 2 months in intensive care and a couple million dollars worth of medical bills.Well, a person with diabetes doesn't qualify for the first kind of viable. So if you try to exclude the unborn, you're going to exclude a lot of already-born people as well.
jj | January 21, 2008, 2:06pm | #
According to wiki we are down to a birth at 21 weeks and 5 days with survival and full health.I thought I remembered a viable birth in England at 16 weeks, but I must be mistaken.
As crimethink states, the number is dropping, and will continue to drop, and has nothing to do with the personhood of the fetus, more to do with practical implications.
Once surrogate (or artificial) wombs are viable, and they have been relatively successful with goats, there will be even greater pressure to view this issue from more angles than just woman's choice.
R C Dean | January 21, 2008, 2:06pm | #
It's pretty resolvable that a sperm or an egg is not a person, and a zygote is not a person, and an embryo is almost but not quite a person.What it boils down to is not so much what constitutes a "person" but what constitutes "viability".
When a fetus becomes a person is the cental issue around abortion. You can't kill a person except in self-defense, after all, so the transition from "clump o' cells" to "person" is the central issue in the debate. Unlike most, libertarians at least recognize this issue.
The first two months (conception through the "embryo" stage) is relatively easy for non-religious folks to agree on, fine. At what point after that do you grant personhood (and presumably, outlaw abortion)?
Viability is often used as a handy shorthand for personhood, although as viability becomes more artificial with advancing technology I'm not sure that it really works any more.
jj | January 21, 2008, 2:07pm | #
James Gill, born in Ottawa in 1987 at 128 days survived and is healthy today.Amanda | January 21, 2008, 2:09pm | #
This is a bad article, it is bad science. The 'pro-life' people don't care about life, they want to control womens bodies to keep them barefoot and pregnant. It is all part of the master plan by the hierarchical patriarchy to control women.Something needs to be done to increase the number of abortions performed. Ultrasound should be banned because it may reduce abortions.
Everyone knows a fetus is just a clump of cells, like a blood clot. Life begins when it is wanted.
SxCx | January 21, 2008, 2:10pm | #
crimethink:If you watched the movie, I think you'd have a hard time labeling it propaganda. As I hinted above, it offers no haven to either side.
crimethink | January 21, 2008, 2:14pm | #
It's pretty resolvable that a sperm or an egg is not a person, and a zygote is not a person, and an embryo is almost but not quite a person.Well, a sperm or egg has only half the human complement of chromosomes, and can't grow into anything else, so clearly those are not persons. But I haven't seen any convincing arguments that a zygote isn't -- usually that question is dismissed with an appeal to "obviousness"...and I'm not sure what "almost but not quite" really means in the context of personhood.
jj | January 21, 2008, 2:14pm | #
This is a bad article, it is bad science. The 'pro-life' people don't care about life, they want to control womens bodies to keep them barefoot and pregnant. It is all part of the master plan by the hierarchical patriarchy to control women.Something needs to be done to increase the number of abortions performed. Ultrasound should be banned because it may reduce abortions.
Everyone knows a fetus is just a clump of cells, like a blood clot. Life begins when it is wanted.
"Life begins when it it wanted." I love it!
NoStar | January 21, 2008, 2:17pm | #
Every sperm is sacred!http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8
cut & paste or click on my name.
SxCx | January 21, 2008, 2:24pm | #
"Out of the womb, into the orphanage!"Joel | January 21, 2008, 2:25pm | #
50+ comments and this thread isn't about Ron Paul yet?Life begins when it's wanted.
So...next time I shoot a trespasser, my legal defense could be...
Zeb | January 21, 2008, 2:25pm | #
On both abortion and drugs, I boil things down to the following principal: Anything a person wants to put into or take out of his or her own body is that person's business alone.Laws shouldn't be made simply because something is immoral or wrong. If something is going to be forbidden, there needs to be a demonstrable good in such a prohibition. Murder needs to be illegal not because the bible says so or because it is inherently immoral (though I certainly would say that it is), but because it is necessary for a functioning society. There is no such necessity served by banning or restricting abortion.
brotherben | January 21, 2008, 2:26pm | #
and in many peoples' book, a woman that would abort her child is an unwanted form of life.brotherben | January 21, 2008, 2:28pm | #
many believe that abortion is murder and making it illegal is a necessary part of society.SxCx | January 21, 2008, 2:29pm | #
Fuck, here's an interesting libertarian angle on the pro-life perspective: state custody of unwanted children!It's endemic in Europe, especially Eastern Bloc countries. Do pro-life libertarians accept that promoting adoption over abortion may mean a gross swelling of the public sector to accommodate the surplus of unwanted children?
Will the market come to the rescue yet again? Will new industries flourish? Has this actually happened anywhere?
Lamar | January 21, 2008, 2:33pm | #
"The abortion issue crosses up the usual libertarian template in so many ways.First, of course, the unresolvable issue of the personhood of the fetus."
So when we can't resolve the issue, our default position is state control? Fascinating....
In fact, the unresolvable issue is the main argument why libertarians are in favor of choice. Every single miscarriage could lead to a prosecution of some sort. This is why somebody can oppose abortion but be pro-choice.
JayDubya | January 21, 2008, 2:34pm | #
I'm a libertarian through and through, but a state that doesn't punish aggression is no state at all.Victimless crimes are no one's business. But we as human beings have unalienable rights, and the state exists to protect the innocent from aggression against those rights.
R C Dean | January 21, 2008, 2:35pm | #
Anything a person wants to put into or take out of his or her own body is that person's business alone.This presumes that a fetus is a "thing" and not a person, which is begging the question.
Laws shouldn't be made simply because something is immoral or wrong. If something is going to be forbidden, there needs to be a demonstrable good in such a prohibition. Murder needs to be illegal not because the bible says so or because it is inherently immoral (though I certainly would say that it is), but because it is necessary for a functioning society.
"Necessary to a functioning society" strikes me as both overbroad and underinclusive as a test for the legitimacy of law. Both the terms "necessary" and "functioning society" are almost infinitely malleable.
As for abortion, it is difficult to imagine a society that does not maintain the minimum replacement reproduction rate as surviving any length of time, so I think there is pretty straightforward argument that prohibiting abortion, and perhaps birth control, is necessary for the continued existence of a functioning society. I wouldn't agree with such an argument, but there it is.
SxCx | January 21, 2008, 2:36pm | #
Every single miscarriage could lead to a prosecution of some sort."Your shitty diet killed this thing! There are no accidents! Gavel bang!"
jackanapestarian | January 21, 2008, 2:37pm | #
Well, a person with diabetes doesn't qualify for the first kind of viableBut a person with diabetes is already an actual person, not a fetus. So that's not a valid example.
R C Dean | January 21, 2008, 2:37pm | #
So when we can't resolve the issue, our default position is state control? Fascinating. . .There's a legitimate argument that the default position should be in favor of personhood. We tend to reject definitions of personhood that would exclude the disabled, for example.
Monkey Of Fear | January 21, 2008, 2:38pm | #
I am a reformed Republican, a Bush voter in the 2000 election whose distaste for his aggressive anti-liberty initiatives after the inauguration caused me to pause and wonder "Am I really in agreement with this guy and his followers opinions and actions"? After some gut-wrenching months of wrestling with what I truly believed, 9/11 occurred.It took a matter of weeks after that tragedy for me to leave Bush, and the party, for good. The Patriot Act was the final straw. By my good fortune, at the same time that this occurred(late 2001), my very first issue of Reason arrived in the mail. I have never been the same ... as I discovered that I am libertarian, and always have been. But there is one issue that has loomed over my transition from Bush voter to radical libertarian.
This is the abortion issue. As a person that employs reason as a guide, I cannot muster anything but disgust at the thought of abortion. For a community that relies so heavily upon reason, and an unstinting belief in the efficacy of science as a reliable guide, there seems to be a strange inclination towards anti-scientific thought on this issue.
In fact, any reasonable person should be able to acknowledge the disconnect between the majority-libertarian views on evolution and abortion. One is informed by and reliant upon science and its proofs. Another readily dispenses with science as irrelevant or with an "oh well" shrug of the shoulders that is oddly similar to attitudes taken by the anti-evolutionists that many of you are so quick to lampoon and criticize.
Why? I have my own theories as to why this exists, but I would like a thoughtful response from someone that is libertarian, pro-science, a believer in evolution, personal liberty and is yet pro-abortion. Please , do tell ...
Nadnerb Tsorf | January 21, 2008, 2:38pm | #
Since I am opposed to killing innocent human beings, I am opposed to induced abortion. I also think the law should address the wrongness of killing the innocent. That is my rational argument. To understand my passion, look at an aborted fetus---another helpless boy or girl done to death, the victim of legalized, privatized, medicalized bloody tyranny.R C Dean | January 21, 2008, 2:40pm | #
But a person with diabetes is already an actual person, not a fetus. So that's not a valid example.This begs the question, since the original argument seemed to be that we shouldn't consider someone worthy of personhood if they weren't viable, and that we shouldn't consider them viable if they required extensive medical support.
Pointing out that we don't deprive others of personhood based on their medical needs seems like a legitimate response to the claim that premies can't be people because they're expensive to keep alive.
adrian | January 21, 2008, 2:45pm | #
the way i see it, nothing bad has ever come about from having an abortion, except to maybe the mother/father to be.conversely (inversely?) i can see plenty of good that could have been done by aborting many of the people around today.
so, abortion = net gain
x,y | January 21, 2008, 2:49pm | #
Since 1990, the number of abortions has dropped from 1.61 million to 1.21 million.Do you mean per year?
stuartl | January 21, 2008, 2:51pm | #
Do pro-life libertarians accept that promoting adoption over abortion may mean a gross swelling of the public sector to accommodate the surplus of unwanted children?Given what people currently go through to adopt children, my guess is that there will be no surplus. Of course selling children has certain moral issues as well.
so, abortion = net gain
Freakonomics certainly agreed, and correlated abortions with future lowered crime rates (the aborted children were not around to commit crimes).
Lamar | January 21, 2008, 2:53pm | #
"There's a legitimate argument that the default position should be in favor of personhood."And there's an equally valid argument that taking away a person's right to control what happens with their own body takes away the personhood of an adult. There's no smoking gun argument that protecting lumps of cells is pro-personhood anymore than outlawing masturbation and menstruation. But there are grounds to say that stripping a person of their own medical choices denies them their humanity.
You see it as killing a person, I see it as a person controlling their own body.
More importantly, I respect your ability to properly use "begs the question."
JayDubya | January 21, 2008, 2:55pm | #
"But there is one issue that has loomed over my transition from Bush voter to radical libertarian.This is the abortion issue. As a person that employs reason as a guide, I cannot muster anything but disgust at the thought of abortion. For a community that relies so heavily upon reason, and an unstinting belief in the efficacy of science as a reliable guide, there seems to be a strange inclination towards anti-scientific thought on this issue."
Yeah, I'm an atheist myself and my main field of study in college was biology. My knowledge of science only reinforces my belief that abortion is fundamentally wrong. And the usual debate opponents (not saying you guys, not saying other libertarians even), don't know basic science and they stick to political opinions or personal philosophy.
I know what it means to be biologically "alive." I know the definition of a species is (i.e. that ain't a chimpanzee fetus in there).
So based on raw logic, facts, science, whatever, we're dealing with a living member of our species.
"Yeah, but is it a human? Is it a person?" That's not really science anymore. I believe in natural human rights, and that's my political opinion, but it's one most libertarians share.
I would say that any living member of our species is a person, and the initiation of violent or coercive force against them is wrong. Which is a strong moral basis for condemning societal injustice (aggressive war, genocide, slavery, etc), and it also so happens to cut this way on the abortion issue.
SxCx | January 21, 2008, 2:56pm | #
Philosophy aside, abortion is for the most part a political question. We can debate its wrongness or rightness, but that still won't change the fact that at least for now, it will happen. Neither side can dispute this. When something is illegal, it still happens. The drug war has evidenced this time and time again.So since this thing is still going to happen, no matter what level of rhetoric we reach, the question becomes not WHY but HOW. In a clinic? In a basement? With professionals? With opportunists? With supervision? With luck?
It's a political question, it's public policy. Something that all libertarians struggle with by nature.
Amanda | January 21, 2008, 2:57pm | #
Bush opposes abortion, but he supports the death penalty, that makes him a hyprocrite. If he was so anti-killing how can he support the death penalty.If Jesus were alive today he would support abortion because he would want women to have the best health care available.
JayDubya | January 21, 2008, 3:03pm | #
@SxCx:Right, but drug use is a victimless crime, hurting no one besides the user, the one that wants to be hurt or at least doesn't care if they hurt themselves.
The wrong-headedness of the early 20th Century left's alcohol prohibition had little to do with whether or not prohibition actually worked. It was wrong because it's none of government's business what you drink or shoot up or smoke.
Certainly, when you make something illegal, you create a black market for it.
But that is no basis for abandoning all law. Murder is illegal, but there is a market for hitmen. Slavery is illegal, but there are human traffickers.
When someone violently infringes upon the rights of another, that act deserves punishment, and for this reason we have governments and the rule of law.
SxCx | January 21, 2008, 3:04pm | #
This is why libertarians don't recognize each other in these debates. Because it turns one side into eager adherents of state control, in territory that just feels abusive and overreaching.Monkey Of Fear | January 21, 2008, 3:05pm | #
SxCx ... you just proved my point. Notice that you didn't say " Science aside, abortion is for the most part a political question". No, you said "philosophy". There is no philosophy here. Either we are dealing with science as a guide, or we're not. Libertarians cannot have it both ways ... they cannot, with anything resembling intellectual credibility, knock the anti-evolutionists for being so frighteningly ignorant, and then ignorantly flee from science at the first convenient opportunity. You know how many of you feel when you hear the kooks talk about a 6000 year old earth? Thats how many people feel when they hear libertarians refer to the abortion issue in "philosophical" terms.Steve Horwitz | January 21, 2008, 3:07pm | #
Again, one can admit that the fetus has some elements of personhood and understand all the science involved, yet still be pro-choice. The fact remains that women are going to choose to have abortions, even if it's made illegal. (Again, how libertarians could deny this when the drugs and alcohol analogy is so strong baffles me.)Given that abortions will still happen, I would much rather that they happened in as safe and accessible way as possible, and that can only happen if they are legal.
Yes, this means that the rights and interests of fully developed adult human beings take precedent over those of "persons to be." As others have noted, the question here is not when the fetus is human, but when it is a person. Personhood is not a biological concept.
Faced with a tradeoff between the deaths of many zygotes/fetuses versus the physical and mental dangers to just as many fully-developed female persons, I will choose to put the latter higher in my consequentialist tally.
I'll also add that I agree with the spirit of many of the comments here that for some elements of the pro-life movement, this is just as much about controlling women and their sexuality as it is about anything else.
JayDubya | January 21, 2008, 3:11pm | #
@ Steve, that's probably rather unfair given where you're arguing.I have no interest in controlling anyone. I have no gender preferences or desire to push a religious ideology.
A anti-abortion libertarian is deeply concerned about the natural rights of the being that is slain.
I'm not sure if I buy the market argument that he seems to put forth, that there are less abortions because the services are in less demand...I would say there is an enourmous amount of intimidation involved as well. I live near the planned parenthood and there are always people out there blocking the entrance or chanting something.
Amanda | January 21, 2008, 3:14pm | #
A anti-abortion libertarian is deeply concerned about the natural rights of the being that is slain.
No one is slain; everyone knows that life begins when it is wanted, it isn't alive if it is not wanted, it is a 'potential' person not an actual person, those are the facts.
SxCx | January 21, 2008, 3:16pm | #
JayDubya:I understand the need to punish murderers. The difficulty is moreso that abortion is a more elusive, private, and seemingly victimless situation that killing a born human in cold blood. Pro-life rhetoric can be unconvincing because despite thorough argumentation, the death of a fetus simply seems less significant to a large portion of the population.
It then follows: do you want to foster a political climate where force is authorized against otherwise moral and life-affirming human beings? My concern, despite maintaining pro-life sympathies, is that prohibition would create a bigger nightmare.
Amanda | January 21, 2008, 3:17pm | #
I live near the planned parenthood and there are always people out there blocking the entrance or chanting something.That should be illegal, you have the right to an opinion, but no one has the right to tell a woman what she can do with her body.
I believe it should be illegal to show pictures of fetuses because that can result in less abortions.
JayDubya | January 21, 2008, 3:17pm | #
"No one is slain; everyone knows that life begins when it is wanted, it isn't alive if it is not wanted, it is a 'potential' person not an actual person, those are the facts."Actually, Amanda, there are no facts at all in what you are saying.
I'm not sure if you're appealing to authority, or appealing to the bandwagon, but I must say that in either case, you're going for the wrong kind of argument when talking to this crowd.
JayDubya | January 21, 2008, 3:19pm | #
"That should be illegal, you have the right to an opinion, but no one has the right to tell a woman what she can do with her body.I believe it should be illegal to show pictures of fetuses because that can result in less abortions."
So you don't respect the right to free speech, OR the freedom to peaceably assemble?
And you're posting on Reason.com because... uhhh...?
SxCx | January 21, 2008, 3:19pm | #
Monkey Of Fear:I don't get it. Did I lash out against creationism somewhere?
JayDubya | January 21, 2008, 3:22pm | #
"I understand the need to punish murderers. The difficulty is moreso that abortion is a more elusive, private, and seemingly victimless situation that killing a born human in cold blood. Pro-life rhetoric can be unconvincing because despite thorough argumentation, the death of a fetus simply seems less significant to a large portion of the population."Perhaps, but the death of a slave was once regarded as a mere loss of property. And the mere clandestine nature of most abortions means little - most intentional, premeditated acts of murder are done in secret, and the body is disposed of.
Amanda | January 21, 2008, 3:23pm | #
So you don't respect the right to free speech, OR the freedom to peaceably assemble?I do respect those rights, but the right to abortion is the most fundamental right womyn have. Without it no other rights are of consequense.
Free speech has limits, protesting abortion is a RICO violation.
Monkey Of Fear | January 21, 2008, 3:26pm | #
Amanda ... "womyn"? LMFAO ... so, what is the most fundamental right a man has?? You feminazis are truly funny people.SxCx | January 21, 2008, 3:28pm | #
Perhaps, but the death of a slave was once regarded as a mere loss of property. And the mere clandestine nature of most abortions means little - most intentional, premeditated acts of murder are done in secret, and the body is disposed of.
It may mean little to you. I think many folks feel more innately repelled at the thought of post-birth murder than an abortion, which seems almost quaint in comparison. This is why careful persuasion will be the only thing that truly eradicates abortion. Prohibition will simply fund tragedy and outrage. The drug war parallels are awkward but unavoidable.
JayDubya | January 21, 2008, 3:29pm | #
"I do respect those rights, but the right to abortion is the most fundamental right womyn have. Without it no other rights are of consequense."Well, Amanda, I would argue that every human's most fundamental right is the freedom from fatal and violent aggression being inflicted upon them.
If we don't have that right then how do we have any civilization at all? If that right does not extend to the smallest and the weakest, how can that civilization be worthy of the name?
"Free speech has limits, protesting abortion is a RICO violation."
Um. No. Not at all.
Margryt | January 21, 2008, 3:32pm | #
Go Amanda!! Yeah!! Don't forget to tell 'em about the "soul wheel"!!Lamar | January 21, 2008, 3:39pm | #
Perhaps caffeine should be outlawed for pregnant women, and since we can't really tell which women are pregnant, we have to assume that they all are (if we are to err on the side of life). Caffeine may lead to 2x the miscarriages. Prohibit pregnant women from caffeine?Could all this be becuase pro abortion people are having fewer children. BTW if abortion is not evil then it is very good. It can reduce the disabeld population. It can provide sex selection it can help in many ways. etc. If abortion is not evil then it is indeed very good.
NeonCat | January 21, 2008, 3:42pm | #
I have struggled with the abortion issue for a long time. While I believe that life is sacred, I also believe women should not be slaves to their uteri. A wanted fetus is a person, an unwanted one a parasite may not be popular, but, frankly, it's the truth. If one believes that you own your body, and I do believe this, then how can you say to a woman who has an unwanted pregnancy that because of an accident that she must carry an organism to term, must go through the profound physiological and mental changes that come with pregnancy, and only then, to suit your morality, must give up the baby (now an acknowledged, human being) for adoption? At least nine months of involuntary servitude because a sperm and ova combined and lodged in a uterine wall.If it's God's will, then surely God ought to know who is going to abort the fetus and who isn't.
I regret the necessity of abortion, but I do not regret that it is available to women who need it.
JayDubya | January 21, 2008, 3:51pm | #
@ NeonCat:"A wanted fetus is a person, an unwanted one a parasite may not be popular, but, frankly, it's the truth."
This is what I meant when I said that a lot of people throw around philosophy without basis in science.
A parasite? Come on now. A Homo sapiens cannot act as a parasite in another Homo sapiens. That's part of the definition of the word, for crying out loud.
One person's will should not determine the worth of another.
And certainly, you own your own body, but through engaging in certain consensual activities, one arguably gives their informed consent to "lease it."
Monkey Of Fear | January 21, 2008, 3:52pm | #
A parasite? Perhaps you should look up the definition of that word ... your assertion is patently absurd. Women who spread their legs for sex are already making the "choice"... 99.9% of women who engage in sexual activities are well aware that sex could lead to pregnancy. I have never understood the "unwanted" or "parasite" argument ... once again, an appalling lack of scientific knowledge is on display here.Libertarians and liberals are wholly out of touch with reason on this question. No one libertarian has been able to satisfactorily answer my question on abortion in these last six years. In my mind, it is the libertarians Achilles heel. It betrays profound mendacity and hypocrisy, particularly when you consider the typical libertarian line on immigration, human rights, non-violence, and the science/evolution issue.
Nobody Important | January 21, 2008, 3:55pm | #
Lamar | January 21, 2008, 2:33pmCan somebody be anti-choice on every other issue (eg: drugs, guns, property, taxes, school) but still claim the mantle of "pro-choice" simply because they favor legalized abortion?
This is why somebody can oppose abortion but be pro-choice.
JayDubya | January 21, 2008, 3:59pm | #
@ Nobody Important"Can somebody be anti-choice on every other issue (eg: drugs, guns, property, taxes, school) but still claim the mantle of "pro-choice" simply because they favor legalized abortion?"
Why not? Democrats do it all the time.
shecky | January 21, 2008, 4:06pm | #
NeonCat has it right. An unwanted fetus is a parasite. The state has no more right to dictate a woman play host to such a thing than it has forcing someone to be a kidney donor.It seems that your hypothetical person believes that people should be told what to do (perhaps because people are base, evil sinners?), and that the need to control people's lives includes abortion. Only here, they believe that abortion is good, and that people should be told to have abortions.
JayDubya | January 21, 2008, 4:11pm | #
@ Shecky"NeonCat has it right. An unwanted fetus is a parasite. The state has no more right to dictate a woman play host to such a thing than it has forcing someone to be a kidney donor."
No, and this is the last time I will say it nicely, this is patently false based on the very definition of the word "parasite."
Ugh.
shecky | January 21, 2008, 4:12pm | #
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/parasiteSounds very much like an unwanted fetus.
Lamar | January 21, 2008, 4:13pm | #
It isn't a parasite, tumor, neoplasia, or anything other than what it is: a groups of cells somewhere between a zygote and a President of the United States.Of course, copyright infringement isn't "piracy" but that doesn't stop the disingenuous freaks from using that word anyway. And abortion isn't murder. So let's all use the actual words, 'kay?
JayDubya | January 21, 2008, 4:13pm | #
@ sheckyOh, so we're going to use layman definitions rather than scientific ones?
Okay.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/baby
No, it's a baby.
de stijl | January 21, 2008, 4:14pm | #
Monkey of Fear and / or JayDubya,How do you scientifically determine personhood? Do you believe that a fertilized ovum is a person? A blastsphere, an embryo, etc?
Do women gain or lose any rights in determining the outcome of her pregnancy if she were raped, the condom broke, she used the pill perfectly but still got unlucky (0.3% failure rate)?
JayDubya | January 21, 2008, 4:15pm | #
Also, "an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment."OF ANOTHER SPECIES.
R C Dean | January 21, 2008, 4:16pm | #
An unwanted fetus is a parasite.See my 1:11 post re the inaptness of many libertarian tropes.
I mean, seriously folks, do you really want to stake a person's claim to personhood or parasite status on whether or not somebody else wants them?
Martin Luther Viscount | January 21, 2008, 4:16pm | #
The abortion rate among women of childbearing age has declined by 29 percent.Yeah, but it's skyrocketed among women of non-childbearing age.
I must say, this has been one of the more entertaining abortion threads.
shecky | January 21, 2008, 4:18pm | #
The unwanted fetus is a parasite. A wanted fetus is a baby. This is a crucial difference. It's not scientific. Once again, the state has no right to force anyone to play physical host to another organism. Not donate an organ. Not donate blood. Not carry a fetus. Any of all of those things may be good and even noble. But it's none of the state's business.Martin Luther Viscount | January 21, 2008, 4:23pm | #
I guess I'm fundamentally pro-choice, but since contraceptives are widely available nowadays, as is the Plan B pill, women can get the chance of getting pregnant down to zero (like if you're on the pill, man uses condom, plus you take morning after pill, then if you do get pregnant, it's gotta be some kind of golden child sent to this world from some kind of diety). Thus, it seems to me that the moment of choice act should occur when you choose to have less than fully protected sex.That being said, if a woman was raped or forceably not allowed to use contraceptive, then abortion should be an option (I guess you'd have to take the woman's word on it, hmmm..).
Plus, if a woman's life or long-term health is at danger, it should for real be legal.
It would seem that a woman using the pill her whole life is stamping out more life than a woman who has an abortion after 3 kids.
Nadnerb Tsorf | January 21, 2008, 4:30pm | #
Shecky, if an unwanted fetus is a parasite and a wanted fetus is a baby, then what would you call an unwanted newborn? A baby or a parasite?Will someone speak to the strong caffeine argument made earlier? I have to go take care of my "parasite."
shecky | January 21, 2008, 4:33pm | #
The way I see it, a person's claim to personhood or parasite status isn't the issue. A person's claim to the most fundamental freedom, the control over one's body, is the issue.If the state can compel you to use your body in a way it sees fit, in this case, be a physical host to another person, all arguments against being a metaphorical host to another person pretty much wither away.
Monkey Of Fear | January 21, 2008, 4:33pm | #
de stijl ... If a baby can breathe, has heartbeats and brainwaves, it is alive. What is so hard to understand about this? I simply love how certain people attempt to ignore the hard science on this ... this isn't philosophy 101. It's science people ...Lamar | January 21, 2008, 4:35pm | #
"If a baby can breathe, has heartbeats and brainwaves, it is alive."Tell that to Terry Schiavo.
shecky | January 21, 2008, 4:35pm | #
Shecky, if an unwanted fetus is a parasite and a wanted fetus is a baby, then what would you call an unwanted newborn? A baby or a parasite?Absent being physically hosted by another, a newborn is for all intents and purposes, a person. They don't regain parasite status until the teen years.
Monkey Of Fear | January 21, 2008, 4:39pm | #
shecky ... having control over one's own body isn't the issue, though deluded pro-choice people use that as a handy reason to justify their absurdities. The issue is control over another human being. If, in the year 2008, you cannot acknowledge that a fetus that has heartbeats and brainwaves, breathes, has hair, fingernails, can feel and respond to pain, smiles, hiccups, laughs and dreams is indeed a person, you are as ignorant as flat-earthers and those that believe that the Earth is 6000 years old.You are entitled to your ignorance, and as a libertarian, I welcome all points of view, no matter how inane. However, it does irk me that the inanity and ignorance is presently interwoven into official government policy. There's nothing new there!!
robc | January 21, 2008, 4:39pm | #
According to wiki we are down to a birth at 21 weeks and 5 days with survival and full health.My google search found 21 weeks and 6 days. Without checking wiki, maybe its the same. This was in Miami in late 2006.
shecky | January 21, 2008, 4:43pm | #
If, in the year 2008, you cannot acknowledge that a fetus that has heartbeats and brainwaves, breathes, has hair, fingernails, can feel and respond to pain, smiles, hiccups, laughs and dreams is indeed a person,Did I ever deny this?
Contrary to what you say, having control over one's own body is very much THE the issue here.
robc | January 21, 2008, 4:43pm | #
jj,Just saw your James Gill post. The girl in Miami was only 10 ounces, vs his 1 lb, 6 ounces. He was earlier though.
Monkey Of Fear | January 21, 2008, 4:46pm | #
Lamar ... good point and I am glad you brought that up. Here is the salient point: the baby is killed. The baby had no choice to express his/her will. Schiavo was allowed to die, i.e., nature was allowed to take it's course. BIG difference my friend.Monkey Of Fear | January 21, 2008, 4:47pm | #
shecky ... if you acknowledge that the baby has that very person-like attributes, then your point of view is precisely as I stated it to be: absurd.Monkey Of Fear | January 21, 2008, 4:47pm | #
read that as *those* in the last postMonkey Of Fear | January 21, 2008, 4:49pm | #
Any attempt to conflate the Schiavo case, or any like it, with abortion is an exercise in warped logic.Lamar | January 21, 2008, 4:49pm | #
"The issue is control over another human being."Well, now that we're calling people names, let's look at how stupid your idiotic argument is. The whole time you are arguing about controlling another person's body for the sake of preventing them from controlling another person's body. Two wrongs make a right?
"heartbeats and brainwaves, breathes, has hair, fingernails, can feel and respond to pain, smiles, hiccups, laughs and dreams."
Pardon me for not being impressed. Partly because you are confusing different periods in a pregnancy for the disingenuous overall effect, and partly because I'm thinking, Terri Schiavo? Perhaps the fact that YOU THINK HAIR MAKES ONE HUMAN makes me wonder if you have a screw loose.
The fact is that until assholes like you realize that the argument isn't clear-cut, we will continue to be a cro-magnon country.
I will respect the RC Deans of the world. I can't respect the knuckle draggers whose world-view was taken with a pin-hole camera.
Marie | January 21, 2008, 4:50pm | #
"I agree that abortion is never a pleasant choice."You are mistaken. I have worked with pregnant and parenting teen moms in a hard-core urban setting. There are woman that choose abortion as their only form of birth control. It's not uncommon for this subset to have several abortions; for them it's akin to getting one's teeth cleaned.
shecky | January 21, 2008, 4:50pm | #
Monkey o' Fear:That a person has heartbeats and brainwaves, breathes, has hair, fingernails, can feel and respond to pain, smiles, hiccups, laughs and dreams, is not the issue. The state must not have the ability to force me to physically host that person so he can live. Even if he's a really, really cute little child.
Suppose Schiavo (or anyone else) simply needed a kidney to live. Your kidney, and nobody else's. The state should force you to give it up. Does that sound absurd?
Over50 | January 21, 2008, 4:52pm | #
I couldn't read all these tedious comments, so I'll just assume that nobody's said this already. It's not a difficult phenomenon, the analysis does not have to be complicated. It has nothing to do morality or civil rights. This is the one true answer:When baby boomers used drugs they (the drugs) were a sacrament, when the boomers got older came the war on drugs.
When baby boomers wanted to drink the drinking age fell, until their kids wanted to drink at 18.
When baby boomers became the sandwich generation (i.e. the first generation to have both parents *and* children, yeah, I know) they needed help, and on and on until. . .
SHAZAM: baby boomers' grandkids are being aborted. This can't be right.
Wait ten years, we'll find the wrinklies have discovered the right to own a tax payer funded Lexus, a winter home in the caribbean and pharmacare for viagra.
As I said, this is not a complex issue.
Lamar | January 21, 2008, 4:52pm | #
MonkeyofFear: Nice try on the Schiavo misdirection. You have to decide if modern medicine is a factor in whether a death is OK or not. You're trying to disregard modern medicine when it hurts your case, but you are more than happy to use it to talk about babies dreaming and playing hopscotch in the womb, and you also rely on modern medicine to make premature babies viable earlier in the pregnancy.The Terri Schiavo reference was a trap to expose your blatant hypocrisy.
Donny Blue | January 21, 2008, 4:53pm | #
First they came for the unviable fetuses,But I said nothing, as I was viable.
Lamar | January 21, 2008, 4:53pm | #
"There are woman that choose abortion as their only form of birth control."I don't give a crap if it's their only form of acne control. It's their body, not yours.
Hversham III | January 21, 2008, 4:55pm | #
"I don't give a crap if it's their only form of acne control. It's their body, not yours."Still, it's awefully stupid...
Salvius | January 21, 2008, 5:01pm | #
Just to toss out an irrelevant, but interesting fact: Many years ago, I visited the International Museum of Surgical Science in Chicago, and I remember an exhibit there saying that the legal status of abortions over the years has been highly correlated with the technological question of whether abortions were more or less likely to result in the mother's death than carrying the baby to term. That is, during those times when childbirth was more deadly to the mother than abortions, abortions have been legal. During those times when abortions were more deadly to the mother, they have been illegal.Not relevant in a theoretical sense, perhaps, but I found it interesting in a historical sense.
Your Good Buddy Johnny Clarke | January 21, 2008, 5:02pm | #
Considering the following, I would have to wonder what God's position is:====
It is estimated that up to 50% of all fertilized eggs die and are lost (aborted) spontaneously, usually before the woman knows she is pregnant. Among known pregnancies, the rate of miscarriage is approximately 10% and usually occurs between the 7th and 12th weeks of pregnancy.
robc | January 21, 2008, 5:03pm | #
Given thatFixed.
de stijl | January 21, 2008, 5:04pm | #
If a baby can breathe, has heartbeats and brainwaves, it is alive. What is so hard to understand about this? I simply love how certain people attempt to ignore the hard science on this ... this isn't philosophy 101. It's science people ...So 20 - 24 weeks then?
crimethink | January 21, 2008, 5:13pm | #
Every single miscarriage could lead to a prosecution of some sort. This is why somebody can oppose abortion but be pro-choice.What percentage of miscarriages resulted in prosecutions when abortions were illegal before Roe v. Wade? People try to paint this dystopian picture of how the world would fall apart if abortion were illegal, apparently forgetting that abortion used to be illegal and the world didn't fall apart.
R C Dean | January 21, 2008, 5:13pm | #
Tell that to Terry Schiavo.See, again, my 2:37 post about rejecting definitions of personhood that would exclude the disabled.
A person's claim to the most fundamental freedom, the control over one's body, is the issue.
Again, this argument runs aground on the question of whether/when a fetus is a person. If it is, then another person, even the mother, is interfering with the fetus/person's control over its body by terminating it.
There are lots of rights that are limited by other people's rights, after all. Your right to swing your fist, etc.
I hate to say it again, but this formulation of the pro-choice argument also begs the question.
Let me propose a test for the pro-choice advocates: If your argument for allowing abortion contains no limiting principles, and would allow a mother to terminate the fetus after delivery but before the umbilical cord is cut, then you may have a problem.
A similar test for the pro-life advocates: If your argument for banning abortion contains no limiting principles and would prohibit a mother from taking a morning-after pill that would terminate an undifferentiated blastocyst, you may also have a problem.
Monkey Of Fear | January 21, 2008, 5:16pm | #
Lamar ... please tell me when I tried to "disregard modern medicine when it hurts your case, but you are more than happy to use it to talk about babies dreaming and playing hopscotch in the womb, and you also rely on modern medicine to make premature babies viable earlier in the pregnancy". I never said anything about premature babies being viable earlier in pregnancy outside of what is medically proven to be true.de stijl ... twenty weeks sounds right, in terms of viability ... however, it has been demonstrated that some of the aforementioned person-like characteristics exist as early as 10-12 weeks.
crimethink | January 21, 2008, 5:18pm | #
de stijl,The heart begins beating in Week 5, and brain waves have been measured as early as Week 7.
Monkey Of Fear | January 21, 2008, 5:19pm | #
johnny clarke... thank you for supporting my point. Big difference between a natural death and an act of violence that results in death.crimethink | January 21, 2008, 5:20pm | #
Johnny Clarke,I don't get your point. Because embryos are likely to die naturally, it's OK to kill them?
Monkey Of Fear | January 21, 2008, 5:20pm | #
crimethink ... thanks for the technical assist, that's even earlier than I thought.Martin Luther Viscount | January 21, 2008, 5:24pm | #
Abortion to me is about mother's liberty (or life in certain situations) versus fetus's life. Both rights are real and the fact that they come into direct conflict is why it's such a heated issue.The right to abortion is about the right to make an unreversable choice. Why would it be wrong then to make that choice at the point of sex? If you choose to not use sufficient protection or morning after pill, then I really would have to say that the fetuses right to life trumps your right to liberty. Unless the act wasn't fully voluntary that is.
Now if there's a complication with the pregnancy, then the woman's right to life comes into play, so she should have the full right to terminate.
Brett | January 21, 2008, 5:24pm | #
Has this already been mentioned? Apologies if it has.At the danger of turning this into another Ron Paul thread, National Review are saying that "Jane Roe", Norma Leah McCorvey, may endorse Ron Paul tomorrow in a joint press conference.
crimethink | January 21, 2008, 5:24pm | #
To add to robc's point above, contract murders are illegal, and this causes there to be a black market in murder. Also, the murders are often done in cruel ways and the murderer's necessity of hiding the body makes it very difficult or impossible for the families of the murdered person to have a proper funeral.Does this mean we should legalize murder?
crimethink | January 21, 2008, 5:26pm | #
de stijl,Uh, OK. I thought the question was about heartbeat and brain waves. You don't really think fully-developed alveoli are the determinant of personhood, do you?
Mandy Cat | January 21, 2008, 5:28pm | #
I've read several articles lately about the increase in opposition to abortion among people between 15 and 30. I found that surprising until I realized that this is a generation that has probably never had a friend or family member die from an illegal abortion.That's a very different experience from people old enough to remember high school classmates dying of "appendicitis."
de stijl | January 21, 2008, 5:30pm | #
crimethink,"If a baby can breathe, has heartbeats and brainwaves, it is alive."
shecky | January 21, 2008, 5:32pm | #
See, again, my 2:37 post about rejecting definitions of personhood that would exclude the disabled.Again, this argument runs aground on the question of whether/when a fetus is a person. If it is, then another person, even the mother, is interfering with the fetus/person's control over its body by terminating it.
When a disabled person needs to be run a tap to my vein in order to survive, then it's too much. That is my choice to make.Not the disabled person's
A fetus (or another full grown person) that needs a human body host in order to live loses to the person who is the host.
de stijl | January 21, 2008, 5:38pm | #
Look, this is an abortion thread and if you think you are going to change anyone's opinion about the issue with passionately written blog comments you're gravely mistaken.We can know the timing of pre-natal development, but it will never answer "when does a person become a person."
To claim that your side owns all of the science on the issue, you are mistaken. To claim your side owns all of the logic on the issue, you are misguided. To claim that your side owns all of the morality on the issue....
Martin Luther Viscount | January 21, 2008, 5:40pm | #
shecky,But if you tell the person he can tap your blood if he needs it, then yank it out, that would be wack.
I'm saying that if you choose to have unprotected sex and not use morning after pill, you're giving an child that may result from said act the right to tap into your blood as long as it needs it.
Your Good Buddy Johnny Clarke | January 21, 2008, 5:44pm | #
And, of course, you've negotiated and signed some sort of contract with that mindless little clump of cells?Tbone | January 21, 2008, 5:45pm | #
Philosophically, Rand had it right. You cannot subrogate the rights of an actual person to those of a potential person.Politically/morally, Clinton had it right. Safe, legal, and rare.
shecky | January 21, 2008, 5:48pm | #
I'm saying that if you choose to have unprotected sex and not use morning after pill, you're giving an child that may result from said act the right to tap into your blood as long as it needs it.I'd disagree. One, an unprotected sex act implies nothing other than the unprotected sex act. Two, one's decision to physically host or not host another being can be made at any time, barring any prior contract.
JayDubya | January 21, 2008, 5:53pm | #
Actually, I would say this is one of many areas where Rand got it wrong and Objectivists still get it wrong. But she's got good company, as anti-abortion libertarians are a minority."Actual person" and "potential person" are about as moral a distinction as the ol' "3/5th of a person."
We have unalienable rights, or we don't. We're not given rights from the government, and we don't get rights as a magical gift after sliding out a vagina.
The major reason why a state is better than anarchy is that a state can enforce contracts and protect people's rights through the rule of law. These rights do not include those that directly contradict the rights of others.
My liberties do not include the right to infringe on yours.