Federalism

Rand Paul: Laser Pointers Not Federal Business, the Life of the Unborn Is

|

Kentucky Republican Rand Paul started off what I hope is a long and fruitful career as "Senator No," as the sole vote against a federal law outlawing aiming laser pointers at aircraft. It's the kind of simple criminal law that can and should be taken care of by states, he thinks.

In another move that strikes those who don't see fetuses as lives worthy of protection as grossly unlibertarian, but which fits in perfectly with the standard non-anarchist libertarian vision of government's limited purpose if you do, Sen. Paul has also cosponsored the "Life at Conception Act," which would define the unborn as "persons" under the 14th Amendment and thus protectable by federal action.

Paul explains his position:

Protecting Americans – whether it's balancing the budget or ensuring no child will be denied the right to life – is my priority now – as it has always been. As a medical student, I was one of a small group of students who opted out of learning abortion procedures. My regard for the sanctity of life has carried me throughout my career as a physician and I am proud to join my new colleagues to continue this fight for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all Americans, born and unborn."

NEXT: Chamber of Corporatism

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.

  1. What affect does a laser pointer have on aircraft?

    1. The same effect a signal mirror has.

    2. Green lasers are powerful enough to cause eye damage or temporarily blind the pilot.

      1. Not really. A 5mw laser is a 5mw laser regardless of the color. A green laser is more visible because our eyes are more sensitive to green.

        Any laser of any color can cause eye damage and when aimed at aircraft,can run the risk of washing out the pilot’s vision for a moment.

        These laser exposures are extremely short at best as few, if any, people are really capable of tracking an aircraft by hand with a laser pointer. If someone is using a machine to do the tracking, then the laser mounted to it is the least of our worries.

        1. Rather than a ban on the activity, wouldn’t mandating some sort of coating for the cockpits make more sense?

          What if some terrorist asshole schemed up a way to actually crash a plane with a laser pointer? Just like with gun control, such a person wouldn’t obey the ban.

          Commercial lasers are only available in a few narrow color bands, which should be pretty easy to filter/reflect/diffuse with a simple coating on the glass, without affecting visibility.

          Problem solved, and we don’t have to harass any kids playing with laser pointers.

          1. Can’t someone on the ground just punch the asshole with the laser pointer? That’s what should be done anyway, because he’s either a professor who deserves to be punched or a kid causing trouble…and get off my lawn!

            1. You wanna pay for all the mall-cops it would take to effectively enforce that punching regime?

              Admittedly, my plan lacks the gratification inherent in yours.

              1. Just a targeted and temporary allowance for assault. Other mall patrons can handle the task. We don’t need to involve any so-called authorities. 😉

          2. Rather than a ban on the activity, wouldn’t mandating some sort of coating for the cockpits make more sense?

            What if some terrorist asshole schemed up a way to actually crash a plane with a laser pointer?

            I agree. This makes a hell of a lot more sense than attempting to ban laser pointers.

            Anyway, if someone is smart enough to make a tracking device capable of pointing a laser pen at an aircraft, they can probably build themselves a laser.

            Side topic, technology is getting so sophisticated, and access to high technology is getting so widespread that technologies formerly only accessible to the military are becoming popular and commercial.

            Do you people know how much shit is calssified as “dual use” and how seriously stifling it is to US industry?

            I my lab, we have trouble getting US suppliers to fill order because they are utterly paranoid that we might be foreign nationals, so they might be violating export control laws. By contrast, type a number in on a web page, and 30 chinese suppliers will harass you for days offering to sell you chips.

            1. Addendum …

              The thing is a lot of the companies in the US who make suff like customized gears or high strength parts, high quality motors and sensors and so forth – almost all of them are defense contractors. This is how fucked US high-tech manufacturing industry is – outside of computers and information technology, it’s dependent on the military and almost can’t sell commercially because of the restrictions on dual-use technology. They can’t hire foreigners, can’t sell to foreigners, and are terrified of selling to university labs and commercial companies because someone might expose a foreigner to “technical data”.

        2. Back during the Cold War Airborne Early Warning pilots supposedly flew with a patch over one eye. If a nuclear blast blinded the exposed eye, they could still fly with the other.

          Wouldn’t that work here?

          At least better than “I really really want to crash an airplane, but laser pointing them is illegal, so I’ll have to find another way.”

          Protecting Americans ? whether it’s balancing the budget or ensuring no child will be denied the right to life ? is my priority now ? as it has always been.

          “To dreeeeaam the impossible dreeeeaam,
          To fiiiight the unbeatable fooooe….”

          NTTAWWT

          1. I think theres merit in your plan, but unfortunately with the almost certain expansion of any Federal program, very shortly I see the requirement for parrots on the shoulders of the pilots.

            1. Think of all the jobs created or saved in the pet parrot industry.

          2. Nice Man of La Mancha ref.

        3. Well I think along similar lines the other argument should be: are there laws in place that outlaw distracting or attempting to disable an airplane or pilot? If so how is this different? We don’t have murder laws that individually outlaw knife murder, gun murder, strangling murder why have laws that ban interfering with planes via laser or any other means.

        4. Different colors of light propagate through the atmosphere differently. So different colors would make for different effective power levels at long distances.

  2. Little laser pointers for Democrats and abortions for all!

  3. While it doesn’t get much conversation here, Ron Paul has been a long time member of Libertarians for Life. They make a very reasoned and non-religious argument in opposition to abortion.
    http://www.l4l.org

    1. I’m pro-choice and I recongize there are reasoned and non-religious arguments in opposition to abortion. That still doesn’t make it the federal governments business.

      1. Because murder is a state issue? Civil rights are a federal issue. So which is it?

        1. Because murder is a state issue?

          Murder is traditionally a state issue. It is a federal issue only in limited circumstances (military, D.C., high seas, etc.)

        2. How about a family issue?

      2. Speaking as a pro-life guy who would actually like to see some laws granting fetuses legal protection as persons, I am seriously cringing at Rand’s approach. Did he forget about that federalism thing? The whole appeal in ditching RvW is that the states could pass their own abortion laws. The reason we’re still having the abortion discussion is because we DON’T have any clear-cut bioethical answers, and even if we did, we sure as hell DON’T have any easy legal remedies. If Paul 2 thinks a big federal solution will work here just because he thinks this is The Great Moral Issue Of Our Time, he’s not differentiating himself from the rest of the Republican rabble like I’d hoped he would.

        What’s wrong with just opening the doors for state-level laws, Rand?

        1. A law mandating life at conception would make me a murderer as a take a form of the birth control pill. A child could be conceived, but the hostile uterine environment the pill creates would “kill” it.

      3. I’m pro-choice and I recongize there are reasoned and non-religious arguments in opposition to abortion. That still doesn’t make it the federal governments business.

        So you support overturning the FEDERAL court decision that struck down those state laws, I take it?

    2. “A prenatal child has the right to be in the mother’s body.”

      This is were they go wrong. No person has any rights on the body of another. The above quote is basically condoning slavery.

  4. You can declare an apple to be a person but that doesn’t make it a person.

    1. Of course it does. But then the question then becomes, is an apple seed a person?

      1. Or to make the apple seed analogy apt. Is an apple seed an apple?

        I wonder if people would want legal action if they were given apple seeds instead of apples.

    2. And as history’s demonstrated, the State can also declare a black man to be a non-person, but that doesn’t make him a non-person.

    3. And if we can let Adam and Steve marry, then human-sheep nuptials can only be just around the corner!

      Open your eyes, people!!!

  5. Life at conception:

    1) IUDs would be illegal.
    2) IVF treatments would be illegal.

    1. Nothing you said is even close to correct. Even if life were officially recognized at conception, contraception, or things that prevent conception, would not be made illegal. It’s not like they’re outlawing condoms and the pill. I have no idea where you’re going with the IVF part, though it would prevent them from over implanting to increase the chances that one connects and aborting the rest. Mothers would have to keep whatever survived, but if thy knew that going in I don’t see a problem. They could just get their own reality show to pay for it all.

      This statement is not an endorsement of the bill.

      1. IUD can prevent conception, but they also prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg. That the same reason that PWWATBI give if they object to Plan B.

        1. IUD can prevent conception, but they also prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg. That the same reason that PWWATBI give if they object to Plan B.

          Even so, ethical concerns only arise if it is used for that specific purpose.

        2. PWWATBI

          People who want abortion to be illegal?

        3. Same with the birth control pill. It doesn’t necessarily prevent conception, it prevents implantation.

          Also, will states now mandate the behavior of pregnant women based on screwy science (like state-sanctioned nutrition, etc.)?

          1. Abortion was illegal in most states for over a century before RvW. None of the apocalyptic scenarios pro-choicers offer occurred during that time.

            Though it is interesting to see them pushing emotional argument after emotional argument, all the while claiming it’s the pro-life side that’s the irrational side.

  6. Life began several billion years ago. It has not begun again since. Defining when a life begins is arbitrary and pointless.

    1. We celebrate birth-days, not fuck-days. We count born people in the census, not fetuses. People argue about when Jesus was born, not when Mary was non-fucked.

      Abortion has been a variable kind of crime, depending on lots of things, but considering a fetus to be a living person is a new fangled invention.

      1. When Jesus was born is far less interesting than the entire concept that Mary was non-fucked.

      2. Re: Mr Born First,

        Abortion has been a variable kind of crime, depending on lots of things, but considering a fetus to be a living person is a new fangled invention.

        The cesarean being a figment of the Roman people’s imagination, as there is no real baby inside.

      3. considering a fetus to be a living person is a new fangled invention.

        So is considering women and black people to be equal to white males.

        The historical befuddlement over the nature of the unborn entity might have something to do with the fact that next to nothing was known about fetal development until the late 1800s. Until the process of conception was discovered in the 1700s, the finest medical minds thought that semen contained little humans that just used the uterus as a place to get nutrition.

  7. I doubt that there will ever be consensus amongst libertarians about the abortion issue, and perhaps that is not such a bad thing. I personally struggle to figure out where I stand on the abortion issue, but I am sure I would not want to live in a society where babies are aborted like in some kind of dystopian brave new world, and nobody gave it a second thought.

    1. I also wouldn’t want to live in a society where women who take the morning-after-pill are prosecuted for murder.

      1. Actually, the morning after pill prevents conception. It does not abort a fetus.

        1. The morning after pill will prevent implantation of the fertilized egg.

    2. I never thought too much about the subject until I saw an ultrasound of my daughter.

      If someone were to look at that and consider it a tumor that needs to be removed, I figure that their brain is a tumor that needs to be removed.

      1. A good reason not to get an ultrasound before an abortion.

      2. I thought roughly the same thing when I saw my kids in ultrasound: “what kind of moron thinks *this* is a person?”

        1. Although I guess if you and your family look like fetal pigs, then you probably had some visual identification thing going on when you saw it.

      3. I would assume you were happy to have your daughter, or were at least in a place in your life where raising her in a satisfactory environment would be possible. (Though I may be wrong, which just goes to show how dangerous assumptions are. If I am, I do apologize.)

        And just because you didn’t want to abort your daughter doesn’t mean that your sentiments carry to others in different situations.

        1. If by that you mean you assume that I am a responsible person who did not put himself into a position where he could bring a life into this world unless he was in a position to take care of it, then yes you assumed correctly.

          I’m not sure how “fair” it is that an unborn child has to pay for its parents’ lack of responsibility with its life.

      4. And the “someone” whose mind you want to remove will be someone’s daughter.

  8. What a woman does with her own body is her own business. If she wants to remove a tissue mass from herself, that should be her choice alone. If she wishes to saute’ that tissue mass and eat it with mashed potatoes, then she should allowed to do so. If she wants to throw her disease infected body into the city water supply, then society should keep its complaints to itself.

    1. And yet if the tissue mass forces its way out of her against her will, she can’t then saute it? Her right to keep that tissue mass in her forever has been violated? Because it is as simple as that!

    2. The problem is that there is more than one body involved here. A siamese twin has no more right to commit suicide if the other does not want to. The baby obviously cannot say whether it wants to live or does not mind dying, that being the case its probably safer to assume it wants to live.

      1. I don’t believe a fetus “wants” anything, which is one key to this conundrum, IMHO.

        1. Comatose patients don’t “want” anything so they can be taken off life support with impunity.

    3. “”If she wants to throw her disease infected body into the city water supply, then society should keep its complaints to itself.””

      Or perhaps just throw some clorine in the water.

    4. “If she wishes to saute’ that tissue mass and eat it with mashed potatoes, then she should allowed to do so.”

      It’s better with couscous.

      1. Fava Beans.

      2. Traditionally it’s the placenta that’s food.

    5. “What a woman does with her own body is her own apparently Michelle Obama’s business.”

  9. I can hardly even get to the grocery store, what with all the jumbo jets brought down by handheld laser pointers littering the roadways.

    I’m glad the Congress has finally taken decisive action to end this terrible problem.

  10. I didn’t know until recently by Googling that some abortions are performed using a salt solution which slowly poisons the baby – it takes a day to die – while the skin is being dissolved. Torture in the womb.

    1. It’s not a baby, it’s part of the woman’s body, like a kidney.

      1. Re: Pro-Choicer,

        It’s not a baby, it’s part of the woman’s body, like a kidney.

        Yet women do not abort kidneys.

        1. “”Yet women do not abort kidneys'”

          Are you saying women never donate kidneys? Or do they do that after the kidney passes the birth canal?

      2. “it’s part of the woman’s body, like a kidney”

        …a kidney with DNA that is different from that of the mother.

  11. I’ll accept defining life as beginning at conception, provided they accept aborting a child who could potentially cut into my sleep time as justifiable homicide.

  12. What about spilling my seed? I still get to do that, right?

  13. > opted out of learning abortion procedures

    So…does that mean he’s also against abortions that are necessary to save the life of the mother? So nice of him to prefer two deaths over one.

    1. He’s an opthalmologist. Opting out seems reasonable if he objects.

      1. I don’t suppose it is too likely that he would need to perform an emergency abortion while operating on some cataracts.

  14. “…Sen. Paul has also cosponsored the “Life at Conception Act,” which would define the unborn as “persons” under the 14th Amendment and thus protectable by federal action.”

    SCOTUS in Roe v. Wade and consequent rulings essentially federalized most regulation of abortion. Paul is dealing with issue as it lies.

    1. They didn’t federalize it; they constitutionalized it. Accordingly, Paul’s proposed law is flatly unconstitutional whether good policy or not.

      It’s empty PR.

  15. How come people can kill their own kids until they can’t kill their own kids? That woman in Tampa just performed two really really really late term abortions.

    1. I think South Park beat you to that joke…

      Cartman’s mom tried to abort him once – I think it was when he was trying to find out who his father was.

      1. Scott Tenorman’s parents wish she had been successful.

  16. Rand Paul is no libertarian.

    He may agree with libertarian thinking on some issue, as do Dennis Kucinich and G.W. Bush.

    1. It is a scale. He is more libertarian that either Kucinich or Bush.

      But not as libertarian as you or Rothbard.

  17. Kentucky Republican Rand Paul started off what I hope is a long and fruitful career as “Senator No,” as the sole vote against a federal law outlawing aiming laser pointers at aircraft. It’s the kind of simple criminal law that can and should be taken care of by states, he thinks.

    Oh, Brian! Don’t you realize that laser pointers have a very long range, and can easily invade into the air space several counties over into another state which immediately makes their use subject to the commerce clause. Sheesh.

  18. I read that headline as being said in Yoda’s voice….

    1. Glad I wasn’t the only one.

  19. Related question: At what point do laser pointers become weapons?

    Power levels have been increasing, and I think modified pointers can start fires. Once laser pointers pack the same punch as a small caliber weapon, should they be regulated as such?

    Discuss…

    1. If you start from the assumption that small caliber weapons should be regualted, then I think that you would have to conclude that at some point, handheld lasers would fall under the same sort of regulation. But even with the higher power lasers available now, I think we are far from that point. When portable lasers that can put a hole through you are available, I’ll be more concerned.

    2. Didn’t realize that $299 got you a 1 watt blue laser: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..re=related

      Pretty cool…

  20. “At what point do laser pointers bricks become weapons?”

  21. I thought that Rand was supposed to be on our side… not out to do a “divide and conquer” on us. Just sayin…

  22. How can a statute set the meaning of pre-existing constitutional language? Like my objection to statutory (or administrative, judicial, constitutional, or plebiscitic) definition of “spouse”.

  23. So Congress can change the meaning of words in the Constitution by simple statute?

    Next, Congress should pass a law declaring that Islam is not a religion under the 1st Amendment. Oh, and blacks and Asians are not persons under the 14th, and where the 2nd says “arms”, it really means “teddy bears”.

    That’s a pretty fucking big intrusion into what should be judges’ jobs.

    1. Your statement is ridiculous.

      The 14th amendment did change the effective legal definition of what was considered “property” and who were considered persons.

      Judges did not create the 14th amendment.

      1. Yes, and it was an amendment, not a statute. If you want to change or clarify the Constitution, you pass an amendment.

  24. In another move that strikes those who don’t see fetuses as lives worthy of protection as grossly unlibertarian, but which fits in perfectly with the standard non-anarchist libertarian vision of government’s limited purpose if you do[…]

    Speak for yourself, Doherty. I am an anarchist and I do not agree with the view that a human fetus is NOT a human life or that it does not warrant protection like any other human life.

    Sen. Paul has also cosponsored the “Life at Conception Act,” which would define the unborn those that have not yet passed through the pelvis as “persons” under the 14th Amendment and thus protectable by federal action.

    For some reason, calling a fetus an “unborn” categorizes him or her as not being human.

    1. I am an anarchist and I do not agree with the view that a human fetus is NOT a human life or that it does not warrant protection like any other human life.

      But does it warrant the same level of protection as other human life.

      Just because abortion is immoral does not make it the moral equivalent of murder.

    2. But starting the definition of full person hood at conception goes beyond giving rights to a fetus. A developing baby doesn’t become a fetus until the 9th week of pregnancy. If person hood started at the 9th week, I’d be okay with that.

      But this law starts at conception. Technically the pregnancy hasn’t even begun at that point as it hasn’t implanted in the uterus.

      Most mother’s aren’t even aware they are pregnant until several weeks after conception. So, if she has a drink, smokes a cigarette, eats too much salt or trans fats, trips and falls, whatever, during that period of time, should she be charged with murder if she miscarries?

      1. Most mother’s aren’t even aware they are pregnant until several weeks after conception. So, if she has a drink, smokes a cigarette, eats too much salt or trans fats, trips and falls, whatever, during that period of time, should she be charged with murder if she miscarries?

        No.

        And how will it be proven anyway?

        1. But doesn’t it open the door for the Federal government to start regulating the behavior of pregnant woman? It would give them the Constitutional power is what I’m saying.

          1. “But doesn’t it open the door for the Federal government to start regulating the behavior of pregnant woman?”

            No, since the Federal government already regulates the behavior of pregnant women and non-pregnant women for that matter.

            And what does the Constitution have to do with anything?

            Next up The Constitution: living document or dead letter?

          2. “But doesn’t it open the door for the Federal government to start regulating the behavior of pregnant woman?”

            No, since the Federal government already regulates the behavior of pregnant women and non-pregnant women for that matter.

            And what does the Constitution have to do with anything?

            Next up The Constitution: living document or dead letter?

            1. So if the federal government passed a law that mandated women of child-bearing age get 30 minutes of exercise a day, eat 3 to 5 servings of vegetables a day, and take a daily multi-vitamin that contains folic acid, it would be considered Constitutional my mainstream legal interpretation? Because in the interest of protecting the rights of the unborn starting at conception, I’m pretty sure that’s where the Nanny State would go if Rand Paul’s bill gets passed.

        2. Isn’t that exactly the point nekoxgirl is trying to make? That the legal vagaries of such a statute open up a wide spectrum of invasive legislation?

  25. I consider myself more pro-life than pro-choice but doesn’t setting 14th amendment protections starting at conception seem a little extreme?

    I mean, something like a third of pregnancies end in miscarriages during the first few weeks. Would there need to be a criminal investigation every time this occurs?

    What about cases where something goes wrong and the mother’s life is in danger? Would contraception that could potentially prevent a pregnancy after conception be made illegal?

    I don’t think that the rights of the unborn should be completely ignored but I do think there is a big difference between a fertilized egg and a newborn baby. Is it impossible for people to think sensibly about this issue?

    A perfectly healthy fetus shouldn’t be killed at the whim of the mother but trying to force person hood at conception would be a legal nightmare and would invite the government to interfere further in our private lives.

    1. doesn’t setting 14th amendment protections starting at conception seem a little extreme?

      Does federally mandating the legality of abortion anytime, anywhere, for any reason seem extreme to you? That, after all, is very nearly the current status quo.

      1. I disagree with Roe v. Wade but piling unconstitutional legislation ontop of poor interpretations of the Constitution does not fix the problem.

    2. I consider myself more pro-life than pro-choice but doesn’t setting 14th amendment protections starting at conception seem a little extreme?

      I mean, something like a third of pregnancies end in miscarriages during the first few weeks. Would there need to be a criminal investigation every time this occurs?

      Something like 100% of lives end in death sometime in the first 100 years. Would there need to be a criminal investigation every time this occurs?

      1. The responsibility for the death of the fetus would rely solely on the woman carrying it (unless someone assaulted her). Pregnancies that end in miscarriages might be caused by behavior on the part of the woman. Hence the criminal investigation.

      2. The government may not begin a criminal investigation everytime a death occurs, but it does try to record every single one of those deaths that occur each year. Should pregnancies that are not carried to term count as deaths?

        And doesn’t it allow the government to persue a criminal investigation if a woman shows up at a hospital due to a miscarriage and “foul play” is suspected? Since so many pregnancies are not carried to term, that pretty much leaves women vulnerable to prosecution if she engages in any behaviors the state frowns upon.

  26. They didn’t federalize it; they constitutionalized it.

    By setting a (federal) constitutional standard, they effectively federalized it. Kind of like adopting a regulation on abortion laws.

    So Congress can change the meaning of words in the Constitution by simple statute?

    This is an interesting maneuver. First, I’m not sure you could point to an enumerated power that would authorize this exercise by Congress.

    But, there isn’t an enumerated power that enables the judiciary to overturn laws, either. The judiciary gets that power by implication.

    Assuming Congress passes this law, and it is challenged in the courts, what would the challenge be? And wouldn’t the courts retain their authority to be the final arbiter on whether it was constitutional or not?

    I can’t see it passing. But if it does, it would pose a very interesting Constitutional conundrum. The bill doesn’t amend the Constitution, it interprets it. If its signed into law, it interprets it authoritatively. I don’t see how a court could say Congress has no power to interpret the Constitution and express that interpretation via legislation. I can’t see a court that retains its final say over the Constitution concluding that Congress violated separation of powers, either.

  27. The unborn baby is not like a kidney: it has a highly developed independent nervous system. See my earlier re torture in the womb.

    1. It doesn’t have a high developed independent nervous system at conception. At conception it is essentially a sperm inside an egg verus a sperm outside an egg. A fetus is no more a kidney than a fertlized egg is a fetus.

  28. Defining the point in gestation at which a fetus becomes a human being is not an enumerated power granted to the federal government, Senator Paul.

    1. Tell that to the court which gave us Roe v. Wade.

      1. You must be new around here.

  29. If you accept that abortion is justifiable in cases of rape, incest or to save a mother’s life then you accept that the fetus has less value than a fully developed human. Get over it retards. And if you don’t, you’re a fucking psycopathic Ceausescu-esque statist.

    That’s right idiots – guess which side of the political spectrum is most famous for outlawing abortion? http://www.sustainer.org/dhm_a…..ort_of67ed

    If you guessed Romanian Communist dictator Nicolae Ceausescu, you’re ABSOLUTELY RIGHT!

    Fuck off facist eugenics proponents, and FUCK OFF COMMIE ABORTION-HATERS. Whether it’s to tell them what they should have in there or what they shouldn’t, keep the government out of broads’ wombs.

    Fuck off statists.

    1. “And if you don’t, you’re a fucking psycopathic Ceausescu-esque statist.”

      Stay away from my well, okay?

    2. I think treating abortion as an acceptable response to rape or incest is, indeed, a wildly inconsistent thing for abortion opponents to do?it vitiates the integrity of their position. Allowing abortion in the case of a threat to the mother’s life is another matter, though: this could be warranted on the same grounds that the use of force in self-defense is warranted.

      To be clear, I don’t think a conceptus is a person; I’m not sure at what point I think the developing fetus merits membership in the moral community, but it sure ain’t at conception. I just think it’s important to distinguish between the view that abortion is permissible in cases of rape or incest and the view that it’s permissible to save the mother’s life.

    3. Exceptions for abortion in the cases of rape and incest are supported by most Americans because most Americans are forming their opinion on the matter on the basis of personal responsibility for sexual behavior, not on a determination of when life begins. Those most fervently against abortion are usually consistent about opposing abortion in the cases of rape or incest because they are basing their views on when life begins. Pro-abortionists, of course, base their views on pure selfishness.

      1. The people who support the exceptions are pro-abortionists.

  30. There is no such thing as an aborted unborn baby. You abort a fetus. Correct language is essential.

    The federal government does NOT recognize any one as a living person without a birth certificate. SO if the Crazy religious right passes this law, we can issue social security cards, and benefits to a fetus. We can then tax the fetus its share of the national debt, force it to carry health care, imprison it at birth for failure to pay taxes, and so on, right?

    1. Really? Is the “long form” certificate required, or will any type do?

      Seriously, though: since we already send credit card applications to dogs and require cats to show up for jury duty summonses, I’m not sure where you’re going here.

    2. “fetus” is latin for “unborn baby”

      A correct understanding of language is essential.

      I hate to break it to you, but you don’t have to be a member of the “Crazy religious right” to find abortion morally repugnant and dangerous in its effect on devaluing human life.

    3. We can then tax the fetus its share of the national debt, force it to carry health care, imprison it at birth for failure to pay taxes, and so on, right?
      reply to this

      Seeing as how the government doesn’t do this to children until they turn 18, your argument fails.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.