Public Health

Public Health and the Tyranny of the Common Good

Mississippi's proposed "personhood" amendment extends progressivism to the uterus.

|

By tonight, Mississippi likely will become the first state to stipulate that individual personhood begins at the moment of conception. Liberals see this as a right-wing triumph. But it's just as fair to say it simply extends progressivism to the uterus.

Mississippi's ballot measure has implications that reach beyond the abortion debate, writes Jessica Valenti, founder of the Feministing blog, in The Washington Post. She cites cases in which pregnant women intent on giving birth have been forced to undergo C-sections or bed rest against their will for the good of their unborn children. Granting personhood from the moment of conception, Valenti suggests, could end up pitting the rights of women against the rights of their potential offspring more frequently.

Pro-choice advocates generally dispute the notion that someone who has sex implicitly accepts a set of moral obligations toward any "product of conception," at least while it remains in utero. The fetus has no claim on the mother's resources, they contend, and she should not be required to provide any.

Once the baby is born, however, progressives say not only that the parents have obligations toward the child—but that so does everyone else. Through no choice of their own, people thousands of miles away are suddenly on the hook to make sure the child gets adequate food, decent housing, and a good education. The implied social contract that did not bind a mother to her baby suddenly binds complete strangers to it.

What's more, the scope of that contract has been expanding. Merely providing resources is no longer enough. See, for example, health care: To provide the uninsured with medical care, it does not suffice simply to pay taxes that fund social-welfare programs. Under the Romney/Obama individual mandate, everyone must buy health insurance for the sake of the common good.

The same rationale undergirds much of the campaign against obesity—which, some say, costs society $270 billion a year. Part of that total comes from direct expenses such as medical care for diabetics. An additional $73 billion allegedly comes from lost productivity due to poor health—at least according to a rather inexact study funded (surprise!) by Allergan, the maker of a gastric-band system for obesity surgery.

The social cost of lost productivity is an interesting concept. It implies not only that you have a duty to avoid becoming a burden to others, but also that you have an affirmative duty to produce resources for others. (Because otherwise, society has "lost" something that, in truth, it never had in the first place: your future exertions.)

Employers that offer bonuses for joining wellness programs have bought into the notion. Since they're the ones paying the tab for workers' pay and insurance, they're entitled. But as the government takeover of health care proceeds, even the self-employed and non-employed could soon find themselves (a) mandated to buy insurance, and then (b) required to shape up.

Or consider Gardasil. Five years ago a federal panel recommended that all girls receive the vaccine against the human papilloma virus (HPV), whose most common effect is cervical cancer. Twenty states enacted legislation to mandate the vaccine for girls. Now the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices has recommended that boys receive the vaccination as well. Part of the rationale: HPV can cause genital warts and cancer of the throat and anus, which afflict roughly 7,000 men per year. Immunizing boys is "for their own good," as The New York Times put it.

But there is another rationale—namely, that rates of HPV immunization among girls have not lived up to expectations. As the Los Angeles Times argued last week, "the reasons for broadening the vaccine's use are much bigger" than HPV's effect on boys: "Just as contraception and family planning should be seen as societal health issues rather than solely 'women's issues,' so should the medical battle against a form of cancer that was diagnosed in about 12,000 American women in 2007. . . . Yet (to date) the full series of three doses has been given to only about one-third of the age-appropriate girls."

In other words, young boys should be vaccinated against a sexually transmitted virus not just for their own good, but for the good of others. From a public-health perspective this makes excellent sense. From an ethical perspective, though, it raises the same questions as the obesity debate does. What obligations do private individuals have to cede control of their bodies—their persons—to others for the sake of the collective good?

"The slippery slope is getting slicker and slicker," Valenti writes. She notes that guidelines from the CDC "tell all women of childbearing years to treat themselves as pre-pregnant—taking folic acid, refraining from smoking and maintaining a healthy weight. How long will it be before pregnant women are arrested for not taking their … vitamins or for not exercising enough—or too much?"

How long will it be before all of us are?

A. Barton Hinkle is a columnist at the Richmond Times-Dispatch, where this article originally appeared.

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.

402 responses to “Public Health and the Tyranny of the Common Good

  1. Let’s imagine that life begins at the moment of unique DNA and then watch the liberals turn to trespassing for their justification for murder.

    1. I’m not sure what you mean by unique DNA…technically speaking, a zygote matches all criteria for life and therefore is living (I’m not sure why people associate pro-life with religion so much).

      1. …is babies getting lots more birth defects from KOCH OIL pollution.

        1. BBC News | HEALTH | Pollution linked to birth defects
          http://www.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1731902.stm

          Huge rise in birth defects – BBC News
          http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1878358.stm

          1. Collective good is suffering.

            Uncle KOCH told me so.

            1. Sado-libertarian BDSM economics.

          2. profibable

            Freud is smiling…

        2. Uncle KOCH, can I have some oil for my bunghole? It burns so much.

  2. that which you do to the least, you do unto me.

    -some dude fm galilee

    1. Wait, don’t tell me…was it Daher el-Omar?

  3. Hinkle, you need to search this site for the word Feministing. Beloved commenter Sugar Free has us well informed on the bizzarro beliefs held there. Using their founder as a source doesn’t seem like a powerful argument. Are these stopped clocks even right twice a day? One wonders.

    1. No, because they’re a hand short.

      1. +infinity

  4. I see a future where it is a federal offense to disobey your doctor’s orders.

    After all, since federal dollars are paying for your federally mandated visit to the doctor who was chosen for you by the federal government, you damn well better do what he says or you’re throwing away federal money.

    This way all preventable illnesses will be instantly cured.

    No more obesity, diabetes, cirrhosis of the liver, heart disease, high blood pressure, gout, lung cancer…

    Laws can fix anything!

    1. Just wait until the DEA and your pharmacy are the same federal agency.

      They’ve already made medical privacy a joke, so I can only assume they are moving into Dada territory at this point.

      1. Once the government is in charge of your health, there is absolutely nothing that will be private from them.
        Absolutely nothing.
        Because everything you do, from what you eat to your occupation to how much sex you have and with whom, can affect your health.
        Nothing will be off limits.

        And that, of course, is the point.

        1. …you deserve to die.

          BBC News | HEALTH | Pollution linked to birth defects
          http://www.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1731902.stm

          Huge rise in birth defects – BBC News
          http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1878358.stm

          1. I love it when Uncle KOCH screws me. It hurts a little, but it feels so good afterwards.

        2. So the entire modern world, save the US (except for retirees and the poor) are under the jackboot of tyranny?

          We’re free because we pay twice per capita for healthcare than those places?

          1. Nice straw man. I particularly like the overalls.

            1. It’s all meaningless – the spending spree is about to come to a dramatic hard-stop. Don’t even bother with his nonsense.

              1. the spending spree is about to come to a dramatic hard-stop

                The spending spree will continue as long as Treasury Bonds are considered a good investment. And even then it will continue because the Fed will buy up bonds as the currency is inflated into meaninglessness.

                We’ve got a long way to go before the proverbial shit hits the proverbial fan.

                1. Timing is everything and being early is the same as being wrong, so I don’t disagree with you. I beleive you are correct about the Treasuries and we are certainly less fucked than Europe.

                  However, when the wurm turns, and it will, the hard-stop will be cataclysmic. My guess is, about 2 years.

                  1. My guess is, about 2 years.

                    They said that when Reagan ran up the deficit.

                    That was thirty years ago.

                    1. According to the Wikipedia, during the Reagan era, debt/GDP was 53%. Today is over 100%.

                    2. Well I think circumstances have changed a bit since then. I don’t recall what debt/gdp was when Reagan and the 97th-100th Congresses ballooned the deficit, but right now it exceeds 100% of GDP and is continuing to grow ? and that only includes obligations at the national level. You rightly point out that as long as people/institutions/other nations view US treasuries as a safe place to park $ then we can and have spent far beyond our means. In addition, I don’t know what other nations gdp/debt ratios were but it seems they have continued to grow while economic growth has slowed ? a situation that can’t continue indefinitely and limits our ability to fund deficit spending.

                      But what happens when that changes? The thing that scares me most is that once the bond market decides you aren’t credit worthy, you are royally fucked, because a problem that took a generation or two to create boils over in an instant, and given what we are seeing in Europe there is zero probability to fix it. The politicians want to keep power and won’t offend any constituency, the bureaucrats won’t give up their power in the form of their budgets, and everyone who believes (wrongly ? TANSTAAFL is immutable) that they are entitled to free stuff will scream, howl and riot.

                      I found this an interesting read.

                    3. I am pessimistic about the future, don’t get me wrong.

                      I think that the feds will first try to inflate the debt away, while discretely trying to confiscate wealth (as opposed to income). I figure they’ll start with tax advantaged retirement plans, and go from there.
                      Eventually there will be a Constitutional Convention, and things like a “living wage” and “health care” will be declared to be basic rights, and it will be as if The Enlightenment never occurred.

                    4. I agree with you, but think that Red US will tell Blue US to pound sand.

                    5. How long before Blue US significantly outnumbers Red US.

                      How many of those who are currently part of Red US are in fact dependent upon government plunder?
                      When it comes to a choice between standing up for principle and no longer receiving a wealth transfer (veterans pension check, government paycheck, Social Security check, Medicare benefit, unemployment check, Food Stamps, Subsidized Loan, paycheck from government contractor, agricultural subsidy, the list goes on), will they really stand up for principle?
                      Or will they be right there in the streets demanding what is “theirs”?

                      Dude, we are so fucked.

                    6. Yeah, good points. I got nuthin’. We are fucked, its just a question of when.

                    7. It is the reverse you should be worrying about. Over the long term Reds are outbreeding the Blues. Leftwing progressivism will die out eventually, many of the policies they enact and attitudes they hold ensure this. The question is can will we instead have to deal with more consrvative progressivism or can we swell the libertarian ranks?

                    8. Over the long term Reds are outbreeding the Blues

                      Political ideology is not genetic.

                    9. But it is cultural. Children are pretty likely to absorb the culture of their parents. Both my children who are of an age to be political hold very similar views to mine. It may not end up holding true for all five, but it’s the way to bet.

          2. Trickle down is socialism.

            1. nope, trickle down is myth or…are teh wealthy [JOBZ] creators creating [JOBZ] yet?

          3. “So the entire modern world, save the US (except for retirees and the poor) are under the jackboot of tyranny?”
            Shithead, why do you love murdering people?

    2. Don’t worry, if a doctor doesn’t feel you’re doing enough to care for your unborn child he can petition the government to take temporary custody so he can do what he believes needs to be done.

      There are numerous cases of Jehovah’s Witnesses having the government take custody of their fetuses so doctors can perform blood transfusions.

      1. Yeah, but in defense of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, they are fucking crazy.

      2. Pro-choice means that if you’re going to kill your baby, you have to do it intentionally.

        1. because babies are a diff life-form than teh [HUMONS]…who are kilt allz de time.

  5. One can only hope the backlash against this is already beginning, but the hope is empty.

  6. The answer to the question you posed in the last sentence of your very fine article today is: Not long, not long at all.

  7. That woman’s physical structure and the performance of maternal functions place her at a disadvantage in the struggle for subsistence is obvious. This is especially true when the burdens of motherhood are upon her. Even when they are not, by abundant testimony of the medical fraternity continuance for a long time on her feet at work, repeating this from day to day, tends to injurious effects upon the body, and as healthy mothers are essential to vigorous offspring, the physical well-being of woman becomes an object of public interest and care in order to preserve the strength and vigor of the race.

    -Justice David Josiah Brewer, 1908

    Uteri are a public good. The Supreme Court told me so.

    1. Marge, it’s Uterus, not Uteryou.

      1. clasic

  8. In other words, young boys should be vaccinated against a sexually transmitted virus not just for their own good, but for the good of others. From a public-health perspective this makes excellent sense. From an ethical perspective, though, it raises the same questions as the obesity debate does. What obligations do private individuals have to cede control of their bodies?their persons?to others for the sake of the collective good?

    What a festering bucket of larks vomit. There is a chasm of difference between the “collective good” of not wanting you to be a carrier infecting other people with your disease so we’re going to vaccinate you, and the “collective good” of we insist on paying for your health care and we don’t want your fat slob diseases hiking up the bill so report to the nutritional and fitness reeducation camp.

    1. Uncle KOCH OIL told me so.

      1. Mmmm. KOCH and OIL. My butt is twitching already.

    2. Warren, I’m not seeing the difference. I can’t even tell which one you think is acceptable. They’re both appalling to me.

      1. That’s what I was just thinking.

    3. There is a chasm of difference between the “collective good” of not wanting you to be a carrier infecting other people with your disease so we’re going to vaccinate you

      Depends on the disease.

      If it’s a severely dangerous disease that spreads easily through breathing or from other inevitable human functions, that’s one thing.

      If it spreads by voluntary and infrequent activity, that’s quite another.

  9. If you use the”evictionism” argument, it doesn’t matter if the fetus is consided a “human life”. The NAP suggests that you have a right to evict.

    1. Fighting Terrorism Since 1492: Geronimo, Sitting Bull, Numaga, Oseola, and their Native American peers were The Original Department of Homeland Security.

      So, go ahead, leave, Mr. Whipple.

      1. Getting felt up by Native Americans in blue shirts? Like in my fantasy?

        I’ll be in my lean-to.

      2. It happened a long time ago
        In the new magic land
        The indians and the Buffalo
        Existed hand in hand
        The Indians they needed some food
        But then came the white man
        With his thick and empty head
        He couldn’t see past the billfold
        He wanted all the buffalo
        It was so sad, so sad, baby

        And som skins for a roof
        They only took what they needed, baby
        Millions of buffalo were the proof

        1. Fucking droid

    2. Dude, I don’t even buy the evictionism argument for adults and actual property. If a guy, through no fault of his own, gets stuck in a situation where he is on your property, but moving him will kill him, and the impact on you is inconvenient but not life-threatening, and is guaranteed to be over one way or the other in less than a year, then suck it up buttercup.

      1. Think again. If you fall out of a window and land on my flagpole, I have a right to force you off. I am not obliged to let you in. There is not a “good sameratin” clause in the NAP. Sorry,. If my flagpole wasn ‘t there in the first place you’ e dead anyway.

        1. You must live in the city or something, because otherwise that whole flagpole thing doesn’t make any sense.

  10. By tonight, Mississippi likely will become the first state to stipulate that individual personhood begins at the moment of conception.

    I’m not so sure about that. I live in MS and plan on voting no on 26. A surprising number of my conservative friends have been posting “No on 26” on their facebook pages. Maybe it’s just wishful thinking but I’m optimistic for its defeat.

  11. I think you are missing the point, and therefore the danger of this amendment. The idea is to define human life (“personhood”) as beginning at conception. It makes a fertilized egg a person under the state constitution.

    It is not hard to see how that is going to turn out. This law will ban abortion, with no exceptions for rape, incest, or the health of the mother. It could also ban emergency contraception, some types of birth control, and makes in-vitro fertilization questionable.

    Clearly the libertarian value of limited government means limiting the government’s ability to control what I do with my uterus. If you don’t think the state should compel taxpayers to support certain social programs, how can you possibly think that the state should compel a raped thirteen year old to continue her pregnancy? And that is what we are talking about here.

    I understand the additional points you have, and that you ARE against the amendment. But I think framing the argument in terms of progressivism glosses over the fundamental reason WHY libertarians should be against this.

    1. Fuck you.

      1. I call that bold talk for a one-celled fetus.

        1. You like it that we can’t speak for ourselves, don’t you?

      2. booy, talk like that again & im gonna slap the embyronic fluid outta that mouth

    2. Actually framing the argument like he did, is showing exactly why libertarians should be against it.

      There is a fair amount of argument among libertarians about abortion and the rights of the unborn. The Non-Aggression Principle can easily be extended to the unborn and is one of the main reasons most libertarians who are against abortion feel the way they do.

      By framing the argument as one of the encroachment of the state over all matters personal and private in the name of “the good of society” or “think of the children”, he highlights the increasing restrictions that are done because of the natural extension of those progressive ideals.

      These laws should be fought on liberty principles. Framing it solely in the prism of abortion undercuts the real argument at work here, one of freedom.

      1. The NAP may, or may not extend to the unborn. However, the NAP says you have the right to evict, at any time, for any reason. If the only way to evict is to kill, then it is justified, whether it is a fetus in your uterous, or a someone on your sofa.

        1. Not my understanding of the NAP. According to the NAP the only justified reason for violence is in self defense, to prevent harm.

          According to your definition though a parent could simply “leave a child to the wolves” and has can evict it at any time. Which seems like a gross violation of NAP to me.

        2. So if the gas meter guy knocks on the door, and you let him in to bring him down to the basement to read the meter, but he slips and falls on the steps and can’t move his limbs after falling…

          does that mean you have the right to decide you don’t want him in your house anymore and drag him back up the steps bumping his head and neck against the stairs, out the front door, and onto the sidewalk off the property?

          1. I’m on a droid and csn.t argue properly with this fuckink virtual keyboard. I’ll end up smashing this tthing against the brick wall. Just goovle evictionism and watch Walter Block’ video.

        3. My understanding of the NAP was that it’s not aggressive. Killing someone for essentially trespassing, without fear for your life, seems a little extreme to me.

        4. The mother invited it in, and should be precluded from renegging. There are obligations you accept when you take certain actions. In this case, if you voluntarily engage in sex, you accept that sex might lead to pregnancy, which can last many months.

          The key here, as always with libertarians, is “voluntary.” I 100% accept the eviction argument if the sex was not voluntary.

          1. “Renegging”? You’re making this sound like a contractual arrangement. Let’s not forget that contracts require volitional action by two moral agents. The unborn do not take willful actions and they are not moral agents. So, if anything, getting pregnant is a self-contract. But contracts can be broken if all signatories agree to it. In this case, the only signatory is the soon-to-be-not-mother. Contract can be broken by her alone.

            1. I never said contract. Not all obligations are contractual. The rest of your comment need no refuting as a result.

            2. Let me get this straight.

              If I invite an adult into my house, I can’t evict them in a way that harms them because we had an implied contract.

              However, if I invite a 12 year old into my house, I can harm them on the way out because they can’t sign a contract.

              1. Children can not really enter binding contracts, whether written, verbal or implied. A child can not sue or be sued. The parent or guardian sues on behalf of the child and vice versa. If your kid smashed my window, I would sue you, not your kid.

          2. The mother invited it in, and should be precluded from renegging.

            The mother invited it in under the condition that she could evict it on a whim. She owns her body and, therefore, sets the terms under which the tenant can remain.

          3. “I 100% accept the eviction argument if the sex was not voluntary.”

            Why? If you believe life begins at conception, why is abortion okay in cases of rape? Isn’t it still murder, now matter how the fetus was conceived? If I kill a 5 year old who was conceived after rape, is that okay? Why not?

            But it isn’t the same thing! you will say. Exactly! A zygote is NOT a child. Early stage abortion (let’s not argue about late stage right now) is NOT murder. This amendment defines a zygote as a PERSON. With the same rights thereof. That is why it is dangerous.

            I don’t know when a fetus becomes a person. Everything is on a spectrum, and I don’t know where that exact point is. But I am positive it is not in the first trimester. Keep in mind that at the end of the first trimester, a fetus is less than 2.5 inches long. That is NOT a person.

      2. But abortion IS about freedom. The freedom of a woman to self-determination and bodily control.

        As other comments have said, extending NAP to the fetus is incredibly aggressive towards the woman – eliminating her free will and right to self-ownership.

        Even if you believe the fetus is a person, how can the state possibly compel a woman to continue an unwanted pregnancy? The state can’t compel me to take positive action to save another person’s life. Continuing a pregnancy is NOT analogous to not murdering someone. It is analogous to being forced to save someone else. I cannot be forced to donate blood or a kidney or to run into a burning building, even if it will save the life of another.

    3. Clearly the libertarian value of limited government means limiting the government’s ability to control what I do with my uterus.

      Not necessarily. You will find there are plenty of libertarians who feel that the rights of the unborn supersede what ever rights you feel you have concerning your utereus. It’s one of the divisive issues in libertarian ideology.

      1. Exactly. Most libertarians admit that there are at least a few legitimate functions of government. Defense, police, etc. All relating to securing the rights of individuals. It is entirely consistent with this formulation to claim that the government can step in to stop abortions in order to protect the unborn. However, doing so would require a demonstration that the unborn do, in fact, have rights as individuals. And that’s the rub. Hard to show one way or the other.

    4. Clearly the libertarian value of limited government means limiting the government’s ability to control what I do with my uterus.

      Not necessarily. You will find there are plenty of libertarians who feel that the rights of the unborn supersede what ever rights you feel you have concerning your utereus. It’s one of the divisive issues in libertarian ideology.

  12. Aside from the moral questions, I find one of the most strange aspects of legalized abortion is the sexual inequality as far as financial responsibility.

    Once a man chooses to have sex he is legally, financially responsible at the moment of conception. From that moment onward, he can not choose to refuse responsibility.

    A woman is rarely, if ever, held financially responsible. Not only is she not held responsible, she is even rewarded for her financial irresponsibility while the father is derided as a “deadbeat”.

    Instead of Lady Justice being blindfolded she has her hand down everyone’s pants.

    1. Do you think your Non-State society ancestors would have tolerated such bullshit?

      1. Stone the whore!

    2. I won’t rehash my situation here, but can personally attest to this inequality.

    3. Probably, in conjuction with the utter inequality that exists with divorce laws in America today is why you are seeing the marraige rate plummet and an increasing number of men say “Fuck it whers mah flesh light”

  13. I see after a brief nap, OccupyReason is up and running again. That sweet ACORN/Soros cash only flows as long as the DDoS continues.

    1. And probably as paranoid.

      Isn’t mass society a wonderful thing?

      Against Mass Society
      http://www.primitivism.com/mass-society.htm

    2. Why don’t you ignore it?

      1. Why don’t you ignore me?

          1. You’re the one who says this is just a “chat room” and how everything we talk about doesn’t matter, but yet you think it matters enough to come here and tell us it doesn’t matter. So it does matter to you.

            And I’d be happy to ignore her, and have taken technological steps to ignore her, and she evades those technologies by handle-hopping.

            1. SugarFree|11.7.11 @ 9:06AM

              The Pledge

              I will not respond in any way to rather or any of her other thousand spoof handles in any way (White Indian, et al.) I have never spoofed her handle, and support no one else doing so. Spoofing her gives her cover for her various trolling activities. Let her post her retarded form letters and whining unmolested; she will hoist herself on her own petard as she has always done.

              The Big Ignore begins today. Please do not feed any of the trolls.

              Ouch.

          1. Which is why I frequent glory holes so often. No names, no faces, just delicious KOCH.

    3. Glad people are ignoring them though.

      1. Take the Pledge.
        Tee-hee.

        1. Since you can’t read, I said I wasn’t going to respond to her, not never comment meta-textually about her.

          OK, I’m done feeding you. I’m going to put you on the ignore list. If you feel what you have to say to me matters so much that my conscious choice to ignore you is unimportant, feel free to adopt another handle.

        2. Take the Pledge.

          Put on the glasses!

          1. Only after an extended fight scene involving back-alley dumpsters.

    4. SF, you’ve finally gone off the deep end.

      1. It’s not a DDoS since the website is still available

      2. In particular, the articles themselves are completely unaffected

      3. Reason isn’t nearly dangerous enough to anyone to make it worthwile to finance such an attack.

  14. Libertarian believe in the wonderful progress our Lord and Savior the city-State (civilization) has so benevolently given mankind.

    It’s ever so funny to take the PROGRESSIVIST and STATIST paddle out of the Libertard’s hand and give them a dose of their own heap big medicine.

    1. Mmmmm. Poopy.

  15. Just because the religious right occasionally adopts progressive rhetoric to help their agenda doesn’t make this a progressive cause. You can’t place humanistic concern for an embryo over that for women and their right not to be forced by the state to give birth against their will.

    The right abuses liberal rhetoric all the time (see the Herman Cain affair and the shameless playing of the race card–has any politician played it so much in decades?), but it’s a paternalistic religious agenda nonetheless.

    1. …to campaign for this progressive juggernaut.

      Uncle KOCH told me so.

      1. Mmmm. KOCH. Tasty, tasty KOCH.

    2. What the fuck about our rights?

      1. talk like that again & im gonna slap the embyronic fluid outta that mouth

        1. I hope someone twice your size treats you the same way.

    3. The right left abuses liberal conservative rhetoric all the time (see the Herman Cain affair and the shameless playing of the race card–has any politician played it so much in decades?you mean Obama? but it’s a paternalistic religious nihilist agenda nonetheless.

      Way too easy. Here is a hint, there is nothing seperating a socon from a progressive other than the rhetoric they favor and the angle from which they wish to justify the imposition of their views upon us.

  16. Well, of course the entire difference over abortion is whether you see an embryo and earl fetus as a human person or not. If it is even libertarians have to be pro-life I should think. That’s not paternalism.

    1. Foraging cultures, for example, often believe that life begins at age two, and thus classify infanticide and abortion in the same category. Children are often not named or considered persons until that time. A !Kung woman goes into labor, and walks into the bush?maybe she comes back with a baby, and maybe she doesn’t. Whether stillborn or killed at birth, it’s not considered any business of anyone else’s. This kind of attitude has given foragers a very high infant mortality rate, leading many naive commentators to assume that their way of life must be terribly afflicted with disease to claim so many infants, and ultimately taking the skewed statistics that arise from such a practice to make statements on forager quality of life. In fact, all such commentary provides is a glimpse of the power of ethnocentrism to skew even what we might consider unbiased statistics.

      Thesis #25: Civilization reduces quality of life.
      by Jason Godesky | 11 January 2006
      http://rewild.info/anthropik/thirty/

      Luckily, our Lord and Savior, the city-STATE (civilization) has brought mankind great progress!

      1. Dead children gives my peepee rigor mortis.

        1. dont know what that is but eeuuwww !

      2. I love how there are actually multiple websites that you link to that are based entirely on the premise of civilization being evil and encouraging a return to a primitive, stone age world.
        They’re fucking WEBSITES!

        1. And you’re actually posting on it.

          WTF?

    2. Seeing an embryo as a person is itself where the phony liberal concern comes in. It could be, in another universe, a radical extension of liberalism (next up, chimps?), but it would have to be accompanied by a robust welfare state set up to take care of the offspring if it were born against the mother’s will, and I don’t see the conservative right clamoring for that. In fact liberal rhetoric is perverted in order to hold the embryo up as an object of humanistic concern while diminishing that concern for mothers and pretty much everybody else. People may believe deeply that an embryo is a person with civil rights, but that doesn’t mean they didn’t get those feelings from an essentially rhetorical effort in the service of a religious agenda.

      Some argue from a biblical point of view for embryo personhood, but I think it’s more likely that this effort is the continuation of religious patriarchy and religious concerns of sexual morality. The evidence is just lacking for the Christian right’s liberal concern for human rights in general.

      1. Years ago a premature baby would die because medical technology had not developed to where it is today. Was it still a person though it could not survive outside the womb?

        What happens if/when medical technology develops to the point where an embryo could survive outside the womb as a premature baby now can?

        Would you consider it to be a person then?

        1. That’s not a scientific question, so it should be tempered with all relevant concerns. There is a prohibition effect with abortion. Ban it and it still happens, only less safely, especially for the poor. I don’t think we should ever hold up the rights of an unborn child above those of the mother. While that may not be totally satisfying morally, I see no sense or benefit in diminishing women’s rights because science has advanced. But it’s not an easy question.

          1. If medical science developed to the point where there was a choice between aborting (killing) the fetus, and allowing it to develop (live) outside the womb, would you still support abortion?

            1. I see no social benefit from maximizing the number of humans on this planet. But let’s assume we have enough resources and there’s a strong welfare state in place to arrange for the care and upbringing of these unwanted babies. I still don’t think the state should force women’s hand on this matter, and the only hypothetical scenario I can envision where it should is if there was a dire need for more babies in society.

              1. No social benefit? You are a fucking ghoul. Babies who survive late term abortions are left to die every day. Fuck you.

              2. That’s hideous. Your evaluation of whether or not government should step in is based solely on “social benefit”? You’re better off with the force argument – but not much, for this particular hypothetical.

                1. Government should only do things that are for the common good. I can envision a hypothetical in which forcing women to take pregnancies to term is better than the alternative, but that’s only because I’m OK with government authority being different to cope with different realities.

                  1. Oh, NOW you’re all into the common good.

                  2. Government should only do things that are for the common good.

                    Mandatory abortions for poor people could easily be demonstrated as being for the common good. Utilitarianism is evil.

              3. You mean other than the increased likelihood of discovery and human advancement that comes with an ever rising population Tony? And don’t give me that Malthusian crap. It has been roundly proven false over these past 200 years, and if any of the population boomers actually did some dam research they would see that we are facing the prosepct of a population crunch. But I guess asking for five minutes of research is too much to ask from a malthusian isn’t it?

            2. Yes. Because I don’t give a fuck about something that has the potential to develop into a person. I only care about actual people. Want to argue about late-term abortion? Have at it. But objection to first trimester abortions is based on a definition of personhood that purely genetic.

          2. Just to play devil’s advocate…at what point should we hold up the rights of a child over the rights of the parent?

            What is the special relationship between an unborn person and a parent, that allows the parent to terminate that life and the born person and a parent that prevents them from terminating the life?

            1. Abortion is a service liberal societies allow. Forbidding abortions is what religious fundamentalist societies require. That’s honestly good enough for me. I don’t buy the human rights talk–since conservative christians don’t seem to care about applying it to anyone else.

              1. Translation: “I go Team Blue regardless of personal morality”

              2. None of that follows logically. Our rights are no based on being granted by anyone (government, your mother), nor are they based on anyone defining us as human (scientist, the Supreme Court).

                Back in the day we also used to define people as non-human based on their skin color and treat them accordingly; it seems little has changed.

      2. And let me say I’m not lumping in all Christians… many are among the hardest workers in the service of human well-being. Just not the political wing of the religion that pushes such legislation.

      3. Hey Tony, did you ever consider the idea that someone on a libertarian website might be against abortion because of the ideas of non-aggression and personal responsibility?

        1. No because you’re then required to be in favor of rather harsh aggression toward mothers, namely, using the state to force them to give birth against their will.

  17. Once the baby is born, however, progressives say not only that the parents have obligations toward the child?but that so does everyone else. Through no choice of their own, people thousands of miles away are suddenly on the hook to make sure the child gets adequate food, decent housing, and a good education. The implied social contract that did not bind a mother to her baby suddenly binds complete strangers to it.

    Every time I read stuff like this I’m completely convinced that I don’t even want to live in the same city as conservatives/libertarians.

    I’m all for separating this country so that people that don’t wanna pay taxes and don’t want to help anyone else can live in a place like that.

    There are many many people that are ok with feed a kid thousands of miles away that we don’t know.

    WE NEED A DIVORCE IN THIS COUNTRY BETWEEN the Conservatives/Libertarians and everyone else.

    1. Here in NYC, we have mexicans, gays, whites, blacks, rich people and poor people.

      We get along. Those of us with means are taxed and we feed, cloth, medicate, and house others…even when those other may be ‘un-deserving’.

      I make good money, I pay high taxes, and even the children of illegal aliens and chidren of the poor have great opportunities here in the metro NYC area and do move up.

      The rest of this country is ass-backwards. I’m all for whatever you people want…and long as it doesn’t apply to us here.

      And, if you’re a libertarian/conservative living here that wants to make NYC area more Libertarian and not pay taxes and be a roughed individuals that need nobody…move to Texas. It’ll be the best for both of us.

      1. The rights of the sovereign citizen are valid in all 50 states. Fuck off.

        1. I wish it was MORE SOVEREIGN…I agree with you . No need to tell me to fuck off.

          I’d love it if this were the case. This way, you people can live in a state where you pay no taxes, there’s no government, and you take care of yourselves. And, those that are ok with the current system can live in other states as well.

          1. TEH CHILDREN NEED ROADZ!

          2. The sovereign citizen’s rights can’t be violated by any majority in any state. That’s why we’re a republic. Statists can leave and live in the socialist utopias that still exist.

      2. And, if you’re a libertarian/conservative living here that wants to make NYC area more Libertarian and not pay taxes and be a roughed individuals that need nobody…move to Texas. It’ll be the best for both of us.

        Careful what you ask for ….

        1. Yeah, seems like everybody’s already moving there.

    2. “There are many many people that are ok with feed a kid thousands of miles away that we don’t know.”
      Are you one of those people? If so, does the fact that you’re OK with that give you the moral right to use the force of gov to be as “generous” with my money as you apparently are with yours?

      1. I’M LIKE MOTHER TERESA IF SHE HAD A GOVERNMENT GUN TO HER HEAD AND EVERY PLACE BUT NYC IS PRACTICALLY SOMALIA!

      2. ^^ This.

        There is a world of difference between a person voluntarily donating time or money to help others and sticking a gun to someone’s head and forcing them to “donate” to help others.

        I love how the “compassionate” people have no problem using the threat of force against less “compassionate” people.

    3. WE NEED A DIVORCE IN THIS COUNTRY BETWEEN the Conservatives/Libertarians and everyone else.

      Yeah. We get the house though.

  18. I’ve said for a long time the best way to paint liberals into a corner is to use the commerce clause argument against abortion. Congress has the power to regulate (and ban) abortions because of its effects on interstate commerce. They need an ample supply of men for wars and future taxpayers to fund social security and other redistribution programs.

    The liberals are now in check, either concede that the federal government’s power under the commerce clause is not broad, or concede abortion in the name of providing more power to the government.

    1. I like it. Let’s do it.

    2. Congress can’t violate constitutional rights for the purposes of regulating commerce.

      1. It can and it has, it violates the right to privacy by prohibiting a farmer to use his own land for his own purpose by growing weed or wheat (take your pick) for their own consumption. Congress can’t violate my right to privacy, that is prohibit me from doing what I want(abortion), except when it can (gambling, drugs, growing wheat on my property).

          1. Good, I’d rather not live in a society where a body of people (elected or unelected, it’s irrelevant) decide for me what my fundamentals rights are, and then proceed to pass legislation that encroaches on what I define as a fundamental right, but they do not.

    3. that’s silly.

      Believe it or not, we see more than mere black and white.

      You need the commerce clause, you need legal abortions.

      1. we see more than mere black and white.

        That’s a coded way of saying we have no principles. We don’t really believe in rights, we’ll just grant priveledges based on whether we find the outcomes favorable.

        1. Indeed: other code words for the unprincipled approach are “complex”, “intricate” and “sophisticated”.

  19. It’s actually quite interesting how libertarian certain breeds of feminist start to sound when you get them talking about abortion. “It’s my uterus. Mine! Fetuses are parasites. You can’t make me devote my time, resources, and health to another being without my consent!”

    They like that concept. Consent. I like it too. Good concept. Wish somebody would develop a set of ethical or political beliefs based around it.

    1. When I was in college I thought I was a feminist. Finally figured out I was a libertarian and things make so much more sense.

  20. I see a lot of libertarian atheists posting that science can’t prove that God exists, so there isn’t a God. Science can prove that an embryo is a living human being, an individual with their own DNA and fingerprints, a beating heart, brain waves, but they want to ignore that science. It interferes with the baby boomer credo – “If it feels good, do it!”

    1. No one is ignoring the science. No one is going to argue with you over whether fetuses have fingerprints. They just disagree about what it means.

      Unique human DNA and a heartbeat do not necessarily entitle one to moral consideration outweighing the needs of any woman in whom one might happen to start growing.

      There is certainly a moral argument to be had. Just don’t pretend anyone is “ignoring the science.”

      1. Well said.

      2. Unique human DNA and a heartbeat do not necessarily entitle one to moral consideration outweighing the needs of the society in whom one might happen to live.

        Fixed that for you…

        1. Oh my god. Your semantic trickery has caused me to completely reevaluate my worldview.

          SOCIETY is totally an identifiable entity with well-defined needs of its own, independent of the needs of its component parts.

          How could I have missed this?

          1. Whether you like it or not, people like TONY do believe that society is identifiable and has needs beyond it’s component parts.

            The article that you have been mocking from the beginning was simply pointing out that your simplistic logic of WOMAN > FETUS is based in the same simplistic logic that tyrants have used to justify the oppression and control of people.

            I get it that abortion is an important issue for you, but if you don’t believe that the issue of abortion is wrapped up in all sorts of other arguments about the rights of people, the non-aggression principle, the control an individual should have over themselves, the obligations an individual has over their own actions, and the obligations people have to society; then you are simply ignoring the complexities around this issue.

            1. Of course I believe the issue of abortion is wrapped up in the arguments over the rights of people, the non-aggression principle, etc. I’m not ignoring the complexities; I’m disagreeing with you.

              My “simplistic logic” took issue with your analogy of FETUS is to WOMAN as INDIVIDUAL is to SOCIETY. As I pointed out, society is not an identifiable entity with needs of its own. It cannot have rights. Women, however, are and do.

              I’m not advocating taking hammers to newborns’ heads as they crown, as someone suggested below. I’m saying that a zygote and an embryo and a fetus are different from what we mean when we say “child,” and that we should give them moral weight accordingly.

              1. Labeling some individuals as “sub-human” is as old as genocide. Thank your mother for agreeing with me.

              2. BTW – I don’t disagree with you over the different stages of life from components to child, and that those differences should be taken in the legal arguments over abortion.

                I just took issue with your original attempt to somehow claim that framing this argument in terms of liberty and the encroachment of society over those personal liberties, somehow diminished abortion rights.

                You are going to find more success with many who are strongly pro-life arguing for the continued legalization of abortion and framing it in the terms of personal freedom and liberty. For precisely the reason that the fundamental principles of progressive thought does believe that society is a unique entity that the members have obligations to. That society has rights to your time, your money, your resources, and that you have an obligation to support society. Which are principles that most who are “pro-life” do not believe.

                By trying to say that abortion cannot be argued in those terms because it is somehow different, you are going to end up not making a convincing argument to anyone who strongly believes in the sanctity of life or the rights of the unborn.

                1. I really don’t know which comment of mine gave you the idea that framing the argument in terms of liberty diminishes abortion rights. At this point, I’m quite confused. What exactly do you think I think?

                  1. Hehe, my bad…I just went back to one of the first comments I replied to. Someone else was making that argument not you. Mea Culpa.

                    1. Heh, it’s all good. I’ve just got one of those faces, you know? People mistake me for other people all the time. 🙂

                    2. I get that myself. 🙂

                      It’s just easy to lose whom you were talking to with the way this site’s comments work and the speed at which arguments like this one progress.

      3. Unique human DNA and a heartbeat do not necessarily entitle one to moral consideration[…].

        Then what other criteria should, in your opinion?

        1. To grow in someone else’s body and take all of your sustenance directly from their bloodstream?

          Hard to imagine what would qualify except an explicit invitation.

          1. Let’s turn that around and ask what would qualify as justification to kill an innocent person.

            The analogies to things that happen outside the womb are all flawed because there’s no situation quite like it. Eviction doesn’t ever involve killing an innocent person, and situations where you are required to exercise care for another person usually don’t involve direct bodily connection.

            1. Let’s turn that around and ask what would qualify as justification to kill an innocent person.

              We’re at cross-purposes, terminologically speaking. I find it difficult to morally value a fetus in the same way that I would value a fully realized, self-aware human being. What is “killing an innocent person” to you is “aborting the process that will lead to an innocent person” to me.

              Perhaps “person”/”non-person” is the most useful moral distinction to make here, anyway. Capacity to suffer seems more relevant.

              1. Whoops, quick edit:

                *ISN’T the most useful moral distinction…

            2. Let’s turn that around and ask what would qualify as justification to kill an innocent person.

              Let’s turn that around and ask you to try again without begging the question.

          2. My wife and I argue circles around this issue from time to time, which is funny cause I’m not really for banning abortion. Anyways, I’m curious where you would place personal responsibility in all of this? Cause personal choices and actions led to the fetus growing in someone else’s body getting its sustenance from their bloodstream.

            1. I think personal responsibility in reproductive matters is incredibly important. I’ve treated it that way in my own life, and I expect the same of other women.

              But maybe sometimes responsibility means not allowing a pregnancy to go to term when you know you are unprepared for the end result.

      4. outweighing the needs of any woman in whom one might happen to start growing.

        Wow, how does that happen anyway?

        1. Damned if I know. Mom started to tell this story about a bird and a bee, but she got so embarrassed we had to stop halfway through. I’m assuming the bird delivers the kid and the bee supervises.

          1. Good to know you’re not ignoring the science, lol.

            1. My boyfriend told me this other story, but I’m not sure I believe him. Sounds gross.

              1. Did it involve a stork flying in your window, turning the lights down low and turning on some mood music? Cause that’s what my dad told me.

        2. outweighing the needs of any woman in whom one might happen to start growing.

          Wow, how does that happen anyway?

          Who cares?

  21. Why is it that most who oppose abortion because it destroys innocent life tend to support the death penalty, and most who oppose the death penalty because an innocent person may be executed tend to support abortion?

    1. It’s not support of abortion, it’s support of the right of women not to be forced to give birth against their will by the state.

      1. Also known as abortion.

      2. So when the baby is crowning and the mother has second thoughts, it’s OK to crush it’s skull and vacu-suck it out of her?

        There’s your argument, right?

        1. There will be a line somewhere, but it will be more or less arbitrary. Humans are marsupial-like in their childrearing so picking a point at which offspring becomes an autonomous person is difficult. It could easily be post-womb.

          1. And your side is the right side to draw that line?

            It could easily be post-womb.

            So, you are not only advocating abortion, you are advocating last minute abortion…as a choice?

            Tell me, Tony, what about a father that says he doesn’t want a child. Should he be able to abort his financial responsibility?

            1. Yes my side is the right one to draw the line, because Christians are muddled in their thinking by belief in invisible friends in the sky.

              I’m fine with drawing it in the womb, the old tradition is that a fetus becomes a person when it kicks for the first time, so something around then works for me.

              I think mothers should have the ultimate say since they happen to be the person physically affected. I do wonder exactly how liberal the right’s position on abortion would be if men were the ones who had to give birth.

              1. Yes my side is the right one to draw the line, because Christians are muddled in their thinking by belief in invisible friends in the sky.

                What does belief in God have to do with recognizing personhood and individual liberty? I know plenty of atheists on here who base personhood on strictly scientific criteria…like unique DNA and a heartbeat.

                You diminish your argument when you play the religion card. Nut your argument is shit either way, so I’m not surprised.

                1. Nut=But.

                  No pun intended, Tony.

                2. I don’t trust people who fervently believe in invisible friends in the sky to make social policy, no. Sorry. There is no scientific criterion for defining personhood since personhood is a social construct. The only rational standard we have to fall back on is utilitarian.

                  1. There is no scientific criterion for defining personhood since personhood is a social construct.

                    True, but their are scientific criterion for “alive” and “human”. Not only do we know exactly when new life begins, we do it in labs on a regular basis.

                  2. What about the 90% of Xtians that have a more nuanced understanding of God? Also, since your understanding of the idea of God is as equally blunt as theirs, I don’t think you should have any say either.

                  3. I’d say believing your dick goes in an asshole is as dumb or dumber than believing in God.

              2. “Mothers should have the ultimate say since they’re the one’s physically affected.”

                True, and by the same logic, rich people should have the say over what constitutes “basic needs” for poor people, since its their money that’s ultimately affected.

                1. Great point. I’m borrowing it.

          2. Humans are marsupial-like in their childrearing

            Please explain

            1. Human children are not able to care for themselves after birth and require years of care and protection. Most other mammals are at least capable of moving independently and defending themselves (hiding) shortly after birth.

              1. Most other mammals are from the orders rodentia and chiroptera. Google pictures of “newborn rat” and “newborn bat” and reconsider the capabilities you assume for them.

                The phrase was specific to marsupials.

              2. Mowgli was raised by wolves.

    2. “Why is it that most who oppose abortion because it destroys innocent life tend to support the death penalty, and most who oppose the death penalty because an innocent person may be executed tend to support abortion?”

      I don’t know? Maybe some people see a slight difference between an unborn baby and someone who rapes and murders a bunch of people? Not sure what the difference could possibly be?

      1. Perhaps their experience of babies is limited to Stewie Griffin.

      2. Perhaps their experience of babies is limited to Stewie Griffin.

      3. There is absolutely no possibility of an innocent person being executed?

        1. Of course there’s a possibility, and most death penalty supporters also support an extensive appeals system to make that less likely.

          But with abortion the murder of an innocent person is guaranteed.

        2. Yes, there is that possibility. That is a perfectly good argument against the death penalty. Unlike your original false equivalence of unborn children to suspected psychopaths, which is not an argument at all but a much repeated lame attempt to claim hypocracy where none actually exist.

      4. There is no difference: they both have potential.

    3. Good question sarcasmic. I’ve often wondered the same thing. Before I realized my political thinking was libertarian, I was anti-death penalty, and pro choice. However, now I am starting to apply the non-aggression principle to the abortion issue as well, and am becoming pro life. It is an interesting dilemma for libertarians, because there are good arguments for both sides of the issue.

    4. Why is it that most who oppose abortion because it destroys innocent life tend to support the death penalty

      You just answered your own question.

    5. I’d say from the argument that an individual being put to death, ignoring false conviction, has generally warranted something that justifies killing them. Did anyone here shed a tear when they killed McVeigh, the DC snipers, or Osama? Big difference between those fucks and an unborn.

    6. I’m one of those rare people that’s against both.

      1. You mean against both abortion & the DP? That position shouldn’t be rare; after all, that’s the official position of the Catholic Church.

  22. “It’s not support of abortion, it’s support of the right of women not to be forced to give birth against their will by the state.”

    In other words, it’s support of the right of women to deny the right to life of the unborn child growing inside them? How is that libertarian?

    1. I don’t know if it’s libertarian, but the right to get an abortion is a liberal right because abortion is a fact of human existence, we’re not going to jail mothers for doing it, and if you ban it there will simply be abortions happening unsafely along class lines.

      How is the state forcing women to undergo the trauma of giving birth against their will libertarian?

      1. In answer to your question, because the child growing inside her has the right to life, isn’t it so? How is it libertarian to deny that unborn child the right to live, to be able to live free and pursue his/her own happiness?

        Just because abortion is a fact of human existence and should abortions be banned, abortions would happen unsafely, doesn’t make abortions right, nor should it be an excuse to keep abortions legal.

        1. Again, there is no scientific answer to where personhood begins, so it’s best to draw the line where it maximizes the well-being of living persons. Any line drawn will be arbitrary. It’s absurd to say a newly fertilized embryo is the equivalent of a person, otherwise the natural expulsion of 1/3 of them would be considered an ongoing tragedy of epic proportions.

          The standard to me is whether you’re prepared to give mother’s life in prison or the death penalty for getting abortions. If you’re not, then you don’t really think fetuses are persons.

          1. Tony, that is an absurd standard to follow, not to mention illogical and borderline incoherent.

            1. I hope the soylent green content is labled, I do not want to consume any of Tony.

            2. Maximum utility! Down with the retards!

          2. ” gain, there is no scientific answer to where personhood begins, so it’s best to draw the line where it maximizes the well-being of living persons.”

            Tony, I actually agree with you in generaln on this one, but I have to point out how this comment is typical of your illogical nonsense. How the hell are you supposed to maximize the well-being of “living persons” when the definition of “living person” is what’s in question?

      2. Murder is a fact of human existence. It’s banned, and yet it still happens.

        1. So you want to jail mothers for getting abortions?

          1. I do. First degree premeditated murder.

            Does that answer your question?

            1. …to sloopy.

              MOLON LABIA.

              Come and get her!

              Really. Go ahead and try, you assclown libertard-authoritarian bastard.

              1. Oh noes!!11!!ELEVENTY!! Dah Internetz Tuff Gaizz iz here!

                1. kthnks, Restoras

          2. Yeah I always found this argument odd. This seems to the only crime where would have to concern ourselves immensely with the perpetrator. We don’t hand bank robbers ATM cards because we are concerned for their safety.

      3. Violence is a fact of human existence, and yet we ban it and subject violators to jail. And we ban sex-selective abortion too, even though these are rooted socially in over hundreds of generations of sex preference.

      4. Let me see if I can break this down for you. BEING HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR ACTIONS IS NOT FORCE!

        That being said, the idea of outlawing abortion and throwing those women in jail is pretty damn retarded. The fact of the matter is there is no answer that can balance the right to existence or the right to govern one’s own body. The best we can do is say that it shouldn’t be illegal and that the government should never pay for it.

        1. Ejecting Western Civilization.

          BEING HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR ACTIONS IS NOT FORCE!

          I love it.

          Your own words.

          1. Yay, I’ve been White Indianed. Do I get a prize or something?

            1. One of those tacky fucking dream catchers.

    2. Exactly how much concern are we supposed to have for all of these precious unborn?

      What about the dozens of fertilized eggs that fail to implant and are passed out of the body? Have I committed negligent homicide? Must we hold a funeral?

      Where is the line drawn? Six weeks? Eight? Viability outside the womb (ever-shifting line dependent on technology)?

      This is not a simple question of whose rights trump whose.

      1. This is not a simple question of whose rights trump whose.

        No it is not a simple question. That is why the simple answer of mother trumps child is not the appropriate argument and the extension of that line of thought justifies all sorts of other abuses of individuals.

        1. “Mother trumps child” is not a position anyone holds. No one thinks Mom should be able to leave her infant on a cliff for the wolves if she doesn’t like how blotchy and wrinkly it is.

          1. The Chinese do.

            1. The Chinese? Are you sure that wasn’t SPARTA?

              1. Them to. Few societies place the same value on children as modern American society.

              2. Replace “on a cliff” with “down a well,” and the Chinese comparison becomes more clear.

                1. me chinese, me make joke, me throw baby down well

                  1. LAAAAAAAACIST!!!

      2. Yes, it is a simple question of whose rights trump whose because it boils down to a right to life, and without the guarantee of that right to life, how can we be sure of the right to liberty or the right to pursue one’s own happiness?

        1. “Life” and “personhood” are not nearly as clear-cut as that. God did not pull out his Sharpie and draw a thick line between sentient-human-being and small-cluster-of-cells.

          Anyone who has spent time studying the process of gametes forming a zygote will recognize that everything exists on a continuum. There is no magic point before which we have a sperm and an egg, and after which we have a person.

          These are not easy answers. Not everyone will agree on them.

          1. The very root of the disagreements over abortion has to do with one simple question: when do YOU believe life begins? So, yes, not everyone will agree on this, but to me, the issue of life and personhood are one and the same. Life is life, and when we know there is life, who are we to support the possible denial of that one child’s right to live?

            Also, bringing up zygotes in the debate is usually a straw man argument to justify the argument that life doesn’t begin at conception. How many of the aborted fetuses were aborted at the zygote stage? The answer is none; abortions take place when fetal development is already at the stage where it is impossible to deny there is an unborn child growing inside of his/her mother.

            1. Some people regard IUDs and the morning-after pill as forms of abortion and would like to see them banned. It sounds like you are not one of them. Therefore we do in fact agree in principle that life and rights do not begin at conception.

              1. Ashlyn, I hearby declare you to be non human. Tread carefully. And check your brakes.

                1. Oh my god. My car’s been making a funny noise for like a month. I’ve been asking and asking the mechanic boyfriend to do something about it, and he says it’s fine, he doesn’t hear anything…

                  Concerned Citizen, are you gaslighting me before you kill me?

                  1. I am now.

              2. No, Ashlyn, I believe life begins at conception. What I wrote in the last comment was to make the point that abortionists do not literally perform abortions when the unborn child is at the zygote stage.

                I honestly don’t know if contraceptives like the morning-after pill are forms of abortion, but I am opposed to RU 486, which only induces abortions and is not a contraceptive.

                1. How about IUDs?

                  They seem to work by preventing implantation. No one is exactly sure why they work, just that they work real damn good. Up to ten years of worry-free baby-proofing – no remembering to take a pill, no “Oops, it broke,” and much less expensive in the long run.

                  Is it permissible to you?

                  1. Like I told you in the previous comment, I don’t know honestly.

                    1. Ah, sorry to make you repeat yourself!

          2. There is no magic point before which we have a sperm and an egg, and after which we have a person.

            Meiosis begins with one diploid cell containing two copies of each chromosome?one from the organism’s mother and one from its father?and produces four haploid cells containing one copy of each chromosome. Each of the resulting chromosomes in the gamete cells is a unique mixture of maternal and paternal DNA, ensuring that offspring are genetically distinct from either parent.

            Magic? Maybe not. Scientific? Absolutely.

          3. There is no magic point before which we have a sperm and an egg, and after which we have a person.

            Yes, but the transformation is of extremely short duration in comparison to every other event in human development. It happens faster than birth does, that’s for damn sure.

      3. What about the dozens of fertilized eggs that fail to implant and are passed out of the body? Have I committed negligent homicide?

        Ah, Ron Bailey’s pet argument. It’s not negligent homicide since you had no way of knowing your actions were putting anyone in danger because you didn’t know the embryos even existed.

        1. But do you regard this as a monumental tragedy? The deaths of multitudes of uncounted, unnamed people every year? Should we begin medical research to see if we can lower the death toll? If not, why not?

          1. But do you regard this as a monumental tragedy?

            Monumental tragedies have to have an emotional component to them, which can’t happen for unknown little blobs that would be tough to distinguish from blood clots if you could even see them with a microscope.

            It’s sort of the same way I don’t regard the thousands of people dying in car accidents every year or the millions of African kids shitting themselves to death every year as a monumental tragedy. I mean, sure it sounds bad when you hear it, but since you have no connection to these people you forget about it five minutes later.

            Which is why I find it puzzling when pro-choicers accuse pro-lifers of being “emotional” about the issue. There’s little to get emotional about when you’re talking about saving an embryo, it’s a purely rational (from different first premises) position. Rather, it’s the pro-choicers who inevitably attempt to justify every abortion by citing the case of a 12 year old getting raped by her brother and getting pregnant with a kid with 157 chromosomes.

            Should we begin medical research to see if we can lower the death toll? If not, why not?

            That would be a seriously tall order. There’s no indication it’s even possible since the human body is not cooperating.

            1. It’s sort of the same way I don’t regard the thousands of people dying in car accidents every year or the millions of African kids shitting themselves to death every year as a monumental tragedy.

              There are plenty of people who have devoted their lives to reducing deaths such as these. Billions have been spent to improve car safety features or to distribute aid. There is no similar push to save the millions of “people” dying shortly after their journey down the fallopian tube. Do you think there should be?

              There’s no indication it’s even possible since the human body is not cooperating.

              Prohibitively expensive and potentially impossible? Sure. But to my knowledge no one is even looking into this. No one considers it a problem – solve-able or otherwise. Concern for zygotes who fail to implant or for embryos that are spontaneously, naturally aborted just… isn’t there.

              Unless the situation somehow involves a woman making an active choice about the matter. Then all life is sacred and no price is too high.

              1. Unless the situation somehow involves a woman making an active choice about the matter. Then all life is sacred and no price is too high.

                Yes. Just like we spend a lot more effort and money punishing a person who chooses to kill one other person, than we spend on remedying the conditions that led to a car accident that killed one person.

                Punishing people who choose to kill is often more effective than preventing accidental deaths.

                1. Punishing people who choose to kill is often more effective than preventing accidental deaths.

                  Effective? Morally and emotionally satisfying, sure. But you’ll save a hell of a lot more people preventing the accidental deaths than punishing “killers.”

                  And while it is indeed expensive to try, convict, and punish capital offenders, we’ve spent far more on safety regulations and technology to prevent accidental deaths.

              2. There are plenty of people who have devoted their lives to reducing deaths such as these. Billions have been spent to improve car safety features or to distribute aid.

                And they have been only marginally effective in both cases.

                Plus, those are much easier problems to solve. It’s fairly obvious what needs to be done to combat poor sanitation and car crash injuries.

                Finding a way to guarantee implantation of an embryo traveling through the uterus when no one is aware of its presence, and indeed even detecting its presence would be difficult even under laboratory conditions? That’s orders of magnitude harder.

                1. You are much, much less likely to die in a car accident than you were forty or fifty years ago, largely due to expensive improvements in technology. “Marginally effective” isn’t quite accurate.

                  I have no idea about the success record of international aid.

                  Point is, “It’s hard” is not a persuasive moral reason not to give a shit about single-celled people. It’s a pragmatic one, and I think you’re right. It would be quixotic and criminally wasteful to try to save them. (Maybe those fertility clinic people have ideas, though.)

                  But if pro-lifers truly believed un-implanted or spontaneously aborted embryos were people, it seems like there would be at least some wing of the movement somewhere that showed a passing interest in preventing their mass deaths.

  23. What obligations do private individuals have to cede control of their bodies?their persons?to others for the sake of the collective good?

    I dunno, libertarians think retirees and poor people ought to give up their access to basic needs in order to preserve tax cuts for billionaires for the supposed collective good, so you tell me.

    1. I dunno, libertarians think retirees and poor people ought to give up their access to basic needs in order to preserve tax cuts for billionaires for the supposed collective good, so you tell me.

      I don’t see libertarians blocking entrances to hospitals, shopping malls or Old Country Buffet. How are we keeping them from accessing those basic needs?

      Oh, you mean keep them from accessing the fruits of our labor through taxation to meet the needs they failed to plan for, right?

      1. Not the fruits of your labor, your excess wealth. And yes I don’t believe the state should inflict the death penalty on people for the crime of “failing to plan.”

        I’m just saying, libertarians and everyone else with a political philosophy is arguing for the “common good” so the central premise of this article is faulty.

        1. I’m not arguing for the “common good.” I’m arguing for my right for you to leave me the fuck alone. It just happens that that is what’s best for the common good.

          BTW, what gives you the right to determine when the fruits of someone’s labor magically turns into excess wealth?

          1. When there are people in a society without access to basic needs, and also people with huge amounts of wealth, the excess is what covers the lacking basic needs.

            1. I think we’re all clear on what you believe at this point, Tony. I believe what he was asking is, just who the fuck do you think you are?

              1. Someone not suffering from a severe case of wealth worship and misguided radical individualism.

                1. Couldn’t have said it better myself.

                2. The problem, asshole, as you well know since we’ve covered this ground ONE MILLIONS TIMES, is what you define as a “basic need”.

                  Most rational people would say food and clothing.

                  Your kind say a BA in underwater Ethiopian basket weaving and $100,000/month cutting-edge cancer treatments are all basic, fundamental human rights which must be paid for by society.

            2. the number of people with huge amounts of wealth is not nearly enough compared to the amount of poorer people to be able to pay for the “basic needs” that you and liberals wish to be provided for

              ACTUAL basic needs; unemployment insurance, maybe some food stamps, etc. Yeah, absolutely. Totally affordable.

              The endless shit you guys want to give everyone? Nope. That money doesn’t exist

              DO THE MATH. You’ll find this to be undeniably true.

              1. Where do you get “endless” from “basic”? The point is the costs will be there whether we’re organized to pay them or not. People will still need medical care, etc. Desperate people commit crimes. There are always costs associated with poverty. And recent tax cuts amount to trillions of dollars of lost revenue. That’s not chump change.

                1. Well, $74 billion in a $3.7 trillion budget ain’t exactly a lot, relatively speaking.

                2. because the things you want really are frakin endless. I mean really, honestly, does liberal rhetoric have any end? Be honest with yourself. Will it ever actually stop? Hmmm? Am I to believe it’s just going to stop if you guys get your way a little? I mean Christ I once saw a guy honestly suggest that we subsidize groceries in urban areas to help spread healthy eating. Jesus Christ.

                  As the other poster said, your idea of “basic needs” includes $100,000/month chemotherapy treatments.

                  How about fucking just unemployment insurance, some housing to a certain extent (which includes HVAC and drinking water), food stamps, and clothes. Those are actual “basic needs”

                  Nobody’s against a basic social safety net (no one that matters anyway, these liberdouches notwiuthstanding most Republicans are not – the the liberdouches are an extreme minority that is actually marginalized), but you essentially want to try to end all major and minor forms of suffering altogether.

                  And ditto the guy below. Who are all these people who can’t get access to basic needs? Where are all these oodles of people? Food, clothing, shelter are NOT that expensive or in that short of supply. Your magical world where everyone gets top-shelf medical care for free? Sure. But real world basic needs, not so much.

            3. I would like proof of all of these unwashed masses who can’t even get ACCESS to basic needs. You can line my driveway with their rotting corpses if you need space to count them. Until then, good day to you sir.

              /tips top hat and shuts mansion door

            4. Well, the status quo already more than supports basic needs so Tony obviously wants cuts in social programs.

        2. And yes I don’t believe the state should inflict the death penalty on people for the crime of “failing to plan.”

          Yeah, you’re saying the state should reward it. Go fuck yourself.

          1. No, it should “reward” being human by allowing people to live and not forcing them to die in the service of a billionaire’s tax cut.

            1. No, it should “reward” being human by allowing people to live and not forcing them to die in subsidize the service lifestyle of a billionaire’s tax cut retiree too stupid or lazy to plan for his golden years.

              FIFY

              1. Before FDR, everyone lied down and died by age 62. Fact.

                1. FDR ended Carousel.

                  Most people didn’t know that either.

            2. “We allow you to live.”

        3. Define “excess” wealth.

          Tony, for example, nees nothing more than a cardboard box to live in. Anything else is excess wealth.

          1. Wealth is the product of work, so I don’t really see how any of it is excess.

            1. Correction: Wealth is a product of productive value.

              1. Subtle nuance but yes, I agree.

        4. Yeah, let me tell you about MY excess wealth. Whoa boy you better watch out before my wealth just spills over onto your face and hair, and maybe in your eyes.

      2. How are we keeping them from accessing those basic needs?

        Tony has made it clear that not giving equals taking, and not taking equals giving.

        Therefor a tax cut (taking less) is giving, and an entitlement cut (giving less) is taking.

        1. Taxes = spending cuts. John Stewart wouldn’t even buy that one.

    2. WTF is wrong with you?

      libertarians think retirees and poor people ought to give up their access to basic needs in order to preserve tax cuts for billionaires for the supposed collective good

      Letting people keep more of what they earned only requires leaving people the fuck alone. How does anyone keeping their own money keep someone else from seeing a doctor or buying groceries? It doesn’t, shithead. They’re still free to trade with the doctor or grocery store.

      1. Define earned. Is it equal to “acquired”?

        “Leave me the fuck alone” is the political philosophy of teenagers. You don’t get to be left alone because you share this planet with 7 billion people. It’s not your planet, it’s everyone’s. Sorry about that.

        1. Define earned. Is it equal to “acquired”?

          No. Acquired is the zero-sum assumption that one person’s wealth comes at another person’s expense.

          Steve Job’s fortune was not acquired. It was created and earned.

          That is different from, say, anything related to government. A government employees wealth is indeed acquired, for someone else had to create and earn it.
          Same with the entitlement class. Their wealth is also acquired.

        2. Libertarians always miss the part about handouts being harmful to the recipients sometimes. Poverty is often a cycle because of do-gooders. Teaching a man to fish is way better than handing him the fish afterall. I’m not saying there is no selfish motivation in some peoples’ hatred of social programs, just that there is also a selfish motivation in “helping” poor people stay right where they are.

          1. I’m not in favor of handouts so much as social insurance. A bottom line to the level of misery people are allowed to fall if they make bad decisions. That applies to everyone who could possibly be a “loser” in capitalism. Libertarians say government shouldn’t pick winners and losers but they never get around to saying what we should do about the losers.

            1. they never get around to saying what we should do about the losers.

              Libertarians do not oppose voluntary charity.

              Or by “we” do you mean government?

              Because I do not consider myself to be part of government.
              I consider myself to be a member of society who is thrown a bone once a year by the organization with the monopoly in violence, in the form of an election.

              1. In Cinciannti recently, a 2 year old boy was returned to his birth parents after spending most of his life in foster care. The baby daddy stomped the little guy to death. The mother admitted that she only wanted him for the welfare check. Suck it Tony. This happens every day among people who are rewarded for their “poor decisions.”

                1. The mother admitted that she only wanted him for the welfare check.

                  Having spent some time volunteering at the community college where my sister-in-law works as a teacher, I cannot stress enough how prevalent this mentality was and still is! And not just for those that already have kids, but for those who speak of future children in terms of their welfare check generating abilities.

                  1. So… what do you do with the children of these awful parents? Does personal responsibility extend to being responsible for your parents’ bad decisions, or is this America?

            2. Tony, may you get the government you wish for.

  24. “What obligations do private individuals have to cede control of their bodies?their persons?to others for the sake of the collective good?”

    And the individual growing inside his/her mother? Doesn’t he/she have the right to his/her own body? Why does he/she have to cede control of his/her body simply his/her mother doesn’t want to be “obligated” to give birth?

    1. The mother is more important than the child.

      There, question answered.

      1. Your mother would like a word with you. And she’s armed.

      2. What makes the life of the mother more important than the life of the child?

        1. True. Without intervention, the cild would presumably live longer. So if you choose the mother, you’re killing 20-30y years of additional human life. And Tony told me not saving is the same as killing.

  25. The best solution would be to focus on research to safely remove fetuses from pregnant mothers and implant them elsewhere – either into volunteer surrogates or into artificial wombs. I imagine you’d find plenty of religious and charitable organizations that would be willing to supply this service, just as there are currently thousands of “crisis pregnancy centers” in the US operated charitably. The mother wouldn’t have to wait to the end of the pregnancy to give up her child, but the child could still develop on its own.

    I have no idea how far medical science is from achieving this feat. But it seems like something worth investing in. It almost totally removes the classic contradiction in rights between mother and child.

    I’d love to see the market incorporate this new technology into an insurance product. Maybe some sort of insurance tied to progesterone injections – if the injections fail and you get pregnant then they’ll cover the cost of fetal relocation.

    1. This is as close to an ideal solution as we’re likely to get any time soon.

      1. Great idea, except that according to liberals, private charity does not exist.

        1. …give?

          *barf*

    2. There are already thousands upon thousands of frozen embryos in storage produced from IVF. There aren’t nearly enough volunteer surrogates to accomodate those, forget about all the fetuses with mothers who want to flip-flop.

    3. Once artificial wombs are developed, I would assume that many if not most pregnant women who want their babies will still prefer to offload them to an artificial womb also.

      1. Seriously? I can’t imagine that, but I am frequently wrong about what people want.

    4. Didn’t Michael Bay try something like this in “The Island”?

      I will now watch the entire film and give a report in a couple of hours. Stay Tuned.

      1. Save it for January, man!

      2. Well, unless you plan to have a chaste December. ::shudders::

      3. As I recall, Scarlett Johansson looked rather fetching in that movie.

  26. I’m stealing this from Freakonomics: If you had to choose to save 100 frozen embryos or one 28 year old nurse from a fire in a hospital, who would you pick? If you say “the nurse” you are giving more value to the non-embryo. If you choose the embryos…Well…

    1. Do you have 100 surrogate mothers lined up for the embryos?

      If not, it’s a simple matter of expected number of survivors.

    2. How big are her tits?

      1. Plus, if you impregnate her aren’t you making up for the loss of the embryos?

        1. You’re going to impregnate her with 100 kids?

          I hope not all by yourself, you’re not.

          1. If the 28 year old nurse has some friends she can introduce me to, I’ll make it happen.

            1. like all OSU fanboys.

      2. Does she look like Emma Watson?

      3. Good point. Each cup size equals 50 embryos.

    3. Same situation, now with 100 terminally ill cancer patients with a couple of months to live, vs a 28 year old nurse.

      When you say you’re saving the nurse, does that mean you don’t think terminally ill cancer patients are persons?

      1. I don’t have the answer. Just wanted to throw a monkey wrench in the works of all the people who are so sure about this issue.

        1. It is a question whose answer has no meaning. Saying I would choose the nurse has no bearing on the value I place upon the embryos.

          If my daughter and father are both in a burning building and I can only save one, and I save my daughter, is that supposed to imply I don’t value my father’s life?

          It is an imbecilic “moral” question posed by intellectual pygmies.

  27. For all you conservative/libertardian/rightwingnut/xian/neoCon/rePukelicon shitbirds who want to charge women who have got abortions with “crime.”

    Come and get her.

    We men of reason have the 2nd amendment, plenty of saltpeter, and reloading equipment. And pretty decent with a bow, which you can’t even spell.

    MOLON LABIA
    Come and get her, you pissant shitbird.

    Wovoka, thru his prophet White Indian, has spoken.

    1. …doesn’t matter.

      Bring it.

      We men of reason will protect our women’s reproductive rights biological function.

  28. Similar to the phenomenon that it never rains on a golf course, it is always Thursday at Hit & Run.

  29. there are babies that have survived later-term abortions and lived to grow up. This means that it is absolutely certain that abortion after a certain term is murder because the fetus is a baby after a certain term. It’s impossible to avoid – it’s just semantically true. The only way you can deny it is to deny the contextual and common definitions of the very words

    On the other hand, I find it highly doubtful that a grape-sized thingy (let’s say at 1-2 months) is a human being. It may be CAPAPBLE of BECOMING a human being, but at the moment it IS NOT (PRESENT tense)

    it’s called logic people. You ideologues can suck my balls

    1. This is more or less how I feel about it.

      Minus the ball-sucking.

    2. So if it isn’t human, what is it? You were on the right path regarding survivors of abortions. Remember, we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, among them Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of happiness. Yes, I said Creator. That can mean anything you want it to mean.

      1. He answered that. It’s a cluster of cells which is on it’s way to becoming human.

        1. It’s a cluster of cells which is on it’s way to becoming human.

          If they are “becoming” human that implies that they are not human. What are they? Fish? Oranges? If we look at their DNA, we know exactly what they are, don’t we? Is it Neanderthal? Orangutang?

          Can not a single cell be scientifically identified as both “alive” and “human”?

          1. no, no it can’t, if by “human” you mean an entire human being. To believe so would be a forest/trees error. Or, see also, sorites paradox

            the cluster of cells is just that, a cluster of cells. It is no more human than an acorn is an oak tree or you call your scrambled eggs in the morning “poultry”

            1. Do you mean consciousness?
              Does that mean that feebs, reerees and liberals aren’t human?

              1. I never mentioned the word consciousness

                read what I wrote. Study on Sorites paradox. It’s pretty important even for basic everyday thought and philosophy more broadly.

                1. It’s pretty important even for basic everyday thought and philosophy more broadly.

                  Meh.

            2. Is an acorn an oak tree? Yes. While in different stages of development, they contain the exact same DNA, from seed until death.

              Your question is more like “Is a four foot oak tree an oak tree because it isn’t twenty feet tall yet?”

              Is a one year old child a human being? They are not at the same level of development as an adult so no?

              DNA defines all living things. All that is required to determine the species of any living thing is their DNA. This is because, as we know scientifically, new life begins at conception.

              Is an 9 month old “collection of cells” human? 8 months?

              Scientifically, when can I determine the difference between a group of human cells that isn’t human and a group of cells that is? 10,000,000 cells=not human/ 10,000,001= human?

              1. “Is an acorn an oak tree? Yes. While in different stages of development, they contain the exact same DNA, from seed until death”

                No it isn’t. They’re completely different. One’s a starchy nut with a few baby cells that MIGHT be able to grow (after a winter frost) (and I forget the name of those kinds of cells), and the other’s a living, breathing, growing organism that is a tree. You cite some sort of made up principle about DNA. Where you got that from, I don’t know, but it isn’t anything based in any science and logic. DNA is a system inside of biological organisms. It isn’t itself biological organisms.

                “Your question is more like “Is a four foot oak tree an oak tree because it isn’t twenty feet tall yet?””

                No it isn’t, that’s not the question at all. False comparison. An acorn is not an oak tree, end of story. If you think it is, you have some serious cognitive and logic problems.

                “DNA defines all living things.”

                Again, your made up scientific principle. DNA is just a protein production system. It is itself not an organism.

                “All that is required to determine the species of any living thing is their DNA”

                Sure, if we know the full genome. Still an irrelevant fact.

                “new life begins at conception.”
                In the sense that there are new living cells, that alone doesn’t qualify for an entire human being.

                “Is an 9 month old “collection of cells” human? 8 months?”

                Clearly yes, since, as I mentioned, such fetuses have survived abortions and grown up.

                “Scientifically, when can I determine the difference between a group of human cells that isn’t human and a group of cells that is? 10,000,000 cells=not human/ 10,000,001= human?”

                Again, Sorites paradox. Just because you can’t pinpoint the difference doesn’t mean that one grain of sand is the same thing as a pile.

                1. You are changing the subject. The question isn’t “can I categorize human life into developmental stages and then claim they are not ‘the same'”. Of course you can. No argument from me.

                  Does this answer when new human life begins? Not at all.

                  If you can’t pinpoint the exact time a group of cells becomes human, how can you decide it is OK to cease their function at a certain arbitrary point? We aren’t sure when they become human but it MUST be OK to kill them before X?

                  1. it’s not about different developmental stages, it’s about fundamentally being different things. You really can’t wrap your head around this can you? I suspect not, since you keep claiming an acorn is the same thing as an oak tree, when that’s clearly ludicrous (at least to anyone with even a slight understanding of botany)

                    “Does this answer when new human life begins? Not at all.”

                    Exactly, that’s what I’m saying. YOU’RE the one claiming that just because there are human cells it classifies as a human being. YOU’RE the one making the class error.

                    “If you can’t pinpoint the exact time a group of cells becomes human, how can you decide it is OK to cease their function at a certain arbitrary point? We aren’t sure when they become human but it MUST be OK to kill them before X?”

                    Again, sorites paradox. No we can’t pinpoint the exact point where the change is. Doesn’t mean there isn’t a difference between the two different things. Similarly, I can’t build a house with just one grain of sand just because I can’t exactly pinpoint the difference between a few grains and a pile.

                    “We aren’t sure when they become human but it MUST be OK to kill them before X?”

                    As a matter of law, there would have to be some specific time, yes. But that doesn’t mean anyone is claiming that that is truly the exact time where the difference happens.
                    Again, law isn’t the exactness of philosophy. But it does have to be exact in terms of giving instructions.

                    1. You’re essentially saying

                      “There’s object A and Object B. It is impossible to exactly define the difference between the two, that is exactly how a thing could be object A versus being object B instead.

                      Therefore, there is no difference”

                      Unfortunately, that’s not the way things work. There most certainly can, in reality, be a difference. The shortcomings of language do not DEFINE reality. Language is used to DESCRIBE reality.

                      Again, I can’t pinpoint EXACTLY where a grains of sand become a pile, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to drop a few grain of sand by the foundation I’m building and going to claim I’m done gradin. Because it in fact would not be so.

                  2. Does this answer when new human life begins? Not at all.

                    If it can die then it is alive.

                    1. Science you are dense.

                      “There’s object A and Object B. It is impossible to exactly define the difference between the two, that is exactly how a thing could be object A versus being object B instead.

                      Therefore, there is no difference”

                      Nope. I am saying that the similarities, “alive” and “human” exist from the moment of conception. You are simply claiming that if something is not exactly the same as something else then is isn’t even similar.

                      Human and alive. “Since an alligator isn’t a human it isn’t the same so it isn’t alive”, is what you are saying.

                      I never said that a fetus was an adult. I never claimed an infant was a teenager. I state the self-evident fact that a human fetus is both “alive” and “human”.

                    2. I never said anything of the sort

                      right now, all of a sudden, you’re throwing in a whole new topic, namely “alive”

                      But “alive” is irrelevant. You eat meat, right? So surely you aren’t against ending things from being alive

                      what I have demonstrated again and again is that you cannot claim that a small bunch of tissues is a human being or person just because you can’t EXACTLY define the difference between it and a whole, seperate person/baby. Again, it’s sorites paradox and you fail to understand it.

                      Alive doesn’t matter and being “human cells” doesn’t matter. We kill plenty of human cells just scratching ourselves or jacking it. Those things aren’t murder

                      Again. -> Question: One can’t define the difference exactly between when it is just a few cells and when it’s a whole baby/person. Does that mean there is no difference? No, of course there is a difference.

                      Any claim that a tiny lump of cells is a whole person equivalent to a human would have to come from a lot more science than we have now, and I highly doubt that any such thing would be found, since you’re talking about a tiny lumps of cells

                    3. Again. -> Question: One can’t define the difference exactly between when it is just a few cells and when it’s a whole baby/person.

                      And again, this is an attempt at goal post moving. “Whole baby” isn’t the question. When does it’s life begin, is.

                      This isn’t an arbitrary point, either. Meiosis begins with one diploid cell containing two copies of each chromosome?one from the organism’s mother and one from its father?and produces four haploid cells containing one copy of each chromosome. Each of the resulting chromosomes in the gamete cells is a unique mixture of maternal and paternal DNA, ensuring that offspring are genetically distinct from either parent.

                      We know exactly when new life begins. Saying “it isn’t developed yet” or “I can define it’s development in different terms” isn’t the question. On that, I agree.

                    4. “And again, this is an attempt at goal post moving. ”

                      No it’s not. That’s the main issue, it’s what I’ve been saying all along.

                      “Whole baby” isn’t the question. When does it’s life begin, is.”

                      +

                      “We know exactly when new life begins.”

                      So any human-derived life is a person? Please. Utter nonsense, as I said before, you’d be commiting everytime you sneeze or pick off a scab or masturbate. When the basic metabolic process defined as life begins is not the relevant issue. The issue is whether or not abortion before a certain point is killing a person/humanbeing. Folds of tissue, while they may become persons eventually, are not persons. How about the fertilized egg after dividing a few times? Is that a whole person? Of course not. 2^n cells does not a person make. But according to your standard, it is.

                      Complete and utter nonsense as a standard. Any freaking little cell, Geez, give me a break.

                    5. Edwin, all genocide begins with your determining who is human and who isn’t. Congrats, you’re in good company.

                    6. Oh Geez, ya douchebag. Yeah, so because I don’t think abortion is always murder I’m in favor of genocide? Hyperbole much?

                      And FYI, jizzbag, we’re trying to ASCERTAIN who/what is human, not deciding.

                      Jizzbag

      2. I really wished Jefferson hadn’t fucked up his plagiarization of Locke – Life, Liberty and Property would have been better.

        1. have you heard the one:

          Your Mom’s pussy is like Locke’s ideal society; free and open

          1. Oh yeah? Well your mom’s chmod is 777; full access.

            1. 0777

              because that’s an octal # (9 bits all set).

        2. I think it was Adams who changed the wording.

          1. Jeez dude, ease up on the red pencil treatment…

    3. What happens if medical technology develops to the point where a grape-sized thingy can survive outside the womb as a premature baby that would have died mere decades ago can today survive outside the womb?

      And what determines HUMAN BEING status?

      Is it rational thought? That rules out most liberals.

      Is it the ability to communicate?

      ?

      1. I believe it’s the ability to orgasm. Before that, you can be terminated, no questions asked.

      2. “What happens if medical technology develops to the point where a grape-sized thingy can survive outside the womb as a premature baby that would have died mere decades ago can today survive outside the womb?”

        Then that thingy still wouldn’t be human. See above on my comments of potential vs. actual. An acorn can become an oak tree but is not one.

        Though in that situation it may be a better idea to pass laws requiring that all fetuses be raised simply as a minimum damage/death general sort of policy. I’m still saying that abortion early term probably isn’t murder but that doesn’t mean I don’t still think it’s a good idea to avoid harsh medical procedures and forms of death. Think more the movie Knocked Up, or just in general what people did in the ’50s (the girl got married).

        1. Your oak tree comparison is not relevant to the question.

          All you are saying is that a child is not an adult. No shit. A teenager isn’t an infant.

          1. What FMG said.

            1. What FMG said.

              Science H Logic! I read this as “what FGM said” and thought I would definitely have to change my handle. I love clitorises.

              1. You lost me, but I’ll agree anyway just because you used the word clitoris.

              2. You lost me, but I’ll agree anyway just because you used the word clitoris.

                1. FGM=Female Genital Mutilation

          2. not the same comparison

            an acorn tree is not oak tree, period. Again, one is a starchy bulb, the other is a living breathing growing organism. Not the same thing by any comparison.

            Again, sorites paradox.
            I’ve got a house I have to build. I need to bring in fill so the grade goes up to almost the top of the foundation. Will bringing in one grain of sand be sufficient, just because you can’t define exactly the difference between rains of sand and loads of sand? No, of course not.

            Different things are different things, even if they are atomistically made up of the same base unit./

          3. not the same comparison

            an acorn tree is not oak tree, period. Again, one is a starchy bulb, the other is a living breathing growing organism. Not the same thing by any comparison.

            Again, sorites paradox.
            I’ve got a house I have to build. I need to bring in fill so the grade goes up to almost the top of the foundation. Will bringing in one grain of sand be sufficient, just because you can’t define exactly the difference between rains of sand and loads of sand? No, of course not.

            Different things are different things, even if they are atomistically made up of the same base unit./

          4. If life does not begin at conception, fine. But a person who shoots and kills a mother and her unborn child should not then be tried for double homicide. Maybe one murder, one unwanted abortion! Give me consistency at least

            1. Yeah, seems reasonable to me, but legislatures could pass laws making it more punishable to murder a pregnant woman. They could reasonably do this because it is a worse act, you are preventing the situation where a human would form (most of the time). That’s the great thing about law, it doesn’t have to be bound by philosophical truths about the here-and-now, it can be forward looking.

              None of that would change the fact, that, as a matter of fact, an acorn is not an oak tree, a grain of sand or a few grains is not a pile, and a few folds of tissue is not right now a human being.

              1. “The law can be forward-looking…”

                Except laws against abortion, though, right?

                That would be forward-looking by the WRONG TEAM!

                You’re so-called logic just failed, dipshit.

                1. I don’t even know what you just tried to say there…

          5. no, different comparisons. Again, an acorn is a starchy bulb, an oak tree is a growing, not the same comparison

            an acorn tree is not oak tree, period. Again, one is a starchy bulb, the other is a living breathing growing organism. Not the same thing by any comparison.

            Again, sorites paradox.
            I’ve got a house I have to build. I need to bring in fill so the grade goes up to almost the top of the foundation. Will bringing in one grain of sand be sufficient, just because you can’t define exactly the difference between rains of sand and loads of sand? No, of course not.

            Different things are different things, even if they are atomistically made up of the same base unit./

  30. It’s time to turn the dorm lights off kids. Sleep tight!

  31. If life does not begin at conception, fine. But a person who shoots and kills a mother and her unborn child should not then be tried for double homicide. Maybe one murder, one unwanted abortion! Give me consistency at least

    1. …a burglary/homocide.

      Hey, the money wasn’t alive.

      Cool. I’ll try it on your wife, pwnFTW.

    2. Which is exactly why that old pro life crank Dr Paul voted against said Federal law.
      -Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
      -Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)

  32. …a fetus has value, even if not fully human?

    Hurry, I’m eager to try your theory in court. You’ll be subpoenaed, I’m sure the KOCH whores will divulge your IP.

  33. Very little time today.

    STFU WhiteInjun
    And back on topic..

    “But what humans, we may ask, have the right to be coercive parasites within the body of an unwilling human host? Clearly no born humans have such a right, and therefore, a fortiori, the fetus can have no such right either.”
    http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/fourteen.asp
    Of course feel free to call Rothbard a commie.

  34. I usually like Hinkle’s articles, but this one is fucking derptarded.

  35. “The slippery slope is getting slicker and slicker,”

  36. If life does not begin at conception, fine. But a person who shoots and kills a mother and her unborn child should not then be tried for double homicide. Maybe one murder, one unwanted abortion! Give me consistency at least
    lepu heavy industry is committed to designing and manufacturing all kinds of crusher, jaw crusher is the typical crusher

  37. I am a 27 years old lady,mature and beautiful. and now i am seeking a good man who can give me real love, so i got a username michellesb on — Ag?d?t?.??M—, a nice and free place for younger women and older men,or older women and younger men, to interact with each other.Maybe you wanna check out or tell your friends.

  38. From a libertarian perspective, the issue of abortion depends entirely on the question of whether an unborn child is a human being. If it is, then the correct libertarian position is to be pro-life. If it isn’t, the correct position is to be pro-choice.

    The question to me is settled by this line of reasoning: If a woman is pregnant, and if she does not have an abortion of a miscarriage, a child will be born. Abortion advocates like to use the word “potential child”. It’s not “potential”, it’s inevitable, unless something happens to interfere with it. Thus, a miscarriage is an accidental death, and an abortion is a homicide.

    Fertilized embryos that are not implanted in the uterus and growing fall outside that calculation. But when it comes to terminating a pregnancy, I have concluded that the correct position is to be opposed to abortion.

    It is the ultimate case of one person imposing their will on another by force.

    1. *or a miscarriage

  39. thank you a lotsssssssssssssss

  40. thank you a lotsssssssssssssss

  41. thank you a lotsssssssssssssss

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.