Abortion, Roe v. Wade, Ron Paul, & Libertarians

 Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion, turns 39 today.

Rick Santorum writes in the Wall Street Journal why he's against abortion: "I know life begins at conception…. The right to life is the first right. Without its protection, no other rights matter." He also goes on about how President Obama and his GOP rivals fail to protect the unborn as much as he does.

Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), author of "the Bubble Bill" that created a zone protecting abortion facilities from protesters, writes in HuffPo why she's for abortion rights: "I fight to protect a woman's right to choose largely grounded in my Western values of personal freedom and common sense."

Back in 2008, "Jane Roe" (a.k.a. Norma McCorvey) came out for Ron Paul:

I support Ron Paul for president because we share the same goal, that of overturning Roe v Wade. Ron Paul doesn't just talk about being pro-life, he acts on it. His voting record truly is impeccable and he undoubtedly understands our constitutional republic and the inalienable right to life for all. Ron Paul is the prime author of H.R. 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v. Wade. As the signor of the affidavit that legalized abortion 35 years ago I appreciate Ron Paul's action to restore protection for the unborn. Ron Paul has also authored H.R. 1094 in Congress, which seeks to define life as beginning at conception. He has never wavered on the issue of being pro-life and has a voting record to prove it. He understands the importance of civil liberties for all, including the unborn.

In 2006, Ronald Bailey wrote about why abortion will never be fully outlawed again:

Most Americans believe that abortion is wrong, but they also believe that it would be more immoral for the government to interfere with their fellow citizens' private reproductive decisions. If the Supreme Court dared to overturn Roe v. Wade, there would be political hell to pay. However, because most Americans remain ambiguously uncomfortable with abortion, our political institutions will fitfully continue to try to narrow the scope of the decision. Nevertheless, the central holding that a woman can choose abortion in the first three months of a pregnancy will not be overturned. Ultimately, our politicians realize that Americans want the Roe v. Wade escape hatch to be kept open just in case they or their loved ones have to make the hard decision to use it themselves.

In 2004, Bailey asked, "Is Heaven Populated Chiefly By the Souls of Embryos?", writing "Bioconservatives…do not advocate the rescue of naturally conceived unimplanted embryos. But why not? In right-to-life terms, normal unimplanted embryos are the moral equivalents of a 30-year-old mother of three children."

Last November, Judge Andrew Napolitano told me why he thinks abortion is murder: "I believe - and it is a question of science and of faith - that a fertilized egg is a human being." (Go to 9.40 in the interview video).

Last year, as part of our Ask a Libertarian series we did to celebrate the publication of The Declaration of Independents, we tackled the question, "What's the libertarian position on abortion?":

Reason on abortion.

Comments

[Scruffy the Janitor]

Wasn't the anniversary yesterday? I know this because by town had several Pro-Life rally/demonstrations/BBQs

[o3]

why should embyros be exempt from mans well-developed skill at killing mankind?

[The Question of Auban]

"why should embyros be exempt from mans well-developed skill at killing mankind?"

Because they have not been convicted of any crime in a court of law. Oh, that is right, Obama doesn't think even people who have been BORN deserve that before being killed by Predator Drones. Never mind, good question ....

[JW]

Oh, joy. An abortion thread.

[Barely Suppressed Rage]

Die! Die! Kill you all! Die! Red Jack! Red Jack!

[wareagle]

really...if there an issue in which both sides are more firmly entrenched, I can't think of it.

[poetry]

lana del rey

[Devil's Advocate]

I had no idea who she was until her SNL performance. She was really awful all around that night.

[ryan]

BBQ - a compelling argument.

[Tak Kak]

I think Walter Block has posited the best libertarian position on abortion.

[Drax the Destroyer]

Agreed. In other news, I am sick and tired of hearing about abortion, gay marriage, and other devisive issues that won't matter one whit when half-starved feral teenagers are hunting older/slower folk and eating their brains out of their hollowed skulls in the nether-wastes of post-collapse 'Merica circa 2014.

[Jordan Elliot]

After Congress revokes the right to group assembly and President Palin defends the bombing of Houston?

[wareagle]

and what makes you think that the Constitutional Perfesser currently occupying the Oval won't do the former first?

[Commonist]

Obama will not revoke the right to group assembly. Of course, you know this, but you are too stupid to remember that you know it.

[Arcaster]

That's the first I've heard of it. Thanks.

["Furious" Styles]

The zygote is a collection of human cells no different than the ones we shed from our bodies every day. Rights belong to persons, not people. For much of the gestational period, there is little to suggest a functional person. I am open to arguments regarding the protection of late term unborn children, but to suggest, as Santorum does, that a collection of cells has rights is goddamned goofy.

["Furious" Styles]

Sorry, that should read "Rights belong to persons, not cells."

[John]

I think it is a close call. It is hardly goofy. An ordinary collection of cells doesn't grow into a full human being. And as technology continues to advance, what do you say when they can grow full human beings outside of the womb? At what point does it become a human being? What is the essence of a human being?

I am probably with you that it is not a zygote. But I don't see the argument as silly.

["Furious" Styles]

If you are using the "potential" argument, I have two words for you: "masturbation" and "sperm".

[Short Viking]

Sperm does not have the potential to grow by itself. Unless you have some sort of super-alien sperm.

[Valkyie]

+1

[heller]

A fetus does not have the potential to grow by itself either. It needs to be connected to the mother in order to survive. Disabling that connection is called "abortion."

[Brian E]

Oh, wow. Nobody's ever pointed this out before. Thanks, Internet Commenter Person And/Or Zygote, for raising a truly novel point in the abortion debate.

I'm sure this thread will be full of other novel arguments which will cause everyone to re-evaluate their existing positions. This whole abortion issue should be resolved by dinner.

[wareagle]

so you're saying it's not a pointless discussion then....

[Valkyie]

"masturbation" and "sperm" do not exactly negate that argument. If the embryo was left alone to continue in the womb, it would become a person, but if sperm would actually have to undergo fusion with an egg before te cells could head down the road to personhood.

Personally, I don't know if life begins at conception, I prefer the definition of pregnancy as beginning t implantation. But that's just me.

["Furious" Styles]

Despite the fact that these cells might one day assemble themselves into a human being, at the time of implantation, these cells are nothing more than lipid membranes, organelles, and nucleic acids. In essence, they are no more human than a single skin cell that you might have just shed just a moment ago.

Without higher brain development, I can't really regard these lifeforms as persons. Though, I do believe they are alive, as metabolic activity is underway.

[Valkyie]

You make a persuasive argument. I applaud you for actually answering the "is it a life?" question rather than ignoring it like many an shouting "KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF MY UTERUS!"

[Brian D]

A Distinct Human Organism.

A human embryo is a whole living member of the species Homo sapiens in the earliest stage of development. Unless severely damaged or deprived of nutrition or a suitable environment, the embryonic human will develop himself or herself by an internally directed process to the next more mature developmental stage, i.e., the fetal stage.

The embryonic, fetal, infant, child and adolescent stages are stages of development of a determinate and enduring entity ? a human being ? who comes into existence as a zygote and develops by a gradual and gapless process into adulthood many years later.

Whether produced by fertilization or cloning, the human embryo is a complete and distinct human organism possessing all of the genetic material needed to inform and organize its growth, as well as an active disposition to develop itself using that information. The direction of its growth is not extrinsically determined, but is in accord with the genetic information within it.

The human embryo is not something different in kind from a human being, nor is it merely a "potential human being," whatever that might mean. Rather the human embryo is a human being in the embryonic stage.

[Commonist]

What? There is no humanity in it. It doesn't even have the spine and the limbic system in the embryonic stage.

You don't even know what is needed for human existence to be present.

[Brett]

I think it is a grey area and murder is a well defined crime. Murder is the wrongful killing of a person with malice aforethought. It is a crime and a sin.

If a fetus is a person than it is murder. A fetus may be a person so abortion may be murder. Since abortion may be murder abortion is not murder within a reasonable doubt. Abortion may be murder thus it may be a sin, however in a free society it we leave the individual to decide what is or is not a sin.

[2ndClassProle]

OMG... I am a mass murderer

["Furious" Styles]

My wife is a cannibal.

["Furious" Styles]

She's pro-life, by the way, so I like to fuck with her morality by point this shit out.

[Barely Suppressed Rage]

Didn't you know that Onanism is a sin?

[Sku]

Refusing to give your brother in law's wife children so she can be financially provided for in her old age is a sin? Under Levirite law, it is indeed a crime. But Onanism doesn't have jack to do with masturbation.

[Brandybuck]

The thing is that you have to draw a line. As some point between conception and birth, that collection of cells becomes a human being. Most (not all) libertarians would agree that human beings should not have force initiated upon them, they just happen to disagree when those cells become a human being.

Of course, there are also "lifeboat libertarians", such as Walter Block, who see nothing wrong with the owner of a lifeboat tossing a non-paying refugee overboard. To them the question of personhood is wholly irrelevant.

[MNG]

I thought the old common law idea that its a person when it quickens made sense.

I agree with John that a reasonable person can be pro-life, even the "extreme" at conception pro-life. But what I don't find reasonable is a person who can't see how it is not obvious that it is a human being warranting full protections. At conception you have this microscopic, limbless, backboneless thing without a nervous system. We're not talking pigment or something here, we're talking something that seems pretty far from what we usually think of as a "human being."

[Gojira]

I agree with John...

I thought all that shit about the world ending in 2012 was nonsense, but now I'm starting to get worried...

[sloopyinca]

Between that post and the H&R Royal Wedding...

[Jordan Elliot]

John and MNG have these litle points of agreement every now and again.

I honestly think that if they met in real life, they would have potential to be a couple. Or at least have and incredibly epic rage/lust fuckfest.

[Sparky]

Are you kidding? That's what they do every day at lunchtime.

[Brian E]

Problem is, once people understood what was actually going on, the concept of "quickening" didn't make sense anymore. It's a continuous process and it's incredibly difficult to draw a hard and fast line anywhere after implantation and before birth. Even "viability" is not well defined.

This is partly why I don't think there's a religious argument against abortion per se. Religious people were perfectly fine with the "not after quickening" argument. Greater scientific understanding is what has muddied the whole debate. Religious people just tend to pick the pro-life position because they think sex outside of a marriage where the parents are prepared to provide for the child is wrong.

[Loki]

Also a zygote has a unique set of chromosomes seperate from the sperm and the egg that combined to create it, so it's not really the same as one of your skin cells. The DNA is unique. Combined with John's argument that the zygote has the potential to develop into a person the "life begins at conception" argument isn't that silly. I'm not saying I agree, but it's not unreasonable. As a man I don't really have a strong opinion either way and find the whole argument rather pointless given all the other problems this country faces.

[Zeb]

You are a human being when you have a mind that I can recognize as human. Just because a collection of cells has the potential to become a human being doesn't mean that it is now a human being.

[veemee sashimi]

"You are a human being when you have a mind that I can recognize as human."

By that standard, 40.4% of Republican primary voters in South Carolina are not human.

[MJ]

Then you better hurry up and develop a human level mind, your life is in grave danger until then.

[ClubMedSux]

The zygote is a collection of human cells no different than the ones we shed from our bodies every day.

Except for the fact that it has a distinct genetic code. Abortion is pretty much the only political issue where I can't comfortably reach an opinion yea or nea, but that sure as hell isn't the argument that's going to push me over into the pro-choice side.

[Commonist]

"Abortion is pretty much the only political issue where I can't comfortably reach an opinion yea or nea, but that sure as hell isn't the argument that's going to push me over into the pro-choice side."

Do you have any idea how many neurons are needed for you to write that sentence? What utter complexity is needed to distinguish you from dolphins or chimpanzees?

Now, imagine that you have to have human feelings, emotions and distinct sensations in order to be protected by the constitution, or to be an actual human being. Now meet those criteria without having any neurons and while being no bigger than a kumquat.

Life begins at conception. Human existence does not, and frankly I find pro-lifers to be as insane as the negligibly small minority of pro-choicers that think abortion should be legal up until birth.

[zeroentitlement]

Fully agreed.

There is no argument--apart from sentiment, God-bothering nonsense, and anthrocentrism--for valuing human life--especially a nebulous proto-human clump of cells--more than other life. Humans are far from an endangered species. Heroic efforts to prevent clumps of cells that might grow into one are a ridiculous waste of time and money, AFAIC. It's as ridiculous to me as trying to save deer or rabbit embryos. What the hell for? You worried they're not dumb enough to breed plenty more?

I have absolutely no problem with the loss of frozen embryos, regardless of number; moreover, if those embryos' stem cells could be used to help real, living, breathing, walking, talking, independently-living, contributing people with full lives, families, and friends, so much the better.

And if a born, living, breathing, walking, talking, independently-living female feels that an embryo is preventing her from "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," then whatever she does with this little parasite that has attached itself to her and is fully dependent upon her for nutrients and oxygen, it's none of my business.

I would much, much rather she abort than have the kid, be a lousy parent, possibly make the child miserable, and/or get on Welfare/the public teat to help her raise it.

[Zeb]

Word.

[Sparky]

+9999999999999999999999999999999999999999

[TrickyVic]

+ 4F9DA42C

[Sku]

At what point though does this position change? Would you rather she dash the one-month old's head against the rocks than get on food stamps? The one-day old? The one-day before birth-old? The one year old? The five year old? When the child can survive outside the womb? When it is outside the womb by ripping, or only by pushing? At five years old?

[John]

http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/.....this-book/

The Occupy Handbook is being published. Go steal it from a book store near you. I mean you wouldn't want to support the 1% and the oppressive, patriarchal institution of private property by paying for it would you?

[Jordan Elliot]

Thank you. I'm passing your post on to a friend. It's going to infuriate him and that will bring me great joy to watch.

[MNG]

Is the book being put out by the "1%"?

[John]

It is being published by the Hatchet Book Group. They are according to Wiki

Hachette Book Group (HBG) is a publishing company owned by Hachette Livre, the largest publishing company in France, and the second largest publisher in the world. Hachette Livre is a wholly owned subsidiary of Lagard?re Group. HBG was formed when Hachette Livre purchased the Time Warner Book Group from Time Warner on March 31, 2006.[1] Its headquarters are in 237 Park Avenue, Midtown Manhattan, New York City.[2][3] Hachette is considered one of the "Big Six" publishing companies, along with Holtzbrinck/Macmillan, Penguin Putnam, HarperCollins, Random House and Simon & Schuster.[4]

So yes, I would say buying the book definitely supports the 1%.

[MNG]

I'm still not sure it's hypocrisy. From what I've seen OWS views can be all over the place. I've seen rhetoric associated with it that struck me as silly anti-capitalism and corporatism, but I've also seen evidence that they largely accepted free enterprise and just opposed excessive inequality and/or wealthy influence. The latter is not incompatible with having a major publishing firm put out your views, though the former would seem hard to fit with that.

[wareagle]

let's say you are right and the sum total of OWS is opposition to "excessive inequality". Who defines excessive? And what do we do with those who have exceeded the mandated limit? How about we teach free markets, that the pie is not a finite organism, that one person winning does necessarily mean another loses, and that wealth has always influenced damn near everything, from politics to the movies that are made to which projects get permits.

[MNG]

"Who defines excessive?"

I dunno, I imagine they would say some democratic majority...If your point is that "excessive" is too vague to be of worth I think they could reply that our polity often grapples with such vague concepts ("due process", "unreasonable search," "just compensation"). You could say the same about all that (who decides what is "just compensation or an unreasonable search or due process?).

[TrickyVic]

""You could say the same about all that (who decides what is "just compensation or an unreasonable search or due process?).""

Yeah, and how well has that turned out?

""I dunno, I imagine they would say some democratic majority...""

Which is exactly why the founding fathers didn't create a democracy.

[MNG]

"that the pie is not a finite organism, that one person winning does necessarily mean another loses"

OK, I get this, but even if the pie can grow for all and one man's win doesn't = another's loss it strikes me one can still be concerned about inequality (even if it is "everyone doing better, but some doing much, much better than others"). It's based on a simple argument, the premises of which you seem to accept at some level:

1. Money = power
2. Those with more money = people with more power
3. Unequal power = a bad thing
4. Therefore, those with more money= a bad thing.

[Dick Fitzwell]

Where do those with money get the power? Shouldn't the politicians who delegate that power and give favors for money be the target of your criticism?

[Apple]

Hachette Book Group.

I'd say so.

[Loki]

LMAO. Wherever there is a naive hippie wannabe anti-capitalist movement, there will be capitalists to make a buck off of it. Hilarious.

[cynical]

Pro-lifers who don't want to charge women who get abortions (rather than just doctors) with murder don't truly believe their own rhetoric. Discuss.

[John]

They are logically inconsistent. The same way pro choice people who say it should be legal but they would never have one themselves are. Why wouldn't you have an abortion?

[cynical]

Well, I'm male. But your argument is bullshit, as any actual libertarian would understand. You may as well ask, if I'm opposed to the drug war, why I don't smoke marijuana?

[sarcasmic]

jinks!

[John]

If abortion is just a "medical procedure", why wouldn't you ever have one? Is it unsafe to have one? If so, why do you support it being legal? Maybe if you are Libertarian and think people should chose their own risks. But that is not the reason why most people make that argument.

If you really believe life begins at birth and you had a child you didn't want, why would you ever say "I would never have an abortion myself"?

[MNG]

Do you know anyone who says that who wouldn't have an abortion if their life or health depended on it?

[John]

Then support it being legal for those purposes. But it seems to be legal for a lot more purposes than that.

I think at some point in the fairly near future medical technology will render that issue moot. At some point children will be viable outside the womb from day one and thus life threatening pregnancies can be ended via birth and medical care rather than abortion.

[MNG]

My point is that if the person who says that would be willing to have it if they "needed" it then it could be that they just don't want to have to ever go through the procedure, hence "I would never get an abortion." What they are saying is "I would never go through that unless my health or life were at stake."

A person could say the same thing about other medical procedures without any moral message.

[MNG]

For example, I've been told I should get my wisdom teeth taken out in the past. But my position is "I will never get my wisdom teeth taken out (unless it starts to hurt bad)." Likewise the person who says "I would never have an abortion unless my health or life depended on it."

[The Question of Auban]

Perhaps a Pro-Life person who would truly be a pacifist in the most strict sense of the word. I am sure there are at least a few such people.

[Sku]

Clearly what they are saying is "I would never sin against my own conscience unless my life depended upon it." Not "I'd rather not trouble with a triple-heart bypass."

[cynical]

"If abortion is just a "medical procedure", why wouldn't you ever have one?"

I don't know. Why haven't you gotten a labiaplasty, John?

[John]

I haven't needed one. But if I did, why wouldn't i?

[cynical]

Botox, then. Surely you can understand that a person may choose to forgo a medical procedure without finding it necessary to ban it.

[Barry D]

Same would go for abortion, then.

[TrickyVic]

""I haven't needed one. But if I did, why wouldn't i?""

Why are you jerking people around with a line you know is bullshit?

It's perfect acceptable to be for something, yet not being interested in doing it yourself.

[sarcasmic]

The same way anti Drug War people who say drugs should be legal but would never take them themselves.
Why wouldn't you shoot up heroin?

[John]

Because abortion, unlike drugs, is a medical procedure. If you needed an abortion, why would you not have one?

[sarcasmic]

If I needed an abortion I'd call Guinness, go on the talk show circuit, secure the movie rights, and make enough coin to comfortably retire.

[John]

You know what I mean. Why would a woman who could potentially be pregnant some day ever say she would never have an abortion? Never? Why never?

[sarcasmic]

No, actually. I don't.

[Sku]

Probably the same reason many pre-Civil War Americans would never have owned slaves themselves yet nonetheless were not ready to see slavery legally abolished. They knew it was morally wrong, but feared the social and economic consquences of the abolition of an institution that had existed since the beginning of time. They could not imagine a world without such a "necessary evil". And they did not want to have to pay any part of the social price that would be required for its abolition.

[Lost_In_Translation]

most people don't "need" abortions

[John]

So what? That is not what they are saying. They are saying even if they did, they still wouldn't do it. Why not?

[sarcasmic]

The only time I could see someone in "need" of an abortion would be if the alternative is both the mother and the baby dying, such as an ectopic pregnancy.
Otherwise it is purely elective.

[Sparky]

A woman who is pro-choice but would never have an abortion doesn't feel the need to force her views on others?

[Hugh Akston]

That's because "most" people don't have fertile uteri.

[Smartgal]

I beg to differ. The woman in an abusive relationship needs an abortion. The teenager who got knocked up by another teen she's known for a month? She needs an abortion. The woman who already has three kids on her own and can't handle another? She needs an abortion. The woman who simply does not want a child? She needs an abortion. It isn't up to anyone else to determine "need".

[Restoras]

D-

[MNG]

"Why wouldn't you have an abortion?"

Do you feel the same way about other common medical procedures? Who wouldn't want a root canal? After all, it's legal!

[John]

If I needed a root canal, I would get one. I would never say I would "never have" a particular medical procedure. Who knows I might need such. The only reason I would ever say "I would never do X" is because I have some kind of moral objection to it. Yet, these people are claiming it is only a set a cells. If so, then what is the moral objection?

[MNG]

You don't think they mean "it's a pretty horrible procedure to go through so I would never get one?"

Of course, a fair amount of people are probably just being humble in their views..."I don't think it's clear but I think it's too close of a call that I would never get one, but I'm not sure enough I'm right to rule out that call for others."

[John]

That is their thought. But it would seem to me the tie would go towards life. If you are wrong, you just supported the murder of 100s of thousands of people. And further, why are you so unsure? Are your doubts without merit?

[MNG]

This may come as a shock to you John, but people can hold a position and still have some doubts about it...As you said above it's a pretty complicated thing. It's easy for me to see someone say "man, I lean towards the side of it being wrong, but I'm certainly not sure, so I wouldn't deny those who want to do it at this point."

I also really think a lot of people who say that really are saying "I hope I will never, ever, be in a position to have that procedure."

[John]

Why? Suppose you think there is a 40% chance it really is murder. Are you really willing to live with the 40% chance you are killing hundreds of thousands of children? That makes no sense to me.

The idea that life begins at birth and therefore abortion is a perfectly acceptable decision makes sense. The idea that abortion is this horrible thing I hope never have to do but still should be legal makes no sense. If it is horrible, it is because you are killing someone.

[Sparky]

If it is horrible, it is because you are killing someone.

Right. Exactly. Because that's how every woman feels about it. Either you're not ready to have kids yet or it's murder? Nope, you're uncomfortable because it's murder. Good work John.

[John]

You miss the point sparky. If life begins at conception, then abortion is murder. If it doesn't, then it is nothing but a medical procedure. I fail to see where there is a middle ground. If it is murder, then it is never acceptable unless it is to save your life. If it is a medical procedure, it is always acceptable. In either case, having a good reason doesn't really matter.

[Sparky]

If it doesn't, then it is nothing but a medical procedure.

Really John? There are thousands of medical procedures that I would prefer not to have, does that mean I have to be against them being legal now? You are entirely missing the point, purposely it would seem. The fact that I could easily go and get an appendectomy doesn't mean I'm going to rush right out and have it done. The fact that I'm not going to have it done doesn't mean I think nobody should be allowed to have it done.

[TrickyVic]

""You miss the point sparky. If life begins at conception, then abortion is murder. ""

Actually it would be homocide, and not all homocides are murders.

[MNG]

"40% chance you are killing hundreds of thousands of children"

If the person is never going to have an abortion then they are'nt killing anyone John.

"If it is horrible, it is because you are killing someone."

Or because it is horrible to go through. Or it is horrible because there is some chance you could be killing someone. That strikes me as different.

Let's say you think there is a 5% chance that abortion is actually murder, that fetuses have souls and you will pay for it in heavan. That chance might be enough for you not to ever do it, but not enough to support restricting others behaviors...

[MNG]

I'll grant John this: if a person says "I think abortion is murder, and I would never have one for that reason, but I would not vote to make them illegal" then that is an odd position to take indeed.

However, like I said, I'm not sure many people would say that. I think when a person says "abortion should be legal but I would never have one" they usually mean "abortion should be legal but since it is such an awful experience I would not have one unless my health or life were at stake" or they are saying "I have a feeling that it could be wrong so I will not have one, but that feeling is not strong enough that I would interefere in other's lives over that feeling."

[John]

Those people are living in denial MNG. They know it is murder and that is why it would be so awful to have one and why they would never do it. They just don't have the courage to follow that to its logical conclusion in the same way pro life people who don't want to punish the mother won't.

[MNG]

"They know it is murder"

Why would you assume that? I ask you again, have you had anyone tell you "abortion is murder, but I would not vote to ban it?" I've never heard anyone say that.

I have heard people say what you said at first: "Abortion should be legal but I would never have one." I and several others have given you explanations that would fit that sentiment that don't require you to see those people as stupid or moral cowards, why would you assume the worst about them? Like I said, that assertion fits nicely with someone saying they think it's not murder but wouldn't want to experience it or with someone saying they have a feeling it may be wrong which is strong enough to decide the matter for them (wanting to err on the side of caution) but not strong enough to restrict others.

[Sparky]

Glad to hear you know how every woman on the planet REALLY feels about it John. It's called projection John, I know you know what that means because you always accuse MNG of it.

[MNG]

Like I said, I won't be too hard on John here. If what he is saying is that people who think abortion is actually murder but who still want to keep it legal are mixed up, then he's correct. But I think he's wrong to assume that's what people are thinking when they said what he actually referred to....

[cynical]

1) Pro-choice people that say "never" aren't thinking of life and death scenarios, in all likelihood.

2) One could take the view that a fetus is not a "person", but is still a living thing and deserving of more moral respect than, say, a rock. I mean, I try to avoid killing animals. That doesn't mean I think that animals are people, or that fur is murder, or whatever (I do support getting soft-hearted and soft-headed actresses naked, however, so I'm not entirely opposed to the PETA agenda).

[MNG]

Your point number 2 strikes me as a very good one cynical. It doesn't have to be "murder or nothing", for some it could be something like killing a less developed animal, something they would not want to do but which they would not want to use force to stop others from doing.

[cynical]

I'll grant John this: if a person says "I think abortion is murder, and I would never have one for that reason, but I would not vote to make them illegal" then that is an odd position to take indeed.

Yet, oddly enough, most pro-lifers aren't campaigning on putting the pregnant women who hire fetus executioners on death row.

[MNG]

Again cynical, I don't think there are many people who believe both that 1. abortion = murder and 2. abortion should be legal.

[Loki]

I don't think there are many people who believe both that 1. abortion = murder and 2. abortion should be legal.

Unless some people believe that murder should be legal, which there very well may be a few.

"abortion is murder, but I would not vote to ban it?" I've never heard anyone say that.

FWIW that's kind of my view on abortion to tell the truth, sort of. I think if the mother's life or health (including mental health for rape/ incest victims etc.) is at risk the woman should definitely have the ability to chose an abortion. I don't think having an abortion just because having a kid would be "inconvenient" for the mother is right. She should have thought of that before having consensual sex. However, I'm not a big fan of using the federal government to enshrine that idea into law at the highest level either. Perhaps a little inconsistent, but oh well, it's not like I'm running for public office anytime soon.

[DesigNate]

^THIS^

[wareagle]

and most pro-lifers seem to have no difficulty with executioners, such as those who ply their trade on death row. Those same pro-lifers often are much more devoted to a collection of cells than to the circumstances that caused those cells to cluster. Case in point is Santorum himself, who damn near chose a fetus that was never going to be a normal person over his wife. While I support his right to make such a decision, I totally oppose a politician who wants to impose that thought process on teh rest of us.

[MNG]

"and most pro-lifers seem to have no difficulty with executioners, such as those who ply their trade on death row."

Again, to defend pro-lifers the ones I talk to differentiate there by saying aborted fetuses have committed no crime.

[TrickyVic]

""Again, to defend pro-lifers the ones I talk to differentiate there by saying aborted fetuses have committed no crime.""

Right, which is to say man, not God, really gets to decide.

[TrickyVic]

+1

""and most pro-lifers seem to have no difficulty with executioners,""

Right. They have no problem usurping God's right to life when it fits their ends. Actually, they really don't believe the right is God given since they allow man to take it away by man's own law.

[TrickyVic]

That was a +1 for wareagle's comment.

[DesigNate]

I grew up Catholic so all the pro-lifers I knew growing up were against the death penalty and euthanasia too. For what it's worth, I think the death penalty is horseshit (I'm not opposed to leaving the guilty to the hands of the victim's family. Blood vengeance ftw.), but think that an old person should be able to choose when they die if that's what they want.

[TrickyVic]

""I grew up Catholic so all the pro-lifers I knew growing up were against the death penalty and euthanasia too.""

I have respect for that. Not that I agree.

[Matt]

It is reasonable though for them to not campaign on that at this point in time. In a society where the dominant belief and the message from the media, schools, the government, culture, etc. is that abortion is ok and a fetus is not a person, it is unreasonable to hold the mother responsible. You can really only make such an argument coming from a place where its already illegal and they should know better.

[Lost_In_Translation]

Its true. You can't hire a hit man to do in your SO and disclaim responsibility. Its a discontinuity in the Pro-lifers' (some) logic.

[Randy]

Pro-lifers who don't want to charge women who get abortions (rather than just doctors) with murder don't truly believe their own rhetoric. Discuss.

No. They believe their own rhetoric.

But they also know politics. They know they would lose political support if they promote or enact abortion laws that would equally punish both the woman getting the illegal abortion and the medical personnel that perform the abortion. Hence their proposed legal framework would treat the woman as a victim and reserves all the punishments for the medical personnel.

This is one of the reasons I can't support the pro-life movement. It seeks to put more unjust laws on the books.

[wareagle]

any movement that seeks to portray an active and consenting participant as a "victim" is problematic on its face. Not that this will stop the activists. On multiple fronts.

[A Secret Band of Robbers]

The unstated premise is that any intentional taking of a human life is murder and should be punished as such.

Many abortion opponents would agree with that premise, and for them your point holds, but it's not logically necessary to believe that if you want to ban or limit abortion.

[MNG]

"Pro-lifers who don't want to charge women who get abortions (rather than just doctors) with murder don't truly believe their own rhetoric."

Some of that is likely just political acumen (arresting the mothers would not play well), but from talking to pro-life people I get that some of it is that they find the woman to be in a "bad spot" and not able to think or what not clearly. In essence they treat the situation the way many liberals do minimum wage violations (they don't advocate penalizing the worker who agrees to work below the wage).

[ClubMedSux]

I pray for an alcohol-related thread and I get an abortion thread. I'm starting to think you atheists are on to something...

[Hugh Akston]

Don't be so sure. Look at all of these athiests:

Madeline Murray-O'Hair - dead
Alan Turing - dead
Douglas Adams - dead
Christopher Hitchens - dead

Notice a connection?

[Drax the Destroyer]

So is Richard Dawkins the next one in HeyZeus's crosshairs?

[Barely Suppressed Rage]

Cancer?

[TrickyVic]

""Notice a connection?"'

Yeah, human biology has its limits.

[Hugh Akston]

Abortions for all!

[Lost_In_Translation]

Crowd: Boooooo

[Hugh Akston]

Alright, no abortions for anyone.

[Joel]

Crowd: Boooo

[Lost_In_Translation]

Crowd: Booooo

[Hugh Akston]

Hmm, Abortions for some. Miniature American flags for others!

[Short Viking]

Yaaaaay!

[Lost_In_Translation]

crowd: Yaaaayyyyyy!

[Lost_In_Translation]

Abortion is a tought subject. That is why I agree with Paul's plan to leave it to the states. Whether or not the Supreme Court should have ruled the way it did is not a reason to make this a federal issue. If the federal government would just drop this from their list of "to dos", we'd all be better off.

[sarcasmic]

But what about the Abortion Clause that gives the federal government the power to regulate reproductive activity?

[Lost_In_Translation]

69th amendment?

[Loki]

No the 69th applies to which positions have been sanctioned by the federal government as acceptable from a public health perspective. Now that the government is on the hook for more health care spending, they have a vested interest in making sure no one attempts any positions they are not in good enough pysical condition to perform without injury.

[cynical]

That only applies to interstate reproductive activity. Wait, no, I'm thinking of the Mann Act.

[sarcasmic]

Reproductive activity can result in people crossing state lines.

Commerce Clause Rules!

[Brian E]

Libertarians more than most should be accepting of the idea that something can be wrong but not illegal. The question is whether it's possible to shift the majority consensus in this direction. So far that hasn't worked particularly well for the War on Drugs.

[cynical]

"Libertarians more than most should be accepting of the idea that something can be wrong but not illegal."

If you accept that a fetus has a right to life equal or nearly equal to that of a born human, then that's the sort of wrong (in scale, and in terms of having a victim) that should be illegal. If you don't, well, even 'wrong' is a little bit harsh.

[Brian E]

If you accept that a fetus has a right to life equal or nearly equal to that of a born human, then that's the sort of wrong (in scale, and in terms of having a victim) that should be illegal. If you don't, well, even 'wrong' is a little bit harsh.

I'm a skeptic about the use of violence. This means that while I don't like abortion in general (it's too close to violence for me), I'm also skeptical that it would be justifiable for me to commit violence to prevent a first-trimester abortion. A person making that decision poses no threat to me, nor are they likely to be smothering babies in the crib. Abortion of a clearly viable fetus is a different question.

[Brian E]

Now that I said that, "clearly viable" needs a little explanation too, since I was skeptical about a single definition of viability up-thread. Clear in this context means a developmental point where a doctor would be comfortable inducing labor in order to avoid an uncertain but possible risk to the health of the mother. If in that context, a doctor would treat the unborn child as a life worth saving, I can't see how killing the child isn't an act of violence.

Anything before that point is a giant question mark to me, and I'll err on the side of not getting the goons with guns involved.

[LBR Love]

This mirrors the way I feel about it. I believe abortion to be wrong, but as libertarians we are supposed to recognize that laws merely distort appearances and outcomes. Prohibition fails, and the consequences of its failure is typically worse than the wrong it is meant to remedy.

[shrike]

I appreciate Napolitano's forthright position. Abortion is murder and he wants a life sentence as penalty. Very seldom will conservatives admit to this.

(I don't agree, of course)

[Lost_In_Translation]

what about miscarraiges? man-slaughter?

[Dagny T.]

If the woman fails to remain with her legs over her head post-coitus in order to give that lil' life the best shot, is that criminal neglect?

[Lost_In_Translation]

If a woman takes dance lessons while pregnant, can that be considered "child abuse"

Its amazing how outlandish these arguments can get.

[Gojira]

I agree it gets silly, but there's a legitmate point to be made: the right to live isn't just the right not to be killed.

Humans also have the right not to be assaulted. You can't say (with logical consistency) that the unborn have a right to life, but can be injured in other ways (smoking, drinking during pregnancy, etc.)

[MNG]

"If a woman takes dance lessons while pregnant, can that be considered "child abuse""

Are we talking jazz or tap?

[Short Viking]

If liberals want to abort their own, why stop them?

[sarcasmic]

Liberalism is a genetic trait?

[WTF]

Yes, much like Down's Syndrome.

[Barely Suppressed Rage]

Three generations of liberals are far more than enough.

[Jason]

Personhood is an interface that we decide to give or take away from another "thing". For that reason, when life begins, potential personhood, and personhood itself are not scientific arguments - they are ontological.

I think that many pro-choicers try to get around the abortion issue by trying to prove objectively that it is not murder. You can't. So, the smart thing to do is to say, "alright, suppose it is murder, what then?"

The libertarian position in this case, in my opinion, is that it STILL needs to be legal, given the very bad consequences that occur whenever you create a black market for anything. Let's let it be safe and out in the open, and make sure teen girls aren't terrified of going to their parents or institutions for help out of fear of being arrested. Or worse, make sure they aren't going to see Dr. BackAlley Coathanger McSketchalot to get it done.

From a practical standpoint I think it is best served at the state level - different experiments in law will lead to different results, and freedom TENDS to prevail over time in those cases.

[shrike]

I agree that abortion is infanticide. But its not murder.

Libertarians should be pro-choice as a private property matter. Why should an unwanted interloper deprive a person of property or resource?

[John]

By that logic, people should be able to kill their children.

[shrike's mom]

Damn right!

[Justin]

I'm a fan of Block's evictionism. My stance would be that no born child could be killed, but no one has an obligation to him/her. If someone was able to take care of the child and the mother was at no extra risk for aborting it without killing the fetus, then I'd say abortion is wrong in those cases. Otherwise, it's fine, since no one is going to take care of the child anyways so it's effectively already dead.

[Tak Kak]

Bingo!

Whether it's a human, potential human, or just cells is irrelevant.

[Old Soldier]

I thought Libertarians were also Federalists?

[Gojira]

Many of us are not. I'm on the side of liberty. Sometimes the feds force the states to increase liberty. In those instances, I am not a federalist (for example, I do not believe that Texas has the right to outlaw gaybutsecks, and applaud the feds for forcing them to legalize it).

It's just that more often than not, it's the feds doing the oppressing. But I'm no more okay with local oppression than I am national.

[Drax the Destroyer]

Libertarians generally promote state's rights because , in theory, it's a lot easier to assassinate a governor than a president. Moreover, states usually don't have the funds for a gigantic oppressive military apparatus, the same type of apparatus that couldn't subdue Vietnam, Afghanistan, or Iraq let alone the heavily armed backwoods of Kentucky/Michigan/Virginia/Colorado/Etc..

[MNG]

"It's just that more often than not, it's the feds doing the oppressing."

Do you think that is right? I mean, even currently on the right the recent cause celebre's have involved state/local governments violating people's federal rights (Kelo, Ricci, McDonald).

[veemee sashimi]

The better federalism argument is that when a state is being a tyrant, you can always move. When the feds are, you're stuck.

One month I had very few rights with regard to carrying a weapon, the next month I had a ton and (as far as I know) there was no change in any law that occurred.

[MNG]

"I agree that abortion is infanticide. But its not murder."

Huh?

[cynical]

Shrike is a Spartan.

[The Question of Auban]

"Shrike is a Spartan."

That explains a lot.

[shrike]

Homicide is not murder either.

Libertarians place property first. I may kill to protect my property.

[The Question of Auban]

Suppose I get lost while walking through a forest. I accidentally wander onto your property. I did not INTEND to do so - but I do. Do you think it right to kill someone for this? Or would you at least give me a chance to "adopt" another direction and leave your property in peace?

[Justin]

Even if one intended to do so, I think that killing them is a disproportionate response in almost every instance of that scenario.

[The Question of Auban]

Justin, I agree.

[shrike]

No, that would be wrong.

I am NOT a libertarian. I was just apeing their private property spiel.

Although there is soundness to it in terms of self-defense.

[The Question of Auban]

"I am NOT a libertarian. I was just apeing their private property spiel."

You were demonstrating a lack of understanding about libertarian beliefs. As Justin points out above, killing someone is a disproportionate response in the vast majority of cases.

[MNG]

Yeah, that's a poor apeing. Iirc libertarians often begin with the axiom that human beings "own their own bodies" and noone else can or should lay claim to that. So that would be inconsistent with saying parents own the child like property. We may want parents, not the state, to be in charge of their care because they are much more likely to be motivated to do so better, but that's quite different than saying they "own" them...

[The Question of Auban]

MNG, exactly. Human beings cannot be property - at any age.

[MNG]

But shrike...do you think parents own their children like property?

I'm uncomfortable with the thought of human property...

[shrike]

I support the right of a Jehova's Witness to withhold medical treatment from a child based on the First.

I ALSO support the right of the state to take that child from them.

"property"? They are. Sad but true.

[The Question of Auban]

"I support the right of a Jehova's Witness to withhold medical treatment from a child based on the First.

I ALSO support the right of the state to take that child from them."

Shrike, I do not know if you are aware of it but you just contradicted yourself in a single post.

[shrike]

No - I wouldn't PUNISH the JW. Even if the child died.

[The Question of Auban]

Are you arguing that removing a child is not punishment? Would you sterilize them to prevent them from having more children? Where would you draw the line?

[Matrix]

black markets are also available for child prostitution and pornography. So, the Libertarian argument would be to legalize them to get rid of the black market aspect?

[sloopyinca]

Being forced to perform sexual acts or perform in pornography is an infringement on the rights of the children used in those activities.

Good forst attempt at building a strawman, but next time, tie the cross strings tighter so he doesn't come apart with the first gust of wind.

[Hugh Akston]

Look, I'm willing to grant that it's murder. The real question is, who's gonna stop me?

[Matrix]

your girlfriend might not appreciate you doing a FALCON PUNCH to her abdomen... or pushing her down the stairs. But I think the FALCON PUNCH is more effective.

[BoscoH]

I always like Ted Kennedy's position on any abortion bill. Pay it.

[Max]

I'll bet Dr. Paul is all for aborting little black fetuses.

[Short Viking]

Planned Parenthood sure is.

[Eduard van Haalen]

Unless I miss my guess, I bet he's assisted at the births of more black babies than you have. And he's probably performed the same number of abortions as you on black babies - zero.

Or do you have some evidence that he incorporated abortion into his medical practice? On that point, I would prefer to trust him and those who know him, rather than you.

[cynical]

Your mom's not going to like it if you blow the money she earned sucking dick on making terrible bets. Well, I don't know that chicken nuggets count as "money", but you know what I mean.

[Ron Paul]

No, just those named Max.

[Margaret Sanger]

Good on him

[DesigNate]

That has to be the single stupidest thing I've ever seen you write Max, and that is saying a lot.

[Dagny T.]

Oh hooray. A thread where all the same arguments that always get brought out on the subject of abortion can get brought out again! And no one will change anyone's mind! So we'll just have to agree to disagree like always.

I am as pro-choice as choice can be and I am still totally pro-Paul. Legal abortion's not going anywhere so both the feminists freaking out over supposed threats to reproductive freedom and pro-lifers getting people's emotions all riled up over OMG KILLING BABIEEEZ is a waste of time.

[shrike]

Ron Paul is wrong on the subject because he opposes the Right to Privacy inherent in the Constitution.

see also Lawrence v. Texas and Griswold v. Connecticut.

[LBR Love]

If you believe that abortion is murder, then I doubt very much that an argument derived from "penumbras and emanations" or due process is going to work. Privacy is not guaranteed for the murderer who hides a body, for instance.

I do not necessarily disagree with your overall point, but the cases you name lose their validity if a "sanctity of life" element is introduced.

[shrike]

I don't believe abortion is murder for a second.

Above, I merely quoted the Judge.

[MNG]

Tulpa told me the other day that Paul would let the states decide, no?

[Hugh Akston]

But Dagny, didn't you know that Ron Paul is going to firebomb the social security administration, repeal the civil rights act and the 13th amendment, and decree that the Confederacy won the Civil War?

[Ziggy]

I like how quit ea few conservatives think abortion should be legal only in cases of rape, so there it's not "murder". Imo, should be legal, soemthing that has the "potential" to become a human being should not have "rights" that override the living person's rights...

[Eduard van Haalen]

Even Rick Perry, no intellectual giant, changed his mind on this. He discarded his "rape exception" idea after meeting a prolife activist who was conceived in rape.

http://www.rebeccakiessling.co.....heart.html

[Matrix]

I'm pro-life, and though I sympathize with the rape issue, I still don't consider it justifiable to punish a child for the sin's of the father. I do, however, support abortion if the life or health of the mother is threatened by continuing a pregnancy or delivering the baby. Some pro-lifers disagree. But I honestly cannot condemn a woman to death to give life to someone else.

[Fist of Etiquette]

So, how about that Newt Gingrich campaign. Crazy, huh?

[Short Viking]

He has a big head.

[rho]

Abortion: Safe, legal, and rare. Anything that wrecks one of those adjectives probably sucks.

[sarcasmic]

Legal abortion is a horrible thing.
The only thing worse is the alternative.

[John]

Why is it horrible? That is the kind of logic that baffles me. If it is horrible it is because it is killing children. Is there any other reason it could be horrible? And if it is killing 100s of thousands of children, it is difficult to see how any legal prohibition would not be an improvement.

To be pro choice, I think you have to conclude that life begins at birth and abortion is nothing but a medical procedure with no more moral dimensions to it than an appendectomy.

[sarcasmic]

it is difficult to see how any legal prohibition would not be an improvement

Prohibition has a habit of creating problems that are often as bad or worse than the problem that is intended to be solved.

[John]

Yeah but when the prohibition is against murder, it is a good bet it will be worth it.

I don't think that pro choice is an unreasonable position. I just think that if you are, you need to be pro choice and admit that there is nothing whatsoever with having an abortion.

[sarcasmic]

I'm not pro choice.
I'm anti prohibition.

[sarcasmic]

Abortion should be a shameful last possible resort, not a method of birth control.

[rho]

If someone is so adamant about not being pregnant that they would seek dodgy abortions by dirty men in windowless vans, then legal abortion is a plus.

By all means, let people protest, preach to, cajole, wheedle and/or bribe people to give birth rather than abort.

However, public financing of abortions is just as stupid as public financing of boob jobs.

I will change my position on this when pregnancy becomes an airborne contagion.

[Brian E]

Clearly you haven't seen Airborne Contagion II: Aerosol Ejaculation Extreme. Not that I've seen it either. Honest. I, uh, heard about it on the internet.

[rho]

Your interests in bukkake are not relevant. sniff.

[Justin]

What's horrible is children being raised by those forced to raise them. Those children are not going to be shown much respect and will grow up more likely to disrespect others.

If you are against abortion, it's up to YOU to adopt or fund the orphanages.

[John]

Yeah lets determine who lives and who dies based on what we consider to be their quality of life as a child. You are a fucking troll. Go away.

[Sparky]

What's wrong with his argument?

[sloopyinca]

His argument is that the financial ease and emotional support should also be a factor determining whether or not the person should die .

IOW, it's idiotic.

[sloopyinca]

His argument is that the financial ease and emotional support should also be a factor determining whether or not the person should die .

IOW, it's idiotic.

[Shit Santorum]

Present!

[NoVAHockey]

"my Western values of personal freedom and common sense"

since when?

[Andrew Karl]

Allowing a small group of zealots to use the power of the state to impose their religious dogma on every citizen is certainly not a libertarian position.

"Not many demonstrators today- Is the rain thinning their ranks or are we running out of ugly chicks?"
https://twitter.com/#!/KStreetElevator

[sloopyinca]

religious dogma? Or respect for the personhood of others while still in a developmental stage of their life?

[Valkyie]

Agreed. I'm tired of pro-choicers dismissing pro-lifers are religious zealots. We all know some things just aren't ok: rape, stealing from old ladies, murder. My convictions that a fetus under 3 months is in fact a life are not religion based, and if people would take the time to read Dr. Paul's book, they would see his are not either.

[Eduard van Haalen]

Ron Paul's book is online:

http://bit.ly/uyEBTF

[Smartgal]

What about your convictions for the rights of the WOMAN who is carrying the clump of cells?

[shrike's mom]

If she didn't want to get pregnant, ahe shouldn't have been riding cock. Actions have consequences.

[sloopyinca]

Her rights end where the rights of another person's begin. It's the same as someone cutting off your head because they didn't like the fact that you were holding them back financially.*

Would that be OK, Smartgal?

*Which is often the reason a woman gets an abortion.

[Eduard van Haalen]

How about a link with pictures?

"This is by far the biggest protest I've ever been to in my life."

http://bit.ly/wxRgUl

[sloopyinca]

As a survivor of 9/11, I fully support the right to life. Once the embryo has attached itself to the uterine wall, the chance of survival goes up astronomically. Therefore, I think abortion should be outlawed from that point on.

I fully support the selling of morning-after pills and the like that would eject a unattached clump of cells, but abortion on demand of a 6-month fetus is just plain murder.

[Lost_In_Translation]

its a placenta grease slope you're on...

[Valkyie]

I feel the same

[Quetzalcoatl]

protecting abortion facilities from protesters

Yes, "protecting" the facilities from the clear and present danger of people carrying signs.

[Valkyie]

+1

[sloopyinca]

I've been arrested twice (on the same day!) for defying the bubble-zone law. Both times, I had parked in a spot near the entrance to the aborto-clinic, paid the meter and sat on the trunk of my car with a sign. And both instances, the magistrate I was taken before released me without charge.

If you stand up to the system, it will cave more often than you think.

[Valkyie]

+1

[Smartgal]

You brave soul, standing out there with a sign while some woman struggles with a life-changing decision.

[John]

I am sure her child looks at it a little differently.

[Jordan Elliot]

If it had the capacity to think, but it doesn't so it's not an issue.

[John]

So if you are unconscious, I can kill you? You are not thinking and won't feel it. And can't express an opinion about it.

[John]

So if you are unconscious, I can kill you? You are not thinking and won't feel it. And can't express an opinion about it.

[sloopyinca]

If it had the capacity to think, but it doesn't so it's not an issue.

So we can just go into hospitals and start pulling plugs on people? Or go into centers for severely retarded people and start shooting?

[DesigNate]

You don't know if it has the capacity to think. Unless you are some kind of telepath.

[sloopyinca]

Oh, it's life-changing alright. It changes the life of another person into death.

[One Word Rebuttal Dude]

Cells.

[One Word Rebuttal Douche]

Mitochondria.

[One Word Franchise Ruiner]

Midichlorians.

[Short Viking]

Raaaaaaage.

[DesigNate]

To be fair, quite a few PP's here in the south have had bomb threats and shot at. One of my contractors installed the double thick bulletproof glass in the windows of two of them.

[Rev. Blue Moon]

If the thing that distinguishes humans from other animals is their brains, then the development of brainwaves that are unique to humans should be the point where a fetus is granted the conceptual notion of "personhood".

Can we talk about how women should be solely responsible for the financial obligations of pregnancy and parenthood now, or is that too flameworthy?

[sloopyinca]

Can we talk about how women should be solely responsible for the financial obligations of pregnancy and parenthood now, or is that too flameworthy?

^^This^^ When will men be given the right to abort the financial strain put on them for a child they do not want? If a woman can have it sucked out without the man's consent, why can the man not do the same financially?

Fucking equal protection, how does it work?

[Smartgal]

You have the right to abort the financial strain by ejaculating elsewhere.

[Rev. Blue Moon]

You have the right to abort the financial strain by ejaculating elsewhere.

Let's say that I am allergic to peanuts. If I permit peanuts to enter my body, of my own free will, I should be responsible for the medical and financial consequences. Ditto pregnancy.

[shrike's mom]

And a woman has the right to avoid the burden of a pregnancy by keeping her legs closed.

[John]

You have a right to abort by closing your legs once in a while.

[sloopyinca]

So my only choice is to take no chance, while her choice is to just do what she wants when she wants...regardless of what my thoughts on the matter are? That's utterly absurd.
---------
Woman: I can't get pregnant, I'm on the pill.
Man: [splooge]
Woman: pay me.

[Rev. Blue Moon]

The fact is that pro-choice is a phrase for a reason: it permits the woman to make a choice as to whether to keep the fetus or to terminate the pregnancy. If women make the choice to keep the pregnancy, then that has completely vitiated the sperm donor's participation in the matter.

If we agree that women should not be able to get child support when she undergoes voluntary in-vitro fertilization with donated sperm, I see no difference between whether she gets the sperm at the end of a syringe (or turkey baster, if you will) or a penis.

[DesigNate]

Wow, that's a very convincing argument. You've totally changed my mind about everything.

[rho]

The only thing more strained than abortion methaphors, both pro- and con-, are the metaphors after men's rights advocates get their grubby mitts on them.

[zeroentitlement]

I would love to see that, for the record, and I'm female. If a man had the option to sign away his paternity if a woman came after him for child support, I bet the numbers of women who use reliable birth control before sex would rise, once women understood that no, you cannot consign another sovereign individual to economic slavery for the next 18 years based on your own reproductive whims.

[Justin]

Thank you, you are a credit to your username.

[sloopyinca]

[applauds wildly]

[Lost_in_translation]

Always wear a self supplied condom. Don't trust her.

[sloopyinca]

And if that breaks? Am I to be solely responsible for the financial result of a product not working and being defrauded by a woman?

[Loki]

Sue the condom manufacturer. Problem solved (assuming you'd win).

[A Serious Man]

Condom packages make it clear that they are not 100% effective at preventing pregnancy. So if yours fails then the manufacture can either argue improper usage of the product on your part, or you're simply that 1% case where the product fails.

Either way their is no liability on their part unless you can prove that the manufacturer was negligent or misleading.

[cynical]

That excuse doesn't really work if you don't at least try to wear one.

[MJ]

Don't let your little head write checks your big head is unwilling to cash. You have to decide what is more important to you.

In other words: Man up, wuss.

[DesigNate]

Yeah, cause there is no possible scenario where a man could be screwed both figuratively and literally.

None. Whatsoever.

[shrike's mom]

Women don't have responsibilities, they have rights. Get with the program.

[Dagny T.]

women should be solely responsible for the financial obligations of pregnancy and parenthood

Totally agree on that. As long as women are the only ones with the right to decide if/when they will carry a child to term, they should be the only ones held legally responsible for its care (absent any private contract, etc). The feminists who are pro-choice and also pro-child support/family court bias against men are not only not logically consistent but shameless bigots and thieves.

Another neat thing about this is it gives misogynists a perfect excuse to rant about how much they hate women. Great fun for anyone with a gender-based axe to grind!

[AlmightyJB]

But what about euthanasia and capital punishment? Wasting time is fun.

[Valkyie]

Like Dr. Paul, I'm also very pro-life, but I dont think making abortion illegal is ever going to bring the results I hope for. The best people like me can do is try to support adoption agencies (especially open adoption) so that women aren't so afraid of having strangers raise their kid that they decide it's better to kill him or her. There's lots of good parents who would love to adopt, but the system is often drowned in bureaucracy, unfortunately.

It's refreshing that most people here understand that overturning roe v wade would ultimately leave the decision to states; lots of Obamabots seem to think that overturning it automatically makes it illegal in every state.

[Rev. Blue Moon]

Also: personal responsibility dictates that the fetus is not an "interloper" so much as it is an "invited guest", and you don't just get to eject invited guests into subzero temperatures in the middle of the night.

[Smartgal]

When I put locks on my doors and close the shades and someone still crawls into my house, do you still consider them "invited"?

[shrike's mom]

So you're claiming rape? Because pregnancy is a foreseeable consequence of sex, even if using protection.

[Sparky]

Smartgal|1.23.12 @ 2:55PM|#

You have the right to abort the financial strain by ejaculating elsewhere.

[Sparky]

At least try to be consistent.

[Gojira]

and you don't just get to eject invited guests into subzero temperatures in the middle of the night.

Why not? I'm not trying to be a dick, I'm genuinely curios. I would say that yes, you can. It would be a dick move, of course, but I don't see why one should not have control over who is allowed in his property, and when.

[Rev. Blue Moon]

Can a cruise ship captain just toss you overboard?

[Captain Francesco Schettino]

Yes.

[Sparky]

Assuming the captain doesn't own the ship and you've paid to be there then no he can't.

[Rev. Blue Moon]

Assuming the captain doesn't own the ship and you've paid to be there then no he can't.

Fine, he refunds you your money, and then tosses you overboard.

[rho]

Yes, you can eject anybody from your property. This is the fundamental libertarian argument to abortion: you own yourself.

Your example holds, however. Because whether you abort so you won't be fat during prom, of if you kick out your guests in sub-zero temperatures after the subway has stopped running, you're a dick.

[Rev. Blue Moon]

I don't agree with this. Perhaps this is where the Decoder Ring gets tarnished, but you cannot cause someone to detrimentally rely on staying in a place and then throwing them out into certain death.

You guys saying the cruise ship captain can just toss you overboard -- you realize that just doesn't sound right...don't you?

[rho]

They can't toss you overboard, but they can kick you off the ship at the first port that isn't currently embroiled in a race war and/or on fire. In between then and now, they can put you in the brig.

To further extend your metaphor, if the ship's captain eighty-sixes 100 cargo containers filled with viable frozen embryos, is he now a serial killer more heinous than Jim Jones?

If not, then why not?

The pro and con sides tend to run to the extremes because that's where they have a point. Meanwhile most people don't think 15 year olds should have abortions without parental consent, nor should 25 year olds be forced to watch Kirk Cameron videos.

Not everything leads either to theocracy or Logan's Run. Let's keep it together, guys.

[Rev. Blue Moon]

They can't toss you overboard, but they can kick you off the ship at the first port that isn't currently embroiled in a race war and/or on fire. In between then and now, they can put you in the brig.

Why this distinction? To abuse the analogy, that means that a woman can be forced to carry a pregnancy until such time as its viable. That is, the first "port" is the neonatal ward at St. Ann's.

To further extend your metaphor, if the ship's captain eighty-sixes 100 cargo containers filled with viable frozen embryos, is he now a serial killer more heinous than Jim Jones?

I'm not pro-"life". I am pro-choice until the fetus develops unique brain activity solely attributable to homo sapiens.

[rho]

I think we agree on the distinction. The captain can't engage in clear murder, but he does have the right to eject troublesome passengers that cause more harm than good.

Likewise, a pregnancy that may harm the health of the mother may be aborted.

There are grey areas in both circumstances, but reasonable people usually don't disagree on the fundamentals.

[sloopyinca]

Only if those passengers broke the contract they had with the owner of the boat.

[Gojira]

Not if, as someone pointed out below, 1) the ship is not his personal property, and 2) you have paid for a ticket for the duration of the trip.

In your scenerio, everytime it gets cold outside, do hobos have a right to come squat in your home to prevent them from freezing?

Again, being a dick =/= illegal.

[Rev. Blue Moon]

There is a difference between inviting someone onto your property and never having welcomed them in the first place.

Why can't you just toss your kids out into the street then?

[Gojira]

Why can't you just toss your kids out into the street then?

I think you should be able to. We'll probably never agree on that, so no real point debating it.

What would your position be in the case of rape or incest, where the woman in question did not make a voluntary invitation?

[Rev. Blue Moon]

What would your position be in the case of rape or incest, where the woman in question did not make a voluntary invitation?

Presuming the incest was some kind of messed-up molestation thing and not the kind that SugarFree's people engage in on the regular, I would support the right to abortion in those circumstances.

The philosophical example for this is "say you awoke one day and a world-class violinist had been attached to you, and if you separate him from yourself, he will die". Sorry about his luck, I say. Consent means everything.

[Gojira]

I can't fault your logic. I just take a harder line on property rights than it looks like you're willing to, and that's a reasonable disagreement that rational people can have. Probably no further that we can do on this subject.

[A Secret Band of Robbers]

That example has its value, but it overlooks the cases where there is implied consent. If you signed a violinist-support contract last month because you were a little drunk and forgot that you missed a few violinist control pills that month, that would be on your own head. (The metaphor needs some work, granted.)

[sloopyinca]

Presuming the incest was some kind of messed-up molestation thing and not the kind that SugarFree's people engage in on the regular, I would support the right to abortion in those circumstances.

I've got to go to the other extreme here. The fetus did not choose what uterus he/she would be implanted in. And he/she was not the one that violated the mother. Why should he/she be put to death because another person (the rapist) violated the woman's body?

Just curious why the distinction. And will the rape or incest have to be proven before the abortion is performed? If not, you'd just end up with tens of thousands of women crying rape to get an abortion.

[Gojira]

The Rev. and I are both looking at it from a property rights stance. It doesn't matter if the fetus consented or not; consent requires both parties, and if the mother didn't, then it's not her problem if the fetus can't survive on it's own outside of the womb.

Your concern about crying rape all the time is valid, I would think.

[Loki]

Feminazis: "No woman ever lied about being raped."

[sloopyinca]

Feminazis: "No woman ever lied about being raped."

...except Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, Linda Tripp and any other woman that said Slick Willy had his way with them.

[rho]

The captain is the designated legal authority for the property owner. Additionally, the captain is entrusted, by the property owner, to make decisions that impact the welfare of his passengers.

Paying for the passage does not preclude you from being kicked off. If you doubt this, try peeing on flight attendants on your next flight.

If you're a dick, people will call you a dick. You don't get redress in court for being called a dick, unless you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you're not a dick.

[sloopyinca]

A captain can kick you off only if you break the terms of your contract. Otherwise, he is liable for damages, as is the owner who he is an agent for.

[rho]

Pretty sure common law doesn't work that way. Captains, both at sea and in air, have to make decisions that fall under the "whatever, I don't know you" clause, which covers getting naked and pissing on the beverage cart.

That's not generally covered, specifically, by the contract generated at the sale of the ticket, which is why they give their authorized agents authority to make these decisions while in the air, or at sea.

[sloopyinca]

That's not generally covered, specifically, by the contract generated at the sale of the ticket, which is why they give their authorized agents authority to make these decisions while in the air, or at sea.

Sure it's covered. Under "obey all laws governing air or sea travel" or "shall not disrupt the safety of well-being of passengers or crew."

[rather]

Blah, blah, blah an abortion thread. I almost miss hearing the latest on football and tits

[The Question of Auban]

What do you have against tits?

[sloopyinca]

Yeah, rather. What do you have against tits? From what I hear, you're proud of all six of yours.

[Banjos]

Depicshun

[sloopyinca]

Baby, I love you, but that's just naaaaaaasty.

[Smartgal]

It seems pretty simple -- you cannot force another human being to provide life-sustaining nutrients to you from their own body. Why is a clump of cells any different?

[morgan]

perfect, so eviction, early removal and treatment for it? after cessation of your provision? or do you absolutely have to stick a spike in the other person's skull to stop feeding them? because that doesn't seem to keep the balance in your simple equation.

[Rev. Blue Moon]

It seems pretty simple -- you cannot force another human being to provide life-sustaining nutrients to you from their own body. Why is a clump of cells any different?

I guess this means that you can just put your kids out in the cold with no clothes?

[Rev. Blue Moon]

It seems pretty simple -- you cannot force another human being to provide life-sustaining nutrients to you from their own body. Why is a clump of cells any different?

I guess this means that you can just put your kids out in the cold with no clothes?

[Cytotoxic]

The kids are dependent people with rights and needs. The clump of cells is a clump of cells with no rights.

[Rev. Blue Moon]

You are begging the question.

What about an abortion at nine months, Cyto?

And besides, if no one should be forced to provide for another, your first sentence is totally irrelevant.

[Restoras]

This one doesn't have kids.

[Rev. Blue Moon]

Ah, this is your privilege speaking. Some people have no hesitation is doing completely terrible things to their own children, up to and including killing them in horrific ways.

[John]

If you closed your legs you wouldn't have to worry about it would you? For a smart gal, your parents didn't explain much to you about sex did they? Here is a hint, you don't just get pregnant. And unless you were raped, you are responsible when you do.

[dope]

I think you could, if person A is responsible for person B being is a situation where B requires life-sustaining nutrients from A, then A could be legitimately forced. The question is the person-hood of B.

[sloopyinca]

It seems pretty simple -- you cannot force another human being to provide life-sustaining nutrients to you from their own body. Why is a clump of cells any different?

No, but you can force another human being to provide life(style)-sustaining income from the sweat of their labor.

Fuck you, hypocrite troll piece of human filth.

[Justin]

Right. The consistent stance is that you're not required to take care of another unless you contracted to (and that requires that the fetus had a mind to enter a contract). I don't think that means you get to kill a child - or even a fetus so long as it can be made viable (and someone else is willing to raise it).

There. No potential person dies unnecessarily, and women don't have to carry an interloper. Debate solved. Next?

[cynical]

Can you force another human being to become dependent on you for nutrients or die? And if so, do you forfeit the right to cut them off?

[mcgregor]

The best, libertarian position would be to repeal RvW, and leave abortion legislation to the states. If they want it legal, that's there business and if not, same thing.

[Cytotoxic]

Individual rights > state's 'rights'

[mcgregor]

They're one and the same. If a state doesn't legislate on something (which it doesn't have to, and which is up to the people) then it's an individual matter. Why is abortion different from anything else? Why are there not federal laws on murder, for example? It's a state matter. What makes abortion different? Be consistent...

[lurker]

The best, libertarian position would be to repeal RvW, and leave abortion legislation to the states.

No, that would be the best position for a states-rights advocate. A libertarian is no happier to see his or her liberties curtailed by the state government than by the federal government.

[Morgan]

this is not a right-only issue, and at some point a kid becomes a kid, whether that's 9 months, or upon exit, or whatever the rule is.

but the left will legislate this stuff every bit as much as the right as soon as they see the results of their past stance:

http://medicalxpress.com/news/.....ction.html

[Cytotoxic]

I am so glad to live in a time of abortion rights. May the mysticists who would grant 'rights' to a fucking clump of cells enjoy their fate in the socio-political fossil bed.

[John]

There is nothing "mystical" about DNA. And there is nothing mystical about the reality that we probably will be able to grow humans totally outside the womb some day.

If anything I think science is going to render a harsh judgment on those who had such an archaic fixation on the act of giving birth determining who is and is not a human being.

[Justin]

They are already human (DNA-wise). They will never become a person without being raised by someone. You can test this by looking at feral children or dumpster babies. They're human. They're not people.

[John]

That is batshit insane. the existence or non existence of parents has no bearing on someone being human. That is just sick.

[Restoras]

No but its helpful if you want to get rid of an entire group...or class...or ethnicity...wait this sounds familiar.

[Loki]

"Earth, Hitler, 1938."

[Cytotoxic]

DNA =/= personhood. Humanity and 'personhood' has nothing to directly with genetic contents.

[Rev. Blue Moon]

Sorry, Cyto, but the orthodox Objectivist position logically leads to parents being permitted to kill (or at least neglect to death) their fully-born children. There is nothing "magical" about passing through the birth canal.

[Cytotoxic]

NO no no. I should note that there is a little-little-bit of controversy regarding later-term abortions amongst the O-ist factions (oh the factions...), but not at earlier stages. The Oist position is roughly that parents are responsible for their dependent children because the children are people but not "complete units".

[Rev. Blue Moon]

The Oist position is roughly that parents are responsible for their dependent children because the children are people but not "complete units".

And, again, if you fail to define what a "person" is (and the Oist position attributes magic to passing through the birth canal), you're back at square one. I also note that the Oist position is incomplete: WHY are parents responsible for "incomplete units"?

[MJ]

Those are the same mysticists who acknowledged the rights of the clump of cells calling itself "Cytotoxic".

[GILMORE]

I believe that all life is precious. I know life begins at conception.

Funny how his belief turned into 'knowledge' as soon as the issue became something 'unknowable'.

I (now) know heaven is full of unviable zygotes. Which makes no fucking sense. But I knows it!

'Failing to protect the unborn' makes about as much sense as saying your opponent 'fails to protect us from the UnDead' (aka Coming Zombie Apocolypse).

Its a pretty convenient accusation: "I believe there is a shining soul inside all blastocysts - and you stand idly by while they are slaughtered!"

Easier than talking about stuff like fiscal policy, or use of force...

[The Question of Auban]

Gilmore, define "Life".

[jasno]

Many things are alive and we kill them without thinking.

More importantly - define 'humanness'. Good luck defining a cell, or even a few thousand of them, as 'human'.

[The Question of Auban]

"Humanness" is defined by DNA - unless you are going to argue that it is OK to kill a retarded person.

[Rev. Blue Moon]

Tumors have unique human DNA, so that cannot be right.

[The Question of Auban]

Tumors cannot live separate from the human body at ANY POINT in their existence.

[Rev. Blue Moon]

Now you are shifting the argument. Previously, you said DNA was the defining characteristic for personhood. Now it is independence from another human body?

I'll note that without adult intervention, newborns don't make it very far either...

[The Question of Auban]

No, actually I am not shifting my argument. DNA is what defines a human as human. Personhood is a separate question. Some have made a reasonable case that apes fit the definition of "personhood". Whether you agree with this argument or not, I have never heard the argument that apes are "human". Two separate concepts.

[GILMORE]

White Indian. I rest my case.

[GILMORE]

...Sorry that was a reply to,

"The Question of Auban|1.23.12 @ 3:34PM|#

Tumors cannot live separate from the human body at ANY POINT

[The Question of Auban]

White Indian is an odd creature indeed. His species is one that can only survive on college campuses.

[jasno]

Are you arguing we can't kill braindead humans? If you lose your head in a woodchopper, do we have a moral obligation to let the rest of your DNA live a full life?

[The Question of Auban]

If I loose my head in a woodchopper I am dead ...

[jasno]

If I loose my head in a woodchopper...

Let it loose my friend, that it may gambol across the freely rotating blades of the woodchopper.

[GILMORE]

Virii, Amoeba, paramecium, fungus, etc. on up. I believe the definition is something like "organic entity capable of response to stimuli, reproduction, growth and development"

I believe some of them are precious. Like kittens. Some less so. Like flesh-eating bacteria, lampreys, ticks, Tony.

[The Question of Auban]

Gilmore,

OK, now that you have defined life - do you believe that your definition is 'unknowable' or 'knowable'?

[GILMORE]

uh, yeah, because there are discrete, measurable criteria for making that 'claim to knowledge'. Ok, fine, mr fucking Epistemology, the definition of "life" includes zygotes... maybe I should have made the point that if 'All' life is so precious, then apparently Anti-biotics are mass-murder. Not all life is 'precious', and zygotes aint human, and frankly I'm not 100% sure about Santorum either.

[DesigNate]

Could you explain how a zygote with unique DNA is not human, seeing as how it is a stage of development?

If you want to say it isn't a person and doesn't have rights, okay. But it is still a human.

[GILMORE]

Semantic bullshit.

Until its born, its a fucking parasite proto-thingy transforming into what will likely be another fucking semi-human idiot. Ive never been clear on why so many people insist on tadpoles being treated with such reverence. They don't even pay taxes.

[DesigNate]

That's not fucking semantics. Either it's a human or it's not. But since you're claiming I'm just playing semantics I take it that you are conceding that it is in fact human.

[heller]

If you want to say it isn't a person and doesn't have rights, okay. But it is still a human.

Well the fetus is certainly human, but not necessarily a human.

[The Question of Auban]

bacteria are neither human nor people.

[Warty]

Stan: Dude, I am so glad we stayed out of that one.
Kyle: Mee tooo.

[Episiarch]

I think the bigger question is: how stupid will this thread get before they put up a new one to distract from this one?

[Warty]

So, how about Kagan?

[Episiarch]

Who?

[John]

This thread was worth it for no other reason that the pleasure of telling smart gal to close her fucking legs if she doesn't want a child. Few things are as pleasurable than confronting feminists with actual personal responsibility.

[Warty]

All sex is rape, anyway, so your point is null.

[WTF]

But it's not 'rape-rape'.

[Dagny T.]

What's the over/under on Smartgal being a troll? The "ejaculate elsewhere" bit got my trolldar up. But plenty of people really are that stupid.

Jesus, there is really nothing like a discussion on abortion to let you know who has an axe to grind with one gender or the other. And there is really little that is more off-putting.

[Warty]

ejaculate elsewhere

What, like in the back of a Volkswagen?

[Episiarch]

No, no, dude. In a sock.

[Loki]

"No, like some place girls dread."

Props to Warty on the Mallrats reference.

[JW]

If this van is a rockin', please ejaculate elsewhere.

[John]

I think she is real. But maybe not. And the whole "only men are responsible" bit is really insulting to women.

[Loki]

Didn't you know that all women are helpless victims of the mysoginist patriarchical culture? Excpet for those that been liberated by the tender embrace of a bull dyke.

[JW]

IIRC, sloopy got hoodwinked by a woman a few years ago, baby-wise, and is now on the hook for child support. I'd cut him some slack.

[jasno]

Isn't God the ultimate abortionist? He knows most souls are destined for hell("Narrow is the way" and all that crap), yet year after year he keeps the game going, sending more and more folks to hell. Seems he's a rather sick bastard if nothing else.

[The Question of Auban]

Not everyone who opposes abortion is religious. I think the head of Libertarians for Life is or was an agnostic.

[Gojira]

I'm an athiest, was was firmly pro-choice until being exposed to various libertarian theories on personal ownership and rights. Now I'm sort of on the fence; I can see the arguments both ways, and I don't think it's a clear-cut or easy answer like the partisans in both camps seem to believe.

[Eduard van Haalen]

A delegation from the group Secular Prolife, at today's march:

http://bit.ly/yOj0A2

[Apatheist]

This atheist's opinion on abortion (pro-choicers spouting on about imposing religious dogma read no further):

1. It is unquestionable that life begins at conception from a scientific standpoint.

2. Fetuses, even at the zygote stage, are not "merely a clump of cells" but are merely the earliest stage of development of a member of the human species.

3. As such the only point of contention is "person-hood." If the child has rights as a person then abortion should be illegal. If not then it should be legal.

4. We already accept that minors and children have less rights than adults but the right to live is the most basic right.

5. "Person-hood" being a subjective standard I prefer to rely solely on the biological humanity of the individual which even a zygote falls under.

6. Reasonable people can disagree on this, in my mind, up to the point of brain activity but not after (and certainly not after viability).

7. Arguments based on the child being an invader and infringing the rights of the mother are irrelevant as except in the cases of rape the mother consented to the child being there (and in the case of rape the child did not consent either).

8. This issue is irrelevant to the presidency (as there's nothing they can do about it) and should be irrelevant to the federal government (as this issue should be left to the states).

9. Pro-lifers who oppose contraception, Plan B and educating their children about responsible sex are shitheads.

[jasno]

So brain activity == person-hood? Fuck, it's Terry Schiavo all over again.

Look, science hasn't yet figured out where self-awareness comes from in the brain, but once they do, it seems like these kinds of arguments will be reduced to an objective decision based on observable facts. Until then, I think we can say that there is a gray area in which that point - the point at which self-awareness, the ability to feel, human-ness etc. - exists and before that gray area we can say 'that clump of cells ain't a person'.

[John]

I wouldn't bet on them figuring out where self awareness comes from anytime soon. That is a nutroll of a problem.

The problem with making the distinctions you are suggesting is that it quickly gets out of control. You start out with Shiavo. That is an easy one. She can't think and it is just her parents and a bunch of fundies who are defending her any way. But we know from the experience of the Netherlands that doctors quickly start expanding the definition of brain death and start whacking more and more people. This is especially dangerous in a world where the government pays for all of the healthcare. Do you really trust your government paid doctor to make the decision based on rational factors rather than cost? I don't.

[Rev. Blue Moon]

The second- and third-order effects of human brainwaves = personhood are not really something to be considered. It is either the correct position (as I believe it is), or it isn't. For example, you can continue to develop targeting technology guilt-free even if it will eventually be used to target innocent children in Pakistan.

[John]

But if you can't tell me exactly what brain waves equal personhood, you are not drawing a line. You are just giving doctors the excuse to kill people.

[Rev. Blue Moon]

I am not a biologist, but when I read into the subject years ago, I believe there was a specific brainwave (Delta? Theta? Some Greek Letter...) that was present in human fetuses on or about 26 weeks that did not manifest itself in other species. I wish I had saved that paper, though.

[Apatheist]

So brain activity == person-hood

I didn't say that, I said that person-hood is subjective and as such I don't use that as a standard. I'm merely saying that it is a reasonable standard.

As to the gray area due to our lack of scientific understand, I take that as a reason to be on the safe side not a reason to justify abortion.

[Justin]

Chimpanzee > 3 year old child in every aspect that libertarians use to claim personhood (reason, intelligence, etc. excepting existence of a soul). Therefore children < 3 should be used for medical experiments before chimps.

[John]

That is a great argument for why brain activity shouldn't be the sole determination of personhood.

[ernieyeball]

Humans don't have souls. That is something the church invented so they could control you.

"Obey ME, or your soul will burn in HELL!

[A Serious Man]

But chimps aren't humans and they never will be, so you're point is invalid.

[A Secret Band of Robbers]

Actually, there are some pretty solid arguments for presumptively granting legal rights to possible sentients, great apes included. We have to have SOME basic moral standard for when the tree-beings from Dendron Epsilon 4 arrive.

[Zeb]

This is key too. It seems to me that if we ever encounter other sentient beings with intelligence comparable to ours and with whom we can communicate effectively, we would have to consider them human as well. I would even argue that a truly sentient intelligent machine should be considered human.

[sloopyinca]

I would even argue that a truly sentient intelligent machine should be considered human.

I can tell you this: If forced to choose between killing Data or Wesley Crusher, the android lives.

[A Secret Band of Robbers]

This is why being a libertarian is so awesome. We can move any topic into Star Trek: The Next Generation territory in about 6 comments.

[A Secret Band of Robbers]

(The best part is, I wrote that before I reloaded and saw sloopy's comment.)

[Zeb]

That's not true. 3 year old children can usually speak to some extent and walk on two legs. Humans and chimps differentiate themselves very early on. Even if you said 1 year old, I think that the human baby has the distinct difference of having a human parent to care for and protect them.

[TrickyVic]

""So brain activity == person-hood? Fuck, it's Terry Schiavo all over again.""

Well Santorum is running for president. 😉

[MJ]

"...and before that gray area we can say 'that clump of cells ain't a person'."

Fascinating how that gray area leads to such a starkly black and white conclusion.

[John]

I agree with all of that. Well said. I especially agree with number 5. The problem with personhood is that it then becomes very easy to start kicking disabled people out of the human race and saying it is okay to kill them.

[Justin]

I take the same stance I take with children. It's not ok to kill them, but you're not obligated to them.

[Zeb]

I think that if you are disabled to the point that you have no mind, then you are no longer human. We feel obliged to keep such creatures alive because they still appear human to us and that makes us uncomfortable about just letting them die.

[Apatheist]

I don't think we should be obligated to keep them alive but rather be obligated to attempt to follow their intent on such situations. In Texas we have a pretty clear law that allows you to legally designate what can happen to you should you be in such a situation. It then delegates authority for deciding when no explicit instructions are given to those closet starting with the spouse. I think that is about as close as we can get.

[Eduard van Haalen]

Fair enough so far, but could you clarify the meaning of "responsible sex" in this sentence:

"Pro-lifers who oppose contraception, Plan B and educating their children about responsible sex are shitheads."

[Apatheist]

I don't mean the government doing it but rather that parents should teach their children on all the steps that can be taken to avoid pregnancy and the need for Plan B when they fail. The second level of responsibility being choosing sexual partners wisely to ensure that they are also using contraception wisely. How a parent goes about doing this can and does vary widely but simply saying "don't have sex ever" and that's it is irresponsible (and not very fun).

[Eduard van Haalen]

I am not familiar with parents who say "don't have sex ever" - but the vast majority of parents throughout history have said "don't have sex until you're married."

[Zeb]

Well, parents of daughters.

[Apatheist]

I think you can say "don't have sex until you're married but if you do...". In any case I think that standard is extreme just as I think many people go to far in the other direction. Either way people are free to do as they wish but they should be responsible for the consequences of their actions. Also I meant "don't have sex ever" as addressed to children which would be the same standard in effect as "don't have sex until you are married." Once you are old enough to figure this stuff out for yourself you alone are responsible.

[Michael]

I agree with this.

[A Secret Band of Robbers]

Thank you for that, that was very well stated.

[Zeb]

I don't get the "leave it to the states" bit (except as a constitutional argument). If there isn't one right answer that everyone can agree on, shouldn't it be left to the individual? States violating rights is just as bad as federal gov't violating rights.

[Apatheist]

Individuals violating rights is also just as bad. That is why murder, etc. is illegal. The leave it to the states argument is as an alternative to what we have now because it allows 50 different laboratories of democracy to figure out an answer. It isn't necessarily ideal I'm just saying what it should be within our current framework.

I personally think that artificial wombs will make the debate moot before we actually get an answer. (I also think that someday Roe v. Wade will be considered the Dread Scott of our time).

[sarcasmic]

A woman goes an gets a legal abortion, and all is well with the law.

If someone were to strike that very same woman's stomach on her way to the abortion clinic, causing a miscarriage, they could be charged with murder.

:-/

[WTF]

Because the fetus is a person in the second case but not in the first case. Not sure why - maybe Smartgal can help me out with this one.

[A Serious Man]

I've used that argument before and the response I got was that causing a woman to miscarriage is like Michael Vick killing dogs, the method is illegal according to the law but the killing itself is not illegal as we allow vets to put down sick dogs.

It's a pretty disgusting argument.

[sarcasmic]

What if the doctor punched her in the stomach?

[Matrix]

I thought the FALCON PUNCH was a legitimate medical practice.

[Zeb]

I don't see a problem with that argument (though I don't think it should be considered murder). The problem is that you are thinking of the fetus as the victim. The victim in the case of the mother being hit in the belly is the mother. She has been deprived, through violence, of something that she presumably cared about and has put a lot of time and effort into. I don't see why you woudl have a hard time making that distinction.

[Rev. Blue Moon]

No, when you charge the transgressor with murder, you are explicitly saying that the fetus was the victim.

[A Serious Man]

When you charge the transgressor with ANY crime because you damaged the fetus you are concedeing that the fetus is a victim.

So either punching a pregnant woman in the stomach is just assault, or it's something more as it pertains to the rights of the baby.

[Zeb]

Those laws are pushed by pro-lifers because they can't define abortion as murder.

[lurker]

No, that would be the best position for a states-rights advocate. A libertarian is no happier to see his or her liberties curtailed by the state government than by the federal government.

[lurker]

Sorry, I meant to respond to McGregor's post upstream , which said:

The best, libertarian position would be to repeal RvW, and leave abortion legislation to the states. If they want it legal, that's there business and if not, same thing.

[mcgregor]

States' rights and individual rights are one and the same and you can't claim to support individual rights while taking away self-determination, which is what federal legislation does when it's not a matter specifically granted to the federal government.

[Zeb]

States don't have rights. And states can take away self determination just as well as the fed.

[mcgregor]

That has nothing to do with what I said, does it? That doesn't excuse top-down, federal legislation that goes against the will of the people.

[mcgregor]

States' rights and individual rights are one and the same and you can't claim to support individual rights while taking away self-determination, which is what federal legislation does when it's not a matter specifically granted to the federal government.

[Sparky]

States' rights and individual rights are one and the same

You're joking right? Please tell me that was sarcasm.

[mcgregor]

Totally missed the point. What are states? The US constitution says that whatever isn't federally legislated is up to "the states and the people." They're part of the same group. Don't be an idiot, please.

[sloopyinca]

What do an airport and a back-alley abortion have in common?

The hanger.

[sloopyinca]

knock-knock
who's there?
you'll never know!

[ernieyeball]

Many of those coat hanger abortions were done solo by the expecting mother. Many of those mothers to be died.
This is the world the pro lifers aspire to.

[sloopyinca]

No it's not. In the world I aspire to, they will also try the mother posthumously for murder as a deterrent to others who would murder another person for their own convenience.

[ernieyeball]

If my daughter had not had an abortion I would not have the grand children I have now.
YOU STAY AWAY FROM MY FAMILY!

[Anonymous Coward]

Boring anecdote is boring.

[sloopyinca]

And in your infinite wisdom (or that of your daughter), you can be the arbiter of who dies and who lives?

Damn, dude. Can you also give me the powerball numbers for tomorrow night?

[ernieyeball]

She was not my daughter when she had the abortion. It was before I knew her.
And yes she is infinitely wise when it comes to her own body.
That is a wisdom you can never have.

[sloopyinca]

I'll make sure to pass that on to the victim she had killed for her own convenience. I'm sure it will be a comfort to him/her knowing that their life was sacrificed so you and her could enjoy the life of another.

[cynical]

No, assuming it was a normal healthy pregnancy, you'd have entirely different grandchildren, and you'd probably care about them as much and say "If my daughter had had an abortion, I would not have the grand children I have now".

[cynical]

Well, having read more, I guess -you- wouldn't. But that just means you're trading someone else's grandchildren for your own. Not exactly the loftiest moral high ground.

[Strawman Local 273]

We're gonna sue the shit out of you!

[ernieyeball]

Every time I see the pro-lifers and their little darlin's holding out save the baby signs I hold a wire coat hanger out my window and drive by as many time as I can.
I can see the little chillin's point to it and ask "what is that for daddy?"
I always wonder what they are told.

[sloopyinca]

I hope they tell their kids it's a prop the driver is using to exercise his 1A rights.

Then I hope they explain the fucked up double standard that allows you to drive anywhere you want and voice your opinion on abortion, yet their rights to protest where they choose are restricted.

[ernieyeball]

I am driving on the public road where everyone drives. Even the ones holding cigarettes out the window.

[sloopyinca]

I am on a public sidewalk outside an aborto-clinic holding a sign. Oops, I'm getting arrested while the pro-choice protester right next to me laughs.

Fuck off with your double-standards.

[ernieyeball]

You seem to assume that I oppose the anti abortionists right to protest.
Please provide examples.

[A Serious Man]

If I were a parent and I saw you I would just explain to my kids that some people are assholes and yet the beautiful thing about this country is that we allow assholes to express themselves too. I would also explain to them the importance of using reason to evaluate complex issues like these and not let the assholes obfuscate it with asinine gestures like the coat hanger.

[I make points, on the Internet]

You have never done that.

And if you have, nobody ever noticed.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. More anecdotes from the retard. Anybody got a pair of forceps and a vacuum handy?

[Tman]

I'm on the side that yes, life begins at conception but until we have a fetus grown outside the woman (which will happen eventually) the woman still retains a level of oversight since it's her health directly affected as well.

I understand that if indeed the conception means it's a "life" than it should be afforded all constitutional protections, but not if in interferes with another individuals rights, which in some cases it would. Letting the government be the one to decide who has priority over who's rights during pregnancy is about as anti-libertarian as you can get.

I also laugh at the fact that if it was Men who had the babies this wouldn't even be an argument. Most of don't want the government to touch anything of ours for any reason, much less a part of our body. It's fascinating to watch the sudden appeal of government interference to "save a life" from some supposed libertarians.

[GILMORE]

I also laugh at the fact that if it was Men who had the babies this wouldn't even be an argument. Most of don't want the government to touch anything of ours for any reason

Dude. fuck that! If I had a little money/time-demanding, dependent, snotty little attention-needing parasitic alien-child gestating inside my man-womb, I'd be petitioning the government every freaking day, "LET ME KILL IT!! GET THIS FUCKING THING OUT OF ME!! PLEASE! NOW!!! BEFORE IT NEEDS COLLEGE MONEY!!"

[Tman]

Exactly. That's what I find so funny. Most men are afraid of anyone touching their car never mind telling them they can't rip out this potentially life destroying growth in their belly (which happens to be a person, sort of, depending on the day, I guess, who knows...whatever). So you expect me to believe that the same men would be all about letting the government force them to carry this growth to term and then birth it as well?

HA HA. HO HO. It is to laugh.

[cynical]

I'd feel like an asshole if I did that, especially as much pain and aggravation as my wife is currently having with her pregnancy. She'd never let me live it down. "Oh, poor little pussy, can't even handle a pregnancy."

[DesigNate]

^^^FUCKING THIS^^^

[Anonymous Coward]

I also laugh at the fact that if it was Men who had the babies this wouldn't even be an argument.

Still waiting for this peculiar exercise in poisoning the well to make anything remotely resembling sense.

OMG! YOU HAVE A PENIS! PEOPLE WITH PENISES SHOULDN'T HAVE A SAY!

Kindly fuck off.

[Tman]

That's not what I said. I just believe that if it was male bodies that were the house in which you want the government to intrude in order to save the "life" of another I doubt the conversation would be the same as it is now, for reasons I believe are pretty obvious.

[Anonymous Coward]

I just believe that if it was male bodies

That's nice. Got any fanfic about unicorns since you enjoy dealing in things that don't exist?

[Tman]

Fuck off coward. I was making on observation. Sorry it doesn't appeal to you, nor register in that tiny brain of yours why it might be relevant.

[Rev. Blue Moon]

Sorry, but AC has a point. You cannot just go "err, if it was MEN's bodies then y'all would change your tune!" Exhibit A: the fact that women are generally much more rabidly pro-life when they are pro-life, than men in that movement.

And you ARE dealing in fantasy. If there were such things as centaurs, we would have to contend with equine rights (and rather's grotesque personal fantasies), but there aren't, so we don't argue about that.

[Tman]

You cannot just go "err, if it was MEN's bodies then y'all would change your tune!"

I can, and did. Sorry you didn't like it, but I think it's a relevant observation.

Exhibit A: the fact that women are generally much more rabidly pro-life when they are pro-life, than men in that movement.

You could say the same thing about the pro-choice side.

And you ARE dealing in fantasy.

I understand it isn't biologically possible, but as a matter of observation I believe it's relevant. Sorry it doesn't fit your pre-conceived notion of what we are allowed to speculate and observe.

[Rev. Blue Moon]

I can, and did. Sorry you didn't like it, but I think it's a relevant observation.

So much the worse for you.

You could say the same thing about the pro-choice side.

Except that wouldn't counter my point. Your point seems to be that if it were men who got pregnant, the discussion would be different. As our female commenters demonstrated, and as very strong pro-life female voices demonstrate, that needn't be the case. OTOH, the fact that women are more rabidly pro-choice does nothing to undermine MY point and nothing to bolster yours.

Seriously, given the fact that the loudest pro-life voices are women, how do you think the observation about "men don't get pregnant" is in any way relevant? We've already demonstrated that those entities which DO get pregnant can be just as rabidly anti-abortion, if not more so, than those entities which do not get pregnant, so your "point" is totally irrelevant.

[Tman]

Your point seems to be that if it were men who got pregnant, the discussion would be different.

Yes, I do think it's relevant that this particular issue doesn't affect men as directly as it does women. Sorry that again, doesn't fit your standards for what is relevant in this discussion.

the fact that women are more rabidly pro-choice does nothing to undermine MY point and nothing to bolster yours.

I disagree. I think men would ultimately care differently if this was a matter that directly affected their bodies. You disagree, and that's fine.

given the fact that the loudest pro-life voices are women, how do you think the observation about "men don't get pregnant" is in any way relevant?

Just that- men don't get pregnant. I think in the context of an issue regarding pregnancy that yes, this is relevant.

We've already demonstrated that those entities which DO get pregnant can be just as rabidly anti-abortion, if not more so, than those entities which do not get pregnant,

Which is entirely irrelevant to my point.

My point, again is that what women say about the issue is different from what men say because they have more at risk in the conversation.

And I'll notice that both you and the Coward (aptly named) have avoided my main point, which is to actually examine the hypothetical. Instead -probably because it makes you uncomfortable from a libertarian perspective- you choose to ignore this point and argue about the quality of my point as opposed to the point itself.

As I said above, I don't believe that the government should be the ones making decisions about an individuals body period, and I believe that were we not just talking about women the point would have more supporters, particularly from a libertarian perspective.

[Anonymous Coward]

And I'll notice that both you and the Coward (aptly named) have avoided my main point, which is to actually examine the hypothetical.

You have no point. What you have is a ridiculous rhetorical device designed to silence opposition.

[Tman]

You have no point. What you have is a ridiculous rhetorical device designed to silence opposition.

It's not designed to do anything other than spur debate. I'm not the one trying to silence anyone. It's you who are trying to avoid the uncomfortable hypothetical in terms of its relevance to state power and individual rights by attempting to cut off any discussion.

Since when are you the arbiter of what is relevant for this discussion?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not the one trying to silence anyone. It's you who are trying to avoid the uncomfortable hypothetical in terms of its relevance to state power and individual rights by attempting to cut off any discussion.

Ummm, no. A hypothetical would be "if men had the capacity to carry fetuses to term, what, if any change would there be to their views on abortion?"
This:

I also laugh at the fact that if it was Men who had the babies this wouldn't even be an argument.

Is not a hypothetical as it already assumes a conclusion.

Since when are you the arbiter of what is relevant for this discussion?

As of January 3rd, 2012. FSM (praise his noodly appendages), found my fusilli dance the most pleasing and granted me the arbitership. Then we had cookies, punch and a virgin sacrifice. Sorry you didn't get an invite.

[Tman]

A hypothetical would be "if men had the capacity to carry fetuses to term, what, if any change would there be to their views on abortion?"

Huh, that's kinda what I was saying. Exactly what I was saying, really.

I also laugh at the fact that if it was Men who had the babies this wouldn't even be an argument.

Yes, my opinion is that "IF" this were true, it wouldn't even be a discussion.

Is not a hypothetical as it already assumes a conclusion.

The second part is my opinion, the first part is the hypothetical. Sorry this needs to be broken down for you to understand easier, but you are apparently not interested in this discussion, and prefer to argue whether or not the hypothetical should be allowed as a worthy (to whom exactly I don't know) hypothetical to begin with.

[sloopyinca]

I also laugh at the fact that if it was Men who had the babies this wouldn't even be an argument.
Yes, my opinion is that "IF" this were true, it wouldn't even be a discussion.

[sloopyinca]

Ah yes, if something happened (that is impossible), you can factually state what the outcome would be.

Methinks you presume too much.

[Tman]

So I'm not allowed to discuss it?

I admit though, I shouldn't have used the word "fact" in that statement. If that's enough for one to ignore the argument I understand. That is a mistake on my part.

I still think men would consider this issue differently if affected them the same as it does women.

[Anonymous Coward]

So I'm not allowed to discuss it?

Sure, as long as I'm allowed to introduce artificial uteri into the discussion, which is vastly more likely to go from fiction to reality than a pregnant male.

I still think men would consider this issue differently if affected them the same as it does women.

Which provokes the most basic of all questions: WHY?

[Tman]

Sure, as long as I'm allowed to introduce artificial uteri into the discussion, which is vastly more likely to go from fiction to reality than a pregnant male.

I, unlike you, wouldn't have a problem with this. It's a discussion not a trial.

Which provokes the most basic of all questions: WHY?

For reasons I stated above- Some men have a vehement problem when the government infringes on their personal space never mind their actual physical bodies. Before assuming men can understand a womans perspective about the abortion issue I think this is a relevant point to consider.

[Anonymous Coward]

The second part is my opinion, the first part is the hypothetical. Sorry this needs to be broken down for you to understand easier, but you are apparently not interested in this discussion, and prefer to argue whether or not the hypothetical should be allowed as a worthy (to whom exactly I don't know) hypothetical to begin with.

The whole thing is YOUR OPINION. Even if you weren't trying to poison the well with your "if men could get pregnant", a pregnant male is entirely speculative, nor is it even relevant to a discussion of fetal personhood.

Bad arguments are bad. Do better.

[Tman]

The whole thing is YOUR OPINION.

Yes, so is what most people say ON THE COMMENT BOARD OF A FUCKING BLOG. Jesus you sound stupid.

Even if you weren't trying to poison the well with your "if men could get pregnant", a pregnant male is entirely speculative, nor is it even relevant to a discussion of fetal personhood.

How is me trying to add an alternative perspective on the issue somehow "poisoning the well"? And why are you so adamant about refusing to consider why the lack of affect on a mans body is FUCKING RELEVANT to this discussion?

[DesigNate]

I believe you are considered to have poisoned the well because men can't get pregnant so your hypothetical is theoretically impossible (in the future men might be able to carry their offspring, but they won't "get pregnant").

Or it could be your assertion that men wouldn't be having this discussion if it was possible. As if men are only pro-life because they don't have to deal with the issues that pregnancy can bring up (read a book sometime, men most certainly DO experience a lot of the same things their pregnant partners do).

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it's a relevant observation.

Bare assertion. What else you got?

You could say the same thing about the pro-choice side.

Tu quoque. Anything else?

I understand it isn't biologically possible, but as a matter of observation I believe it's relevant. Sorry it doesn't fit your pre-conceived notion of what we are allowed to speculate and observe.

And a special pleading for the finale. 2 out of 4 stars.

[Anonymous Coward]

"If men could get pregnant" isn't an observation, it's not even a good rhetorical springboard into further discussion. It's a fetish and not even a respectable one.

[cynical]

How do you figure? Plenty of men are pro-choice, and that's as much in ignorance as a pro-life position. And plenty of women are pro-life. I don't know that it would really change things very much (once men got used to the idea of the seahorse thing, at least).

[crimethink]

I also laugh at the fact that if it was Men who had the babies this wouldn't even be an argument. Most of don't want the government to touch anything of ours for any reason, much less a part of our body.

Even when abortion was illegal, I don't know of the government touching a part of any pregnant woman's body. But by all means keep up the hyperbole.

[PaxRomana]

Sorry, I'm unapologetically pro-choice until a fetus sues it's mother for trying to abort it. That's how absurd "fetus personhood" is.

[PaxRomana]

*its mother

[A Serious Man]

What an absurd standard. If someone shoots you in the head and puts you in a coma, you can't very well sue them now can you? I suppose we just let the attempted murderer walk until you regain brain function.

One of the very few legitimate functions of the state is to rectify situations when a person's basic right to life, liberty, and property is threatened. So the state intervenes on your behalf if some committs a violent act against you.

[Brian E]

So basically you're waiting for an abortion survivor who doesn't forgive? It might happen someday, but people who have been grievously harmed are more wiling to forgive than you might think.

[sloopyinca]

So, murder should be legal, since there is no victim with legal standing, right?

Moron.

[Apatheist]

So no wrongful death lawsuits or murder trials then?

[Zeb]

I think that the question of when life begins is a stupid one that doesn't make much sense. Life began several billion years ago and has continued on just fine since then. Life is a continuous process, not a discreet thing with a beginning and an end.
I any case, I think that the definition of what it is to be human is really the issue here, not what constitutes a life. I see no reason why the fact that a zygote has human genetics makes it have any more right to life than the fly I swatted this morning. We are human and have rights because of our minds, not because of our genes (yes, the genes make the mind, but genes can exist without the mind). Now that that is all settled can we please move on?

[TrickyVic]

""I any case, I think that the definition of what it is to be human is really the issue here, not what constitutes a life.""

I agree. It has nothing to do with life, and everything to do with humanity. Which is sort of funny because many christians believe humanism is satan's work.

[Anonymous Coward]

We are human and have rights because of our minds, not because of our genes.

"Lebensunwertes leben", you say? How fascinating.

[cynical]

I'm sympathetic to that notion, but when people talk about life, they're talking about individuation of an organism. A specific organism's life does begin and end, and as humans generally understand it, the beginning is the establishment of a unique genotype. Certainly, if we're talking about individual rights, individuation is a key concept. If we're talking about life generally as the basis for our morality, we're hitting levels of genetic collectivism that even arch-environmentalists tend to shy away from.

[crimethink]

You put it a lot more diplomatically than I would have.

[DesigNate]

I'm going to go back and read all of the comments, but I wanted to say this:
No matter what your stance on this issue is, being a one issue voter (for president) over abortion is quite possibly the single stupidest thing I can think of as a reason to vote for OR against a candidate.

[squishua]

Neocon pro-abortion argument:

"We're fighting them in there so we don't have to fight them out here!"

[Gojira]

^^Thread winner.

[TrickyVic]

If I were to make a list of people who should be allowed to influence a woman's decision on her pregnancy, the government wouldn't be on it.

[Rev. Blue Moon]

If you believe that abortion = murder, then your criticism really is nonsense. I don't believe that, but this is a very silly talking point. Yes, the State should have a say when you murder someone.

[Old Mexican]

Re: Rev. Blue Moon,

If you believe that abortion = murder, then your criticism really is nonsense[...]Yes, the State should have a say when you murder someone.

How about people simply refraining from supplying an abortion or paying for one? How about the State not making abortion a right, instead of what it really is: Just another service? If the State has a say either way, the State can certainly screw things up pretty badly as they have done with cases of murder.

[TrickyVic]

""Yes, the State should have a say when you murder someone.""

Fine, then they should stop with the God's right arugment. If the state determines when taking a life is murder or not, then State > God.

[Rev. Blue Moon]

Fine, then they should stop with the God's right arugment. If the state determines when taking a life is murder or not, then State > God.

What? This does not make any sense. First of all, not all pro-lifers are religious (as stated above, the leader of L4L is an agnostic); second of all, it is entirely possible to believe that the State and God are both in harmony as to that definition (as a matter of fact, this is the essence of the Santorum-brand of conservatism), and finally, that is like saying if the State defines Rape, then the State is greater than God, because...only God has the right to determine Rape?

I mean, what?

[TrickyVic]

""First of all, not all pro-lifers are religious"'

True, and my comment doesn't apply to them, but the God's right arguement is the most commonly used.

""that is like saying if the State defines Rape, then the State is greater than God, because...only God has the right to determine Rape?""

Who's arguing that God gets to determine rape? So, no it's not.

[Apatheist]

I'm an atheist pro-lifer and was first taught pro-life apologetic by an atheist and a catholic from a secular point of view.

[I Have It All - thx RvW!]

As a pro-choice woman, I have to agree. I had two abortions before getting married and raising a child. If I wasn't allowed to have those abortions, I would have never been able to finish college and succeed in life. I can't imagine what horrible alternative I would be enduring now with just a high school education and two children to support. What is available out there? Working the late shift at the local gas station? Abortion doesn't ruin lives, if anything drugs ruin lives. That is why I strongly support laws against their use and distribution because they are an impediment to succeeding in life and becoming a productive member of the middle class.

[Rev. Blue Moon]

Abortion doesn't ruin lives, if anything drugs ruin lives. That is why I strongly support laws against their use and distribution because they are an impediment to succeeding in life and becoming a productive member of the middle class.

Oh my god, you are so hilariously dumb that I am having a hard time figuring out where to start.

[sloopyinca]

You could start by realizing you are being trolled.

So could my lovely wife-to-be below.

[Banjos]

*barf*

[Old Mexican]

Re: I have it all,

If I wasn't allowed to have those abortions, I would have never been able to finish college and succeed in life.

Oh, you could have. You simply weren't willing to do it without getting knocked up. That's all.

[Apatheist]

So you have ownership over another individual (your child) but not over your own?

Also plenty of people have children in school and turn out very successful. In fact it is a growing trend for women in professional or graduate school to get child birth out of the way and not interrupt their careers.

Also you could have been responsible with you own body in the first place. All of your arguments are emotional ones rather than addressing the true issue: whether a pre-birth child has rights or not.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmm. An anecdotal "abortion saved my socioeconomic status" story that turns into a non-sequitur about how "drugs are bad" (always a winning position at Reason.

I'm gonna take "Troll" for $400, Alex.

[A Serious Man]

The market already makes contraceptives readily availible and affordable, so I don't have much sympathy for adults that get pregnant. As for kids, well we should teach them that they should wait till marriage, but since that's very unlikely, I say make sure they know how to use contraceptives and remove any legal obstacles to obtaining them.

[Tony]

Pro-life rhetoric is dressed up in humanistic language but is really age-old anti-woman sexual morality.

The Santorums of the world are greatly emotionally affected by the fact that people have sex in a different way and for different reasons than he does. Somewhere along the way embryos gained civil rights, but it's just a rhetorical tactic.

[cynical]

Just because you don't have any principles doesn't mean that no one does, Tony.

[Old Mexican]

Re: Tony,

Pro-life rhetoric is dressed up in humanistic language but is really age-old anti-woman sexual morality.

Under such sweeping language, I can say the talk about infanticide is an anti-woman sexual morality crusade.

Somewhere along the way embryos gained civil rights, but it's just a rhetorical tactic.

Somewhere along the way, gays gained civil rights but it's jsut a rhetorical tactic.

See how that works, you imbecile?

[Rev. Blue Moon]

There are about one million relatively intelligent, if crass, discussions about this subject going on, and you just HAVE to engage Tony. Have you considered therapy for your Troll Addiction?

[Old Mexican]

Re: Rev. Blue Moon,

and you just HAVE to engage Tony.

My time is limited, and the diminishing returns on answering all those discussions makes my efforts uneconomical, so I had to pick the dumbest piece of dogshit that trolls here just to reply to someone.

[A Secret Band of Robbers]

That is the exact opposite of good time management.

[Tony]

No, I don't see how it works. It doesn't appear you understood my point at all. That's not new, though.

I'm aware that many pro-lifers think they're dealing with a civil rights issue, but the origins of the antiabortion movement are in religious patriarchy. Hey, that's true of the antigay movement too!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm aware that many pro-lifers think they're dealing with a civil rights issue, but the origins of the antiabortion movement are in religious patriarchy.

Hey look everybody! Tony doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about! Like every other day! The anti-abortion movement emerged out of the Progressive Era movement's torrid love affair with eugenics. The idea that women (specifically white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant women) should be kept away from work and busy pumping out babies to combat the "terrors" of immigrants, "industrial residuum" (Blacks, Jews, Italians, Irish, and Chinese), and "race suicide."

It was their duty as "mothers of the race."

[Tony]

There's always a student of Glenn Beck U around to set us straight.

[poetry]

If you're arguing about abortion on the internet, you've already lost

[Rev. Blue Moon]

This thread is one of the best we've had in a while. Low bar, I know, but don't take it away from us.

[R C Dean]

Personally, I am willing to give both sides credit for being sincere in their beliefs.

What we have here is an irreconcilable difference based on fundamental values. There is no consensus/middle ground.

Personally, that's why I think that it should be devolved to the states.

I know, I know, then it would be state violating your rights/refusing to protect the rights of the unborn, blah blah, but there's no getting off the horns of that dilemma. At least if the states each make their own call on this, we can be sure that only some of them will be on the wrong side, rather than all of them.

[Brian E]

Personally, I am willing to give both sides credit for being sincere in their beliefs.

You're either incredibly generous or the world's biggest sucker. There are a lot of people on both sides who are fighting a proxy war about sexual morality.

[TrickyVic]

""Personally, that's why I think that it should be devolved to the states.""

That would be interesting. I have no doubt some states would pass laws to prevent a woman from going to another state for the procedure.

If provider licensing becomes a federal domain, then how would states handle it then?

[Some dude]

Most Americans believe that abortion is wrong, but they also believe that it would be more immoral for the government to interfere with their fellow citizens' private reproductive decisions.

Psst. Abortion isn't a reproductive decision. The reproduction decision already happened.

[Apatheist]

+1

[heller]

-1

Reproduction is not the same thing as conception.

[Chris]

Libertarians should believe that the number 1 function of government is to protect citizens from violence, domestic or from a foreign nation. So, the question is, at what point does a baby because a citizen, a person, a human. Do you know? I don't. I will tell you when it doesn't happen though: it doesn't happen when it leaves the uterus. I used to be just pro choice then I had need to spend some time in a NICU and I saw babies, alive, humans, citizens, that were born after 20 some weeks. How could it be murder for me to walk over and strangle one of those babies, but it not be murder for me to do the same thing to a human of the same age who is merely still inside it's mother? Do we define the human condition as existing only when you cease to be an inconvenience to your mother? We could say that the baby who could live outside the womb is a person worthy of legal protection, but then we would be defining a person based on the limits of our technology, which change. Life should be defined based on the development of the fetus, not the extend of our technology. The fact is babies develop personalities, traits, and behaviors, long before they're able to survive outside the womb with modern technology. I would call that human. So personally, I think we should limit abortions to no later than the end of the first trimester. If you're unable to avoid having sex, and you're too stupid to use a condom, and too stupid to take the pill, and then you're too stupid to take the morning after pill, and then you're too stupid to do a prompt abortion, then I kinda think you had the opportunity for your choice, and since you acted irresponsibly you now have to deal with the consequence.

[DesigNate]

Why do you want to be a tool of the patriarchy?

[Tony]

At least you're OK with contraception. What about a robust welfare state to ensure all those unwanted children aren't living horrible lives? Or do they have to suffer the consequences of mom's poor choices too?

[GILMORE]

Chris|1.23.12 @ 5:10PM|#
Libertarians should believe that the number 1 function of government is to protect citizens from violence, domestic or from a foreign nation. So, the question is, at what point does a baby because[sic] a citizen, a person, a human?

DUH. When they get a social security #.

Way to conflate the ideas of "citizen, person, human", BTW. Most of the problems around 'arguments' on this topic is that people really don't even know what the fuck any of these words mean in relation to one another.

You could even come up with arbitrary distinctions, and as long as you stuck with them, it could be relevant for making a point. But most don't even bother.

Example =

'Human' = both shits out of its butt consistently, and also makes a lot of meaningless noise with its mouth. Usually only their parents find them anything other than irritating, and sometimes not even them.

'Person' = human that has learned the word, "Why?", and can also answer the question, "Who are you?"

'Citizen' = a Person that has finally gotten their W2 form and a paper route, and generates taxable income.

[Michael]

Abortion shouldn't be legal unless the right to do so extends until the 27th trimester.

[GILMORE]

How about, "extends to the 7th grade"?

[VikingMoose]

this just in: amniotic fluid, fetal circulation, and the foramen ovale are all standard indicators of "life". anybody who doesn't metabolically present in this way is dead.

shocking!

[heller]

The abortion debate has nothing to do with life; few people claim the fetus is not alive.

[ZSorenson]

A little late for this, but I do believe there is a Biblical case that life begins at birth. Most biblical language corresponds breath, breathing, and spirits, and the spirit of god (even so much as to have language like: "The spirit of god entered my nostrils"). I think there might even be language to the effect of someone saying something about when their life began and they took their first breath, to when their life ended at their last.

In other words, unless you are Catholic and trust the Pope, the religious case for life beginning at conception is shaky.

"First breath" life is very reasonable, uncontested, and so on. Although partial-birth and third trimester abortions do cross this very grey line that I personally feel shouldn't be crossed (by force of law).

Moreover, I think abortion represents incredible moral decay, and the abdication of moral responsibility. It also is clearly disrespectful to life, if it isn't the taking of life.

However, when it comes to things like morning-after pills, I find it hard to be persuaded that that should be considered deeply immoral with respect to any other number of common vices we find nowadays.

Embryos are a different story. That's more a question of bioethics than life, in my opinion. To what extent does tampering with life constitute an infringing on life? In other words, it's a slippery slope argument, and where exactly do you draw the line? Not that stem-cell type research is all too close to that line, but without such a standard delineated, a certain conservatism regarding this type of research isn't off-base.

Well, I've digressed. Suffice it to say, the Biblical case for life at birth is pretty strong, and the Libertarian should recognize this as a clear sign that there isn't some absolute religious, moral, or other standard about when life begins - beyond opinion - except that we ALL are sure life begins at birth. The civil law isn't meant to enforce moral law. It is meant to enable the individual to pursue the moral law.

[GILMORE]

Well, shit! If the BIBLE SAYS SO, then that just ends the discussion!

Hey, see you guys at the stoning later! There's a double-header of 2 adulterers!

[crimethink]

Jeremiah 1:5

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations."

Psalm 139:13-15

For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother's womb.
I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
your works are wonderful,
I know that full well.
My frame was not hidden from you
when I was made in the secret place,
when I was woven together in the depths of the earth.
Your eyes saw my unformed body;
all the days ordained for me were written in your book
before one of them came to be.

[ZSorenson]

Yeah, both of these imply that God has foreknowledge of man. Both discuss God's creation of man BEFORE he was even formed in the womb, BEFORE conception. Mormons use this same passage as evidence that men were created as spirits before life - which makes sense if taken literally. Nowhere is there any evidence that the act of conception represents the beginning of life. Yet, we see that breathing is associated with life throughout.

Job 27
"All the while my breath is in me, and the spirit of God is in my nostrils;
My lips shall not speak wickedness, nor my tongue utter deceit."

Ezekial 37:5
"Thus saith the Lord God unto these bones; Behold, I will cause breath to enter into you, and ye shall live"

Jeremiah 10:14
"Every man is brutish in his knowledge: every founder is confounded by the graven image: for his molten image is falsehood, and there is no breath in them."

Isaiah 42:5
"Thus saith God the Lord, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:"

There is a lot of tradition that supports the idea that Biblical teaching refers to the creation of man's spirit by God, which enters the body at its first breath.

But, the point being that the Bible is no basis for civil law, because it was not meant for such.

Civil law comes not from God, but from man, as man attempts to follow God's law. Thus, civil law is limited to man's ability to judge what enables pursuit of moral law. Liberty, in all its blessedness, provides a framework for civil law that minimizes the interference of man's imperfections as he drafts said civil law, enabling a more open and purer pursuit of moral law by all involved in the civil society. Some issues, however, are not easily resolved in this framework. One of them is abortion. It is not entirely clear that a fetus is a biologically independent entity from the woman.

There is a very good argument that an undeveloped fetus that would and could never survive outside of a woman's womb, is in fact part of her body. The process of birth is what occurs when the fetus reaches maturity and becomes a separate, independent entity. That distinction is in fact drawn by the act of birth itself. This is why partial-birth abortions are insidious, because they are de facto births. Only in a strict legalistic sense are they not true separations.

Because science has devised means of terminating pregnancies, we must use science and civil law to determine where the issue of life comes into play.

The arguments that hold a fetus as an independent human life don't hold up. It has different DNA, but so does all the woman's mitochondria, which the fetus shares. She will shed it, and it will be a living being, but the same can be said for the man's sperm. Yes, this seems inane, but the point is that a rational analysis does not yield that a developing fetus is necessarily an independent human life. Therefore, the aspect of moral law that discusses the life/non-life of the fetus can't be incorporated into civil law. Because the means God gave man to provide a common and universal consensus - reason, logic, nature - don't easily answer this question. Instead, faith, religion, and moral law speak to an answer. Again, civil law protects liberty, which enable individual men to be righteous or not, to have faith or not, that they might be judged individually by God.

At the end of the day, God can forgive a sinner who gets an abortion, as he can restore life to the lost child - if what you believe about conception and life is true.

However, since life at conception has bearing as a premise only under moral law - without an objective counterpart under civil law - it remains God's responsibility to hold us to account for this issue in particular - any enforcement under the civil law of this issue would ultimately interfere with the moral law.

And ultimately, the issue of abortion in politics is a massive distraction from those policies which interfere with living humans' liberty. Without our liberty, we can be neither moral nor immoral. We can devote our lives to preventing abortion in society. We can devote our lives to advocating for moral behavior. At the end of the day, God is responsible for the ultimate outcome of this behavior, not the federal government.

[crimethink]

I think there might even be language to the effect of someone saying something about when their life began and they took their first breath, to when their life ended at their last.

Jesus himself says in the beginning of Acts that the Gospel is to be brought to the "ends" of the Earth; does this mean the earth cannot be a sphere (which has no ends)?

Of course not. Random statements, particularly of fallible human characters, should not be taken as unvarnished truth.

The civil law isn't meant to enforce moral law. It is meant to enable the individual to pursue the moral law.

Then if some people thought blue-eyed people had no right to life, you'd be OK with legalizing, the murder of blue-eyed people?

When you're talking about actually harming people, the civil law and the moral law should be one. The disconnect is OK when you're talking about actions that only harm oneself.

[ZSorenson]

Law is based on knowledge. Knowledge is based on concepts. The concept of human being is pretty easy to establish. That a child, born, is a human being is incontrovertible.

Whether a fetus, unable to survive outside of the womb, is part of the pregnant woman's body, or is an independent human being, is not as easily established.

Though I tend to think that birth is what defines this entity as a human being, I'm sympathetic to argument that the fetus might be a 'human being'. Enough that I think this can be a state-by-state issue, and in my state I'd vote for life beginning at birth.

Nevertheless, abortion remains a moral failing in my eyes. Not a violent crime, but a moral failing.

[ZSorenson]

As for your comment concerning Biblical interpretation: it's a two-way street.

If a passage in Deuteronomy said: "The maiden heavy with child shall be treated in twos, for the murder of one is the murder of two, the spoiling of one is the spoiling of two, for that which she carries is a child of Israel, and a subject of this law."

Or if a passage in Corinthians said: "And to those who, in their sinful demeanor, hope to recompense their adultery through the stamping of the burdened womb, woe to them. For in the moment of carnal knowledge, doth God redeem Adam and Eve through the gift of life. And this life is as the Son of God, for the woman bears as Christ bore the cross. And he that spilleth the blood of this life shall be guilty of spilling the blood of the Messiah"

But, alas, the Bible is not so clear on this subject. That is the problem with conflating moral and civil law.

There are in fact objective, logic-based, nature-based, secular, reasons why the murder of human beings is to be subject to punishment under the civil law.

There is not the same evidence that a fetus is 'another human being'. There is some, but I think not enough to be integrated into universal civil law.

[crimethink]

Print|Email
Abortion, Roe v. Wade, Ron Paul, & Libertarians

Nick Gillespie | January 23, 2012

Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion, turns 39 today.

Rick Santorum writes in the Wall Street Journal why he's against abortion: "I know life begins at conception.... The right to life is the first right. Without its protection, no other rights matter." He also goes on about how President Obama and his GOP rivals fail to protect the unborn as much as he does.

Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), author of "the Bubble Bill" that created a zone protecting abortion facilities from protesters, writes in HuffPo why she's for abortion rights: "I fight to protect a woman's right to choose largely grounded in my Western values of personal freedom and common sense."

Back in 2008, "Jane Roe" (a.k.a. Norma McCorvey) came out for Ron Paul:

I support Ron Paul for president because we share the same goal, that of overturning Roe v Wade. Ron Paul doesn't just talk about being pro-life, he acts on it. His voting record truly is impeccable and he undoubtedly understands our constitutional republic and the inalienable right to life for all. Ron Paul is the prime author of H.R. 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v. Wade. As the signor of the affidavit that legalized abortion 35 years ago I appreciate Ron Paul's action to restore protection for the unborn. Ron Paul has also authored H.R. 1094 in Congress, which seeks to define life as beginning at conception. He has never wavered on the issue of being pro-life and has a voting record to prove it. He understands the importance of civil liberties for all, including the unborn.

In 2006, Ronald Bailey wrote about why abortion will never be fully outlawed again:

Most Americans believe that abortion is wrong, but they also believe that it would be more immoral for the government to interfere with their fellow citizens' private reproductive decisions. If the Supreme Court dared to overturn Roe v. Wade, there would be political hell to pay. However, because most Americans remain ambiguously uncomfortable with abortion, our political institutions will fitfully continue to try to narrow the scope of the decision. Nevertheless, the central holding that a woman can choose abortion in the first three months of a pregnancy will not be overturned. Ultimately, our politicians realize that Americans want the Roe v. Wade escape hatch to be kept open just in case they or their loved ones have to make the hard decision to use it themselves.

In 2004, Bailey asked, "Is Heaven Populated Chiefly By the Souls of Embryos?", writing "Bioconservatives...do not advocate the rescue of naturally conceived unimplanted embryos. But why not? In right-to-life terms, normal unimplanted embryos are the moral equivalents of a 30-year-old mother of three children."

The most unreflective man in the universe strikes again.

I suppose Ron Bailey doesn't believe that newborns have a right to life either, since if he did someone could take a cheap shot and say he thinks a 7 month premie is the moral equivalent of a 30yo single mother of three.

[crimethink]

oops, only meant to copy the last para. Sorry

[heller]

he thinks a 7 month premie is the moral equivalent of a 30yo single mother of three.

Obviously he does. Try not to herp with your derp next time.

[Brian from Texas]

While I myself am pro-choice all the way, I would actually have no problem with Roe v. Rade being overturned. My reason being, as a States' Rights Libertarian, I believe social issues like abortion, gay marriage, drugs, gambling and prostitution should be stae and local issues and not federal.