Abortion

Alabama House Passes Ban on Abortion After 6 Weeks

|

Matt Hamm/Flickr

The Alabama House of Representives passed four separate abortion measures Tuesday, one of which would practically end abortion in the state by making the procedure illegal once a fetal heartbeat is detected. This can happen as early as six weeks into pregnancy—i.e., before many women even realize they're with child. The other abortion bills approved Tuesday would: 

None of the latter three measures are likely to significantly impact the abortion rate in Alabama (their ostensible goal). But they do make the process more burdensome for those seeking abortions, in keeping with anti-choice legislators' punitive bureaucracy strategy. The ban on abortions after six weeks is also unlikely to impact abortion rates, considering it will almost certainly be stymied by the courts. Enforcement of similar bans in North Dakota and Arkansas have been halted by federal judges.

So it's not time to get all worked up about lack of abortion access in Alabama yet—but it is time for noting that, once again, legislators are wasting energy on something they know full well is absolutely futile. Good job, guys! You've made Alabama uteri exactly zero percent safer for fetuses, all while wasting time and taxpayer money… As Rep. Napoleon Bracy (D-Prichard) told her fellow lawmakers:

"We already know this is unconstitutional before you even vote on it. But you decide you want to vote on this so you can go back home and say, 'Look what I did.'"

Or so their's can be the match that finally sparks a Supreme Court challenge. Interestingly, the lawmakers behind the heartbeat bill are making no qualms about admitting this is their strategy. Generally, supporters of clearly unconstitutional abortion restrictions will swear 'til they're blue in the face that their sole motive is babies/women/safety in their state. But Alabama House Speaker Mike Hubbard (R-Auburn) and other supporters of the measure admitted outright that their intent is to overturn Roe v. Wade

The four measures will now go to the state Senate. 

NEXT: DEA: "Every Single Parent" Opposes Pot Legalization. Except For All the Ones That Don't.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Obviously the gay marriage thread today was not enough.

    1. At least that one had alt-text. Though this article tries to make up for it with even more snark than the last one.

    2. It really is quite bold for a new writer.

      1. That’s not bold, this is bold.

        1. I can’t tell which is funnier: that joke, or my joke at brunch, where I pounded the table and made the poached eggs jiggle like boobies while sitting in between 2 gay guys.
          There’s enough crickets to go around.

          1. I think sloopy wins that round. I didn’t realize you were even making a boob joke with my eggs at the time.

            1. They were jiggling! C’mon, man!

              Ok, I lose.

            2. Poached eggs? What are you, like eighty?

              1. Covered in hollandaise. You might know it by it’s more common name.

                1. I put that extra apostrophe in there to make Jesse suspicious.

                2. That’s different. Also, I’m disappointed in jesse for not getting the joke. Srsly, man, everyone loves ’em.

              2. What are you, like eighty?

                Wait, what’s wrong with poached eggs? I make them all the time even when I’m not stacking them on top of Canadian bacon and English muffin and drowning them in delicious hollandaise.

                Actually on second thought poached eggs and rye toast for breakfast probably makes me an old Jewish man, doesn’t it?

                1. Actually on second thought poached eggs and rye toast for breakfast probably makes me an old Jewish man, doesn’t it?

                  Only if you also enjoy bagels and lox with some schmear.

                  1. Does anyone NOT like bagels, lox and schmear?

          2. The only thing that sucked about that brunch was the fact that you got the head of the table.

            Oh, and my burger was overcooked and dry. Why do places insist on using 92/8 ground beef for burgers?

            1. I though I was doing you a favor boxing myself in so that you could tend to your kids.

              1. I don’t think I’ve ever heard someone say they were doing me a favor so that I could tend to my kids while my wife is also in the same room.

                “Tending to kids” is what friends are for at gatherings like that. Friends and wives.

            2. Your bacon had to be good though, right?

              1. The bacon was pretty much spot-on perfect. As was the bleu cheese.

                Shame about the meat really, as I heard her say medium-well when she dropped it off after I had ordered medium rare. I know I should have sent it back but I didn’t.

            3. Because a tasty burger is a HEART ATTACK ON A PLATE, duh.

              1. Yup. In n Out Double Double: 42 grams of fat.

      2. She’s even trolling me with that horrible apostrophe abuse. 😉

      3. What is bold, my snark or my lack of alt text? I didn’t think I was being too terribly snarky here …

        1. Yes, because “anti-choice” is a moniker both sides use to describe the pro-life side.

          1. I prefer “anti-abortion” and “pro-abortion” both completely honest and accurate, and pisses off both sides.

            1. I go with “pro abortion rights” and “anti abortion rights” since that seems to be the *most* honest and accurate.

              1. I go with “pro abortionfetal rights” and “anti abortionfetal rights” since that seems to be the *most* honest and accurate.

                See how that works? I think people just need to accept that both sides aren’t even going to agree on that terminology.

                1. Should be strikethroughs.

                2. That would work for me. We could even splice them together:

                  “the pro abortion rights, anti-fetal rights crowd” and “the anti abortion rights, pro-fetal rights crowd” are often at odds with one another.

        2. You’ve posted on 2 topics today that are guaranteed to start a shitstorm in the comments section. That’s a lot of anthill poking.

          1. Yes, but we are easily the most entertaining ants.

          2. Do you feel that Playa, the way the shit clings to the air? Shit Blizzard.

            1. We’re in shit vortex territory now.

        3. What is really bold is that you engage the commentariat. Didn’t Postrel warn you?

    3. There were two actually.

      1. There’s still time for a post on the 9/11 mosque.

        1. And deep dish pizza consumption during a circumcision while watching Deep Space 9 reruns.

    4. Now all we need is a circumcision and a deep dish pizza thread and we’ll be set. For what, I don’t know.

    5. We need to find a way to perform abortions with assault rifles. Then we can piss off everyone.

  2. A lot of women don’t even KNOW that they’re pregnant at six weeks. My wife didn’t; she has irregular periods and we didn’t even think it might be a pregnancy until 6+ weeks.

    1. Did birth control fail or were you and your wife trying to get pregers?

      1. Not planning to. She was on the pill for a bit but decided to stop (she didn’t like what the hormones were doing to her) and we were reckless for a few days afterward…

        1. I have one of those.

          1. I have three of those

            #badplanner

            1. My first 2 were (sort of) planned. This one is a vacation baby.

        2. and we were reckless for a few days afterward

          I had a GF who went off the pill.

          I am pretty sure my reluctance to get into bed after she got off it had something to do with her now being my ex-GF.

          It is amazing what the pill does to a woman’s personality and sexual apatite. and what getting off the pill does to it as well.

    2. Just because you don’t know it’s there doesn’t make it less of a viable human being at that point though, does it?

      I’ve read the stories about girls getting pregnant and not knowing for 6-7 months. Would that make an abortion for them acceptable that late-term?

      1. A fetus is not viable in any sense of the word at 6 weeks.

        This law is about one thing: restricting a constitutional right through legislation that could cause even a careful woman to miss an artificial deadline.

        1. constitutional right
          citation needed

          1. See: 9th amendment.

            1. Right to define when someone else is alive? Or do you mean viable?

              1. Uh, it’s never not alive, Ace. The question is whether it’s a person.

                1. Ah, so it has its own DNA and it’s alive, but not a PERSON.

                  I learn something new every day…

                  1. Ace, every organism has its own DNA. You really don’t have a clue about this biology stuff, do you? It’s almost as if you’re reciting Life League talking points from 1972.

                    1. Very well, it has its own human DNA and is alive. And that DNA is in its entirety, not just one part.

              2. Right to dictate how and when parasites may enter or leave the body.

                1. Um, a fetus never “enters” the body as a parasite would, Tim. It develops there from an egg and a sperm.

                  Sorry, but that’s a fucking idiotic analogy.

                  1. Sure it does. Sperm enters the body and interacts with ovum in a way that a parasite latches onto the uterine walls and then leeches all the necessary nutrients from its host.

                    It cannot live on its own and if it is expelled from its host, will in fact die.

                    par?a?site
                    ?par??s?t
                    noun
                    1.
                    an organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host’s expense.

                    1. Hosts of parasites don’t have organs that are specifically developed to nurture the parasite.

                      Mother and fetus are in a symbiotic relationship, but it is not a parasitical one, that is just a mendacious misuse of scientific terminology.

                2. No matter what your stance on abortion, calling it a Constitutional Right is fucking idiotic.

                3. You have the right to control whether you get pregnant (leaving rape aside, of course).

                  One of my problems with abortion on demand is that pregnancy is a foreseeable consequence of having sex. Hard to see how people have the “right” avoid responsibility for the foreseeable consequences of their actions, especially when avoiding responsibility impacts on the rights of others. Which, I know, circles back to the unanswerable question of whether/when a fetus is a person with rights.

                  The usual discourse on abortion completely elides the responsibility of the pregnant woman for her condition, which bugs me.

                  1. Lung Cancer is a foreseeable consequence of smoking tobacco, and while it is more universally viewed as a negative than pregnancy is, the fact is that some feel it IS a negative consequence and one that they would like to avoid.

                    Should we ban or allow the government to make incredibly difficult the means to ameliorate the consequences of all actions if those consequences are foreseeable?

                  2. No RC, it doesn’t. I just think people don’t want to discuss that whether you have an abortion or go to term, you’re dealing with your actions and accepting the consequences.

                    “Hard to see how people have the “right” avoid responsibility for the foreseeable consequences of their actions, ”

                    Hard to see how having an abortion, a medical procedure with many possible negative outcomes, is “avoiding responsibilty”.

                    I get that you don’t want to accept these things, as they aren’t pleasant. But you’re not the arbiter of any of those things.

                    1. That’s like arguing that getting the tip of your pinky cut off is taking responsibility as much as life in prison for murdering someone.

                      Abortion – responsibility not taken. Your argument sucks in relation to RC’s.

        2. Which amendment expressly gives the right to abortion again, because I must have missed it. And where in the Amendment does it state exactly when that right to an abortion exists and when the rights of personhood magically get conveyed to the child?

          1. Which amendment expressly gives the right to abortion again, because I must have missed it.

            Seriously? The Constitution “expressly” mentions very few rights. This would be covered by the 9th.

            1. The Constitution actually expresses quite a few absolute rights. And “the people” in the Ninth are hardly identified as only those that are consenting adults.

              I might also remind you that the Ninth didn’t confer any of those “rights” to an entire race of people when it was written. Who is to say that the framers wouldn’t also want the rights of “the people” conveyed to unborn but developing persons still in the womb?

          2. “Which amendment expressly gives the right to abortion again, because I must have missed it. And where in the Amendment does it state exactly when that right to an abortion exists and when the rights of personhood magically get conveyed to the child?”

            Wrong question, the Constitution does not grant rights, it limits the power of the government.

            While it is clear that come standard must exist on when human rights begin it is not clear that said standard should be set by the Federal Government nor is it clear that even the states have the power to answer what is inherently a religious question

            1. Wrong question, the Constitution does not grant rights

              Finally.

      2. There was actually a case in the news about a woman who thought she was going to the bathroom and…gave birth. I bet many women wish birth were that easy.

        1. There’s actually an entire show on TLC about this. Unsurprisingly, all of the women are morbidly obese.

          1. The solidly built daughter of an acquaintance was something like 8/8.5 months pregnant and just thought it was heartburn.

            Just fyi, a troll was running around as “Jordan.” earlier. Someone’s stepping on your brand.

            1. Motherfucker!

            2. Good catch. We really should be more paranoid about any and all punctuation.

              1. Yes we should, Mr. Capital “P” Playa.

                How do we know you weren’t trolling that brunch?

                **squints at Playa**

                1. I was, and I felt bad enough about it to pick up the check.

              2. SIV was threatening (offering?) to block everyone with a period in their handle. I’m not sure if it would exacerbate or reverse the trend Paul.’s username has set.

              3. Also diacriticals, don’t forget the diacriticals.

      3. Hamburger stops a beating heart.

        And conservatives should be all in favor of abortion. It means you can prevent the birth of gay babies.

        And what is the death penalty, if not just an expensive, late term abortion? Exterminate the troublemakers before they’re born, and avoid the problem entirely.

    3. In both my wife’s pregnancies, she knew she was pregnent at 6 weeks but the doctors told her she wasn’t. Not sure how that happens.

      1. I actually got a woman 6 weeks pregnant in one night once.

  3. Life begins when you get to 1st base.

    1. Life begins when they leave the home for good.

      1. So 40% of millenials aren’t alive? What are they, zombies?

  4. Generally, supporters of clearly unconstitutional abortion restrictions will swear ’til they’re blue in the face that their sole motive is babies/women/safety in their state. But Alabama House Speaker Mike Hubbard (R-Auburn) and other supporters of the measure admitted outright that their intent is to overturn Roe v. Wade.

    And if you have to overturn Roe v. Wade to make babies safe?

    1. Who’s talking about babies here?

      Anyways, there aren’t enough votes to overturn Roe v. Wade. Ginsburg, Kagan, Sotomayor, Breyer and Kennedy are all no votes on a vote to overturn.

      1. So what? There is not enough votes to overturn Lockner either. But I seriously doubt Reason would be complaining if a state passed legislation that challenged it.

        It is pretty clear Reason supports abortion rights. And that is their right to do so. But would it be so hard for them to just take that position and say this is a bad law and a misguided effort instead of playing concern troll about what a “waste of time” this is as if they would have a problem with such symbolic actions if they agreed with the action being taken?

        1. Reason opposes the police state you Aborto-Freaks want to impose on us to monitor all pregnancies.

          I oppose abortion but recognize it is a females decision – and hers alone.

          1. 8% you little freak. 8%.

          2. And you are white supremacist leftist. You love abortion as long as it is kept among the dark people.

            1. Now who’s concern trolling John?

              1. Shreek is exactly that.

                1. John, don’t respond to Tulpa, it only encourages him.

          3. I figured you’d be OK with an abortion any time until 35 weeks and 5 days. After all, that still leaves 8% of the pregnancy for the child to become a person.

        2. WTF is Lockner ?

          1. A John-ism for “Lochner” as in Lochner v. New York.

          2. Oh, you made a joke about a misspelled word. Did you think really hard before doing that Tim? Surely you did, since that has to be the most original point I have ever seen made on here.

            We just have to bow before your awesomeness Tim.

            1. John, it seems like your butt hurts again. PLEASE stop it.

              We try to like you, and then you go all MNGBotardRedTony on us.

      2. I believe the same was said about equal rights legislation for some time before Brown got put before the court.

        1. Utterly false comparison.

      3. The first half of the quote.

    2. Unpossible. “Anti-choice legislators” only support “clearly unconstitutional abortion restrictions” because they hate women or freedom or something. Because abortion rights are clearly outlined in the constitution.

  5. You want to end abortion? Develop a male birth control pill.

    1. Returnofkings I presume?

      1. Yup!

        H&R and RoK put serious dents in my productivity.

        1. I’m assuming you go to RoK to laugh at how much of a toolbag Roosh is, right? Right? Please tell me I’m right.

          1. Eh, mainly just for the amusing articles that get feminazis all hot and bothered, like that “short hair=damaged” article. But, seriously asking because I don’t know too much about this Roosh guy, what makes him a toolbag?

            1. Because he’s the most prominent target of the current “Red Pill”, infantalization of women, a woman’s place is in the kitchen, women are nothing but a serious of fuckholes bullshit.

              1. Sounds like ur one uh dem betas, bro

                1. In that I treat women like human beings, Roosh would consider me to be a beta, yes.

                  (I’m not one who believes in a war on women, obviously, and I think pretty much all “rape culture” and most “misogyny” claims are bullshit. But Roosh… really, really, really hates women.)

                  1. Yeah I picked up on that in most of is articles, almost like a burning hatred for all women, I mean he clearly admits in his bio that’s he’s an “ugly misogynist”, there’s probably some trauma there if you dig deeper, as Dr. Drew would say.

                    1. Cool handle.

                  2. You come off as a white knight who’s full of it. Provide proof of this intense hatred.

                    1. Sorry, I should’ve specified, maybe an intense hatred for one particular woman that was the last straw before he took the “red pill”, and I’m fairly sure he’s being sarcastic in his bio, btw, Andrew thinks he’s a toolbag, i just enjoy his articles.

                    2. I was addressing Andrew. My bad.

                    3. Well next time you better mention him by name, lest the marshals finally catch up with you and you’re never able to specify.

          2. You’re wrong. Don’t know what your beef is with the dude and don’t care, tbh.

        2. RoK is the “manosphere’s” equivalent to Tumblr and SJW insanity

    2. So you want me to take a pill every day?

      That is not going to happen.

      1. You can get used to it pretty quickly. I did living in a malarial zone.

        1. Hey, this is me we are talking about.

          There is a reason why I avoid malarial zones as well.

      2. Nothing says it has to be a pill. Hell there is a reversable male birth control injection that has been used in India for about 20 years. Basically they inject a small amount of ionized plastic in the vas deferens, the ionic imbalance kills any sperm that pass by by disrupting the cell membrane.

        It appears to last for more than 10 years at a time with near a 100% success rate and if you want it removed it is another injection with a simple solvent to flush the plastic away

        http://www.healthline.com/heal…..als-012313

        1. If I won’t take a daily pill what are the chances of me getting a needle injected into my balls?

          1. Or we could just slice them off.

      1. When is this coming to market?

        1. with obamacare?

          2167

        2. No idea. Get a therapeutic ultrasound machine and do a clinical trial of one on yourself to help move things along.

          Or just get snipped, the incision is the width of a pinky nail and it’s (usually) reversible.

          1. No deal. It needs to be completely irreversible.

            1. It needs to be completely irreversible.

              It’s not accidentally reversible, but if you really regretted it later you could pay more money and be un-snipped (I think they just use a little inert clip now instead of actually snipping). And you should probably do it sooner so you don’t have to worry about the month or so that you’re still shooting live ammo.

    3. I think we need an AIDS vaccine first.

  6. Ugh. Is it absolutely necessary to add a culture fight to 2014? Economics, the scope of government, civil liberties, and foreign policy aren’t enough?

    1. culture fight

      The Deep dish pizza war must be fought to the end!

      1. Don’t you mean the “Deep dish VS pizza war?

        1. Bah, what do Ohioans know of pizza? It’s just a rumor out there. And California is no better.

          1. And California is no better.

            You misunderstand our relationship with pizza. We know what pizza is, what it should be, and we desecrate it with pineapple for the sheer perversity of it.

            1. Your depravity knows no bounds, does it?

              1. We’re working on it. The goal is Roman levels of depravity, but CA keeps putting labels on sources of dietary lead. It’s making it difficult to accomplish these goals.

            2. You guys come out here some time and we’ll have a good evening of drinking. I’ll introduce you to Porky’s Pizza in MoVal. It’s actually quite good.

              1. How far are you from Palm Desert? That should be our next meet up place. I can let my kids go free range on the golf course in the evening so I can focus on drinking.

                1. What club, man? I get to play Mission Hills, Desert Falls and Indian Wells each twice a month for free on a reciprocal.

                  It’s an hour away from here.

                  1. JW Marriott

          2. I can’t take seriously any state that believes in serving chili over spaghetti.

            1. Or adds cinnamon to their chili.

              1. Yes, Ohio is an indignity to American cuisine.

        2. There would be no war without deep dish.

    2. There is nothing wrong with making futile stands on principle. But the point of doing that is to advance your cause. I am not sure this does that.

      1. Sure, I get it, and I understand the point of view of those who oppose abortion. But, just looking at this in the sense of political strategy, why not do this sort of thing after the GOP wins control of both houses and likely further extends its control of much of the states?

        1. You have to fire up the base before you get to that point? Some of it is principled? Some of it is blindly following party leadership?

  7. This can happen as early as six weeks into pregnancy?i.e., before many women even realize they’re with child.

    meh

    I am pro-choice but i am having a hard time giving a shit.

    This would only make sexually active women more aware of their own bodies.

    And if they really failed how long is it to drive out of Alabama.

    1. I mean hey, as long as it isn’t your problem, amirite?

      1. Pretty much.

        The opposition to the law is so stupid teen girls have easy access to abortions.

        Basically “for the children”

        Just because I am pro-choice does not mean I should get guilted into caring about stuff that is not my problem.

        Alabama wants to define the legal shear between human and inhuman slightly different then I do and some women will then be slightly inconvenienced because of it. They can still get abortions and they still have the choice.

        Cry me a fucking river. If anything the fact that the political climate caused by those who gives a shit make me not only not give a shit but be somewhat resentful.

        1. The thing is that the difference between 20 and 6 weeks is more than “slightly” different in a practical sense.

          The length or pregnancy is typically defined as number of weeks since a woman’s LMP, which is roughly 2 weeks prior to conception. Consider that one must then wait to weeks after conception to even KNOW they are pregnant and that is at the absolute earliest.

          Which would basically leave one a two week window, again, at the longest.

          In practice it would be much shorter, if there was even a window at all.

          This would only make sexually active women more aware of their own bodies.

          I am really not sure why this would be any of your business.

          1. Which would basically leave one a two week window, again, at the longest.

            In practice it would be much shorter, if there was even a window at all.

            And don’t forget, you have to squeeze a 48-hour waiting period into that week or two.

          2. The thing is that the difference between 20 and 6 weeks is more than “slightly” different in a practical sense.

            I said “slightly different then I do” which is 12 weeks not 20.

            Also this is only one state. all the other states can still be driven to where it is 20 weeks.

            I am really not sure why this would be any of your business.

            It isn’t. It is also not a bad thing and probably a good thing. I don’t want to be responsible for women’s bodies. They have to be responsible in order for that to happen.

      2. Well, Josh, the practical problem with being a “My Rights” Libertarian is that when you need help preserving your rights you may find that others are too busy to help you out.

        1. This is not a “My rights” issue.

          I think unborn do have rights…my problem is i have no fucking clue (and neither do you) when that unborn baby has rights and when it does not.

          Alabama chose 6 weeks I prefer 12 and roe vs wade wants 20.

          The law has to define what is human and what is not.

          Fuck all if I have care which number is picked so long as there is choice.

          1. I actually do have a fucking clue, Josh. A clue which is informed by my academic training. Groovus actually respected my opinion and background on this and we had started a quite lively and respectful debate (offline) on this topic before he vanished. But I also realize my “clue” is based on objective criteria which are not accepted by everyone.

    2. This would only make sexually active women more aware of their own bodies.

      Taking a pregnancy test on a monthly basis is my idea of a great time!

      1. Maybe they can take the sugar pills out of your bc kit and replace it with a pee strip. So convenient!

        1. That’s actually a great idea, jesse. Go forth and sell it to someone!

          1. Effort? Randian ubermensch I am not.

            Besides if I were going to market anything I’d focus on Snipstarter: crowd-funded (voluntary) sterilization.

      2. So the line of what a human is that has rights and a bunch of cells that does not should be drawn where it is most convenient for you?

        fair enough if you want the line drawn there.

        Alabama wants to draw it when the heart beat starts.

        Fuck all if i should give a shit.

  8. Abandon hope all ye who enter this thread.

    1. Yeah, I’m bailing before it goes off the rails.

  9. anti-choice

    Pathetic.

    1. The whole post is fucking pathetic. They don’t even try anymore. Instead of arguing the point, they just concern troll and string together a few buzz words like “choice”.

      1. For some people “choice” and “abortion” are synonyms.

        Bring up the word choice in another context, and they quickly become confused.

        1. Yes. And increasingly the pro abortion people can’t make a rational argument why life begins at birth. So they avoid the subject.

          1. And increasingly the pro abortion people can’t make a rational argument why life begins at birth

            Science is a bitch.

          2. Maybe it’s because newborn infants really aren’t people either, in which case the real question up for debate is how long it takes after birth for someone to be a real person.

            1. Sure and if new borns are not really “people” then pretty much anyone who doesn’t fit the norm isn’t either.

              Your advocating genocide and mass murder. It is disgusting and frankly unworthy of response.

              1. It’s not murder if it is not a person with rights.

                Sure and if new borns are not really “people” then pretty much anyone who doesn’t fit the norm isn’t either.

                Are you talking about the retarded? Those are ‘broken units’ that are given certain rights but obviously cannot be given full rights (like children).

            2. According to Peter Singer it is two years after birth. He revised it down from five years after receiving a ration of shit.

            3. Until they pay taxes of course.

          3. When life begins is irrelevant. Bacteria is life, but it has no rights. The question is when personhood begins. And that’s not a scientific question.

            1. Bullshit. Personhood is nothing but a bullshit philosophical question. It is utterly fucking meaningless. What constitutes the species “human” is an entirely scientific question and can be answered to at least some degree of certainty.

              And further, there are few quicker roads to mass murder than the one marked “personhood”. Once you decide who is and who is not a human being is up to the subjective values of the person making the decision, you are opening the door for declaring people “non persons” and making it okay to murder them.

              The Nazis and the Communists didn’t just wake up one day and start killing people. The first thing they did was declare their victims “non persons”.

              1. Arguing from consequential-ism is a logical fallacy.

              2. So, I presume you are consistent in that you favor an outright ban on abortion then?

      2. They have found themselves a female Weigel. She will be around for a few months and then will go write for HuffPo or Jezebel.

        1. “Female Weigel.” That’s awesome, and I thought “Blue Tulpa” and “Red Tony” were going to be difficult to top!

    2. No it’s not ‘pathetic’. The pretension that anti-choicers have that they are somehow pro-life is what’s pathetic.

      1. No what is pathetic is morons like you who can’t even properly grasp the issue or if you can are too mendacious to do so.

      2. What percentage of people who oppose abortion also oppose the death penalty?

        (This isn’t a rhetorical question to be answered with a joke about shreeky’s 8%. I’m genuinely curious.)

        1. A pretty good number Ted. But saying that someone convicted of murder should pay with their own life is not necessarily inconsistent with saying mothers shouldn’t e able to murder their children.

          It is a completely false analogy.

          1. Aye, death penalty is about justice. There is no justice in abortion, which is why I believe it violates the NAP.

            The only way it doesn’t violate the NAP is if you claim the right to define what a person is, and where those rights start and end, as John has been saying.

        2. I oppose the abortion and favor the death penalty. How are they related?

  10. And so fucking what if the heartbeat occurs before the woman knows she is pregnant? The proper objection here is that the existence of a heartbeat does not mean that the fetus is entitled to legal protection. If a heartbeat does entitle the fetus protection under the law, it gets it regardless of whether its mother had a chance to abort it.

    Reason can’t even make the proper objection anymore.

    1. you can’t find the soul in the brain.

      Why can’t a beating heart be it?

      Wouldn’t it suck if the soul like moved around the body.

      and you like lost it by clipping your toenails.

      1. Since we can’t define what a “soul” is, the question when the “soul” develops is irrelevant to abortion.

        The question is what definable qualities rise to the level of a human being worthy of legal protection. That is clearly an easy answer.

        It is pretty hard to definitely prove a fertilized egg has such qualities, though some argue such. At the same time, brain activity is the line we use with regards to death. No court would declare a person in a person with measurable brain activity and the ability to react to stimuli “legally dead”. So I think the point at which there is brain activity and reaction to outside stimulus is a pretty reasonable line to draw. And that point is before birth.

        I think you have to be pretty fanatical to draw the line any further towards birth than that.

        1. Actually, brain activity is meaningless. Even the brain-dead have brain activity.

          Still not as meaningless as a heartbeat.

          1. Not when combined with reaction to outside stimuli it isn’t.

            But you are ready to murder newborns and by extension the handicapped, sick and old.

            Just go fuck yourself with that garbage. Really, your worse than shreek.

            1. Reaction to outside stimuli is better, but that can still be just a reflex.

              But you are ready to murder newborns and by extension the handicapped, sick and old.

              Nope. Once rights are gained they are kept unless forfeited by some action on the part of the forfeiter.

              1. If a newborn is not a person, why is a handicapped person such? And if we are going to start measuring humanness on physical abilities, then why are Jews or Kulaks or anyone I decide isn’t a human really humans anymore?

                You hate babies. Good for you. Other people hate other kinds of people and don’t consider them to be fully human. Who are you to tell them they are wrong?

                1. Oh look John’s using strawmen and false equivalence to argue his emotion-driven position.

                  1. Just because you don’t like it, doesn’t make it a strawman. if you are going to use adult words, you need to learn what they mean.

                    You are basically pulling your definition of human out of your ass. Good for you. But if you can do that, so can everyone else. The fact that you are too stupid to understand that is your problem not mine.

                    1. No you’re the one who can’t make a case so you’re godwinning. It is painful.

                    2. Godwin you? Unpossible.

                    3. I remember one of the previous abortion threads. You specifically said you didn’t give a fuck about babies, either. So you personally can’t be Godwinned.

                      You really are the very best supporter of abortion for which a pro-lifer could hope.

          2. That was the joke.

            No matter what it is going to be meaningless.

            The biology of human development simply does not have the sharp edges that legal eagles want it to have.

            1. Just because it is not sharp, doesn’t mean it is meaningless. We don’t have to know the exact moment to know it is sometimes between conception and birth.

              To say we do is sophistry of the worst order.

              1. We don’t have to know the exact moment to know it is sometimes between conception and birth.

                I agree.

                But i just don’t see a heart beat and counting firing neurons as very different.

                Arbitrary line between conception and birth seems as good as any other.

                My personal arbitrary line is cutting it at the first trimester….and only because 3 moons seems like a nice round number but not so long as 6 moons.

                1. We can never fully settle the debate Corning. In the end, I am willing to live with first trimester or 20 weeks.

                  I think it is conception. But I understand other people reasonably disagree. Both sides need to be willing to give a bit. And if we view the compromise as just that “an arbitrary compromise of a really difficult issue” it will avoid the whole personhood debate and not put us down the road of dehumanizing people.

          3. Actually, brain activity is meaningless.

            As a phrase, yes. But it’s not the crude binary choice you make it out to be. With modern imaging technology they can see the activity in different parts of the brain.

            So, activity only in the brainstem – a “vegetable”. Full activity in the language recognition areas when someone is speaking – someone’s home.

            1. yeah we can count Neurons but what does that tell us about the “humanity” of the unborn?

              how many neurons doing what make a bunch of cells into a person?

              Also I am pretty sure all the neural activity and growth going on in an unborn baby through out pregnancy is starkly different then what goes on in a 2 year old and an adult.

              1. A good question, Josh. And that’s subject to debate. But I’ll tell you what’s definitely not a person – a clump of cells with no specialized cells, hence no neurons, hence no possibility of consciousness. But there are people here who will do anything to avoid discussing that inconvenient fact.

      2. So where do we find your soul?

        If that question matters for an unborn human, it matters for all humans and the answer is just as obscure.

        1. What soul? Get back to me when someone captures one, images one, or measures one. What we do have is an increase of several orders of magnitude about brain science during the past several decades. You want to talk about humanity as a property, be prepared to talk about that.

          1. You do realize what I wrote was in response to Corning writing about movable souls? And my response did indicate that it was not a question with a deducible answer?

            What determines when human rights exist is a controversial question, but a standard that quantifies it must apply equally to human individuals at all stages of life. I think one that allows for unrestricted abortion at all stages of pregnancy will be scientifically incoherent by definition.

    2. No, the women who go into labor not knowing they are pregnant should be able to “abort” the child after it is born if they dont want it.

    3. Reason can’t even make the proper objection anymore.

      My favorite in this category is the disparate impact of drug laws. It’s fascinating how disparate impact proves exactly one thing to be wrong, and has no bearing on anything else.

      1. Yes. It doesn’t matter that drug laws disparately affect black people. To pretend it does implies they would somehow be moral if only we locked up more white people.

        1. Reason makes that argument to appeal to potential readers who aren’t sold on libertarianism and legalizing drugs. It’s an extra arrow in the quiver. Also, unequally enforcing laws against different racial groups violates the 14th amendment

    4. Hamburger has a heartbeat, too.

  11. So they go to a neighboring state. Laboratories of democracy and all that shit.

    1. Yeah. Who cares if they want to disenfranchise blacks, or curtail freedom of speechpressreligion?! Those fuckers can move!

      1. That was dumb.

        1. You are making the same basic argument, the difference is that it’s a freedom you don’t value/recognize.

          1. You are equating segregation with abortion. That’s dumb.

            1. So you pointed out that they can move just for the hell of it, or what?

            2. It isn’t dumb for those who value abortion rights.

              Don’t worry, many people feel the same when you place guncivil4thamendment rights on the same level as segregation.

              1. Having to go to a neighboring state to get a medical procedure is hardly the same as having to use separate restrooms and lunch counters every day.

                That’s just dumb.

          2. *equivocating*

            1. …or an argument which you are ill-able to refute.

              1. See my above comment, dumbass.

  12. I’ll just note that the post uses the phrase “with child” to describe a pregnant woman. Congratulations on this step toward enlightenment! The next step is to ask what rights the admitted “child” has.

    1. It has no rights until it makes the magic trip down the birth canal.

      1. C’mon John. I know you turn into Red Tony in these kinds of threads, but you’re at least better than that. Nobody actually believes that.

        1. Nobody?

          1. Okay, nobody except for a few fringe crazies.

            1. Obama, Clinton, Pelosi, those fringe crazies?

              1. I’ll admit I’m wrong if you can show me evidence of any of those 3 advocating for third term abortion (“until it makes the magic trip down the birth canal”) on demand.

                1. I’ll admit I’m wrong if you can show me evidence of any of those 3 advocating for third term abortion (“until it makes the magic trip down the birth canal”) on demand.

                  The O’Conner rule is basically the law of the land. It says that a woman can not be denied the right to an abortion at any time for reasons of “health”. Since not having a late term abortion would give a woman who wanted one a sad, there are no restrictions.

                2. Obama stood against a law that would have required trying to save the life of a child that survived being aborted. Such instances only occurs during 3rd trimester abortions.

        2. Um this is more extreme than that:
          https://reason.com/blog/2014/03…..t_4356468?

        3. That is exactly what they believe. You explain to me how you can support partial birth abortion or abortion at any time during pregnancy and not believe in the magic qualities of the birth canal?

          You have say an 8 month old fetus who at one moment is entitled to no legal protection at all but in the next moment travels down the birth canal and is now a full human worthy of all legal protections. What changed?

          That is the magic birth canal.

          1. It is a benchmark cutoff like turning 18 to do stuff. It’s not perfect, but only because the benchmark should be moved up not back at least in some cases.

            1. Which is another way of saying it is an arbitrary line that has no basis in science or anything beyond convenience.

              Thanks for conceding the argument.

              1. That doesn’t ‘concede’ anything. It is no more arbitrary than a heart beat or any of the cutoffs the anti-choicers have proposed.

                1. It concedes everything. If it is no more or less arbitrary than any other cutoff, then you have no objection to the State of Alabama adopting a different one. If the question of when life begins is up to interpretation, states are free to make their own conclusions on it.

              2. The line may be arbitrary (by which I think you might mean ‘imprecise’) but the concept is. I imagine you would agree that it is OK to label some teenagers as children and then some older ones as adults, where would you draw the line for that?

                1. Wherever the state decides Bo. They can say 16, they can say 21. And if when life begins is just as arbitrary, the can say 6 weeks or they can say 9 months.

                  That swoosh sound is your missing the point. The only way you can claim abortion as an issue of medical privacy is to claim a fetus is not a “life” within the meaning of the law. And if the answer to that question is arbitrary, there is no reason a state can’t set the line anywhere they want.

                  1. That was actually quite masterful John.

                    The haters gonna hate, but you proved your point well.

      2. It has no rights until it can breathe the same air as me.

        1. It can breath long before full term. And breathing is the measure of “life”, then is someone on a breathing machine no longer a person? They can’t breath the same air as you.

          1. 24 weeks is around the time it can barely breathe on its own. And that’s around the standard for abortion law (it’s also 50/50 that a baby born then will survive).

            1. I don’t think 24 weeks is a bad compromise.

              1. 24 weeks is the recognized cut-off to allow abortion under Roe v. Wade. 20 weeks is a good compromise so long as it has certain exceptions (for medical reasons, in that ultrasounds that find issues that find medical issues regarding severe disability or conditions incompatible with life tend to happen right around that 20 week mark)

          2. I mostly agree with you, and on this issue, completely.

            You are more effective when you are bringing up philosophical questions in an attempt to get those who want abortion legal to define when the little one is “alive”. It makes for a good debate because there are only 2 real logically defensible points, birth and conception. Anything else is fairly easy to beat by giving the same kind of objections you just did.

            1. I agree with you. I think it is conception. But you are just never going to make any political headway with that argument. The best you can hope for is some kind of compromise like Andrew suggests.

              1. So you think it begins at conception, but ‘don’t think 24 weeks is a bad compromise?’ You realize that is like saying ‘well, it is murder, but we should allow a third of them for politics sake.’

                1. No, what I am saying is that there is no chance of my view ever winning. I should therefore be willing to take the best I can get.

                  It is called not being a fanatic and understanding that people on the other side are reasonable too even if you do disagree with them.

                  Somehow I am not surprised you can’t grasp that.

              2. I hope you mean “for now”. The concept that life begins at conception is winning the long term war. That is why you keep seeing these bills. While ridiculous if you think there is a certain time the thing is a “person”, it makes total sense if you believe that all of them are people and are just trying to stop as many murders as you can.

            2. “there are only 2 real logically defensible points, birth and conception.”

              With respect, there is some significant development between those points so I do not see why those two would be the only logically defensible ones. That is like saying there are really only two stopping logical stopping points between DC and Denver.

              1. Give me a so-called logically defensible point in between and I’ll show you why that means that you can murder lots of people in the hospital right now.

                1. Pretty much ACE. You either believe in the sanctity of human life or you don’t. Once you start defining “human” by physical characteristics, there is no way to stop people from turning their enemies into non persons.

                  That is why the whole “personhood” debate is a road to murder.

                2. Your example proves too much.

                  In fact there is a great deal of ambivalence about, say, the mercy killing of people in certain comatose states. Why is that? I think it is because most people see some grey areas to these things.

                  The factors I think relevant have to do with brain development and awareness (and I differentiate between something that had awareness and then loses it temporarily and something that never attains it). But you do not have to buy that to see that it could be possible for someone to treat an embryo which has not developed any neural base differently than a fetus one day before it is born.

                  1. There are many developmentally disabled people who don’t ever attain “awareness”.

                    And yes, I do. If there isn’t a logically defensible point at which killing something is murder, then I can’t kill ANY animal or can kill all humans.

                    1. Someone would have to be pretty developmentally disabled to not have the kind of bare sentience I am talking about, and fetuses pretty much fit that category.

                    2. Then it’s ok to kill them, right?

                      I retain my original point, make another distinction and I’m allowed to kill lots of people.

                  2. People only see grey areas about people in comas because there is little or no chance the person will ever come out of the state. A fetus in contrast is completely different. We know that given a few months is will 90% or more of the time. If someone was in a coma and had a 90% chance of coming out of it, no one would advocate pulling the plug.

                    1. “A fetus in contrast is completely different.”

                      Begging the question.

              2. The key to the wording is “points”. Everything else does not lend itself to bright line distinctions.

                1. That sounds sounds like a Freshman’s philosophical argument as to why they think that stealing *some* money to pay for their partying in College is ok. It sounds exactly like what the Supreme Court says when they say “The govt can’t do THAT, but can do something a little less bad.”

              3. The key to the wording is “points”. Everything else does not lend itself to bright line distinctions.

              4. The key to the wording is “points”. Everything else does not lend itself to bright line distinctions.

            3. Again, Ace, nobody is making the claim that they aren’t alive; the actual question is whether it’s a person.

              When you start with bullshit premises, you’re not going to be taken seriously.

              1. Again, Ace, nobody is making the claim that they aren’t alive; the actual question is whether it’s a person.

                Except that “person” is a completely arbitrary term. Life, in contrast is an objective term.

                When someone argues for “is it a person”, they are just saying “I can determine who is an is not a real human by whatever arbitrary terms I like”.

                1. A terminally ill person in a complete brain dead state who is kept breathing by a machine is objectively alive John.

                  So would unhooking him be the same as shooting someone? If you think not then you may put more stock in using moral concepts to decide moral matters rather than ‘objective’ ones than you think.

                  1. A terminally ill person in a complete brain dead state who is kept breathing by a machine is objectively alive John.

                    Sure they can. And the fact that they are TERMINALLY ILL drives our decision to end their life support. Fetus are not terminally ill. Lets say for the sake of argument that they are not “alive” until they are out of the womb and healthy. Okay, would you say it was okay to pull the plug on someone in a coma that doctors told you had a 90% chance of recovery?

                    1. You are just going right back to relying on bare ‘life’ as your criteria, though at the same time somehow ‘life’ does not count when it is about to run out.

                      And, for the third time, I have dealt with your coma hypothetical.

                    2. You are just going right back to relying on bare ‘life’ as your criteria, though at the same time somehow ‘life’ does not count when it is about to run out.

                      I never said that. You said that. I would object to euthanasia as well.

                  2. “So would unhooking him be the same as shooting someone?”

                    Perhaps not, but just anyone cannot legally unhook them either, for any old reason.

              2. Again, so if it has its own DNA and is alive, that doesn’t mean it’s a “person”.

                Seriously, is there a murder law that states you can’t kill any “person” and that’s why you keep making that distinction without a difference? It sounds like legalize to me…

                1. Ace, a terminally ill person in an irrevocable brain dead state but kept alive by artificial means has its own unique DNA and is alive. So is it your position that a relative could not order that person unplugged because it would be murder?

                  1. Are they “alive”? Is a brain dead state ANYTHING like what is going on in the little one? Is the little one irrevocable?

                    1. The irrevocable part really does not matter based on the criteria we have been offering so far. But to be honest, I do not see how never having attained it is any better than lost it forever.

                    2. Let us assume that there is an immortal “soul” associated with a human being (as most humans think). In that case, one has had choices to determine what they wanted to do, where their soul goes, and the other hasn’t. There is a difference having lived verses not having lived. If I were to have to make the awful decision to save a child or a 70 year old man from dying, I would choose the child, if only for the math.

                      Would you rather have never had a choice or rather have had chances for many choices?

                2. My philosophical question is; if your mother had access to a time machine, would you recognize her right to go back in time and abort you?

                  Some will say yes just to spite me, but I can guaran effing tee you that 99% of people would be filing court injunctions to stop their mothers from getting in that time machine.

                  1. As far as science:

                    The equations of physics do not tell us which events are occurring right now?they are like a map without the “you are here” symbol. The present moment does not exist in them, and therefore neither does the flow of time. Additionally, Albert Einstein’s theories of relativity suggest not only that there is no single special present but also that all moments are equally real.

                    In that case, life can be defined by its “possibility” as much as its “current” form.

                  2. That one is easy for me, of course they would oppose it because at the point they are asked they have attained sentience and are persons.

                    1. Of course you would oppose it, but on what principles? When she goes back in time, you effectively don’t exist anymore, correct? You do not have sentience then.

                      Point being, it is illogical to deny your mother use of the time machine to abort you while at the same time supporting abortion. It is morality that is strictly time dependent and not based on a higher principle.

                    2. I would oppose it when asked because I would have sentience right then, and that is not time dependent, it will always be wrong to revoke my sentience once gained.

                    3. Ah, but sentience is to be granted in the future, much like money is useless on its own, it is what that money represents and what it can be used for in the future that is valuable. So I suppose by your logic robbery of cash is a very minor theft because it is only the stealing of paper?

                      It is a principle found from particle physics (wave particle duality) to every day life. What something represents and will represent is just as real even if it is temporarily abstract.

                    4. So if a woman is pregnant (14 weeks, say) and her time-traveling future self shows up and says “having this kid will cause you a lifetime of misery, terminate it”, would the woman be obliged not to? Since her future kid would have already had attained sentience…in the future?

  13. But, what percentage of these potential parents think the majority of other parents are against legalized marijuana?

  14. It’s an election year. So it’s red meat for the base time. The Ds are going strong on a minimum wage hike that’s going nowhere, while the Rs play up saving pre-born humans.

  15. Can we all agree that Alabama needs to be nuked from orbit, regardless of this? It’s the only way to be sure*.

    * This can happen after DC, New York, California, and a few other places are nuked from orbit first.

    1. Or we could just do a drone strike on Alabama’s capitol. Not everybody has to die.

      And while we’re there, Nick Saban could use a Hellfire through his study window.

      1. Saban’s half the reason I think Alabama deserves to be nuked.

  16. But they do make the process more burdensome for those seeking abortions, in keeping with anti-choice legislators’ punitive bureaucracy strategy.

    Anti-choice? What the fuck does this even mean, and when does that “choice” have the luxury of personhood in your eyes, Elizabeth?

    1. She purposely posted this on Ash Wednesday to get all the libertarian Catholics like me extra flustered. #illuminati

      1. Maybe that’s why I’m worked up too. But seriously, it’s a classless and shitty choice of words. It’s akin to me calling a pro-abortion person pro-murder.

        1. It’s an attempt to seize the language. Since most people don’t think the words they use influence them a great deal. I have no qualms about it in this case since it advances my ideals.

        2. Well, she has pretty much admitted to being a sociopath on this issue.

        3. So, can we police your language in the future when you say things someone else takes offense at, sloop?

  17. I just noticed the antagonist in Serenity is the protagonist in 12 Years a Slave. Such range!

    Also, I had some catsup and cheese on cardboard the other day. Or maybe it was thin crust pizza. It’s hard to tell the difference.

    1. I’m having Domino’s pan pizza for dinner tonight. They’ve come a long way. I mean, it used to be the worst pizza chain, and now it’s pretty darn good!

      1. As a court-sanctioned pizza counsellor, I see examples every day of people who would never have voluntarily consumed thin crust pizza if they weren’t forced to by the courts and law enforcement. Nobody seeks counselling for something they enjoy doing and feel good about, even if it’s sapping blood from their brain every time they digest it. You talk about ‘freedom’ but what kind of freedom is that, where you don’t want to do what’s necessary to eat a greater variety of foods? Sometimes you have to force people to become free.

        1. slow clap.

      2. Their regular crust got way better too when they overhauled it in 2013. Garlic salt and oil all over it.

      3. Is it safe to say around here that I find chain pizza better than what most assholes tell me is good pizza?

        Asparagus and artichokes on a cracker is not good pizza.

  18. “Or so their’s can be the match that finally sparks a Supreme Court challenge. Interestingly, the lawmakers behind the heartbeat bill are making no qualms about admitting this is their strategy.”

    Dred Scott was a case that was deliberately engineered by the participants to challenge the Fugitive Slave Act, though it did not work out the way they intended. There are a few famous cases that started out that way.

    1. Scopes anyone?

    2. From what I understand Lawrence was basically groomed as a test case.

    3. Dred Scott was both a penalty, and a tax.

  19. I like how anti-choicers pretend to be all ‘science wise’ and evidence backed, and then they go make the benchmark for seizing the womb ‘personhood’ a heartbeat. Really. But don’t you call them emotion-driven reactionaries!

    1. Since you are so sciency, perhaps you can provide us with the scientific definition of “personhood” and how and when this scientifically comes about?

      Feel free to use sciency words like mitosis and meiosis.

      1. Marsh, I’ve been on here for years and I’ve never heard a fetus fancier acknowledge there was any such thing as a blastocyst. Back at you, buddy.

        1. When you say “fetus fancier” you are referring to the early stages of an individual living homo sapein’s development, right?

          During human embryogenesis, the blastocyst arises from the morula in the uterus, 5 days after fertilization.

          You mean you have never discussed this stage of human growth with anyone who had knowledge of the science? Sorry, I don’t really follow the question. Heck, I don’t claim to be a scientist but they taught sexual reproduction in the 9th grade.

          1. No, when I say “fetus fancier” I am referring to the stage of a person’s life when they hold an opinion about the personhood of fetuses, however ill-informed that is.

            1. “Personhood”. Amazing you can not see what you are doing here. Personhood would be a time when someone else determines if you are living enough? Human enough?

              Living human individual.

    2. I like college kids who are absolutely convinced they have all the answers. Such rare, unique creatures.

    3. A heartbeat is commonly used as medical standard in determining whether a human being is alive.

      What exactly do you pro-abortionists have to support your emotional claims?

      1. A heartbeat is commonly used as medical standard in determining whether a human being is alive.

        Are you posting from 60 years ago?

        Since you are so sciency, perhaps you can provide us with the scientific definition of “personhood” and how and when this scientifically comes about?

        I’m not a neurologist, but I can sure as well it’s not a heartbeat. I’m a big fan of sentience and self-awareness.

        1. Tell you what, why don’t you go around killing people in hospitals who have a heart beat. Good luck with that.

          1. HERP DERP I guess you’re one of those radical animals rights activists right? The animals have heart beats too.

            Frankly I confer less personhood on a fetus as I do a dog.

            1. Frankly I confer less personhood on a fetus as I do a dog.

              Your inability to differentiate between a living human being in it’s early development and a dog will not surprise anyone. VERY Scientific.

              1. Neural complexity, Marsh. What does it mean?

                1. Neural complexity, Marsh. What does it mean?

                  So you are just trolling now? What does it mean? That if a dog has more neural complexity than a human being in it’s early life stage, it is human? Deserves Natural Rights? Humanity is determined by a level of neural complexity? Can I decide that you are not a person because you do not reach the proper level? Can you even hear yourself?

        2. Really? You are not demonstrating much of either.

        3. I notice you are avoiding answering what science backs your position. I think you are right to avoid it as there is no scientific justification that is not going to bite you in the ass at some point for being too broad or too narrow,

      2. Uh, no, Mickey. That’s very 1950’s.

        1. It is a starting point, and he is not providing any substitute definition. I submit it is because any scientific definition of who has rights will be too broad or too narrow to exclude all the humans he want and include all the humans he wants.

    4. Well, I think a scientific argument that says “one of the basic requirements for human life is a heartbeat, and once one it detected that being has the rights associated with personhood” is a lot stronger than a foot-stomping woman saying “my body, my choice” while completely disregarding that the other being in the equation has any rights whatsoever.

      Where’s the fucking science in the pro-abortion arguments?

      1. Given that it is your side that is advocating the radical intervention of the state into people’s insides, I’d say the burden of proof is yours. The heartbeat cutoff doesn’t cut it.

        1. Those insides sometimes contain another human being (unless you think life only starts after birth).

          If ANY issue is a governmental issue, then murder is.

        2. Your side is advocating destructive violence against living human individuals. How is the burden of proof that is just not yours?

          1. I am not my “side”. Murder is wrong and is within govt’s scope. Enforcement is another issue entirely.

            Is there evidence that a murder was committed? Then investigate as necessary (and Constitutional). It doesn’t matter if the little one was born or not.

            As for “proving” that it is a person, by that definition I can’t prove that you are a person. So if I kill you then the burden of proof is on them to prove you are a person. Cogito Ergo Sum… But I can’t prove you can think… Basically, George Berkeley and Spinoza.

            1. ace, my comment was directed at the sociopath Cytotoxic.

        3. people’s insides? We aren’t regulating people’s insides. We’re protecting the development of a human being with well over a 90% chance of survival at that point in the pregnancy.

        4. Given that it is your side that is advocating the radical intervention of the state into people’s insides

          Isn’t the “radical intervention into people’s insides” being done by the abortionist?

          The proposed law here is about preventing such interventions, no?

          1. Might a difference be that the latter intervention is invited by the woman whose body is in question?

            1. The pregnancy isn’t invited by the woman whose body is in question? She didn’t catch pregnancy as if it were the fucking flu, did she?

              Don’t want a kid? Don’t fuck, get your tubes tied, or insist that whomever you fuck has had a vasectomy. Otherwise, be prepared to face the possible consequences of your actions.

      2. while completely disregarding that the other being in the equation has any rights whatsoever.

        Actually, aren’t there two others who might have an interest? The fetus/baby, and the father?

    5. This is why there are no [new] female libertarians.

      Fifty million abortions in the US since the 70’s or something? That’s just stunning to me, wherever one comes down on the topic. 50 million. That’s a lot of subjects peasants taxpayers 47%ers.

      1. And an amazing effect on crime, maybe.

        http://freakonomics.com/2005/0…..u-believe/

        1. What a great justification for indiscriminate killing.

          1. You said it, not me.

            I just threw it out there as an “oh hey, look at this.”

        2. I had seen/heard of this a few times. It could be a contributor to our low crime rate. So could sunspots.

          1. It could be a contributor to our low crime rate. So could sunspots.

            Didn’t realize waffles was an economist.

            1. Do you have proof that sunspots have no relationship to crime? Neither do I.

              1. It may look like there’s no correlation, but once you add a dummy variable to your meta-regression…

        3. IIRC they fucked up and the effect almost totally disappears with the correct data.

          1. If everything was legal, crime would drop.

        4. And an amazing effect on crime, maybe.

          I suspect not.

          The invention and availability of the pill corresponded with roe vs wade and previous legalization of abortion in many states.

          My guess is that the pill should get the vast majority of the credit.

  20. I support the rights of men married to a fetus to be recognized by the state

    1. Slow clap

  21. And the GOP will just scratch their heads when “The War On Women” line gathers steam toward the mid-terms.

    Way to live down to your stereotypes, dumbasses.

    1. Yep. They’re not referred to the Stupid Party for nothing!

      Wonder who’s going to be the Todd Akin who flushes their Senate chances down the toilet.

      1. All of the Alabama GOP who voted for this will be mentioned. And I’m sure some of them call themselves members of the Tea Party.

    2. Great point. They really are totally clueless and inept.

  22. Jumping down to 6 weeks is not the way to go. The 20 week bans is a good place to start nibbling at the SCOTUS precedent, once that’s one we can work on 16 weeks or something.

    1. The 20 week bans are supported by a majority of voters. And last I looked support by a majority of voters is a really big deal. It is when it comes to gay marriage it seems.

    2. I could have sworn recently John was yelling at me about how most pro-life people would be fine with a 20 week ban, it was just the extremism and unwillingness to compromise of the pro-choice people getting in the way.

      I guess John has not been to Alabama lately.

      1. This is pretty much an indirect abortion ban. I don’t know what to think except there will be a rise in the back-alley abortion industry.

        1. When you view the fetus as a person, concerns about back-alley abortions sound just as silly as concerns about the hit-man industry because murders are illegal. It’s an argument predicated on the person agreeing with you already.

          1. Okay, back-alley murders then. What you call it doesn’t change the reality. That doctor in Philadelphia can only exist where there is demand for his murder/services.

            1. So? Why should someone who thinks abortion is murder be concerned that some people would still murder even though it is illegal?

              1. Because legalized murder is less terrible than illegal murder due to the circumstances occurs. I’m against baby murder for me but pro-murder for those that have no moral objection to it. I think that if people want to murder their unborn children a 20 week limit is reasonable and it should be done in a place that is held to some medical standard for clean and effective murder.

                I think putting onerous limits on unborn child murder will lead to horror show murders, but not necessarily less murder.

            2. That doctor in Philadelphia can only exist where there is demand for his murder/services.

              Strange that you mention the guy who actually murdered the already born, and was the cause of a few deaths of mothers as well, I believe, to warn of the rise of it happening in a less clean place? Now the future Gosnels will have to murder, literally, not just the unborn but the already born, in the shadows? Oh noes!

              1. To be honest marshall, I hadn’t ever given this serious thought. And now I think my argument is kind of stupid.

                Abortion is a fucking terrible issue. Defending it in any fashion can make you a monster. I don’t care if other people murder their fetuses before a certain point. Where is that point? Fuck if I know.

                1. Well, one reason to be concerned about the back alley ones is if you are worried about the well being of the women who seek abortions.

                2. To be honest marshall, I hadn’t ever given this serious thought

                  Then this thread has served some purpose, at least.

                  I don’t care if other people murder their fetuses before a certain point.

                  I understand the reluctance to tell other people what to do. I don’t even like telling my children what to do, I hate being told what to do so much myself.

                  For me it is simply a question of intellectual consistency. I also do not believe in hormonal birth control because of the, well, science. I am not religious and don’t care about how much, or who anyone fucks but believe in the defense of human life. If feel that the term “person” is a rationalization to kill an obviously living human being.

        2. It is too bad it is so hard to invest in the black market.

      2. Since when is the Alabama legislature represent the majority of the country?

        What I told you was that a majority of voters could live with that compromise even if the extremes on both sides wouldn’t.

        Why don’t you do yourself a favor and try reading the posts before responding to them. You have a difficult enough time making cogent points when you read the posts. When you don’t read them, it is fucking hopeless.

        1. You know this will be nationalized to taint anyone with an (R) after their name. I mean, how could the media not do it?

          1. “You know this will be nationalized to taint anyone with an (R) after their name.”

            If anyone has some evidence that Alabama Republicans are so out of step with their national counterparts, let us hear it. The difference between Alabama Republicans and national ones is the former are in charge where they live.

        2. John, Alabama is a state where pro-life people have hold of the legislature. This is what passes if pro-life people get their way. Even you say now that ‘life begins at conception’, if that is true, and that is what most pro-lifers think, then any abortion is straight up murder and should be stopped. You have no evidence at all that most pro-lifers would be satisfied with 20 week bans.

          1. Most people fall somewhere in between birth and conception, even people who self identify as pro-choice or pro-life.

            1. Let’s see some evidence of that, Apatheist.

                1. http://www.gallup.com/poll/157…..on Google.

                  This is a matter of technology i think. it is easier for a woman to find out if they are pregnant and easier to prevent it and easier to abort it (plan B)

                  As these things get easier it should be expected that push back for lowing the legal term for abortion becomes stronger.

                  It would not surprise me that in 30 years the whole country will think 6 weeks is time enough. And only because knowing early, prevention and early abortion becomes so technically easy.

                  1. I don’t know, those lines look relatively flat.

                    I do think the pro life crowd is winning the wording war, but it seems people’s actual stances are relatively unchanged.

          2. Again, try reading the posts. I said majority of “voters” not “pro life” whoever they are. I have always said the extremes on both sides would not be happy. But the extremes never are when there is a compromise.

            As dumb as your responses are when you read the posts, they get downright bizarre when you don’t.

            1. I like how you essentially borrowed my insult of you from earlier today. Likely you do not even remember where you got it from.

              You said most pro-lifers would be happy, which of course you conflated with ‘satisfied.’

              1. That is not what I said and that is not what I mean. If you say I did say that, show me a link.

                Beyond that even if you do, that was sloppy language on my part. That is not and never has been my position.

                I am not Tonio. I don’t lie about my position. Please stop lying about it for me.

                1. John: I never said that.

                  Er, if I did it was sloppy and I did not really mean it.

                  Stop lying!

                  1. No Bo,

                    I never said it. If I did, show me where I did. If you can’t produce a link to me saying that, then I didn’t say it. The internet never goes away.

                    Again, I am not Tonio. I don’t lie about my position.

                    So again, stop lying about mine.

                    1. You never said.

                      No, if you did it was sloppy and you did not mean it.

                      On third thought, you never said it.

                      John, you can not remember what you said. That happens when a person screams what they say a lot.

      3. Being fine with a 20 week ban doesn’t mean that you don’t prefer an even shorter time period. You are misconstruing what he said. I (probably John too) talking political and legal tactics, not moral position. And yes it is extremism to oppose 20 week bans, that’s far beyond what I consider to be a reasonable position.

        1. Respectfully Apatheist it is John who is doing the misconstruing. He thinks because pro-lifers would support such a ban they would be satisfied with one, and those are two very different things.

          As to your extremism comment, that kind of thing is in the eye of the beholder.

          1. He thinks because pro-lifers would support such a ban they would be satisfied with one,

            I think no such thing. I think the majority of voters would be satisfied with the compromise. Would the really committed pro life people continue? Sure. But since the majority of voters were fine with such a compromise, they wouldn’t get very far.

          2. As to your extremism comment, that kind of thing is in the eye of the beholder.

            All things are, aren’t they. I don’t think anyone arguing for abortions past brain activity have a “reasonable” position to respect but disagree with.

            1. Even past brain activity fetuses are essentially asleep and have been forever. That strikes me as potentially relevant.

              1. So what. We know they have a 90% chance of waking up. By your logic, I cease to be a human when I go to sleep or someone in a coma with a 90% chance of recovery is legally dead.

                1. I covered this supra. There is a difference between a sentient person temporarily losing their sentience and something that never has attained it. If sentience is a criteria for personhood it is pretty determinative.

                  1. There is a difference between a sentient person temporarily losing their sentience and something that never has attained it.

                    And that difference would be? In both cases we know they have an overwhelming chance of being sentient. Why does “well this person once was sentient” matter?

                    Suppose a child was born in a coma but had a 90% chance of recovery. By your logic they wouldn’t be a person.

                    You offer no reason why your once being sentient somehow makes your temporary lapse of sentience somehow less important. You just assume it because you have no other answer.

                    FAIL

                    1. I think sentience is the threshold for personhood. You have to have passed it to get it, but you can temporarily lose it and not lose it.

                      See how simple that was?

                      SUCCESS

                    2. The embryo and the ‘glimmer in the eye’ both will potentially gain sentience, but that is different than the person who has attained it and temporarily loses it. They became persons when they crossed the threshold, they were established. When they wake up that established person wakes up. For the fetus and the glimmer, they never got started in the first place.

                    3. personhood

                      Can you point me to the scientific description of this? How can using this term be anything but a self-Godwin?

                      You know who else wanted to describe living human beings as not “persons” and kill them?

                    4. Since we are talking about moral matters scientific descriptions are not dispositive.

                    5. Since we are talking about moral matters scientific descriptions are not dispositive.

                      In other words, there isn’t one and you know it.

                      Moral matters unrelated to science, and by extension reason? Are they then related to religion?

                      Science H Logic you are a shit-stain.

  23. How many people who believe that abortion is murder believe in the 3rd party defense doctrine?

    That is to say, who believes that one would be morally justified in killing someone who they had the reasonable belief was about to kill or mortally wound a 3rd party?

    1. If the police would be justified, why wouldn’t the average person?

      I’m thinking you’re going to tie this into the old “if the woman’s life is in danger” argument, which even many staunch anti abortionists agree is a legitimate reason for abortion.

      It is a principle as old as humanity, when it is me vs you with no other option on the table, the death of one of us is not wrong, no matter whether I killed you or a third party killed you. However, if I sacrifice myself so that you may live, that is considered honorable.

      1. Not even close to where I was going, but since this thread is dead i will go deeper into it another time.

  24. So what’s the popular Reasonite stance on Block’s evictionism (that there’s a moral difference between a d&c of a viable fetus and evicting it from the property the mother has in her own person)?

  25. Being pro-life means two things: “I have an invisible friend named Jesus, and I think women should be severely punished for having sex with someone other than me.”

    1. Let’s give a round of applause for Tony, who can always be counted on to not add anything to a debate.

    2. Tony,

      That is the dumbest thing you have ever posted here. There are numerous atheists on this very thread who are arguing against abortion.

      Does believing idiotic things about those who disagree with you make it easier to be as deranged and retarded as you are? Is that how you keep the cognitive dissonance going?

      1. Literally you are right the two circles are not exactly the same, but I do not think it can be denied that there is some significant overlap between the pro-life and ‘women should keep their legs crossed’ crowds, especially historically.

        1. Perhaps, but not on this website.

          1. Same as there aren’t any homophobes and racists I’m sure.

            1. lol – Tony it is obvious to even casual observers to this blog that racists and homophobes definitely post comments here.

              This is evidenced by your continued postings.

        2. And there is a lot of overlap between the pro abortion and the “we should kill the unfit and weak” crowd too. What is your point other to engage in your usual sophistry and guilt by association?

          1. ” “we should kill the unfit and weak” crowd too”

            Haha, that groups is a significantly smaller part of the other than what Tony is talking about.

            1. Considering abortion historically came from that crowd, I don’t think it is as small as you think.

              We do all know the story of eugenics and planned parenthood, don’t we?

              And we all know exactly who is having their babies aborted and their gene pool reduced.

              You can try and distance yourselves from it, but it is the truth.

              1. WAIT, I almost forgot, I really apologize, for a second there I forgot that it was about intentions and FEELZ.

                My bad.

      2. All I’m saying is this has never primarily been about civil rights for fetuses. I think that’s just some tacked-on rhetoric to get around the First Amendment.

    3. Didn’t know I believed in Jesus or any other deity.

      1. See, if you argue against abortion you are just one of the “women should keep your legs crossed crowd”. There is just a lot of overlap amongst you sorts of people and that is important. Bo told me so.

    4. Naturally, I am curious as to how taking responsibility for the foreseeable consequences of your choices amounts to being “severely punished.”

      1. Thanks for coming in with the ‘taking responsibility for the foreseeable consequences of your choices’ talk, that does help out here.

      2. The punishment should fit the crime, and 9 months of pregnancy plus 18 years of custodianship of an unwanted human is pretty draconian for a drunken fuck, which last I checked wasn’t even a crime. If the consequences for men were as bad there would be no pro-life movement.

        1. The action is not a crime and taking responsibility for the results of your action is not a punishment, but a requirement of being an honorable and moral person. Men are held responsible for the results of a drunken fuck, as you put it, quite often and are not afforded the opportunity for this kind of out.

          “If the consequences for men were as bad there would be no pro-life movement.”

          Why do you think the Clinton’s and the Kennedy’s are pro-abortion rights?

          1. More civilized countries are baffled that we are even still having this debate, which was really settled in the 60s. It’s about women having the right to control their own bodies. The only reason there’s still debate in this country is because of how religious we are, and religion, of course, is patriarchy enforced by invisible beings in the sky.

            1. More civilized countries are baffled

              Most civilized countries make abortion illegal sooner in pregnancy then Roe V Wade does.

              Look it up hack boy.

              1. Do any of them have the fetal heartbeat test?

                Of course part of my definition of a civilized country is how liberal its abortion rights are.

                1. Tony|3.5.14 @ 5:51PM|#

                  Do any of them have the fetal heartbeat test?

                  Of course part of my definition of a civilized country is how liberal its abortion rights are.

                  Go argue with someone else. Go argue with your strawman.

                  I answered your question why we argue about it and it is because we have less restrictive abortion laws then “most civilized countries”.

                  1. In some states more so than others. The only thing happening to abortion rights in this country is Christianists trying to restrict them as much as legally possible. So what side of that debate are you on?

                2. Your circular definition is circular.

            2. Way to change the subject and not address a rebuttal to your absurd talking points.

              Also, I believe the US has about the least restrictive abortion laws in the world, so I am not sure what your point is.

              1. So the claim is that men are often subject to an equal burden (and even sometimes more of a burden)? I really don’t think so. But then I’m only assuming pregnancy is by itself a massively disruptive thing. How about I’ll be generous and say men should get a 3/5ths vote on all abortion legislation.

                1. Men are made to take a long term responsibility for such momentary lapses. Is it equal? Undoubtedly not, but why should that matter?

                  “How about I’ll be generous and say men should get a 3/5ths vote on all abortion legislation.”

                  By that standard, you don’t get to have any say on the issue at all. So why are you here?

                2. So Tony gets put in his place on his complete falsehood, then immediately moves on to something that cannot be proven.

  26. Why does anyone really give a shit if fewer goddamn babies are born?

    1. I’d like to live in a world with less babies, and less people who are willing to kill them for convenience.

      Looks like contraception is the answer.

      However, our Ponzi scheme would collapse without population increase. So there is always that.

  27. So why isn’t the law written such that a woman always has the right to expel any person residing inside her body? After doing so, she will have forfeited any and all rights and responsibilities toward that person.

    I would not be in favor of heroic measures to save the lives of such persons if they are not viable on their own, but I think that should be up to the community where that person resides whether they want to pay for those measures or not.

  28. my buddy’s aunt makes $74 an hour on the computer . She has been out of a job for six months but last month her check was $12405 just working on the computer for a few hours. visit homepage…………. http://www.mumjob.com

  29. My partner and I have been trying for a baby for over two years now, We were going to a fertility clinic for about 5 months before somebody told us to contact this spell caster who is so powerful, We contacted him at this email; zogospellcasters@gmail.com , for him to help us, then we told him our problem, he told us that she will either conceive in January 2013 or February 2013,but after two years of trying we were at a point where we were willing to try anything. And I’m glad we came to Dr zogo, Because he predictions put us at ease, and I honestly believe him, and his gods really helped us as well, I am thankful for all he has done.

  30. You need help to GET PREGNANT? contact Priest Babaka on this email (babaka.wolf@gmail.com), i am here to share my testimony on HOW I CONCEIVE my babies after i suffer from PCOS and my TUBES ARE TIED, i have been married to my husband for 11 years without no issue. i had problems with my in-laws even my husband started to have new affairs aside our marriage.it was a very terrible thing to bear, been to many doctors and yet my case remain the same, i was now seen as always unhappy. my husband was not given me any attention that i needed from him. on this faithful day, i decided to check the net for updates on Trying To Conceive with pcos and my tubes are tied, and i came across a story of a woman who Priest Babaka helped to conceive a twins under same condition as mine. so i decided to put a try because this has been my greatest problem in life. today i am a proud mom with two son.contact him today via email: babaka.wolf@gmail.com or Facebook at priest.babaka he will surely make your dreams come through

  31. You need help to GET PREGNANT? contact Priest Babaka on this email (babaka.wolf@gmail.com), i am here to share my testimony on HOW I CONCEIVE my babies after i suffer from PCOS and my TUBES ARE TIED, i have been married to my husband for 11 years without no issue. i had problems with my in-laws even my husband started to have new affairs aside our marriage.it was a very terrible thing to bear, been to many doctors and yet my case remain the same, i was now seen as always unhappy. my husband was not given me any attention that i needed from him. on this faithful day, i decided to check the net for updates on Trying To Conceive with pcos and my tubes are tied, and i came across a story of a woman who Priest Babaka helped to conceive a twins under same condition as mine. so i decided to put a try because this has been my greatest problem in life. today i am a proud mom with two son.contact him today via email: babaka.wolf@gmail.com or Facebook at priest.babaka he will surely make your dreams come through

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.