Abortion

U.S. South Is Quickly Losing Abortion Access

|

Steve Snodgrass/Flickr

There are pretty much continually new state efforts to limit abortion access in America. Even for someone who follows these issues professionally, it can induce a sort of abortion-restriction fatigue. Oh, another state wants to force abortion doctors to have hospital admitting privelges? Yawn. The upshot is that I've stopped seeing catastrophes in every proposed anti-abortion measure. The courts have a way of shutting these things down. The status quo remains. 

Except maybe not. A cluster of southern states have been doubling down on the abortion restrictions with a flurry of simultaneous successes. The latest is Louisana: The state legislature yesterday passed a bill that could force three to four of the state's five abortion clinics to close, due to a new and medically uneccessary requirement that abortion doctors have admitting privilegess—permission to admit patients—at a nearby hospital. 

Abortion clinics are similarly scarce in Louisiana neighbors Alabama, Mississippi, and Texas—thanks, too, to recent legislative efforts. Texas passed an admitting privileges bill in 2013, a move that required 14 of the state's 36 abortion clinics to close. A law passed recently in Mississippi would force the state's one remaining abortion clinic to close.

The Mississippi law is now under consideration by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which previously upheld Texas's law, finding it did not consitute an unconstitutional burden on abortion access because enough clinics remained open. At arguments in April, a lawyer for Mississippi argued that even if the state's sole abortion clinic closed, residents could always travel to neighboring states. Judge Stephen A. Higginson responded by pointing out that "Alabama has passed a law" which may close abortion clinics there and "Louisiana is considering one. So then what?" 

Then what, indeed—how limited must abortion access become before it ceases to exist in any legally meaningful way? I guess that's what we're all going to find out soon.

Alabama's 2013 admitting-requirement law is also currently facing a federal trial, with opponents saying the law would force three of the state's five abortion clinics to close. Under the precedent set by Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992, women don't just have the right to an abortion until a fetus is viable outside the womb but also to do so absent regulations that place an "undue burden" on exercising that right. 

"If all the clinics in a state have to close, I think a judge will have to call that an undue burden," Jessie Hill, a professor of constitutional law at Case Western Reserve University, told The New York Times. "Eventually the court will have to say, 'This is the limit.'"

NEXT: Vid: Cop Assaults Air Force Captain for Not Knowing His Neighbor, Suggests He Could Have Tased or Shot Him Instead

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. Eugenics today, eugenics tomorrow, eugenics forever!

    1. In this thread, Tulpa makes at least 3 different appearances, Sugar Free loses his shit, and a lot of people make themselves look very childish while attempting to appear clever.

      Save yourself the trouble and go call a loved one you haven’t spoken to in a while, you’ll feel better and your time won’t have been wasted.

      1. “Word of Warning”, you seem very familiar with the dynamics around here but I’ve never seen you post before.

        Unless of course, you’re a regular posting under an alternate name and being a total hypocrite.

        1. total hypocrite

          Um, that’s not him Tulpa.

        2. “Someone’s doing what I did, so what I did must be OK!”

          There’s no mystery why you can’t get tenure with airtight logic like that. I guess you being on the spectrum and possessing a host of gross personality disorders make the idea of working with you pretty sickening to those neurotypicals who refuse to recognize your extreme genius.

          Or maybe the committee figured out you were a lying cunt. Falsify a few sources to get published, did we? Maybe fudge a few end notes?

          1. You’re a much bigger liar than I could ever hope to be. And your lies in the past have actually intended to damage people’s reputations.

            It’s good to see that your chickens are finally coming home to roost on this thread, though. More and more of the commentariat is seeing you and Epi as I have for a long time.

            1. .

            2. OMG! I think you are trying to be serious.

              Throwing your own words back in you face isn’t lying, Tulpa. And it’s not unfair or anything else you want to whine about.

              Poor Tulpa, getting caught in lie after lie. “Why’s all these people always pickin’ on me?”

              1. Throwing your own words back in you face isn’t lying, Tulpa.

                I’m not talking about quotations, I’m talking about your misrepresentation of my positions in threads weeks later. Like how I wanted to ban food trucks and thought it was ok to shoot someone for throwing a snowball.

                1. Hydra|5.15.14 @ 9:15PM|#|?|filternamelinkcustom

                  I am not Tulpa. I am not anybody.

      2. abortion, eh?

        EJECT! EJECT! EJECT!

    2. Sweet! I’m popping popcorn so I can enjoy some hot libertarian-on-“libertarian” action. More mendacious arguments from people who think Obamacare is a commie plot, but who want to put abortion doctors and their patients in jail over a medical decision.

      Ding! Popcorns done. Time to read on. Mmmm, delicious.

      1. There is a former socialist country in South Asia where millions would love to trade places with your overprivileged rear end, sitting in a capitalist country with the rule of law. I’m sure you will love the underdevelopment wrought by your pathetic ideology there.

        1. “There is a former socialist country in South Asia”

          Aren’t there a couple socialist paradises in South America?

      2. Get a Life.

      3. Pretty predictible reaction, really. No one’s ever accused Socialists of being interested in conversations about the rights of others.

        1. If you make it to junior high, you’ll learn about voluntary communes and several forms of non-state socialism. Most of them are Christian or Jewish based, and can include abbeys and monasteries. I hope you discover an interest in the rights of anyone to form voluntary associations …. without your permission!

          1. Well said,
            but this guy gets off by going on an independent/ libertarian website and “heckling” the freethinkers,
            It doesn’t bode too well for his intelligence level.

  2. “how limited must abortion access become before it ceases to exist in any legally meaningful way?”

    1.2 million abortions last year. I’d say we’re a long way off.

    If supply isn’t meeting demand, what is preventing abortuaries from hiring doctors who have admitting privileges?

    My understanding is that the rationale for these laws is to prevent monsters like Kermit Gosnell from operating in secret.

    It may be (hell, probably is) just a pretense to do what these pro-life legislators want to do anyway, but it still seems to me that clinics will be able to upgrade their standards.

    1. Often times the clinics are not located close enough to a hospital (because they’re serving rural/remote areas) for doctors to even be able to meet the admitting privileges requirements set by law. Also, hospitals don’t have to grant admitting privileges. The growing number of hospitals affiliated with religious health systems won’t give an abortion doctor admitting privileges. That doesn’t mean a woman who had an abortion and had complications couldn’t go to said hospital, though. So, in effect, the laws really are just to shut down the clinics.

      1. Why would an abortion clinic be located in a rural area? I cant imagine their is much money to be made away from large population centers.

        1. Why would anything be located in a rural area? There are customers there who are willing to pay for services and don’t want to drive a hundred miles each way.

          1. Enough of them to justify that business? In the case of an abortion clinic I’m skeptical.

            1. If there weren’t enough demand for reproductive health services (which include, but are not limited to, abortion) to sustain them, the clinics would shut down on their own given time.

              The Invisible Hand: It’s not just for Wal-Mart anymore!

            2. Yeah, many if not most abortion clinics also provide PAP smears, gynecological exams, STD tests, and contraception, too.

              1. So, many rural abortion clinics are actually just private gynecological practices that offer abortions? Or are they Planned Parenthoods?

              2. Yeah, many if not most abortion clinics also provide PAP smears, gynecological exams, STD tests, and contraception, too.

                Gonna request a cite on the first two.

                You can get the last two at any pharmacy or even a big box store.

                1. You can get an IUD at a big-box store?

                  1. Copper wire so sure.

              3. @Elizabeth Nolan Brown “Yeah, many if not most abortion clinics also provide PAP smears, gynecological exams, STD tests, and contraception, too.”

                95% of Planned Parenthood’s procedures have no connection to abortion, mostly the procedures mentioned by Nolan.

                Thus, defunding Planned Parenthood will remove the sole source of medical care for millions of inner-city women … who are merely black … and INCREASE the number of abortions. Clearly, this is not about saving babies; it’s about raw political power. And killing babies intentionally. May God have mercy on their wretched souls, then again why should He bother??

            3. Enough of them to justify that business? In the case of an abortion clinic I’m skeptical.

              Have you ever been to a rural area? There ain’t a whole lot to do out there on a Friday night.

              1. If god intended us to use rubbers, he would have have built a rite-aid in town.

            4. Granted I live in the Bible Belt in rural Arkansas, but I’ve never seen a single abortion clinic outside of a city. Little Rock being the closest one that I’m to, and I live two hours from Little Rock. I genuenly curious now if anyone personally knows of a small town abortion clinic…

        2. Maybe abortion is only one of many services they provide.

        3. WingNut … errr, RightNut suffers the delusion that abortions are about profits. When you wise up, you’ll know why many are in rural areas. IF you wise up.

      2. The growing number of hospitals affiliated with religious health systems

        Is that actually growing? I would have guessed it was at ~100% a century ago and has been falling ever sense.

        1. I supposed she could mean that the total number is still growing, though I also doubt that the ratio to non-affiliated hospitals is growing.

          And it doesn’t help her point if she didn’t mean the ratio.

        2. I’m gonna need a cite on that.

          My impression is that, to the extent there is a change in hospital ownership, it is pretty heavily weighted toward non-profits being acquired by big for-profit chains. I can’t ever recall a for-profit hospital becoming non-profit.

          There might be some migration of independent non-profits into one of the big Catholic chains, but I think on net the trend is non-profits being acquired by for-profits.

      3. If there’s not enough population for a hospital, which provides a much broader array of services, how is there going to be enough population for an abortion clinic?

        FFS, you do realize you’re complaining about abortions being less accessible than MRIs and X-rays.

      4. These laws originated with recommendations from the Gosnell Grand Jury Report. Self-proclaimed pro-choice officials recommended more oversight of abortion centers in the Grand Jury Report. The report even states that hair and nail salons were subject to greater scrutiny than abortion centers in Pennsylvania. These pro-choicers believed the regulations would protect women and babies from other abortionists like Gosnell. Suggesting that the purpose of these laws is just to shut down all abortion centers may not be entirely fair – considering the origin of these laws.

      5. BS. Show one example of an abortion clinic located in a remote area.

        1. I’ll show you two, which were forced out of business by the unconstitutional restrictions in Texas, exactly as described here. As you’ll see, this leaves many women forced to drive hundreds of miles for treatment. Oh yeah, the very first Texas abortion clinic was rural

          http://www.texasobserver.org/l…..xas-close/

          Anything else I can clarify for you? Just ask.

  3. no need to ban that which can be regulated out of existence. — TEAM RED/BLUE {equal opportunity offenders}

    1. Yup. These stories read like the red states have been watching what the blues have done on gun-control laws, and copying them.

      1. On this topic, the stupid and evil party have swapped places:

        – The left is too dumb to see that the arguments they make apply to all economic endeavors (which they are willing to regulate to death).
        – The right is willing to adopt the rethoric of patient protection to shut down economic activity they don’t like (with full understanding that that’s what they’re doing).

  4. These states are going about this like rank amateurs. They could just penaltax every abortion performed in their state and be done with it. SCOTUS already declared it constitutional.

    1. Sure, abortion is still legal. You just have to pay the $1,000,000,000 license fee first.

    2. Or take the campaign finance reform route: they’re free to perform abortions, they’re just not allowed to accept money for doing them or to spend money on making them available.

      What, abortion is still legal! Are you trying to say money is abortions? That’s just crazy!

  5. So, does the statute define “nearby” or “hospital”? Because I see a market for mail-order privileges at a new online hospital.

    1. I do believe ‘Hospital’ is defined in healthcare law.

    2. It depends by state, but usually the hospital has to be within a certain defined distance from the clinic.

  6. It’s very, very simple. We know that grown women are humans with agency. This is indisputable. What we do not know is when a fetus becomes “human”. No one can agree on this. Every attempt to do so has difficulties and problems.

    On the one hand, we have a woman with the indisputable right to control her own body. On the other hand, within her body we have a clump of cells which no one can really tell when it becomes “human”.

    In such a scenario, we must err on the woman’s side because with her, we know what rights she has. And therefore she has the right to remove the intruding clump of cells from her body if she wishes.

    There’s no confusion here. People’s belief in what a sky daddy said about it, or about “souls”, or whatever are utterly irrelevant. If you are logical and rational, the only possible conclusion is that you must side with the rights of the one individual/person that you know their status: the woman. There can be no other conclusion.

    1. With rights come responsibilities, IE the responsibility to deal with the repercussions of your own actions. Murdering the child because you treated procreation as recreation is up there on the scale of abhorrent behaviours.

      1. Your reading comprehension seems lacking. You called it a child. Prove it. Oh wait, you can’t? Well, I can prove the pregnant woman is a human and has a right to control her own body. My, wasn’t that simple?

        I don’t give a fuck about your nasty “she had SEX and now has to take responsibility for it that slut!” crap. Yawn. She wants to remove some cells from her body, cells that neither you nor anyone else can prove is human yet. She has the right to do that. Full stop.

        1. Since you don’t grasp basic reproductive science, we can’t have this conversation.

          1. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

            That was fast. Thanks for being utterly predictable. Now tell me exactly when a fetus becomes human and deserving of rights up to and over those of the pregnant woman, and why. Use basic reproductive science if you wish! Remember, proof is required!

            Oh wait, you don’t have any. No one does. Looks like we’re back to only knowing about the woman. Man, once again, that was simple as shit.

            1. You’re just going to ignore the issue of the personhood of the fetus, because you want abortion to be legal and there isn’t a clear answer.

              Classy.

              1. You just presumed the personhood of the fetus in the same sentence where you said there isn’t a clear answer.

                1. You’re a moron. I did no such thing. Don’t project your strawmen onto me.

                  1. I did no such thing.

                    So there is a clear answer to fetal personhood? Because you just said there wasn’t.

                    1. So there is a clear answer to fetal personhood?

                      Yes, there is. But dont ask me what it is, I have no fucking clue.

                  2. You’re just going to ignore the issue of the personhood of the fetus…

                    Was that a different poloniusium?

              2. It has nothing to do with what I want. I know the woman’s rights. I do not know the fetus’ rights. Therefore the woman’s rights, being known and clear, must win. What, you’re going to deny her the right to control her own body over an unknown? You mean, like people who want drugs illegal because some unknown number of people can’t control their use of them?

                It’s interesting how similar anti-abortion people are to drug warriors.

                1. “I don’t give a fuck about your nasty ‘she had SEX and now has to take responsibility for it that slut!’ crap. Yawn. She wants to remove some cells from her body, cells that neither you nor anyone else can prove is human yet. She has the right to do that. Full stop.”

                  Fuck. Yeah. Hat tip, Epi.

                  1. cells that neither you nor anyone else can prove is human yet

                    You guys should really retake some freshmen level bio classes, or start using the term “person” more carefully.

                  2. Fuck. Yeah. Hat tip, Epi.

                    ENB has never visited tumblr and thought this was novel. Babby’s first abortion thread?

                2. Gosnel did nothing wrong!

                  1. Because killing women in his care *and* executing viable infants is totally consistent with what Epi said!

                  2. And you think this isn’t a straw man either?

                3. I know the woman’s rights.

                  I dont think you do.

                  The woman’s rights are just as unclear. No one has the right to murder and at some point, of which we are unsure, the right to abort ends. At the point, whatever it is, the woman’s right ends.

                  It is just as unclear as the fetus’s right.

                  1. It’s not a right to murder. It’s called an unalienable right to Liberty.

                    The woman and the fetus have equal unalienable rights, one to life, the other to liberty. In constitutional law this is like any other instance of conflicting or competing rights which can only be resolved by the judiciary. ALL levels of government are forbidden to deal with such matters, because they are all banned from regulating or restricting fundamental rights. American History 101.

                4. Oh Epi, every time I start to respect you, you prove yourself to be an ignorant hypocrite.

                  Look who is defending his worldview with a religious zeal and faulty logic now.

                  Bleh. What a fucking retard.

                  1. Considering your foul mouth and belligerent hatred, being respected by YOU would clearly be a grievous insult, evoking deep shame.

            2. At some time the clump of cells apparently does become a human being with rights appertaining thereto.

              Can Epi inform us of when this is and provide his proof of why this is so?

              1. His proof is that he doesn’t give a fuck.

                . What we do not know is when a fetus becomes “human”. No one can agree on this.

                In such a scenario, we must err on the woman’s side because with her, we know what rights she has.

                Because we can’t know about the personhood of the fetus, we must choose potential murder.

                1. You don’t have to choose. Only the woman and her doctor will have that determination on their conscience.

                  1. Only the woman and her doctor will have that determination on their conscience.

                    Which is fine if you are an anarchist. Us minarchists may need to consider it ourselves.

                    1. You are, of course, correct once again robc. But I’m an anarchist.

                2. Potential murder vs. indisputable slavery. How unreasonable all those siding with the hosts are.

                  Next we’ll be saying other crazy stuff, like cops shouldn’t be able to murder anyone or any pet they feel like and the government shouldn’t be using regulatory burden to shutter businesses they can’t outlaw.

                  1. Parenthood != Slavery

                    And as the person most likely to call someone a slaver on h&r, I claim expert status.

                    1. Forced pregnancy is slavery. You are performing labor for another person involuntarily and under the threat of violence.

                      Once the fetus has transferability of care, parenthood becomes voluntary.

                    2. You are performing labor for another person (by your own definition) I should have added.

                    3. Forced pregnancy is slavery. You are performing labor for another person involuntarily and under the threat of violence.

                      Really? That woman was forced to become pregnant? Of course there are times when the pregnancy is involuntary but every person who has voluntary sex does so under an assumption of risk of pregnancy.

                      It absolutely is not slavery to require someone to assume responsibility for their actions.

                    4. It absolutely is not slavery to require someone to assume responsibility for their actions.

                      Like it’s OK to lock up criminals?

                      Of course there are times when the pregnancy is involuntary but every person who has voluntary sex does so under an assumption of risk of pregnancy.

                      Like how every time you drive you’re car you have to assume that you will be in an collision and you will always be responsible for whatever damage occurs? There are no accidents when you choose to drive.

                    5. Like it’s OK to lock up criminals?

                      It’s a consequence of your behavior. So sure, if you want to compare it to that go on ahead. Just be extra careful not to knock anyone up.

                      Like how every time you drive you’re car you have to assume that you will be in an collision and you will always be responsible for whatever damage occurs? There are no accidents when you choose to drive.

                      Bad analogy. With car accidents you may not be at fault. With pregnancy both parties are equally at fault because they both agreed to do the deed that, as nature intended, results in pregnancy.

                    6. It’s a consequence of your behavior.

                      Explain how having an abortion is not a consequence of behavior.

                      With pregnancy both parties are equally at fault

                      So all sex leads to pregnancy? Wow, I must have gotten my wife pregnant a few thousand times.

                    7. Explain how having an abortion is not a consequence of behavior.

                      I never said it wasn’t a consequence. But I find the arguments for its immorality much more compelling than the other way. Hence it can be morally acceptable to outlaw or restrict it.

                      So all sex leads to pregnancy? Wow, I must have gotten my wife pregnant a few thousand times.

                      Where did I say that? If you do get your wife pregnant you are both responsible for it because it’s your sperm and her egg that got fertilized during a consensual sexual encounter.

                      For some reason the pro-choice people think only the father is consenting to take care of the child to come at that point and not the mother.

                    8. Where did I say that? If you do get your wife pregnant you are both responsible for it because it’s your sperm and her egg that got fertilized during a consensual sexual encounter.

                      Sorry, a bit hostile in statement.

                      What I’m saying is, why must I accept something as inevitable when I have thousands of points of data that say it isn’t?

                      Very little sex in the modern world leads to pregnancy. Accidents happen, contraception fails. We allow for that in life.

                    9. While driving his vehicle, a man hit a pedestrian. The pedestrian was rendered comatose. The courts decided that the man had financial liability for his actions.

                      The driver decided that since the pedestrian was comatose, he no longer had agency and it would be within the driver’s rights to terminate the pedestrian’s existence.

                      Obviously not a perfect analogy. But a close enough approximation to the full invalidation of the rights of the fetus when the act of procreation was voluntary.

                      As for the role of the government, the government’s primary mandate (albeit an ignored one) is the protection of the rights of the individual under our current framework.

                      Bomb thrown. Off to lunch.

                    10. This is like watching a herd of chimpanzees debate space flight.

                    11. I assume you never plan on getting laid, dude.

                    12. Sure. Because all women think alike.

              2. At viability, Homple. And ONLY the judiciary has any say in the matter. Read the Bill of Rights, this is all very elementary.

              3. At conception,but the fetal rights must be weighed along with the mother’s rights. When you get to junior high you’ll learn what unalienable means. Or not.

            3. Now tell me exactly when a fetus becomes human and deserving of rights up to and over those of the pregnant woman

              Rights are never in conflict, so that whole sentence makes no sense.

              1. Rights never in conflict? Maybe, but there is plenty of conflict over what rights are and who gets to define them.

              2. robc “Rights are never in conflict, so that whole sentence makes no sense.”

                What are you, 12 years old? No rights are absolute, because they often infringe on each other. That’s why you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater, and slander is also not within the right of free speech.

            4. ” Now tell me exactly when a fetus becomes human ”

              According to Genesis 2:7, it’s when it receives the Divine Breath of Life: “Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.”

              According to the evidence of the senses, it’s when the woman expels it from her womb. If it breathes, it’s a baby, if not, it’s a stillbirth.

              1. What about viable fetuses that are “expelled” via C-section say after a car accident kills the mother?

                I’m not sure the actual “natural” birth works.

              2. Richard believes “dust of the ground” is a fetus. But if the fetus already existed, why did we need a God?

                Fortunately, our Supreme Court ignores such nonsense.

            5. Wait a minute, it’s “reasonable” from a moral standpoint to simply assume that an entire class of humanity are not people? Humanity has a history of doing that to powerless, inconvenient minorities, you know. It seems more reasonable to me, that if we’re unsure about whether an individual has rights or not, we err on the side of caution and assume that they do.

              Not that rationale really matters here. They’re inconvenient and they can’t speak for themselves or take up arms against us. Out of sight, out of mind so to speak. That’s the real reason we can find justification for it. If humanity could consign our oppressed to nonexistence forever like we can our aborted, no one would have ever given a shit about the Aboriginals or Native Americans either.

              1. Procrastinatus: Wait a minute, it’s “reasonable” from a moral standpoint to simply assume that an entire class of humanity are not people?

                So why do you do it? Your contempt for unalienable rights has been shared by dictators and enslavers or centuries. Like Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot, you have no shame for your barbarity, no regrets, no conscience.

            6. Now tell me exactly when a fetus becomes human

              It’s pretty easy to determine if a cell or “clump of cells” is human or not based on its DNA. It’s beyond hilarity that you’re trying to play Mr. Science here whilst arguing that it is scientifically impossible to determine whether or not a cell or organism is human.

              and deserving of rights up to and over those of the pregnant woman

              Now we’re getting somewhere. You’re talking about personhood, not humanness. There is no scientific basis for determining personhood or rights. I couldn’t explain scientifically why you, a fetus, or a fully grown pregnant woman has any rights, nor could anyone else. It’s not a scientific question.

          2. “Procreation as recreation?” Really? Procreation is recreation. There is this thing called a clitoris that you might become familiar with if you ever touch a woman. It exists for no purpose other than pleasure. We are wired to enjoy sex, to treat it exactly as recreation. Pretending otherwise and responding to Episiarch’s questions with a weak ad hominem is just avoiding the argument, not winning it.

            1. I agree. On what planet is sex not fun and enjoyable? I embrace our slutty past, our slutty present, and our slutty future.

            2. So why not use protection then?

              Having unprotected sex is procreating, or attempting to.

              1. LAH,

                Well there are failures.

                Besides – it is mostly leftists killing their future – who cares.

                People who don’t want to reproduce shouldn’t. And should be afforded every opportunity not to.

              2. And leaving the house without a gun is attempting to be murdered. (lol)

        2. Mustn’t we similarly err on the “clump of cells” being human? While it’s possible that the cells will create a tomato, we have pretty good reason to presume it to be human.

          1. presume it to be human.

            May become.

        3. If you really wanted to be logical and rational about it, you would know that life, all life, begins at conception. Just read any textbook on embryology. The existence of an individual member of the species Homo Sapiens (and every other species) begins at conception. What you are so obsessed about it some subjective metaphysical ‘life’. The point at which this metaphysical life begins is founded on faith, regardless of exactly what it is you have faith in.

        4. “You called it a child. Prove it. Oh wait, you can’t?”

          I can prove it is a living, individual, human creature.

          Under what other circumstance is a creature with those qualities considered devoid of the right to exist? Show your work.

          1. Mickey Rat,
            Under what circumstance is a woman considered devoid of her unalienable right to Liberty? Show your work.

      2. Because all penis-in-vagina sexual encounters are the woman’s choice. It’s physically impossible for the penis to be forced into the vagina, right?

        1. We all know that if the woman doesn’t consent, her body has ways to shut the whole thing down. Therefore, force is irrelevant. SCIENCE!

        2. Hey man, don’t get in the way of his hatred of women who have sex without the desire to procreate. He’s probably angry because they don’t want to do that with him.

          1. Such irrational projection.

        3. And if abortions were restricted to rape, incest and life of the mother the pro life movement would be so small we wouldn’t have this conversation every time a potential supreme court justice is up for nomination.

          1. And if abortions were restricted to rape, incest and life of the mother the pro life movement would be so small

            That wouldn’t satisfy Catholics, and they are a large part of the anti-abortion movement. Nor would it satisfy a portion of the Protestant or secular anti-abortion adherents.

            1. Who gives a shit about them? They have no power over fundamental human rights. Are you American?

          2. She says she was raped. Burden of proof that she was not is on you. Proceed.

            1. ImanAzol: Innocent until proven guilty. DUH

    2. That is question begging. The issue of when life begins is in dispute. Okay. What is so magical about the dispute happening before birth? Some people, including some well known medical ethicists, claim new born children are not humans. Indeed, they don’t have many of the faculties of humans. By your logic, all it takes is for enough people to have a good faith dispute over the issue and it should be legal for women to kill their children.

      The bottom line is that if you are going to make the case that a fetus is not a child, you have to make some kind of compelling case about how its nature is changed by the magical trip down the birth canal. I have yet to hear anyone make such a case or give any compelling reason why there is a difference between a new born and a child inside the womb who is viable outside it.

      1. Wow, you answered your own question and didn’t even know it.

        Once the baby exits the mother’s body, the rights conflict between it and the mother ends. Wow, how simple was that? We know that there is no conflict now, so there is no longer an issue. Simple, easy, over.

        1. Ah, the birth-canal theory of personhood.

          1. Ah, the statement that means nothing but thinks it does.

          2. Oh, the biblical definition.

            Sure. We can use that. No quotes out of context from a “god” who saw fit to murder infants repeatedly.

            If you punch a pregnant woman and there is “mischief,” you are fined (because a fetus is not a person). If you kill the woman, you are stoned (Because a woman is a person).

            When a fetus exits and draws breath, it becomes alive.

            Sure. I can deal with that compromise.

        2. No. You just further begged the question and you didn’t even know it. There is nothing compelling about it being in her body. You think it is compelling but one doesn’t have to. How is that a child is a piece of mush one moment and then the next moment, because he left the body, now a human being? What about that changes him? He has the same mental and physical faculties. He doesn’t gain anything from that. He just left that body. So what?

          Yes, it is an easy question if you assume the answer.

          1. John, I will admit that the only difference between a 9-month old fetus and 1-minute old baby is location. But you must admit that a fertilized egg cell clearly lacks any capability for awareness. Clearly the transition to a rights-bearing human being happens somewhere in between (ergo, NOT at conception.)

            So now we are left with the decision of when abortion is okay. Who would you rather make that decision? A woman and her doctor or a bureaucrat empowered by a politician?

            1. Medical science.

              1. So when does medical science tell us that a fetus becomes aware?

                Also, what if the pregnancy is late term and complications threaten the mother’s health? What does medical science have to say about whether an abortion is okay in that case?

                1. So when does medical science tell us that a fetus becomes aware?

                  The standard is called “viability.”

            2. Some guy,

              I am only arguing for it being illegal after viability.

            3. Since when, exactly, did rights become contingent on a “capability for awareness”?

              1. Since when, exactly, did rights become contingent on a “capability for awareness”?

                I believe that only person’s have rights and persons are defined by having the capacity for self-awareness.

              2. That’s for the judiciary to decide. They chose viability. Any other questions?

            4. I would most certainly not want a woman or her doctor to decide where the rights of another are concerned. Their interests clearly conflict. If, as you say, the right to life exists somewhat prior to birth (and it clearly does), then that right deserves that same protections of any other right, and that most certainly does not include the ability of other individuals to arbitrarily decide where it begins and ends at their convenience. The law must do so.

              1. Force that bitch to be an incubator, even if it kills her. She had it coming. We must protect the baaaaaaaabbeeeeeeeee!!!!!

              2. I would most certainly not want a woman or her doctor to decide where the rights of another are concerned

                Only the judiciary may do so.

          2. There is nothing compelling about it being in her body.

            No, nothing but the fact that while still inside it can kill or maim you.

            1. Shut up and make babies until you die in childbirth, woman. Wait. Who allowed you to learn to read?

            2. How about you get off your lazy ass and do something before the child is viable? Or maybe take a birth control pill or close your fucking legs?

              Just a thought.

              1. John, how about you develop a functioning brain? Just a thought. Oh, wait, he’s already beyond help.

            3. At best an argument for expulsion at will, but not vacuuming brains.

              1. Enlightenment for the shitheads and pro-lifers (sorry for the redundancy):

                Effectively ZERO clinics will perform an abortion after 22 weeks. It’s a major medical procedure, on par with childbirth or worse. It requires a hospital and medical support.

                Very few surgeons will agree to such a procedure, even with money involved, unless the mother’s health is seriously at stake, because of the above.

                If such procedure is necessary and agreed to (and no GOPer masturbating to the bible has the relevant knowledge to pass legislation on this subject, even less so than dummycraps trying to regulate “assault weapons”), the fetal mass (which may or may not be viable, functional, cancerous or intact) must be made small enough to pass through a cervix and vagina small enough to take your dick.

                To do so, it must be sectioned.

                If you believe it’s a feeling being, then the most humane way to do this is to puncture the skull and collapse it; a quick, minimally painful death.

                Otherwise, it has to be torn limb from limb first…and then the skull has to be crushed anyway.

                Clearly, you hate babies and enjoy their torture.

                1. Effectively ZERO clinics will perform an abortion after 22 weeks. “

                  It’s 5%.

                  Clearly you hate women and deny their God-Given Right to Liberty. And since her rights are God-Given, you also defy the Will of God. Reality bites.

          3. I am so compelled by the baby being in the body.

          4. Yes, it is an easy question if you assume the answer.

            The answer is “viability”. Why the confusion?

        3. So, as a thought experiment, if the kid were someone inserted back into the Mother, he would instantly become a non-person.

      2. The “magical trip down the birth canal” makes it a distinct entity, John. Once the umbilical cord is severed, the child can survive on its own, or, since you will undoubtedly respond to that with another straw man, it can be taken care of by other adults, which is not possible while it is still in utero. That is a very compelling, and simple, case to make, and no one reasonable disagrees with it. He wasn’t question begging, he was just assuming good faith on the part of those who might disagree with him.

        1. Brandon,

          It is a distinct entity in the womb. If it wasn’t, there wouldn’t be a debate. Moreover, if it is not, how are conjoined twins distinct entities?

          1. It is? Then it can be moved out of the womb?

            1. Yes, a “fetus” can be moved out of the womb by either of two methods:

              (1) vaginal delivery, or

              (2) surgery.

              If you’re going to say that vaginal delivery is necessary to grant someone personhood, then I’ve got a hospital full of nurses and OB/GYNs who would like a word. So, no, vaginal delivery isn’t magic.

              What’s more, fetuses are capable of surviving outside the womb beginning at around 22 – 24 weeks. That’s the age of viability outside the womb. You will note that it is around 12 – 14 weeks before full term.

              If you’re going on “the child can survive on its own” under the care of other adults as the point of personhood, then I think you would have a hard time saying that post-viability abortions should be allowed.

              1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_viability

                Completed weeks of Gestation at birth/Chance of survival[5]21 and less/ 0% 22/0-10% 23/ 10-35% 24/40-70% 25/ 50-80% 26/ 80-90% 27/ 90% 30/95% 34/98%

                Since few clinics cover post 22 weeks, and effectively all require a surgeon and hospital to do so, and most surgeons will only do so in extremis, your argument remains straw man.

                On par with claiming Miniguns and M60 GPMGs will be used for bank robbing.

                1. What does any of that have to do with equal, unalienable and God-Given Rights in your barbaric society which defies even the Will of God? Get the behind us, Satan.

        2. Maybe I shouldn’t have made that assumption.

          1. Considering you just used the phrase “sky daddy”* I’m not sure why anyone would think you are arguing in good faith.

            *extra hilarious when your position is the one that needs the philosophical concept of personhood, since the biology of life/humanity is clearly on the other side

            1. It’s impossible for a fetus to be a person, because that would make the issue complicated and Epi sure can’t handle a complex moral and metaphysical problem right now.

              1. Why is poloniusium totally befuffled by America’s primary Founding Principles of equal and unalienable rights? Totally incapable of moral accountability? Or simply brainwashed and manipulated?

        3. Babies can’t survive on their own.

          1. it can be taken care of by other adults, which is not possible while it is still in utero.

            At least come up with fallacies that haven’t already been pre-empted.

            1. Why is anyone obligated to take care of a baby?

          2. No one can survive on their own unless they are in an environment friendly to their existence. Just as a ‘person’ can’t survive unless they have food, water, and air, an unborn baby’s ‘friendly environment’ is the Mother’s womb.

        4. If you really think a baby can survive on its own after the umbilical cord is severed, you don’t have much experience with infants.

          1. WHAT? HOMPLE SAYS ALL BABIES DIE WHEN THE UMBILICAL CORD IS CUT??? IS HOMPLE STILL CONNECTED TO ITS MOM? OR A GHOST?

      3. Agree with John here. I also agree that science cannot indisputably determine when a clump of cells becomes a full rights-bearing individual. In fact, we limit the rights of children (wrt property ownership, etc.), but do recognize that children have the right to their life. The right to life holds a special place in comparison to other rights because violating that right simultaneously violates all other rights for all time. If you violate someone’s right to privacy or property, this is not true – they still retain all other rights. Thus, if some child violates your right to privacy or property by playing on your lawn, you have the right to remove said child, but not killing him/her.

        With respect to the clump of cells in a woman’s body, since we do not know when it becomes rights-bearing (principally the right to life) it is a nondeterministic question, and I thus advocate the use of risk theory. Since risk is the product of probability and consequence, even if the probability that a clump of cells is rights bearing is low, the consequence of aborting those cells (i.e., violation of right to life) is incredibly severe. On the other hand, even though you are most certainly violating a woman’s privacy by forcing her to carry the (possible) baby, the consequence of this action is MUCH less severe since the woman retains all other rights. Thus, I am “pro-life”.

        1. BTW, once a child can survive on its own, I fully support the right of a woman to evict said clump of cells from her body. Much like the kid on the lawn, you have every right to remove that kid so long as it doesn’t kill them.

          1. Man, we need robo-uteruses to solve this permanently. All abortions are just ultra-early-term deliveries, all aborted fetuses are incubated by robots, and we’ll have a new form of crazy cat lady to adopt them all.

          2. Then she should not have taken actions resulting in said ‘clump of cells’ residing in her womb. Nothing like a kid on the law, unless you allowed that kid to be there in the first place.

            1. Perhaps you should read my comment before typing your response. Based on the argument I presented above, I am against abortion (even in the case of rape).

        2. This. Very solid.

        3. It’s not a question of science, Sparky. It’s a constitutional matter which can only be decided by the Judiciary. Individual human rights were not created in a test tube. Read the Ninth Amendment and get back to us.

      4. The issue of when life begins is in dispute.

        Actually it’s not. If you want to get all metaphysical and talk about personhood, then there’s a debate.

        1. When does life begin, then? What objective standard is there?

          1. Should there really be one?

            The fact is that an abortion not only destroys that clump of cells, but it destroys everything it ever was or will be.

            That is an awesome power, and well outside any version of natural rights that makes any sense.

            While I do not necessarily believe abortion should be illegal, I look down upon it and those who have it performed, as I feel you pretty much have to be a sociopathic shit of a human being or a fucking retard to not understand or not care about those consequences.

            1. The fact is that an abortion not only destroys that clump of cells, but it destroys everything it ever was or will be.

              What does abortion do to the timeline!?

              By the gods, people, we’re messing with eternity! We’ll be fucking our own great-great grandmothers, next, just you wait and see.

              1. Your argument seems to be that there is no such thing as future value.

                Or do you admit it exists in every other instance besides human life?

                Or do you claim it only exists when you say it does?

                I think it is the last. Which shows you haven’t thought this whole thing out, or you’re not capable of it.

                1. This. We, by nature or design (take your pick), not only occupy physical space, but a timeline. Killing someone today ends their life tomorrow, as well. We, typically, understand this. That’s why the murder of a child seems so much more tragic than the murder of an adult. That’s why we have laws against destroying the eggs of endangered animals. We recognize that those animals are potential life. It does seem unusual that we won’t afford that same protection for our own.

            2. I feel you pretty much have to be a sociopathic shit of a human being or a fucking retard to not understand or not care about those consequences.”

              This from a retarded piece of shit who never read our Constitution and Bill of Rights, and denies the very existence of equal and unalienable rights. A clearly subhuman being. With a trash mouth and no brain.

              Lack of conscience is the very essence of a psychopath.

              dictionary.reference.com/browse/psychopath

        2. And then, ironically, it is the pro-abortion rights side that is appealing to the concept of a soul, or at least a similar ineffable quality for its supposed lack in the unborn.

      5. It’s as simple as the difference between one person and two.

    3. We know that grown women are humans with agency.

      How do “we” know that? I’ve never been a woman and (as far as I know) neither have you; plenty of societies have seen fit to treat women as other than male and it is fairly obvious that there are significant biological differences between males and females. At one time, it was believed that the chasm between white and black was equally insurmountable. Indeed, most if not all of the major difficulties and problems with assessing the humanity of the fetus apply equally to many of the stages of early childhood and infancy. I imagine that what we presume to know is far less a matter of scientific or philosophical surety than it is a matter of social acculturation than any specific advancement; I can’t say that the Romans were simpletons and they practiced infanticide in approximately the same way that we practice abortion.

      I don’t see how a universalist humanistic ethic wrt rights allows for us to play the role of Solomon in splitting the rights of what is recognized as an individual human life.

      1. How do “we” know that?

        Are you fucking serious?!? Man, abortion really makes some of you willing to go straight to FULL RETARD. You should think about that, and what it does to your reason and logic. Wow.

        1. I’m actually anti-abortion, personally, but this thread is nothing but maddeningly stupid pro-life fallacies.

        2. This response sure makes it appear that you cannot argue in good faith. You made no attempt to refute anything Trouser said. You simply started screaming that your opinion is the obvious answer to a complicated question that you have deemed uncomplicated. So stop going all progtard and make an argument with the reason and logic you yourself are demanding of others.

          1. reason is one of the few places where i don’t mind reading abortion arguments, because there is usually a fairly agreed upon set of premices and most people are able to make arguments. So yes, It frustrating when people “go progtard” and just spew emotion and think that qualifies for an argument.

            1. How is that any worse than the barbaric Christian Taliban waging The New Inquisition and defying the very source of God-Given Rights?

              Defying God-Given Rights … in the name of God .. is hysterical … but more to be pitied than censured.

      2. Look, there’s a counter-argument to be made, but refuting the humanity and/or agency of women is definitely not the way to do it.

        1. It’s actually refreshing to hear the implicit argument made explicit for once.

        2. You are missing the point. The point is that Episiarch is saying “since the humanity of the baby is in dispute, we should default to the known humanity of the mother”. That sounds nice except that anyone’s humanity can be in dispute. That is my point above. When Episiarch says “the child’s humanity is in dispute”, he is really saying it lack humanity. If he is not saying that, then he is saying anytime there is a dispute about a being’s humanity, the default answer is they lose it. And that leads to us saying that yes, if people doubt the humanity of women or new born children, it is okay to kill them.

          1. It’s interesting how your argument immediately strawmans into “if we doubt someone’s humanity, you can kill them”, totally ignoring the point about rights in conflict. Without the rights in conflict, there is no problem. But you knew that, you just don’t want to address it.

            1. Only crazy people think there could possibly be a rights conflict between an entity inside you that can kill you, and yourself.

              1. This is a pretty bad argument. Do I get to murder anyone who might be a potential threat to me? The presence inside of you has little to do with it. Just that it is easier to kill a fetus than an independent threat.

                It is attempting to paint all of abortion as a medical emergency to save the mothers life, which I know isn’t true. For the record, I do believe this case of abortion is moral for all stages of pregnancy. In fact, I believe most abortion is moral or at least morally neutral.

                1. I’m absolutely not “attempting to paint all of abortion as a medical emergency to save the mothers life.” Abortion is always safer than giving birth.

              2. I am only arguing for it being illegal after viability. IF you are so afraid of it killing you and sit on your ass and don’t do anything for five months, too fucking bad. Take some responsibility.

                I don’t see how anyone can argue for abortion on demand after viability, unless you think women are just stupid lazy sub humans who can’t be expected to make a decision in a timely manner or take responsibility for making one.

                1. This actually brings up an agle to this. Is there a point of committing?

                  If a parent had a young child, yes you can put it up for adoption, but you also can’t just leave it in the car to die because you decided you didn’t want a kid anymore. Both socially and legally, parents are obligated to provide for their children up until the point it is given to someone else. This is a burden that one has agreed to via deciding to have a child.

                  So under that notion if 1. abortion is indeed legal early on and one choses to not get one at that point and 2. assuming at some point during pregancy later one the fetus is a person, has the mother agreed to this obligation by getting to this point?

              3. Only ignorant people like Fraulewin Nikki, could say anything as totally DUMB as that!

                Pay attention: The conflict is between the woman’s unalienable right to Liberty, and the fetal child’s unalienable right to Life.

                Do you know what unalienable means?

          2. Thanks John, that is exactly my point. There is no “objective” or scientific argument “proving” the humanity of anyone, since that is purely in the realm of meta-physics. Man, woman, child — “humanity” such that it imbues rights is not a scientific or naturally-observed quality.

            1. Do you hear that everyone? TiT said he has no demonstrable rights and that we can kill him. Warty can rape him, then kill him.

              Human rights as a non-falsifiable statement. I’ll let that sink in.

              1. Do you hear that everyone? TiT said he has no demonstrable rights and that we can kill him. Warty can rape him, then kill him.

                Only Tony has ever gone down that road, during one if his “rights only come from the government” rants.

                1. No, I believe in rights as metaphysical constructs but they are not objective and observable in the same sense as, say, the rules of physics.

                  1. Wait, life has no observable and objective data? Economic transactions are metaphysical? Movement doesn’t involve physics? You can prove that you own me and thereby control me?

                    Do tell.

                    1. Sure it does. If you want to go down that road JW, I don’t think you are going to like the answer. Fetus have brain activity and react to stimulus. Looks like life and rights to me. What about you?

                  2. Ummmm (laughing) Are the LAWS (not rules) of Physics guaranteed by a Constitution?

              2. Man, woman, child — “humanity” such that it imbues rights is not a scientific or naturally-observed quality.

                True, but irrelevant. Saying that the definition of humanity is axiomatic does not lend credence one way or another to a particular definition.

                1. Saying that the definition of humanity is axiomatic does not lend credence one way or another to a particular definition.

                  That’s my point. You can’t at one point claim that a woman’s personhood is “proved” in a way that is untrue of a fetus in a scientific sense, and sense this is the first premise of Epi’s argument the rest cannot follow since it starts from a false premise (the “provability” of personhood).

                  1. I am amazed every time at the abortion rights defenders failing to understand that their argument is the one throwing human rights in general under the bus by demanding that there be an exception to the general principle.

                    1. I’m amazed at people like you, failing to understand how pro-lifers also throw human rights under the bus by demanding an exception to Gog-Given Rights.

                      Many of them defy the Word of God … in the Name of God. Hmmmm.

          3. Missing the point? There is no point, this is just increasingly-ridiculous obfuscation. It is axiomatic that adult homo sapiens are human beings, accordingly with agency and rights. It is disputable that fetuses are the same, because they are completely, biologically dependent upon the mother for existence.

            1. they are completely, biologically dependent upon the mother for existence.

              Not after viability they are not.

            2. Once they reach viability this is no longer true.

            3. It is axiomatic that adult homo sapiens are human beings, accordingly with agency and rights.

              “Because I said so” doesn’t cease to be ridiculous because you call it an axiom. There is no biological basis for human rights. You don’t develop rights at some point of gestation like you do, say, lungs, a heart, or a brain. And if agency is the determinant of rights, infanticide and eugenic killing of the mentally handicapped become justifiable on the same basis. You win one internets if you actually have the balls to apply that logic consistently. Most don’t.

        3. Here’s the kicker, though:

          The agency of a woman cuts both ways, as agency entitles both rights AND responsibilities.

          What’s her responsibility for unprotected consensual sex that got her pregnant? None at all? Or is there a responsibility to live with the consequences of her decision to have unprotected consensual sex?

          I just don’t think the woman’s agency really helps either side in this dispute.

          1. I don’t think it’s unfair to accuse the feminists of really wanting women to be able to enjoy their rights and freedoms without responsibility or consequences.

            The disconnect between saying a woman has not consented to being a mother by getting pregnant but the father has (and thus must pay child support) makes that obvious.

          2. Your argument only works is you define “responsibility” as bearing the child. Not bringing an unwanted child into the world is just as responsible given the non-objective definition of responsibility.

            Is having to have an abortion not a consequence?

            1. The unwanted child is already in the world; the decision is whether to kill it.

              1. Sorry, not going to argue with a liar.

            2. Not bringing an unwanted child into the world is just as responsible given the non-objective definition of responsibility.

              I can tolerate legalized abortion for that reason, but I am in no way convinced of it’s morality or that it is immoral to prohibit it.

              1. I can tolerate legalized abortion for that reason, but I am in no way convinced of it’s morality or that it is immoral to prohibit it.

                I don’t care if someone finds abortion immoral. I care that people who find it immoral want to use governmental force to prohibit it by violating the self-ownership of an individual.

                That the argument is always drawn into the moral realm is just an unfortunate by-product.

                1. The moral argument is essential since we are weighing the woman’s right to self-ownership with the fetus right to self-ownership. I thought libertarians viewed all violations of rights as immoral?

                  Obviously we can’t go 100% all-in on supporting the woman’s right to control her body since that means abortion in the 9 month of pregnancy would be acceptable. Which doesn’t even get into why leaving the birth canal suddenly gives the baby self-ownership rights when it cannot assert them on its own.

                  1. Obviously we can’t go 100% all-in on supporting the woman’s right to control her body since that means abortion in the 9 month of pregnancy would be acceptable.

                    What would make you think anybody would have a problem with that if they don’t recognize any rights or personhood of a fetus?

                    1. Because he’s not stupid. Somewhat obviously, the constitutional definition of life, recognizes BOTH — (a) the rights and personhood of the fetus AND (b)that abortion is wrong well before the ninth month.

                      But as long as you reject the concept of unalienable rights, and reject the Will of God, you’ll never see what has long been settled. It’s quite elementary.

            3. You know, Suge, you always bring a good point.

              I suspect this circles back to personhood, in the end. “Responsibility” begs the further question of “responsible to who.” Unless someone wants to argue that the pregnant woman is responsible to the father, then I think the only candidate is the fetus/child. You can’t be responsible to a non-person, so we’re pretty much back where we started.

              IOW, positing a woman’s agency doesn’t really help either side or cast much light.

          3. What’s her responsibility for unprotected consensual sex that got her pregnant?

            Why do you keep assuming it was unprotected? No birth control method is 100% effective. Do you only get to have an abortion if you used birth control, or perhaps at least two methods in tandem?

            1. You are equally responsible for pregnancy resulting from unprotected sex and pregnancy resulting the foreseeable failure of birth control that you chose to use.

              If you use birth control with a 5% failure rate, why shouldn’t you be responsible for the 5%? It would be like a poker player saying “Goddammit. There’s only a 5% chance you’ll draw the winning card on the flop, so if you do I’m not paying up.”

              1. Useless bullshit.

                The woman has an unalienable right to Liberty .. since her conception.

                The fetal child has an unalienable right to Life, at conception,

                Among all the screeching here, how many of them deny unalienable rights to either the woman or the fetal child? … on no authority at all? … which is why they spend their time shouting down and bullying others. Bullies are always those who are incapable of reason.

                And how do the self-righteous deny, on their own authority … God-Given Rights? What would Jesus say?

          4. What’s her responsibility for unprotected consensual sex that got her pregnant?

            Her only responsibility is to her sexual partner. What is YOUR responsibility for denying ANYONE their individual rights? And you no doubt also convince yourself that you have some power to impose your views by force. Nope.

      3. How do “we” know that?

        Wow. Just wow.

      4. I understand what he’s getting at. He’s playing devil’s advocate, but makes a fair point. Treating women as if they are the same, despite physical differences, is not something we “know”. It’s something we currently happen to believe, so it makes for a shaky premise.

        1. (in reference to The Immaculate Trouser)

        2. I understand what he’s getting at.

          I don’t. He’s advocating the government use violence against a sovereign individual on behalf of something that may or may not be a sovereign individual by trying to deny the sovereign status of the first.

          If a fertile human female has no sovereign rights, how could it possibly be argued a fetus with a 50/50 chance of being female does? Are all fetuses to be privileged over their hosts on the chance that they might be male and therefore worthy of sovereign status?

          1. Fetuses have concrete rights that can’t be demonstrated in fully formed humans, stupid.

            1. Fetuses have concrete rights that can’t be demonstrated in fully formed humans, stupid.

              Ummm, the woman is a fully formed human, who has unalienable and/or God-Given Rights, in this case a Right to Liberty. Who are you to deny the Will of God? Do you understand the question?

          2. He’s advocating the government use violence against a sovereign individual on behalf of something that may or may not be a sovereign individual by trying to deny the sovereign status of the first.

            You misunderstand. I’m not denying the personhood of anyone; I’m putting personhood in its proper context as a *metaphysical object* which we hold to be true rather than a scientific item on the order of, say, the theory of evolution. We don’t *know* that a woman is a sovereign being any more than we do for the fetus; we believe it to be such due to God or Nature or whathaveyou. Therefore, one cannot use the “proved” quantity of a woman’s “personhood” to negate the rights of the “unproved” quantity. There are ways to argue a pro-choice position; argument from certainty of “personhood” of one party is not one of them unless you would like to provide a scientific proof and definition for personhood rather than a metaphysical one.

            1. If there is no way to prove that rights exist, then how can you justify empowering the government to do violence to one party for the sake of another party?

              Arbitrary preference is not a rational argument either.

              1. That question goes both ways SF. How can you justify the government allowing the mother to murder the child just because the “rights can’t be proven”.

                1. How can you justify the government allowing the mother to murder the child just because the “rights can’t be proven”.

                  The government doesn’t “allow” free people to do anything, John. The government doesn’t own me, however much it thinks it does and despite the violence is can to to me in order to make me comply with it’s whims and dictates.

                  1. The government doesn’t “allow” free people to do anything,

                    If it doesn’t act to protect child it does. If murder is legal, the government most certainly allows me to kill you.

                    1. If murder is legal, the government most certainly allows me to kill you.

                      I thought you were against begging the question.

                    2. It’s not murder. It’s an unalienable and/or God-Given Right. The government is obliged to protect the rights of BOTH the mother and child.

                      Have you never studied the history of our founding?

                  2. The government doesn’t “allow” free people to do anything, John.

                    He thinks governments have rights, so good luck with that battle.

              2. If there is no way to prove that rights exist, then how can you justify empowering the government to do violence to one party for the sake of another party?

                There is no way to prove rights exist, at least as far as I have been made aware. I would love for it to be otherwise; if you have some way of proving it with the same surety and the same means as the theory of evolution I would be open to reading anything you’ve seen along those lines.

                In the meantime, I won’t pretend that it is on that level. I prefer the liberal conception of rights because it comports to my sense of logic, to observable outcomes which I prefer, to my idea of justice, and to my religious views/starting premises that each and every life has intrinsic value and dignity. I believe that my view of government also comports to a generally agnostic viewpoint; let’s have a government small enough that a variety of viewpoints can flourish.

              3. There is a way to prove that rights exist.
                Read the fucking Constitution.

            2. While I respect the argument – it’s the kind of nit I like to pick, myself – it ultimately seems unfair to what Epi was saying. Epi takes it for granted that we all “believe it to be such.” This is the sense in which we “know” it. And, since we all believe it to be such, what follows is (his argument).

              Furthermore, what we commonly believe to be such is not so easily applicable to the unborn child, so we must default to our common point of agreement, the sovereignty of the mother.

              1. Well, I’d hope someone who bitches so much about collectivization (epi), wouldn’t make it a major premise of an argument.

                1. And I don’t think he intended to do that.

                  1. He probably did not, but his argument is based on an irrational faith in a stream of logic that is built on sandy ground. That is, there is common agreement on WHY we believe humans have rights.

                2. It’s not really collectivization. It’s a reasonable assumption to make about a group of libertarians or libertarian-curious folks. If you do disagree with the premise, you can target it. But if your broader counterargument relies on the sovereignty of the fetus, I assume you accept the sovereignty of the woman.

                  1. Fair enough, WRT to collectivization.

                    1. Amazing the vitriol with which people will defend the “right” to chop a future human being into tiny bits with a serrated knife and then suck them out with a vacuum powered wood chipper.

                      Personally, I can’t see how this is not an act of agression, even if you only claim a fetus is .1% human.

                      Question: If your mother was about to hop into a time machine to abort you, would you aggress against her to stop her in self defense, or would you respect her “rights”?

                    2. I certainly wouldn’t stop your mother, PaulW.

                    3. PaulW keeps denying the woman’s fundamental and God-Given right to Liberty. That makes him a thug, which he tries to hide with bullshit language about abortions.

                      Hey Paul! Why do you defy the Will of God like that? Or do you deny the very concept of God-Given Rights. It MUST be one of the two, even to a semi-ratioanl being. Which is it?

                      And if God’s Word exists only at your personal convenience … then why?

                    4. Ummm, he’s already born. Do you really not know the difference?

              2. Epi takes it for granted that we all “believe it to be such.” This is the sense in which we “know” it. And, since we all believe it to be such, what follows is (his argument).

                Well, but that is silly. If he’s arguing that we accept the humanity/rights of the mother based on consensus of libertarians (which, as I’ve stated, is not based on an objective, scientific proof of such), then the only thing he’s said is that a lack of consensus among libertarians should determine how we will handle all cases where conflicting rights are in question, at which point we are no different from conservatives or liberals or anyone else who makes rights contingent on a majority or consensus understanding of them.

          3. He’s advocating the government use violence against a sovereign individual on behalf of something that may or may not be a sovereign individual by trying to deny the sovereign status of the first.

            Stop begging the fucking question. When government arrests me for plotting to murder you, they are using violence against my sovereign individual. What makes that okay is that it is to prevent me from doing the same to you.

            Stop it with the whinny ass “no government violence” bullshit. The issue is what is a person. Whining about government violence is assuming the answer.

            1. Whining about government violence is assuming the answer.

              No, that is the conclusion. You want to use violence against someone who is a person on the behalf of something that may or may not be a person.

              That’s what making something illegal is, John: permitting the use of violence to prohibit it.

              You want to use violence over an uncertainty and I don’t.

              1. No, that is the conclusion. You want to use violence against someone who is a person on the behalf of something that may or may not be a person.

                Says you. We all “may or may not be a person” depending on how you define person. That is the whole question that you and Episiarch keep begging.

                1. That is the whole question that you and Episiarch keep begging.

                  Admitting an uncertainty is not begging the question. Asserting a certainty where there is none is begging the question.

                  1. Episarch wants to treat an uncertainty as a certainty. The result he wants begs the question.

              2. “You want to use violence over an uncertainty and I don’t.”

                Which implies whenever there is controversy about whether a certain classification of humans are people, then the government is prohibited from protecting that class.

                You seem to be assuming the personhood of anyone you think should be protected would ever become controversial. I don’t think the government should ever be in the game writing classes of humanity off as non-persons.

            2. The issue is what is a person.

              BINGO. And there are TWO persons, EACH with unalienable rights. By why right do you deny the woman’s God-Given Right to Liberty … which would be open defiance of God’s Will.

      5. How do “we” know that?

        Is that your final answer? Do you want to call a friend?

      6. YOU MEAN MY WIFE IS NOT A HUMAN?!? We need to have a serious talk when she gets home!

        1. Maybe your wife is More Human Than Human?

          1. My kid really seems to like that song.

        2. Pod people!

      7. I’ve never seen solipsism used as an argument against abortion before. Magnificent.

    4. Does that “indisputable right to control her own body” include the right to cut off one’s conjoined twin, even if that twin would inevitably die? If you swallow the conclusions that Judith Jarvis Thompson wants you to draw from her thought experiment about the violinist with the kidney ailment. (Of course, the twin has a similar right to control *her* own body, which implies rhe corollary right to cut off *her* sister, so I guess the question of who lives and who dies depends on who falls asleep first.)

      1. Does that “indisputable right to control her own body” include the right to cut off one’s conjoined twin, even if that twin would inevitably die?

        Well, if they share, say, a heart, then they would have joint ownership of the heart and neither would be able to deprive the other of access to the heart. Are you implying that a woman consents to “lend” her body to her fetus the moment she conceives? That still leads to the question of “personhood”, because inanimate objects cannot claim property.

        1. Irrelevant, This is an issue where two fundamental rights are in conflict, and both must be respected.

          Under or form of government, for over 200 years, where to draw the lines respecting both rights in conflict can only be done by the judiciary … because state and federal governments (legislatures) are explicitly denied any such power.

          No rights are absolute. The concept of competing or conflicting rights is settled constitutional law. This causes a lot of screeching because BOTH sides of the abortion issue refuse to accept that both the woman and the fetal child have unalienable rights. Both. Equal. Period.

    5. Another look would be this:

      There are 3 options for abortion law.

      1. All abortions are illegal for anyone, anywhere, ever. This has the downside of condemning a small minority of women to death when their pregnancy goes wrong. It also forces rape victims to bear their attacker’s child, and it forces women to carry a fetus to term even if the resulting baby is guaranteed to die shortly after birth. Who could be okay with this?

      2. Abortions are legal sometimes, but only in certain circumstances like those mentioned above. The problem here is that now government is deciding when a pregnancy crosses the line into an area where abortion is okay. Bureaucrats get involved in the process. Who could be okay with this?

      3. Abortions are always legal so long as the mother can find a doctor willing to do it.

      1. Re: some guy,

        Another look would be this:

        1. All abortions are illegal for anyone, anywhere, ever. This has the downside of condemning a small minority of women to death when their pregnancy goes wrong.

        That’s not the case and it doesn’t have to be. That is a completely extreme position not based in logic.

        The body itself – nature – purges a non viable fetus when something goes wrong. We call this a miscarriage. If the body is unable to go through this natural process when “a pregnancy goes wrong,” as you stated, a doctor has the capability and the responsibility to see that his patient’s body (the mother’s) can achieve this result in some other way, either surgically or chemically, especially if the life of the mother is as stake. The fact is that a pregnancy that, barring the prompt intervention from a doctor, condemns a mother to death, is NOT VIABLE and CAN’T BE VIABLE. If the mother decides to risk death, then that would be her decision but nobody has the right to compel a mother to become a martyr. That would be a direct violation of the NAP.

        1. People die naturally too. That does not imply it is justifiable to kill them deliberately when nothing is going wrong.

          1. Also wrong to deny their right to Liberty. Constitutionally, the Right to Life and the Right to Liberty are precisely equal … unalienable means they may NEVER be denied, which makes them equal..

      2. 3. (given the usually innocent human life at stake)…. Who could be okay with this?

      3. We get by just fine with #2 being the case for homicide (e.g. self-defense as an example of justifiable homicide).

      4. “Mass Movements don’t need a god, but they do need a devil. Hatred unifies the True Believers.”
        -Eric Hoffer, The True Believer

        Throughout human history, the greatest moral delusions have been promoted by those who convince themselves they are following a “higher cause” – the Fatherland, the Master Race, the Collective, a God or the Party. The militant self-righteous then convince themselves that they speak for a majority … or that all of humanity is waiting for their message .. which is their excuse for rejecting both conscience and personal accountability. “I AM A TRUE BELIEVER!,” they proclaim.” Their Puppet Masters smile in triumphant glee, and Christ weeps in silent shame.

        For all of human history.

    6. I disagree. The adult, barring medical complications, is inconvenienced for less than a year. Then, the adult can give the child up for adoption and have no further obligations.

      If I read your post correctly, at some point during the pregnancy you believe that the fetus becomes human. The cost, at that point, is a life.

      I posit that the law should err on the side of the unborn child. The reason the politicians can’t agree is that the issue has been politicized, and is no longer a medical issue. If it were a medical issue, then the presence of the characteristics that would indicate a person is dead (see organ donation) would be the standard.

      1. So then, all she would have to do is find a doctor willing to declare that the fetus is “dead”? So you would be okay with early term abortions, when the fetus has no measurable brain activity?

        1. Let me answer your second question first- “yes”.

          In regards to your first question, the medical community has developed criteria to determine if a person is dead for the purposes of organ donation. I would suggest a good starting point would the presence of those characteristics to determine of a human is alive. So, that’s why the answer to your second question is “yes”- because I believe that is one of the criteria.

          1. See this is the kind of answer I can get behind. Brain activity starts around 12 weeks, IIRC, so all abortions would be legal during the first trimester.

            But then what if the pregnancy starts to threaten the mother’s health/life later on? Who then decides whether the threat is sufficient to warrant allowing an abortion? This is not the kind of decision I am comfortable taking away from the mother and her doctor.

            1. If you or I find ourselves in imminent danger of being killed by another human being – even unintentionally – then it’s not necessarily a crime to kill them in self defense. If an oblivious steamroller driver is about to crush me to death, I might be able to justify shooting them to avoid being killed.

              But we don’t just take people’s word for it if we have any choice, because people lie all the time. Say it’s discovered that am lying — I could easily have just stepped aside, the steamroller was actually stopped, I’d previously killed three other steamroller drivers — then there’s a pretty good case that I knowingly committed murder.

              Likewise, if we’ve really decided that brain activity at 12 weeks is the criteria that makes a human being, then we’ve committed to providing protection for that human being from an arbitrary death. Even if the killer is the mother, or a doctor.

    7. It is human always as indicated by its DNA. When it becomes a legal person with rights is in dispute, but not it’s humanity.

      1. True, but I think Episiarch’s point is clear, even if technically/semantically wrong.

    8. In such a scenario, we must err on the woman’s side

      For how long? Algebra?

      Its a serious question, when are we sure its a human and suddenly have rights to protect? Why is your point not just as flexible?

    9. “It’s very, very simple. We know that grown women are humans with agency. What we do not know is when a fetus becomes “human”. No one can agree on this. Every attempt to do so has difficulties and problems.”

      Do newborn babies have agency? Downs babies? Premature babies incapable of survival without intervention? There are serious people who will argue that they do not. If “no one can agree”, should we assume that they do?

      1. Episarch’s argument (somewhere above) is that, at that point, it doesn’t matter whether the newborn has personhood or not, since the mother isn’t being forced to care for it (she can just give it up for adoption, leave it at the hospital, etc.).

        So since the “don’t kill it” position doesn’t involve trampling anyone’s rights any longer, it’s no longer unreasonable.

        1. That’s not entirely true. Yes a kid can be given up for adoption, but up until the point of giving it away, parents are legally and socially obligated to provide for their child. I can’t just suddenly decide I don’t want a kid and then stop feeding it and let it die.

          The child-parent relationship is a thing that is obligated, and if there is actually such a thing as natural law, then I would expect this relationship to fit within it as well.

    10. So what you’re saying is that if there’s disagreement about the existence of a right, then the right does not exist.

      You could justify nearly any violation of rights by a government with that logic.

    11. There is zero dispute on when a human fetus becomes a human. The debate is about whether or not it’s wrong to terminate a human life that is dependent on another for survival.

      1. (yawn) The issue is that the woman has an unalienable right to Liberty. It’s an issue of conflicting rights which, by definition, must be resolved by the judiciary. The Ninth Amendment denies any power here to both the state and federal governments.

    12. There is zero dispute on when a human fetus becomes a human. The debate is about whether or not it’s wrong to terminate a human life that is dependent on another for survival.

      1. The debate is about whether or not it’s wrong to terminate a human life that is dependent on another for survival.

        (lol) That has nothing to do with anything at all.

    13. DNA says it is human.

    14. That’s a stupid “sky daddy” thing. Supposedly even atheists, so they say, can be moral agents too.

      You don’t *have* to believe in God to condemn prenatal infanticide, but I agree it helps.

      Whose body is it? We ask the geneticist, send him some DNA. No, this DNA sample is related to (the mother’s) but, no it is not the same person, nosiree.

      The only *rational* basis to decide is just that. I’t’s scientific.

      IRONICAL: The top of the web page features a “Southern Motel” sign.

      THEN the rest of the article proceeds to do exactly what the Old Slave South did: It doesn’t matter that we kill them or beat them because those humans are not human.

    15. The people who oppose abortion usually don’t share your uncertainty about the humanness or personhood of the “clump of cells” (one wonders at what point a human being at any stage of development from birth to death ceases to become a “clump of a cells”; this may be the most scientifically illiterate meme in the abortion debate). You can’t project your own terms onto everybody else and then declare the debate over because your opponent failed to convince you.

    16. “What we do not know is when a fetus becomes “human”. No one can agree on this. Every attempt to do so has difficulties and problems.”

      That’s total nonsense which has nothing to do with the underlying principles of unalienable rights.

      If you’re still confused, the fetal child is only one of TWO individuals, both of which possess unalienable rights, endowed by a Creator. Thus, both extremes of the abortion issue defy the Will of God, and of our Founders.

      Humankind will likely always suffer self-righteous thugs, manipulated by corrupt leaders.

  7. There are pretty much continually new state efforts to limit abortion access in America.

    Terrible lede. Never go full Marcotte.

    how limited must abortion access become before it ceases to exist in any legally meaningful way? I guess that’s what we’re all going to find out soon.

    Wouldn’t that be a shame.

    I have to say, this doesn’t bother me — and it wouldn’t bother me if I were pro-choice, either. I’m not a vegetarian, but I believe it’s appropriate for India to have its moral principles on the issue codified into law given that this is an issue where principle will vary dependent on starting premises which are entirely compatible with libertarianism. So too it is with abortion.

    1. I’m not a vegetarian, but I believe it’s appropriate for India to have its moral principles on the issue codified into law given that this is an issue where principle will vary dependent on starting premises which are entirely compatible with libertarianism.

      Such as?

      1. “Some subset of the animal kingdom has the right not to be harmed/killed.”

        AFAICT, this does not conflict with any libertarian prerogative.

        1. Property rights are not a libertarian prerogative?

          Also, who gets to decide which subset of the animal kingdom is entitled to rights?

          We come again to the same sorts of conundrums as abortion.

          1. Yes, I would agree that the two issues are very similar.

          2. Property rights are not a libertarian prerogative?

            Ive yet to see any natural law description of where property rights come from that I accept. I side with Mises. We just have to close our eyes, draw a line and go from there. Its also siding with Henry George a bit. And, shudder, a bit utilitarian.

            Its why I can morally support the SLT. Its the only tax I can support.

            1. Ive yet to see any natural law description of where property rights come from that I accept. I side with Mises. We just have to close our eyes, draw a line and go from there.

              Completely agree, I have rarely seen a libertarian concede this.

              1. Concede?

                I think that word has connotations that are entirely out of place.

                1. Fair enough.

              2. I thought it was self-evident.

                Hate the state! Fade away, fade away…

              3. Then you don’t know many libertarians. The Natural Law argument for property rights derives (originally) from the individual having improved the property, thereby creating its value. This was obviously also the basis for our own “homesteading” provisions; where ownership was created by the act of farming the land.

                There was also a later Timber Act which required the planting of trees to assume ownership.

                That also works if we assume communal ownership of unowned land, because the community is enriched by the development of its lands. One of our original colonies, I forget which, began with communal property but did not prosper until they used homestead grants to create individual property owners.

                This was best detailed in a series of colonial history books by Murray Rothbard, a pioneer libertarian.

            2. Yep, I’m with Mises/Hazlitt/Hume on this issue as well. It’s ultimately all conventional. I think Anthony de Jasay’s arguments, grounded in epistemology, give libertarianism more rigor.

    2. that this is an issue where principle will vary dependent on starting premises

      Only under moral relativism.

      You claim that fundamental human rights are based on one’s NATIONALITY???

      “Codify” refers to LAWS, NOT Constitutions. DUH India has no more right to impose Hinduism than Americans have to impose Christianity.

      entirely compatible with libertarianism.

      Moral relativism has never been a factor within libertarianism. (Thank God)

  8. Damn, too many uses of “abortion clinic” in this piece. The proper term is “reproductive health center,” and saying “abortion clinic” over and over is an attack on women.* You Koch-funded pro-choicers can’t even get the language right!

    * (Yes, I’ve actually seen a leftist make that argument.)

    1. Aren’t the Kochs pro-abortion though?

      1. I’d find it hilarious if they were, because it would mean that progressives’ main current boogeymen (the Brothers Koch and Ms. Atlas Shrugged) actually agree with them on their most sacred issue.

        1. In the 1980 vice-presidential election, David Koch was very pro-choice.

        2. Kochs are very pro-choice, pro science, etc.

          Remember, this is mostly about them having the right to make a few more bucks by polluting more. They don’t like the rules and regulations which apply to their 115 billion per year business.

          In basically every other important issue (other than environment, etc.) they are with we liberals.

          That includes women’s rights, pro-choice, gay rights, anti-war, pro-science, anti-creationism, etc.

          They make a few exceptions which put big bucks in their pockets. As an example, they fund anti-science and seeding of doubt groups when it comes to climate change – even though they are educated scientists themselves and know the score.

          Very convenient. They pick and choose based on what does them personal and corporate good.

          You won’t find them blabbing too hard about their pro-choice views, though – and they often simmer down on the anti-war stuff, because they don’t want to offend a large part of the base (evident from this comment thread) who somehow believe they are ideologues.

          Putting it more simply, they have bought our government in just the way Jefferson, Adams and other feared that large businesses might.

          1. That’s an amazing crock of shit.

      2. Pro-abortion-rights, yes. (I’ve been assured by pro-choicers that “no one is ‘pro-abortion.'”)

        1. No, indeed, not even the abortionists themselves! They all wish they could go out of business for lack of demand!

        2. I find it comical that pro-choicers are not pro-abortion. They say things like “abortion should be safe but rare.” Why rare? If it is truly a clump of cells like a tumor you are removing, it is worth celebrating when someone has a successful surgery to have them removed. People could proudly proclaim “I beat pregnancy” in much the same way they say “I beat cancer”.

          1. I think most pro-choicers who aren’t pro-abortion are politicians.

            1. I’m pro-choice, anti abortion.

              I have an unplanned kid on the way.

              But I see people all the time that I think should have been aborted.

              1. If you like the idea of it AT ALL, how could you say you’re anti-abortion? It seems like a contradiction to me.

                1. Poor framing of a failed joke.

                  I’ll show myself to the door.

          2. And the straw men continue apace.

          3. Why rare?

            Because it is still a surgery that carries risks. Saying that it should be legal to sew a severed limb back on is not an endorsement of severing limbs.

            1. And, of course, you can think something should be legal / not be barred by law, yet still think it a crummy or ultimately immoral thing to do in most cases.

              1. This is what I was getting at… why is it immoral or crummy? If it is just cells, then it is not immoral nor crummy. If it isn’t just cells, it is most certainly immoral and crummy because it would be murder – and thus should absolutely be illegal.

                1. So all killing is murder?

                  Maybe it’s a crime of passion? Lots of other things it could be, even if illegal.

                  Quite a jump to declare it’s murder and that the gubment should come get the woman and throw her in jail for life (or would you prefer the death sentence?).

                  Big Gubment, indeed. You should listen more to your Koch masters. They know the score (are pro-choice).

          4. If it is truly a clump of cells like a tumor you are removing, it is worth celebrating when someone has a successful surgery to have them removed. People could proudly proclaim “I beat pregnancy” in much the same way they say “I beat cancer”.

            But no one would say they’re pro-cancer, or that cancer should be anything but rare.

            Or to bring in another medical procedure: I certainly believe anyone should be able to have their appendix removed, but I would hope appendectomies are rare. I would never call myself either pro- or anti-appendectomy. If you need one, get one, but I hope you don’t need one. That doesn’t mean I think your appendix has rights.

      3. Yes they are. Just heard somebody on NPR telling the host that the Kochs in the 1970s were regarded as bad boys on the “Right” for that and other things.

        At a recent meeting with the Kochs:

        “Take today’s conference call on the subject, conducted by Common Cause, featuring such liberal luminaries as former Clinton Labor secretary Robert Reich, disgraced former Obama official and Center for American Progress scholar Van Jones and his colleague Lee Fang, and DeAnn McKewan, co-president of California Nurses Association (yeah, I hadn’t heard of her either)” – From
        http://www.weeklystandard.com/…..37485.html

        1. Your link says nothing of the sort, and is the exact opposite of your claim.

  9. I guess they will have to open their slaughter houses someplace else.

  10. Republicans: Small government advocates who hate regulatory burden.

    1. Just giving the leftists a taste of their own medicine, in response to that SCOTUS puts on state legislatures with respect to abortion laws.

      1. It’s fucked up to fight a culture war in ways that actually hurt real people.

      2. Awesome. So abandoning principles is OK if you are doing it to fuck over someone else.

        I can’t imagine why the GOP can’t understand my objections to voting for it.

  11. I’m not so sure that its more of a geographical reason than it is a political party reason. Even northern states like North Dakota, Ohio, and Wisconsin (with GOP Governors) have tried to pass measures that limit access to abortion.

    And later this year the Supreme Court will decide on a case that will eliminate buffer zones around abortion clinics, which would allow direct face to face confrontation with women entering a clinic. Seems most think the SC will eliminate that buffer zone.

    1. But the assumption is that this is a southern thing.

    2. Well, it’s the Southern states that are having the most legislative and legal success with these laws right now + had less clinics to begin with.

      1. Mitt Romney once said he would be delighted to sign a bill that would ban all abortions (he did try to walk that back). And the GOP contender who came in second to Romney (Santorum) has said the same. One was a Governor in Massachusetts, and the other a Senator from Pennsylvania. But both were/are prominent in the GOP. The similarity is party affiliation, not geographic.

        I don’t think its hard to figure out what direction this party would take the entire country in regard to abortion if given the chance. And it would NOT be to increase access to a woman’s right to abortion.

      2. Let us suppose that states A and B pass identical restrictions on abortion. in state A, there are several clinics which are able to comply with the restrictions. In state B, none of the clinics can.

        Is it possible that the same regulation would be constitutional in state A but unconstitutional in state B?

    3. I’m 100% sure.

      It’s a political party reason and those on the right and conservatives are the ones pressing the issue.

      Quite simple really…..

      As you say “states with GOP Govs”. That’s called political and conservative (todays definitions).

      I know this stuff screws up many of the so-called libertarians – who, if they dared to look, would find that liberals like myself are much more like them than the bible thumpers who want to dictate everything to everyone.

      1. You don’t have to be a bible thumper to want to dictate everything to everyone – as you of all people should be keenly aware. I’ve never had a bible thumper tell me how much salt, soda, transfat, or gasoline I could have. Or how much money I can make.

        I know this stuff screws up many of the so-called leftists – who, if they dared to look, would find that conservatives are much more like them than the libertarians who do not want to dictate everyything to everyone.

        1. Yes, because the right to make 15 billion as opposed to making 14 billion (and using the other to install scrubbers on the industrial smokestacks) is sacrosanct.

          Ideally, the Kochs should be able to do away with any pollution scrubbing equipment and just dump their stuff in the river – like they used to do before they got fined a couple hundred million!

          Funny how y’ll care so much about clumps of cells at some time, but care much less about the cancer cells that are created by the puppet masters afterwards.

          I guess the important point there – as experts have always said – it’s impossible to point to a cancer and prove that a particular smokestack caused it! Yet we know, all told, that millions of people are sickened and die from man-made pollution.

          The corporation is a marvelous invention. Just imagine if the Kochs ever really had to pay the cost of cleaning up all the vast piles of junk they litter our landscape with.

        2. Actually, both left and right have authoritarian elements, which has been the focus of the Worlds Smallest Political Quiz for over 30 years.

          In other words we have the Santorum/Bachmann (and Paul) fascists on the right and the Obama/Pelosi fascists on the left.

  12. “If all the clinics in a state have to close, I think a judge will have to call that an undue burden”

    So a standard which some abortion clinics meet in one state could be constitutional, while the exact same standards in another state, where there are no complying clinics, would be unconstitutional?

    Abortion jurisprudence is not exactly very rigorous, but having the constitution mean one thing in one state and another thing in another state?

  13. What in the world is the rationale for denying any doctor “admitting privileges” at hospitals in the first place? If a doctor shows up with a sick patient, a hospital is going to deny them entry, because he’s not on the right list? Because he practices too far away? WTF?

    1. Politics and bills like this, I think. Some admin at the hospital can get off on denying a doctor he doesn’t like access and the politicians can try to legislate morality using it.

    2. I believe admitting privileges implies that the doctor may on his own word admit a patient to the hospital, i.e. have them placed in a bed and under direct medial supervision for the treatment of a condition. You don’t need a doctor with admitting privileges to just show up at the ER and process through triage.

      1. Put another way, the hospital may not want to grant to arbitrary strangers the ability to bypass triage.

      2. That’s exactly how it works. Having second hand experience of gaining admission priveleges via the wife, it goes something like this.

        You make application to the hospital to be able to admit. You go before a board comprised of other doctors with priveleges at the hospital who examine all your credentials looking for exactly what I dont know. If you’re up to snuff, as long as there are free beds, you can put people in the hospital under your care.

        If you don’t have those priveledges, any patients of yours that need to go into the hospital will have to find another admitting doctor or go through the ER.

  14. This is entirely a matter of cultural squeamishness.

    In pagan days, people who didn’t want to feed an illegitimate or female or crippled or otherwise undesirable baby would abandon it to be eaten by lions. After Christianization, we decided that was infanticide and was unacceptable. All right, fine. In more recent times, the authorities demanded that no fertilized implanted embryo should ever die. We decided that was a violation of the woman’s rights and was unacceptable. All right, fine.

    So let’s say that an infant may be killed as long as it hasn’t been born. No, wait, there’s no difference between a newborn and a baby that’s about to be born. All right, how about two days? Well, there’s no difference between a baby that will be born tomorrow and one that will be born two days from now either. And in the entirety of pregnancy, there’s no date at which a baby on day n is different from a baby on day n-1 or from a baby on day n-2. But yet the baby on its birthday – 1 is totally different from that baby on its date of conception +1.

    So we have three options.
    1) Try to resolve Zeno’s paradox by attempting to make a logical decision about when a fetus in utero becomes a human. But that’s impossible.
    2) Say that no fetus is a human until birth and they all may be killed. But we’ve decided that’s unacceptable.
    3)Say that all fetuses are human and none may be killed. But we’ve decided that’s unacceptable.

    Do you understand why abortion discussions bore the shit out of me?

    1. 3)Say that all fetuses are human and none may be killed. But we’ve decided that’s unacceptable.

      Not all of “us.” There are millions who seem fine with using violence to stop abortion at any stage of fetal development.

      Hugely and wildly out of proportion to those who advocate position 2, in fact.

    2. Oh, and
      4) Allow post-birth infanticide.
      5) Chain all women of childbearing age in basement sex/birthing dungeons.

      1. I’m astounded you dropped “the Warty option” to 5.

        1. Saving best for last, obviously.

    3. Warty puts it better than I ever could. The whole debate comes down to the existence of a magical and, let’s face it, basically arbitrary line, where on one side a proto-child is “just cells” and may be destroyed with impunity and on the other it is “human” and has a right to not be destroyed.

      And everybody just wants to scream until they’re red in the face about how where they arbitrarily decide to draw the line is SO OBVIOUSLY CORRECT and the people who disagree are just CRAZY.

      1. I only see one side screaming about how they are obviously correct in this thread.

        1. I only see one side screaming about how they are obviously correct in this thread.

          You only see what you want to see. Most people are having a fairly calm discussion for such a heated subject. You are the one sniping and whining from the sidelines like a sniveling turd.

          It reminds me of someone. Gee, I wonder who?

          1. You’re a joke. If someone doesn’t agree with you, you accuse them of being a sockpuppet or try to tar them by comparing them to tony.

            You’re projecting. A lot.

            1. cool story, bro.

        2. Of course you do.

      2. I don’t think people who disagree are crazy, just mistaken. Not the same!

      3. Consciousness is nothing more than electrochemical reactions occurring in nerve tissue, free will is a myth, and life has no meaning nor even a firm definition. Maybe you should squat more.

        1. free will is a myth

          You know there is only one logical response:

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnxkfLe4G74

      4. The only thing that really riles me about this discussion is the assumption that legal = endorsed.

        I can recognize a problem and yet also realize that the best answer to solving it is probably not the state.

        1. It depends on whether we support the idea of a state which had the responsibility of protecting human persons from aggression.

          If we support that, we then *must* decide

          -who qualifies as a human person entitled to protection, and

          -what constitutes aggression

          IOW, these questions need to be confronted and answered, not shrugged off because it’s difficult.

          1. You are talking about intentions, I am talking about actions.

            1. ?

              1. You are saying questions must be answered, I am saying that those answers don’t have to come from the state.

                It is better to do nothing than do the wrong thing.

                1. I’m positing a state which tries to protect human persons against aggression.

                  Given that premise, yes, it is absolutely necessary to define human person and aggression, and if abortion turns out to be aggression against a human person, the state is *obliged* to ban it.

          2. If we support that, we then *must* decide

            *Already* decided. Over 200 years ago. I doubt we’ll be repealing the Bill of Rights any time soon.

    4. The only thing most people agree about on abortion is that you will never change another persons mind about it.

      1. Let’s see…Norma (“Jane Roe”) McCorvey changed her mind – she’s now pro-life. If the plaintiff in Roe v. Wade changed her mind, others can too.

        1. Not predicting who will or won’t change their minds, just saying it’s possible.

          Oh, and I used to be a choicer, as well.

        2. She’s not a Supreme Court Justice, so wholly irrelevant.

    5. This This This. Including the boring part. Nice, Warty.

      1. Pretty much the only reason I participate at all is because I know Epi will be a dick while being an idiot about biology. I’m not even trying to change his mind on the resu, just use the right terms. Though I suppose I could treat his holier than thou (no pun intended) rants the same way I treat OM’s feeble argument on the other side.

        Also I occasionally comment to point out that being pro life and libertarian is entirely consistent (depending on when you think the NAP starts to apply) when the author assumes that prochoice is the only libertarian conclusion.

        1. I’m here so I can learn new insults, like “retarded cup of dog piss”. And I’m hiding from a meeting.

        2. I’ve come to the conclusion that Epi is a narcissist and needs to admit that to himself.

          When he lashes out at full retards like the statists on the left, I understand that. When he lashes out at a group of people who are generally friendly with him and have similar beliefs, it just shows how incredibly fragile his ego is and how scared he is to be wrong.

    6. Re: Warty,

      1) Try to resolve Zeno’s paradox by attempting to make a logical decision about when a fetus in utero becomes a human. But that’s impossible.

      It’s not impossible. Nobody has been able to refute my personhood argument based on the perfunctory contradiction in denying someone’s personhood. I have yet to see ONE single refutation.

      Here’s the argument:
      *I* am a person. Denying it is a contradiction for who is stating that conclusion if not A person?

      *I* am a human being. Unless I wasn’t one (if I were an alien, for instance) then denying this would also be a contradiction.

      If *I* am human and A person, then other humans MUST be persons as well. Denying this would be denying my own personhood and my own argument. This goes the same for other humans who attempt to deny my personhood or some other human being’s personhood.

      Thus, I have NO right to deny the personhood of another human. PERIOD.

      Is a human fetus or a human embryo a human? It ain’t a lion, that’s for sure.

      I’m waiting for the refutation. If none is forthcoming, it means y’all are engaging in fallacious rhetoric by appealing to “women’s rights” and other red herrings.

      1. Yes, you accept no refutation of an argument in which you control all the axioms. Airtight.

        Is a human fetus or a human embryo a human?

        John, the resident expert on begging the question, will be strangely silent on this statement.

        1. Yes, you accept no refutation of an argument in which you control all the axioms. Airtight.

          I fail to see the problem. I refuse to argue from axioms I disagree with. Thats just logical wanking. It might have been fun back when I took the symbolic logic course, but that was for a grade.

          1. Then why argue anything at all? Why are you even on the thread or the board? 🙂

            1. Some of us share axioms, so we can argue about what conclusions come from them.

              And to make fun of people with different axioms.

              1. The Axiom truly is the jewel of the BnL fleet

        2. Re: sugarfree,

          Yes, you accept no refutation of an argument in which you control all the axioms.

          If they’re axioms as you concede, then they’re under the control of NOBODY, sugar. Thye’re called self-evident truths for a reason, not OM’s opinions.

          But g’on, please – please tell me you’re not a person. G’on, please. For me?

          John, the resident expert on begging the question, will be strangely silent on this statement.

          I don’t know what this means at all and seems more like convenient distraction. The fact is that the product of the fusion of a human egg and a human sperm cannot be a fish embryo or a tomato seed, and after a few months the embryo and then the fetus becomes a human baby and not a tree or a wallaby. So the question stands: Is a human embryo or a human fetus NOT a human? Then what is it? Is it a NON human? How can then a HUMAN mother hold a NON human something inside her womb? The only things my wife’s womb has ever hold inside were our two sons and, last I checked, they were both still human when I dropped them at school.

          1. I reject your axioms as being self-evident. Defining a fetus as human is begging the question, as is defining a human as someone with automatic personhood, as is always deciding a conflict of rights to the same party.

            If rights are absolute and never in conflict, then killing someone who is threatening your life is always murder. Defending yourself is always the same as assault.

            Are you a pacifist?

            1. Re: SugarFree,

              I reject your axioms as being self-evident.

              Is it not self-evident that you’re a person? Is it not self-evident that you’re a human? Who am I talking to, then? Who’s making the assertion, a machine? A tree? A Muppet?

              Why do people make these facile contradictions? Is it because you want to have a leg up on the conversation? Is it that important to you that you would forgo logic and reason like that?

              Defining a fetus as human is begging the question,

              I don’t ask you to assume a human fetus is a human to conclude then you can’t kill a fetus. A human fetus IS a human because it can’t be a giraffe fetus or zooplankton. A human cannot beget a NON human.

              a human as someone with automatic personhood,

              Yeah, that’s a difficult one. I thus assert that YOU are NOT a person.

              See how easy it is?

              1. When you employ something resembling logic and reason, I’ll be happy to argue about it. All you have are a jumble of assertions that you think are proven by a triumphal tone and God on your side.

                1. Re: SugarFree,

                  When you employ something resembling logic and reason, I’ll be happy to argue about it.

                  Oh, crap. What a clumsy cop-out.

                  Are you Tony’s evil brother or something?

                  All you have are a jumble of assertions

                  They’re not assertions. They’re axioms. Unless, of course, you can prove to me that you’re not a person. Then my axiom will be refuted and I will concede that you are not a person, but something else.

                  1. Nitpick: If it can be refuted, it’s not an axiom. Axioms are unprovable, i.e. they can be neither proved nor disproved.

                    1. Re: kbolino,

                      Of course they can’ be refuted. Even if SugarFree were a MARTIAN, the axiom still stands; it would simply NOT apply to Martians, only to humans.

                    2. Meta-nitpick: anything, including things usually thought of as axioms, can be proven with the right set of axioms. A statement becomes an axiom when you choose to assume it without proof.

                    3. Re: Hydra,

                      However, asking SF to prove the axiom wrong is still an enjoyable taunt.

            2. Defining a fetus as human is begging the question

              No, it’s not. Defining a fetus as a rights-bearing person would be. There’s a difference, and it would be nice if the terms weren’t conflated (often intentionally).

      2. If *I* am human and A person, then other humans MUST be persons as well. Denying this would be denying my own personhood and my own argument.

        The negation of material implication is material nonimplication, not alternative denial.

        In other words, rejecting that humanity implies personhood simply means that humanity does not imply personhood, not that humanity implies a lack of personhood.

        Put another way, you could be the only human who is also a person and that would not be a logical contradiction.

        1. Nice. Simple and succint.

        2. If I had bothered to read this far down the thread I could have saved myself 5 minutes. Well put.

      3. If *I* am human and A person, then other humans MUST be persons as well.

        Here’s where you went wrong. I am a human and a male, but that doesn’t mean that other humans MUST be males. There are other criteria that make them males.

        In the case of personhood there are other criteria that make a human a person. We can argue about what that is, of course, but I like to think that self-awareness makes something a person. For example, a brain-dead human is still a human, but not a person. That’s why it is legal and moral to pull to plug on them. An embryo is still a human, but not a person. That’s why it is legal and moral to eject them from the womb with the mother’s permission.

        Furthermore, even all persons don’t have equal rights. For example, children don’t have the right to free association or speech or religion. While they may have the right to life, they don’t have the right to a caretaker.

        1. Person rights vs. Human rights. Pretty bad time for those declared non-persons.

    7. Actually, abortion traces to ancient times when it was done with herbs, and was not condemned by Catholics until very late in the 16th century. (Other Christian denominations later)

  15. Can someone remind me again why it’s okay to bear a child who hasn’t consented to live, but not okay to shut that process down?

    1. The hubris it must take to yank a soul out of non existence, into this meat. And to force a life into this thresher.

      1. Genauso, buddy.

      2. Damn, I liked that show.

    2. To play Devil’s advocate–and I say this as someone who generally believes that giving a person life is not typically a kindness–the former option gives the hypothetical child “who hasn’t consented to live” the option to opt-out later at the time of his/her choosing.

      1. the option to opt-out later at the time of his/her choosing.

        But the people who most want to use violence to stop abortion also advocate using violence to prohibit suicide. So this is clearly not an argument they can employ.

        1. Also, how many years of suffering are we justifying on the basis that you can kill yourself later when you finally get old enough to carry that out?

          1. I’m not sure where you’re going with this logic, Nikki. Do you believe that having a child is itself an immoral act of aggression?

            I am purely asking for clarification, please don’t think I’m trying to put words in your mouth.

            1. Do you believe that having a child is itself an immoral act of aggression?

              It really depends on the day. I think it is, at the very least, far more morally fraught than most people do.

              1. This. This so much. And this is coming from someone who actually wants to be a parent. There are certainly immoral ways to bring a child into this plane of existence. Abortion can be merciful. Individuals should be able to weigh their own moral choices free of state coercion.

              2. I doubt that. This kind of debate is evidence that the issue is very morally concerning to all of us and the abortion argument in general is fundamentally about the responsibilities associated with conceiving a child.

                1. The CPS is an example of what happens when “there should be a law” people care about this, as well.

                2. Is it morally concerning to you that people reproduce?

        2. That’s certainly true for the vast majority of people on the pro-life side who adopt the “abortion is wrong because it makes baby Jesus cry” position, but not the “abortion violates the natural rights of the nascent child” position. The latter is the one I was attempting to explain; the former seemed obviously irrelevant to a libertarian in-fight.

    3. who hasn’t consented to live

      Okay, now the devolution of the argument has taken place on both sides. Add that to the women-don’t-have-agency thing.

      BTW, per your/Epi’s arguments abortion at t-1 minute is not infanticide, correct? (Or is justified due to the rights conflict / imbalance)? I just want to make sure I get that right.

      1. Whether it’s “justified” is up to the people doing it. I don’t really care whether it’s called “infanticide” or not.

        1. Hm. I’m sorry for being unclear. I will rephrase:

          Does your argument maintain that the rights conflict with which Epi started this godawful thread is still in existence even 1 minute prior to birth? Or are you switching to a different justification at that point?

          1. It’s entirely possible that the rights conflict could exist right up until the time of birth, depending on the medical circumstances. There may also be different justifications at that point depending on the broader legal situation.

    4. That argument doesn’t make any sense. It’s extremely obvious to everyone, regardless of where you stand on abortion, that a baby can’t consent to most things that an adult can. Life happens before consent.

      1. Uh, yeah, that would be my point.

        1. So your point is that if you can’t consent to something you don’t have the right to it? That’s…different.

          1. My point is that I don’t know why we assume being born is better than the alternative. Which is kinda a major premise of being pro-life.

            1. Boy, you’re a rather evil cunt, aren’t you?

              1. Boy, you’re a rather evil cunt, aren’t you?

                And you’re a retarded cup of dogpiss that fucks his mother in the face, so let’s not assume you have any sort of moral high ground.

                1. Over someone whose argument can justify the killing of, well, pretty much everything? Yeah, actually, I do have the moral high ground here. Sorry if your girlfriend is an evil cunt, Galahad, but that’s your problem, not mine.

                  1. Over someone whose argument can justify the killing of, well, pretty much everything?

                    Nikki can defend herself just fine from the feeble likes of you. But it really has no being on the objective fact that you’re a retarded cup of dogpiss that fucks his mother in the face.

                    Does she even know who your father was? Or did she tell you that you were her magic Jesus baby?

                    1. That’s really the best you’ve got? Sad.

                    2. That’s really the best you’ve got? Sad.

                      So she doesn’t know?

                    3. See, that’s slightly more inspired. Not terribly so, but it has a shade of cleverness to it.

                      BTW, are you consenting to live? Just want to make sure I don’t accidentally murder anyone, but only kill those who aren’t consenting to live. I guess I could just pick off the kiddies as they come off a school bus and I’d be morally in the clear.

                    4. Does she know or not, tuff gai? I’m sure it was a hazy weekend of being a cum dumpster, but surely she can at least make an educated guess.

              2. Nah, she’s not. But, it appears she is suicidal.

                Nikki…maybe talk to someone about this. And, I’m not being a smart alec. I’m serious.

            2. It’s a major premise of any sort of morality that doesn’t sanction murder.

              If you have no knowledge of consent for either living or dying, how can you select the second option? Or is consent for dying unnecessary in your worldview?

            3. I don’t know why we assume being born is better than the alternative.

              So I like you Nikki and all. But Yikes. Don’t all of our moral foundations fall apart after that?

              1. I guess it all depends on what those foundations actually are. My morality is not based on assuming life is better than oblivion. But that doesn’t mean I’m not aware other people believe it is, or that I don’t believe I should respect their preferences.

                1. In the real world you have to deal with situations where explicit consent is unknown or unavailable, and you have to select a default.

                  A woman walking down the street in a dress has not consented to the dress covering her butt, so by your logic a guy is totally justified in walking behind her and lifting it up to expose her butt. I would say that in the absence of explicit consent either way we must assume she doesn’t want her butt exposed, but I’m not enlightened as you are.

                  1. A woman walking down the street in a dress has not consented to the dress covering her butt

                    If she’s wearing the dress, of course she’s consented to it covering her. There are actual ambiguous situations but this ain’t one of them.

                    1. woman wearing dress == consent to cover her
                      person living != consent to live

                      I don’t get it.

                    2. I never said people who were alive hadn’t consented to live. I said nonexistent beings were unable to consent to it.

                    3. OK, I appear to have misunderstood your premises. So it’s open season on anyone who’s unable to legally consent? Not only children but severely retarded people, drunk people, sleeping people?

                    4. severely retarded people

                      I can see why you’d be worried.

                    5. I have no idea who can consent to what, which is why if someone tells me they do or don’t consent to something, I take them at their word. The idea of “legally consent[ing]” is irrelevant to me. But from absolutely none of this does “open season” come anyway. All I know is that if I decide to reproduce, I’m generating a new person who might not have accepted his existence, and that’s a big fucking moral gamble on my part.

                    6. What “nonexistent beings” are you talking about? Fetuses do exist. Now, at what point they become human is impossible to pin down, but none of that has fuck-all to do with any “consent to live” nonsense. An infant is no more capable of consenting than a fetus. A preschooler is no more capable of consenting than a fetus. I know Reason commenters love to engage in this kind of self-indulgent, esoteric wankery but give me a fucking break.

                    7. A baby hasn’t consented to live, and can’t give consent. Is it therefore okay to kill babies?

                      Same goes with puppies.

                  2. Oh, and the “default” — leave people the fuck alone.

                    I don’t know what’s so hard to understand about that, on a libertarian message board, but okay.

                    1. It’s so hard, because the minarchists among us believe that one of the governments jobs is to protect the rights of those who can’t protect themselves.

                      Who is more defenseless than a fetus?

                    2. But now you’re contradicting your initial point.

                      Can someone remind me again why it’s okay to bear a child who hasn’t consented to live, but not okay to shut that process down?

                      Shutting the process down is not leaving people the fuck alone.

                    3. I love the whole method thing, Grundy, you’re really getting into character.

                    4. But forcing you to live until you’re old enough to kill yourself is?

                    5. But forcing you to live until you’re old enough to kill yourself is?

                      What’s wrong with erring on the side of letting the person decide if they want to live or not?

                      You don’t see the problem with assuming they don’t want to live because they haven’t consented to it?

                      There’s a shit ton of rights that you could conceivably violate due to silence on the part of a person incapable of expressing an invocation of those rights.

                    6. You don’t see the problem with assuming they don’t want to live because they haven’t consented to it?

                      I think both assumptions have problems. But for some reason most people only think one does.

                    7. It is more one side’s problems are ridiculously outsized compared to the other. If you assume no one would give consent to live, you have a moral imperative to destroy everyone before they can give consent.

                      One way gives the possibility of eventual consent, the other does not.

                    8. But forcing you to live until you’re old enough to kill yourself is?

                      Thereby preserving your choice until it can be taken willingly and with full agency.

                    9. What’s wrong with erring on the side of letting the person decide if they want to live or not?

                      And, though I answered it above, it involves potentially years of pain and suffering. Potentially decades. And that’s all on my head as a mother.

                    10. I respect you, Nikki, and enjoy your comments, but I honestly find your concern over something so metaphysical absurd.

                      It would weigh on your conscience to bring any child into this world because it cannot, a priori, have consented to exist but it would not weigh on your conscience to abort a fetus that could have lived a very happy and successful life?

                    11. It would weigh on your conscience to bring any child into this world because it cannot, a priori, have consented to exist but it would not weigh on your conscience to abort a fetus that could have lived a very happy and successful life?

                      FFS, the last thing I want to do is put words in Nikki’s mouth, but she already answered this:

                      I think both assumptions have problems. But for some reason most people only think one does.

                    12. I’m not even sure how to approach this it’s so messed up. Suffice it to say, there are things that happen due neither to force nor consent.

                    13. Except the people that haven’t consented to live. The hell with them.

    5. You seem to be assuming that the child hasnt consented to live.

      I claim no knowledge as to whether that is true or not.

      Does lead, to me, an interesting theological question:

      Are souls more analogous to lines or to rays?

      1. That’s why I like you, robc. (I’m being serious.)

        1. For which part?

          The part where I destroy your axiom or the math question?

          1. I don’t believe in souls, but you took it where it goes if you do.

      2. I’m curious about this too.

      3. Could God give himself a dick so big that he couldn’t fuck his own ass with it?

        1. This question has plagued philosophers since Greek times.

      4. It begs the question of how we know that anyone has consented to live? I would say we know based on the fact that they haven’t tried to kill themselves. So shouldn’t we presume the same of an infant?

        1. How do we know that anyone has consented to be governed? I would say we know based on the fact that they haven’t moved to Somalia yet. So shouldn’t we presume the same of an infant?

          1. Didn’t you say above that you take people at their word regarding consent? Except fetuses, because they can’t tell you, so you presume they haven’t consented.

            This sounds like the kind of logical conundrum Tulpa or Bo (but I repeat myself) would invent.

      5. Souls must be like rays because if they were lines there would need to be a finite number of souls. But personally I think souls are more like line segments that branch into other segments.

    6. People would disagree about the exact age when a child becomes capable of any sort of legal consent, but let’s take an extremely low guess of 1 year old. I don’t think anyone would believe that is too high.

      So you’re arguing that it should be okay to kill children less than 1 year old.

    7. So has a two-year-old, “consented to live”? If not, can we shoot them? At what stage of development does one consent to live?

      1. And what about really stupid kids – they can’t consent to live, right, so we can kill them at any time, all the way through adulthood.

      2. If you don’t know whether someone has consented to something, you’re supposed to leave them alone. NAP and shit, you know?

        1. This post kind of contradicts this one:

          Fr?ulein Nikki|5.22.14 @ 12:36PM|#

          Can someone remind me again why it’s okay to bear a child who hasn’t consented to live, but not okay to shut that process down?

          Wouldn’t you say?

          1. What do you care what an evil cunt thinks?

            1. I thought she could defend herself just fine from the feeble likes me, Galahad?

              1. She can, cuntdrip. I was just curious.

                1. Curious? Curiosity kills, you know. I hope for your sake that you’ve made your consent to live widely known!

          2. Why is “bearing you and rearing you” more “leaving you alone” than the alternative?

            1. “The alternative” being ending your life? Yeah, I’d say the alternative is a tad more intrusive.

              1. I’m sure you would feel super intruded upon if you had never been born.

                1. Unless there is an afterlife you won’t feel intruded upon if somebody up and shoots you because he doesn’t like your hairdo, either.

            2. affirmative actions are the anti default.

              if rape is good, then everyone must constantly be raping to be good. if not raping is good, then everyone must constantly be not raping to be good.

              as per individuals, the default morality is to not act on others. to not change their state.

              morality is the absence of action, not the positive affirmation of action.

              this morality is the basic fundamental nature of interpersonal ecology.

              if it wasnt like this, we would have constant busy work obligations as per our peers. imagine how many thank you cards you would have to write for all the times you went to warty’s dungeon…

              and every time you were writing a thank you card it means you weren’t tied up in his dungeon. thus depriving him of being a ‘good’ person.

    8. Because it is. Don’t be an idiot.

  16. “due to a new and medically uneccessary requirement that abortion doctors have admitting privilegess?permission to admit patients?at a nearby hospital. ”

    I have nothing to add to the abortion topic, but as someone who deals with regulations of medical providers … welcome to the party, pal.

  17. That epi guy is pissed.

    1. Yes, switch to another handle. That will throw off the scent.

      1. u mad 2?

        1. If you disagree with him, you must be a sockpuppet.

          1. The libertarian way!

        2. ARE YOU ME?!

          1. I love it when Tulpa argues with himself. It’s so convincing.

            1. “I don’t agree, so TUPLASDLFSFASFD!”

              1. “I don’t agree, so TUPLASDLFSFASFD!”

                1. SQUIRRELZ!

            2. I believe BilboTeabaggins is not Tulpa.

              Tulpa prefers very unimaginative handles from pop-culture implying danger and badassitude: hydra, tulpa doom, rollo, etc.

              Bilbo Teabaggins is a weird attempt to make fun of the tea party republicans, presumably intended to imply that they are a bunch of pumply teenagers living in their mommy’s basement, fapping to scenes of Galadriel and Aragorn declaring their love for each other. Of course that’s nonsensical if you give it any thought, and only makes sense in terms of pushing emotional buttons.

              My money is on Mary. Cognitive deficits and nonsensical button pushing is her trademark.

              1. Oh. That hurts.

                I don’t think I’ve trolled anybody, but glad to hear that anyone who has a slightly different on libertarianism is labeled as a traitor and sockpuppet. You must have a lot of faith in your beliefs.

              2. My money is on Mary. Cognitive deficits and nonsensical button pushing is her trademark.

                OK, I can see that. It does have the bomb-throwing, retarded “snark” and epi-obsession that is usually a sign of an infection.

                1. Teabaggins was inviting people out to meet for drinks yesterday. Not a troll MO that I’ve seen yet.

                  I mean it’s possible, but I would need more evidence than I’ve seen to assume he isn’t a regular commenter.

                  1. SF is sour.

                    1. Can’t tell if you and Teabaggins have a spontaneous anti-SF pact or are speaking with one voice.

                      That latter would change my vote.

                    2. Maybe we don’t like being accused of being Tulpa.

                      Who could have guessed!

                    3. Maybe we don’t like being accused of being Tulpa.

                      If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and argues like a retard…

                    4. Whomever Baggins is, poloniusium is obviously Tulpa. The last few days have made that clear.

                      Tulpa is approaching Edward-levels of handle-hop trolling.

                    5. Right, there’s no way two separate people could both take issue with SF’s childish, insulting, glib behavior on this thread.

                      For the record I’ll state that neither one has anything to do with me, not that you guys care; and frankly I enjoy seeing such self-styled judges of social skills as yourselves jeer and accuse any newcomer who doesn’t obey the party line. Good luck with growing the community with that attitude, fellas and others.

                    6. Hydra|5.15.14 @ 9:15PM|#|?|filternamelinkcustom

                      I am not Tulpa. I am not anybody.

                      Lying cunt.

                    7. I am not Tulpa. I am also not Hydra, and you are not SugarFree. I am not anybody.

                    8. Lying cunt.

                      Hydra|5.15.14 @ 11:31PM|#|?|filternamelinkcustom

                      I have a hard time believing that people who post here actually behave this way in real life. Epi would be starving in the street rather than living the high life of a superstar address parser if he called anyone he disagreed with a retard and accused them of sucking dick of whatever group they disagreed about.

                      Yes, because not Tulpa is going to reference an argument with Episiarch from 2011.

                      Your reputation is shit around here because of your rampant lying and cop-sucking. But keep up your persecution act. It’s very entertaining.

                    9. Unsurprisingly you have problems with the “reading comprehension” area of human endeavor. A librarian with such difficulties seems like the butt of a bad joke, but it makes sense with your profession needing Dewey to invent a special labeling system to keep your books organized.

                    10. Unsurprisingly you have problems with the “reading comprehension” area of human endeavor.

                      Yes, insulting me totally makes you not a lying cunt, Tulpa.

                      #tulpaisalyingcunt

                  2. Jesse, that’s what he wants you to think. It’s brilliant!

                  3. Teabaggins was inviting people out to meet for drinks yesterday. Not a troll MO that I’ve seen yet.

                    Unless she’s preparing for what I’ve always suggested she will do at a meet-up.

              3. That’s Arwen and Aragorn, you Neanderthal. Galadriel was … oh, forget it.

                1. BilboTeabaggins and poloniusium,

                  While we may disagree, I’m sorry I had to use you to draw him out. Tulpa obviously scans the threads for any mention of himself, so I had to pick on some new handles to rile him up, so I could prove, like I have dozens of times, that Tulpa is a liar, incapable of arguing in good faith and not someone who should ever be engaged on this board.

                  Feel free to hate me going forward. I’m used to it.

                  1. That’s actually a decent speech, SF. Implausible as hell — why would you want to “draw out” someone who’s a bad-faith liar? — but we’ll see if people accept it.

                    1. People don’t accept you, but like a herpes sore, here you are.

                      #tulpaisalyingcunt

                    2. And of course, not only were you lying, but you were damaging other people with your lies. Look at the others who adopted your belief about baggins and polosium after you accused them of being sockpuppets.

                    3. .

                  2. While we may disagree, I’m sorry I had to use you to draw him out.

                    So you admit to arguing in bad faith and lying?

                    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

                    1. Yes, I did. Unlike you.

                      Hydra|5.15.14 @ 9:15PM|#|?|filternamelinkcustom

                      I am not Tulpa. I am not anybody.

                      But I’m not 100% convinced that they aren’t you, Tulpa. Because you’ve been caught running so many puppets and lying about it. You shit the bed and now you are whining about the smell.

                      Of course, few of us think this is puppetry and handle-hop trolling is a recent development on your part. Care to run down how many other handles you’ve hidden behind, you sniveling coward?

                    2. You think I give a shit what you think about me? I would have been gone from this place years ago. Your antipathy long predates the Rollo incident; it was just an excuse for you to disqualify my arguments and shut down any newcomers who disagree with you by claiming they are sockpuppets.

                      The effect of your childish paranoia is not to harm me but to harm the community. I seriously doubt your ego is capable of understanding that though.

                      Maybe you should learn focus on arguments instead of the names attached to them. You’d be immune to sockpuppetry once you master that.

                    3. Your antipathy long predates the Rollo incident; it was just an excuse for you to disqualify my arguments and shut down any newcomers who disagree with you by claiming they are sockpuppets.

                      Hydra|5.15.14 @ 9:15PM|#|?|filternamelinkcustom

                      I am not Tulpa. I am not anybody,

                      Rollo was Tulpa. So are you still saying you aren’t Tulpa? Like you did less than an hour ago?

                      Hydra|5.22.14 @ 2:01PM|#|?|filternamelinkcustom

                      I am not Tulpa. I am also not Hydra, and you are not SugarFree. I am not anybody.

                      Oh, you sad little liar.

                    4. Suffice it to say I don’t think you understand my post. I also said I am not Hydra.

                    5. Hydra|5.15.14 @ 9:15PM|#|?|filternamelinkcustom

                      I am not Tulpa. I am not anybody.

                  3. So you shitposted to bring in a shitposter, while trying to destroy other people’s reputations.

                    Thanks for the contribution, asshole. May you never make another one.

                    1. Thanks for the contribution, asshole.

                      You’re welcome.

                      I still think you’re a twat and a childish little fuck, by the way. But you may not be Tulpa, so at least you have that going for you.

              4. OK, I have to withdraw my assertion that Bilbo might be Mary.

                I finally caught up on my Hit and Run reading for the day, and I am 99.9999% certain Bilbo isn’t Mary based on the things he says.

                Therefore, I
                a) apologize unreservedly
                b) offer a complete and utter retraction.
                c) admit that the imputation was totally without basis in fact, and was in no way fair comment, and was motivated purely by malice,
                d) deeply regret any distress that my comments may have caused Bilbo, his family,
                e) hereby undertake not to repeat any such libel at any time in the future.

  18. Roe was wrongly decided. It should have been left up to the states.

    1. I disagree, some states would have an outright ban as evidenced as this. This is an attempt at an outright ban. I think the onerous restrictions on abortion cause more harm than good because, let’s face it, those seeking it are still going to seek it. This is not well-intentioned unless you believe that every zygote is a little angel getting sent to hell before it can know the grace of God.

      1. The lack of wisdom of a state banning abortion does not mean that the guys saying its not a Federal issue are wrong.

        Roe vs Wade was an attempt to split the baby and had no basis in law. It’s a terrible decision from the perspective of rule of law, since the Feds have 0 authorization in the U.S. constitution to dictate state laws on the subject of crimes against persons or on probate matters.

        1. This.

          Add to it that the states were already moving towards legalization in some form at the time. Over time, you would have seen some states have abortion on demand and some only allow it in medical emergencies and a whole range in between.

          Also, Roe has made an absolute mockery of the Supreme Court nomination process.

      2. I must have missed the barbed wire fences that adorn our state lines, preventing seekers of abortion from traveling to a state where they can legally purchase the dead baby they seek.

        1. It’s not just state lines. According to the article, some woman from East Bumfuck, Georgia might have to drive all the way to Atlanta for a medical procedure. And that inconvenience, apparently, is a gross civil rights violation.

          1. Abortion Deserts!

      3. You’re not wrong that they’re trying to prevent people from having abortions and would ban them altogether if they could, but you don’t do your argument a service by misrepresenting what they are doing.

  19. Did you know that abortion is fatal for 100% of the babies involved!

    1. No it isn’t.

      1. sorry, I was rounding up

        1. Warty is right. The odd one slips through. They then have to bash it on the head. But, technically the abortion didn’t kill it.

  20. TLDR; Could God give himself a dick so big that he couldn’t fuck his own ass with it?

  21. Good, abortions should be banned.

    -It’s intrinsically and naturally immoral.
    -It’s effectively instituting eugenics.
    -It’s an attack on the definition of a “person.”
    -It violates the natural purpose of sex.
    -It’s vile, and damaging to the women involved mentally and sometimes physically as well.

    1. 2 is false.
      1,4,5 are irrelevant, or at least should be to a libertarian.

      3 is where you might have an argument, but the problem, of course, is that you’ll have one hell of a time convincing everyone else of it.

      1. Please expound on why you think number 1 is irrelevant. I’m neither agreeing nor disagreeing with his statement but curious as to your rationale on why morality is of no import. Wouldn’t most libertarians define violations of property rights immoral?

  22. I hear there’s virtually no long term emotional trauma for the baby though! Thank goodness

  23. One question I have about these regulations: are these special abortion provider only rules or are they just requiring abortion providers to comply with the same regulations any other outpatient surgery center is required to follow?

    If it’s the former I can see a basis for striking down the laws as unconstitutional. If it’s the latter, maybe pro-choice people should recognize how unecessary regulation hurts medical access for EVERYONE and work on getting it reduced across the board instead of trying to get a special carve out for their particular hobbyhorse.

    1. For the most part, they are applying ASC rules to abortion clinics (defined, generally, as any facility that performs more than X abortions a year).

      Where ASCs are licensed, for example, they generally have to have a transfer agreement with a hospital and often have to have a medical director who is on staff at the hospital.

      Whether these new abortion clinic requirements are mirror images of ASC requirements, I couldn’t say, but they are of the same type, at least.

  24. This entire article is a nice example of the conversion of negative rights (“the state may not prohibit you from having an abortion”) to positive rights (“the state must ensure that you have easy access to an abortion if you want”).

    Disappointing that a libertarian publication, which should know that positive rights are anathema to liberty, would participate in this conversion.

    1. It’s not like the providers went out of business on their own accord and someone is demanding the state finance or operate new ones. The states in question are deliberately trying to drive the existing providers out of business.

      I don’t see how this isn’t a negative rights issue.

      1. Maybe you should talk to your fellow leftists about getting rid of regulation on all medical-related businesses and professions?

        1. You mean like my comment right before this one?

          1. You weren’t talking to leftists.

            For some reason your general oppo to medical regs lies dormant, only shows up in the context of abortions.

            1. Again, where have I advocated for increasing medical regs? This is like the third time this week you’ve accused me of advocating things I’ve never advocated for.

              Just because you’ve decided I’m responsible for the voices in your head doesn’t mean I’m actually saying any of those things.

              1. Hi Stormy Dragon,
                Much as I sympathize with your desire for freedom from medical over-regulation, as a Devout Scienfoologist I must urge you to study the Wisdom of Scienfoology on these matters. In the golden-olden days, people stoically said, “The Lord Giveth, the Lord Taketh Away, Blessed Be the Name of the Lord”, smeared some Vaseline into their hieny-holes? The Germans call it “Wiener Schlider” instead of Vaseline, apparently for good reason, did you know that?… And took it in their shorts? Stoically! Bravely! We would ALL be SOOOO much better off today, need SOOO much less Prozac, if we would just LISTEN to Scienfoological Wisdom, and stoically say, “The Government Almighty Giveth, the Government Almighty Taketh Away, Blessed Be the Name of the Government Almighty”, and just keep on marching? Marching to where, only Government Almighty knows, but who are we, to reason why?!?

                1. Anyway, Stormy Dragon, if you are worried about the rights of young sluts seeking abortions, who face the Wrath of Government Almighty, who must face (be raped by) the Shaming Wand before being allowed to have an abortion, in states like Texas? Then? Merely by invoking Sacred Religious Freedom? I do agree with you that abortion-seeking sluts, as well as virtuous wymen, should have religious freedoms? Should be able to offer up their Sacred Religious Effigies, to be Ritually Shamed, by the Sacred Government-Almighty-Blessed Shaming Wand, before getting access to an abortion. To learn more about how to offer access to such religious freedoms to abortion-seeking sluts, please see the Scienfoological Wisdom and Technology embodied in http://www.churchofsqrls.com/sonograms/ ?

    2. I dunno, I think there’s a discussion to be had about some of the points here. When does regulation become unconstitutional, does the different amount of access in different places matter, those are at least moderately interesting ideas.

      1. The regulation becomes objectionable when it becomes a poor substitute for the actual issue at hand. The point of these regulations is to subvert the process by which decisions about abortion and legality are made.

        1. The regulation becomes objectionable

          Awesome!

          Not what I asked or am interested in.

          1. Point taken. And my response was poorly worded and not on topic as well.

            It’s more of my general complaint that regulation has become a poor substitute for legislation. A trend that has only grown over the past 40 years.

            1. It’s the way the government has worked around the Constitution when it can’t find a judge to rewrite it for them.

            2. Thank you for the polite reply, I agree. Hence, my interest in discussing the limits of regulation against the constitution. It is an increasingly important subject, I agree.

              1. Perhaps I could be more clear as well. Where does jurisprudence fall regarding regulation and its limits? What are the important cases? Are there any new ones, and has there been any recent, important movement on the subject?

                Also, I kind of hate the disparate impact doctrine, but since it seems to be at least somewhat accepted, how does it apply to regulation that has a disparate impact, in areas where clinics are scarce vs areas where they aren’t.

        2. Of course, Roe subverted the process by which these decisions about legality are made. This is federalism fighting back against the hubris of SCOTUS.

    3. The states in question are deliberately trying to drive the existing providers out of business.

      So now we’re not talking about a woman’s right to have an abortion. We’re talking about a doctor’s right to perform abortions, right?

      Which is a completely separate and interesting discussion to have. But shouldn’t be conflated with a woman’s right to get one.

  25. 1 question for the “pro-choicers”.

    Is it ok for the woman to mutilate the “non-person” in her womb?

    1. This thread had some discussion about that iirc.

      1. True, but I don’t think I got a good answer to my question. I was giving them another go at the answer.

    2. There are a million questions and hypotheticals you can ask that show the inconsistency of their arguments on this subject.

      They’ll, of course, obfuscate like a left wing statist when you ask these questions.

      It is an ignorant mindset that I really wish libertarians were above. Generally, they get it on every other principle, and they’re consistent. Abortion, not so much.

      In most cases, a libertarian can simply say “would I want that to happen to me” or “would I like to be subject to that” and they come to the correct conclusion.

      But ask them if they would want their mother to have an abortion performed while they were in the womb. Their hypocrisy will shine through immediately.

      1. I look at like this.

        Does murder violate NAP? Yes.

        Is it a govt matter? If govt is to do anything at all, yes.

        How do we define murder? Something like “killing an unwilling live human being who isn’t trying to kill you (or has killed another)”.

        Is it a human being? It has human DNA and will almost certainly become what we all agree is a human being if we don’t end its life.

        But is it alive? The cells are in motion and dividing.

        Is abortion murder? I don’t see how I could come to another conclusion.

        (Note, I didn’t mention “personhood” on purpose. That concept is obfuscation at best. Allowing individuals to kill another live human being because they decided it wasn’t a “person” is a really bad idea, for obvious reasons.)

        1. Is it a human being? It has human DNA and will almost certainly become what we all agree is a human being if we don’t end its life.

          So, no, it isn’t. That’s the thing you can’t bring yourself to admit here, because your premise falls apart, so you think you’ve cleverly constructed a dodge.

          If it is, say it is. It isn’t. That’s why you rely on “almost certainly become” instead of “IS”. You know the truth, and what it does to your argument.

          Now go away, you’re fucking boring.

          1. So if I cut off your hand while you’re studying to be a surgeon, I shouldn’t be liable for your loss of income as a surgeon, because, even though you were getting straight As, there was no guarantee that you’d actually become a surgeon?

            1. He asked a question, and I answered it.

              Your flawed analogy has exactly fuck-all to do with my reply, so fuck off now.

              1. Right, its flawed because:

                A: You’re not intelligent enough to understand it.

                or

                B: You think that saying something makes it true.

                Bro, you don’t have the mental capacity to even show your face on this board. Go back to HuffPo or wherever you came from.

          2. “So, no, it isn’t.”

            Apparently I wasn’t being specific enough for you to understand (or you are obfuscating). If you avoid killing the little one it will develop into what even the most hard-core abortionist would admit is a human being. I know it’s been a human all along.

            It isn’t certain to become a “human” by that horrible definition due to miscarriage or still-birth.

            Next

            1. So, still no.

            2. it will develop

              This is, of course, an admission that is isn’t already.

              Which makes your stupid smugness that much more boring.

              1. So it’s obfuscation then. Good to know.

                Let’s look at the replay, folks!

                “It has human DNA and will almost certainly become what we ALL AGREE is a human being if we don’t end its life.” (emphasis added)

                That means that YOU don’t agree it’s already a human, but that I do. I was waiting until we ALL AGREE and making an argument from there.

                How I must bore you, that you keep responding.

                Next

                1. Is it a human being? It has human DNA and will almost certainly become what we all agree is a human being if we don’t end its life.

                  That was the entirety of the quote. You asked a question and then posted your “answer” which in no way was “waiting until we ALL AGREE and making an argument from there”. What you actually posted clearly shows that.

                  What you are doung is trying to selectively eidt what you actually wrote into something more defensible. That is pathetic and obvious.

                  How I must bore you, that you keep responding

                  So, is this what boring asshole trolls do to make themselves feel like they have control or something? Am I supposed to feel manipulated or acknowledge your power because I’m pointing out how frustratingly, sickeningly boring you are in a discussion on a discussion thread? That makes sense to you?

                  You know the answer to the question you asked. You got caught trying to be more clever that you are and now you look like an asshole, trying to backpedal.

                  SO.FUCKING.BORING.

                  1. Wow, just wow.

                    So I made a true statement (that a little one in the womb will become what we agree is a human) and you think I have to selectively edit that? It’s a true statement. You read into it what wasn’t there because my logic was impeccable and it was the best you could do to hide your inability to argue on the actual points.

                    “So, is this what boring ******* trolls do to make themselves feel like they have control or something?”

                    I only control myself. You are free to leave whenever you like. It seems only one person here is cussing and name-calling.

                    Or perhaps you admit my logic is so impeccable that it has become boring? I’m fine with that. Allow me to bore you into the truth.

              2. Pretty sure the only stupid smugness is coming from you, broseph.

                You’re doing exactly what I predicted you would.

                I wouldn’t even reply to him again, Ace. Perhaps this guy can go circle jerk at Salon with like minded people who use the same argumentative tactics.

                1. Pretty sure the only stupid smugness is coming from you, broseph.

                  Then you’re actually as stupid as your post history shows.

                  1. And this is the point where I actually feel bad for you. It must really suck to be someone like you.

          3. He phrased it that way, not because he was trying to get around his own faulty thinking, but because the whole issue legally is when does a person become a person.

            Zing…you say “You know the truth”. Really? What is the truth, which you write as if it is self-evident?

            I say it is a human. Scientifically, it is a human being. Legally it seems to have not reached personhood. But, biologically – it is human.

            1. He phrased it that way, not because he was trying to get around his own faulty thinking, but because the whole issue legally is when does a person become a person.

              And then he assumed the wrong conclusion.

            2. The truth that a fetus will become a human being barring some act of nature or human intervention?

              I see no issue with that from a logical standpoint. I’ve never seen a woman give birth to a cucumber… Sadly.

              ANYWAY. I think he is saying that if a tree limb falls on your head and kills you, tough luck, if a person bashes your brains in with said tree limb, that is murder.

              1. I’ve never seen a woman give birth to a cucumber… Sadly.

                Google can help with that

              2. I saw a woman giving birth to a cucumber. I think. She might have been vegan because I think she gave birth to a banana, also.

        2. If you really want to get all scientific, and go to the harder sciences, time doesn’t really even exist. Therefore, an abortion is tantamount to murder and violates the NAP because you take all the rights of that person at all points in what our human brains perceive as time.

          Our perception of time is really the only factor that matters. The human capacity to ignore that which we cannot see nor understand is what these people fall back on.

          These people understand value in the future when it comes to economics, but can’t do the same for human life? Because said life is in the future, it does not count? How does that apply to everything besides abortion? It doesn’t, and they will even admit to that in any other circumstance.

          1. WOW! We have a lengthy list of moral apostates who deny a woman’s unalienable right to liberty.

            OF COURSE the fetal child is human, duh. On what authority do you deny the woman’s unalienable right to Liberty?

            Constitutionally, unalienable rights are all equal to each other, in that government has no power to deny ANY fundamental right. Do they no longer teach that in junior high?

            If you believe rights as being endowed by a God, are there any other cases where God takes away our rights? And for how long until He re-endows them?

            Or are fundamental rights to be respected only when it’s con-veeeeen-yent?

            1. Inalienable != absolute, or else my inalienable right to liberty would entail my inalienable right to park my car on your lawn. I have no such right to park my car on your lawn because of your competing right to your private property. That you are so abjectly stupid you can’t understand how rights work is not an indictment of anyone else.

              1. (LOL) NO RIGHTS ARE ABSOLUTE. We learned that in junior high.

                Everyone above the age of 15 knows the two most-common examples.

                1) Your right of Free Speech does not include the right to yell fire in a crowded theater.

                2) Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.

                Do you REALLY not know the difference between fundamental (God-Given) rights and legal (man-made) rights.

                One more time, on what authority do you deny the woman’s God-Given Right to Liberty? On what authority do you defy the Will of God?

                What God has given let no man take away. Mark 10:9

                Repent your sins. Reject the anti-Christ within you. Accept the Lord Jesus Christ as your personal Savior.

        3. Is abortion murder? I don’t see how I could come to another conclusion.

          That’s because you’ve never included the entire concept of unalienable rights, which is true for both extremes in the abortion issue.

          The woman has an unalienable right to Liberty. The fetal child has an unalienable right to Life. NO unalienable right may EVER be denied by ANY level of government (see Ninth Amendment).

          No rights are absolute The right of Free Speech does not include the right to yell “fire” in a crowded theater. Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose. These are call conflicting or competing rights, and can ONLY be adjudicated by the courts, and the courts are constitutionally obliged to acknowledge BOTH rights, in how they draw the line separating them.

    3. Sure, women are allowed to smoke, drink, live near the Koch Brothers facilities, etc.

      They can even rock climb, bungee jump or take part in numerous dangerous activities.

      They are even allowed to breed with older men – even though it is fairly certain that old sperm creates mutations.

      Were you unaware of such?

  26. It’s so funny seeing Epi and SF alienate the commentariat again and again with their childish behavior.

    To quote a wise man:

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    1. .

    2. Yes, we haz a sad because so unpopular. It takes a lying pariah to make that so painfully clear.

  27. What the f…. 354 comments???

    1. This was a good one.

    2. Abortion articles are pretty much guaranteed 100 posts/hr through dinnertime, right?

  28. Re: Fraulein Nikki,

    Can someone remind me again why it’s okay to bear a child who hasn’t consented to live, but not okay to shut that process down?

    You can always ask the child later if he or she really didn’t want to live and then give him or her the number to a good lawyer. In the meantime, you CAN’T ASSUME THE CHILD DIDN’T WANT TO LIVE. You don’t read minds. Or can you?

    1. Oh shit, I’ve gone my whole life without consenting to live. Damn, I better fix that quick.

      I, PaulW, consent to live. Wow, that was close. Glad nobody murdered me before I got a chance to say that, else they would have gotten off scott-free.

      1. *releases hammer slowly*

        Your lucky day, PaulW. THAT was close…

      2. Oh shit, smart-ass. Did you also go your entire life with unalienable rights to Life, Liberty, Property and others?

        Oh shit, how does a woman forfeit HER God-given right to liberty, when she gets pregnant? On what authority do you make such an immoral claim?

        Are there any cases where the MALE loses his God-given rights? Or are we back to the Biblical contempt for women?

        (Abortion was fairly common, even in those dark days of oppression. It was not considered murder, even by a Pope, until the 16th Century, and not legally regulated until the 19th century)

        1. Are there any cases where the MALE loses his God-given rights?

          Jesus Christ but you’re a retard. Lol.

          Nope, certainly no instances where you lose your rights. They’re all 100% absolute.

          1. You just agreed with me. (lol)

            So how can the woman lose her God-Given Rights?

            Ummmmm, No rights are absolute, Slick, because the can come into conflict, which you will learn if you make it to junior high. The common example is that your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose. (snicker)

  29. Wow….

    OK, disregarding the SF/Tulpa thing, there’s still been lots of animosity in the arguments among people that I had thought generally got along well enough. So, just out of curiosity, is this gonna blow over (for the most part), or is it likely that this will carry over into future threads?

    /trying to avoid landmines, argue in good faith, etc.

    1. Aaaaannnnd…Tulpa stole my thunder.

      Shit.

      1. ……OK.

        Is this a test? A “Wanky, I’m just fuckin’ with ya!”?

        1. This place is its own test. If you can tolerate this place, you win. Except for Tulpa. He never wins.

          1. Warty, that’s one of the best explanations I’ve ever seen.

            Thank you for that. 🙂

      2. You’re a Christian, right?

        1. You’re an obsessive cunt with no clue what you’re talking about, right?

          [spoiler]You are[/spoiler]

          1. Hmm, your trashmouth tells me that you too must be a Christian. (snicker)

            Ummm, tell us what you disagree with. I haven’t humiliated you enough on this page.

    2. Adults can argue about things even in heated terms and get over it. John and I have had some viscous arguments over the years and still remain civil.

      Only when lying and trolling appear is true animosity created.

      1. Sure, sure. Given the bad faith that happens on so many other sites, I find it difficult to remember that sometimes.

      2. You and Epi were insulting me in the most childish and grotesque manner possible long before the Rollo incident. Please don’t use that as an excuse.

        You showed your true colors in this thread, whatever backtracking you’re trying to do now.

        1. Hydra|5.15.14 @ 9:15PM|#|?|filternamelinkcustom

          I am not Tulpa. I am not anybody.

      3. Only when lying and trolling appear is true animosity created.

        And does your own admitted lying and trolling in this thread count?

        1. Hydra|5.15.14 @ 9:15PM|#|?|filternamelinkcustom

          I am not Tulpa. I am not anybody.

    3. I have like zero emotional investment in this topic, so I’m good. The only thing I don’t like is when people argue in bad faith.

      1. Agreed. Of course, I wasn’t expecting my clarifying questions to start up more crap.

        Or, call out the bots.

        ?

      2. The only thing I don’t like is when people argue in bad faith.

        Pretty much every abortion thread is just a mass of nit-picking, loose definitions, question-begging and devil’s advocating. Most of it isn’t in bad faith, though. We’re just being sloppy and then calling each other out on being sloppy.

        1. Pretty much every abortion thread discussion of politics on the internet is just a mass of nit-picking, loose definitions, question-begging and devil’s advocating.

          1. Not just on the internet… Have you watched cable news ever?

    4. Reason has a very clear editorial stance on the issue that is reflected by most of the commentariat. If the topic isn’t under discussion then the animosity it generates is usually ignored. But don’t mistake grudging tolerance for cordiality.

  30. its awesome,,, Start working at home with Google. It’s a great work at home opportunity. Just work for few hours. I earn up to $100 a day. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out http://www.Fox81.com

    1. Post of the day.

  31. I’m out, kids. You play nice, now, ya hear?

    1. You have a good day, SF

    2. I’d like to say thank you for totally fucking up and emboldening Tulpa, you provided the crack through which that pathetic fucking slime will ooze, right back onto the board.

      God damn it you’re both assholes.

      1. Are your parents proud of how you turned out? Too bad that you were not raised in a Christian home.

  32. *blows through the door – walks in*

    “So what the fuck’s goin’ on ever’body! You all……”

    *looks around slowly*

    “Tha FUCK?”

    *backs slowly out door – scanning the room nervously*U

    1. Pick a side, or you’re on your own!

  33. So.

    That went about as well as expected.

    1. You thought I was making it up?

      1. No. I remember doing something similar once about a religion/atheism thread.

        I think Eddie is going to be crushed that his missed this, though. And that ENB is probably getting high fives from the Reason staff for the traffic.

        1. I dropped some pearls of wisdom above. But I was pretty much a bit player in the drama.

          1. I must have overlooked them. Sorry to doubt your dedication.

        2. The comment traffic brings in no money. Past comment 50 or so there are no ads on the side.

  34. What amazes me is we regulate everything to the yin yang, but not abortion. As soon as we try to put even the slightest constraint on it, the ‘war on women’ talk starts.

    We don’t say hand railings on decks have to be 42″ or you won’t get an occupancy permit a ‘war on homeowners’. Even though it is.

    There are problems associated with any medical procedure, abortion is not exempt. If the doctor performing the abortion can’t race the pregnant woman to the hospital and work on her, without first having to meet with another doctor who has to be called in, she could die. Or, is that not true? I’m sure the legislators did this to put a speedbump in the way of abortions, but it isn’t outside of what we expect in our regulated society.

    1. What amazes me is we regulate everything to the yin yang, but not abortion. As soon as we try to put even the slightest constraint on it, the ‘war on women’ talk starts.

      You have one opportunity to amend that before I point out that you’re…mistaken and defy you to point to a single place in the US that meets your criteria.

      You know you’re overstating it. I don’t understand why you don’t realize how that makes you look.

      1. I just think it is a dumb argument to make on a libertarian board.

        Regulations are lame. We can all agree on that. Go elsewhere if you don’t like what you paid for. If it is fraud, sue them. Problems solved.

        I like the arguments from an NAP standpoint. Who is being aggressed upon? Who has violence inflicted upon them? Which violence is worse? Where are the lines of self defense? Where does future value play into it?

        1. Paul…I wasn’t arguing on behalf of regulations. I was just pointing out how everything is regulated, why do pro-abortionists believe their area to be exempt?

      2. Oh sorry. I forgot. Everyone on the internet is American. For a minute there I thought I was Canadian, where there are no rules, nothing. The only thing in all of Canada I can think of that has no rules.

        Anyway, I’m glad you reminded me that ich bein un americaner, or whatever it was JFK said.

        1. I didn’t mean for you to take offense.

          1. I haven’t. I’m okay with Reason snarkiness. It is usually funny, and for the most part no one does it give offense.

  35. First off, why is it medically unnecessary to have hospital admittine privileges for an abortion clinic. I know that in my state if I go for a vasectomy at the doctor’s office – or any other outpatient procedure for that matter, they have to have admitting privileges.

    I’m glad that I know now that if my daughter ever needs an abortion, that’s the first thing I’m going to ask.If they don’t have privileges we’re moving on to a clinic or doctor that does.

    Second, compared to most of Europe – France, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Spain and most others – has regulations that are far more restrictive than those proposed in any of these southern states. Admitting privileges are standard around the world and all of those countries have a strict limit at 12 weeks barring a medical necessity. Yet those countries are considered bastions of women’s rights.

    1. Women’s rights start and end at abortion, didn’t you hear?

      Pretty sure these hypocrites could give a shit about what happens in conservative islamic countries. Let’s spend all our resources on continuing the “right” to abort our children because we weren’t responsible in the first place.

      1. (lol) Islamic women don’t have constitutional rights.

  36. The latest is Louisana: The state legislature yesterday passed a bill that could force three to four of the state’s five abortion clinics to close, due to a new and medically uneccessary requirement that abortion doctors have admitting privilegess?permission to admit patients?at a nearby hospital.

    I take issue with these statements. Reason’s own auto correct feature indicates THREE misspellings in this one sentence alone.

    And “b,” requiring admitting privileges to a nearby hospital for docs who perform surgical procedures at nearby outpatient or ambulatory clinics is standard operating procedure. Yawn.

    1. This.

      Why pro-choice libertarians turn into obfuscating leftwingers at the mention of abortion continues to perplex me. Perhaps they learned all of their debate tactics on the subject from the left? Brainwashed by propaganda from an early age?

      Makes me have a sad, really, because I tend to come here as a refuge from that sort of thing.

      1. I think you’re missing the point. The point is EVERYTHING is over-regulated. No one disputes that. Why the fuss from the left when abortion is hit with regulations?

        1. I agree as far as the left goes. Libertarians, not so much. They generally come from a more consistent standpoint than any leftist does.

      2. Speaking of brainwashed … 8th request … on what authority do you deny the woman’s unalienable right to Liberty, as guaranteed by the Ninth Amendment?

        And because these are God-Given Rights, how can you reject the Will of God?

        http://www.law.cornell.edu/con….._amendment

  37. Why is it wrong to insist that abortion doctors have privileges at nearby hospitals. Don’t women who are going in for an abortion have the right to get good medical care and the right to be taken to that hospital in the case of problems?

    1. Good question, but that’s a totally separate issue from the doctor having admitting privileges. If you get hit by a bus, must your family physician have admitting privileges out the closest hospital? Or what if you’re out of town on business or a vacation?

      1. You’re conflating the issues. Emergent care protocols are entirely different than a doc operating out of a stand alone clinic.

        Even in a psych unit setting, physician supervision rules require fairly strict physician supervision over counseling, let alone invasive surgical procedures. In addition, those psych units are generally required to be within 300 feet of a real hospital in case of emergencies.

        It therefore stands to reason medically, that when a doc is ripping and sucking out a small human being from the womb of his/her mother, that basic medical safeguards should be in place.

        1. You’re confusing your bigotry with the Constitution. Where does a women lose her inalienable right to liberty?

          Read the Ninth Amendment. Learn the meaning of “unalienable” and get back to us.

          1. What the actual fuck does a woman’s rights vis-a-vis the ability to procure an abortion have to do with the onerous regulations placed on doctors operating outpatient surgical clinics?

            It’d be nice if they’d do away with the regs on whatever medication it is that could help you.

            1. Wipe the drool from your chin. This is what I responded to, Sluggo

              when a doc is ripping and sucking out a small human being from the womb of his/her mother,

              Why are you stalking me?

          2. Where does one get this unalienable right to an assassin? Even in Roe abortion was not held to be an unalienable right, and it most certainly is absent from the Constitution.

            1. “and it most certainly is absent from the Constitution.”

              Ninth Amendment. Read it and weep.

              Roe was superceded by Casey, way back in 1992.

              Both decisions explicitly weighed the EQUAL RIGHTS of the woman and the fetal child, as required by the Ninth Amendment — which us required for all conflicts of fundamental rights. You’ll learn about it in junior high school.

  38. “If all the clinics in a state have to close, I think a judge will have to call that an undue burden,”

    I italicized the words which will be the point of contention: not whether they closed or would close, but whether they had to or would have to.

    1. This rule can’t cause that. It can just cause them to have to hire a doctor with admitting privileges. Doctors have admitting privileges. They exist. If you have to pay more to get a doctor to come to your clinic, because you’re choosing to be in a certain location, then you have to pay more. If no doctors exist in that State who are willing to perform abortions and are close to your business, your business might close. But, that is life.

  39. I’m sure this excites both Ron and Rand Paul, but REAL libertarians are appalled.

    1. Ah, Mr. Hihn, as a libertarian, I could honestly give a fuck if I pass your purity test, and I’m pretty sure the rest of the people here agree with me.

      You have an unhealthy obsession, you need to get over it.

      1. Your hissy fit somehow concludes that “fiscally conservative and socially liberal (tolerant)” is … EXTREME? The very definition of libertarian is “purity,” to you? Really?

        I have an “obsession” with unalienable tights, and I have no doubt that this page has other faux libertarians like you. Consider anger management therapy, then learn about unalienable rights and the Ninth Amendment.

        Also take the World’s Smallest Political Quiz, which I’ve been giving at county fairs and elsewhere, probably before you were born, for well over 30 years now.

        Go here and educate yourself on the basics of liberty.
        http://www.theadvocates.org/

        Go bully somebody else, thug.

        1. I have an “obsession” with unalienable tights

          That would actually explain a lot. I hope it’s not a typo.

          1. It’s a typo, and your nastiness is a given.

            Have you learned about individual liberty as I suggested?

            And — one more time — on what authority do you deny ANYONE’s unalienable rights? If we agree those rights are God-Given, then why do you openly defy the Will of God?

            1. ? “Mike Hihn|5.23.14 @ 9:14PM|#
              Chickens don’t possess unalienable rights. Not since the last time I checked.”
              Hey Mike Hihn,
              You seem AWFULLY sure of yourself, when you announce who does, and who does NOT, have God-given unalienable rights, and you just mercilessly SLAM the poor chickens! HOW can you slam chickens that way?!?! BEFORE it is too late, I BEG of you to listen to the message contained at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pkdci55adqk

              1. That’s HYSTERICAL! Do you pullet often?
                Thanks for dropping some humor into this hate-fest.

  40. Just curious…does anyone know the Vegan/Peta position on abortion?

    They won’t eat unfertilized eggs, which are essentially chicken menstruation, do they take a stand on the fertilized egg of a healthy woman being killed?

    1. Chickens don’t possess unalienable rights. Not since the last time I checked.

  41. The first principle of health care is “first, do no harm.”

    The first principle of libertarianism is “the non-aggression principle.”

    I’m confused how the many “libertarians” here are unaware of these principles.

    I suppose it’s lost on many born after 1973 that they survived Roe vs Wade and have the ability to actually have an opinion on this divisive subject. 60,000,000 plus abortions and going strong, that’s a lot of “fetuses” that never had the opportunity to exercise the freedom we, you know, libertarians, take for granted. One has to wonder whether if given the chance these ‘fetuses” would “choose” to live or…you know, be killed. Libertarians indeed…

    1. You simply cannot reconcile many of the simultaneous yet inherently contradictory positions posited by Reason and some of the commenters.

      For example, we talk of individual liberty, freedom of contract, private property and due process. With respect to abortion “rights,” who looks out for the right of those who are about to be born? Do we want to live in a world where lawyers determine when a life becomes a “person?” I don’t. And to enforce contracts and private property rights, you have to have neutral courts of justice and a stable basis of law. Both of which require government.

      Don’t get me wrong, I absolutely HATE government. But I tend to be more of a Jeffersonian on most, if not all matters, involving people vis a vis the government. And for what it’s worth, there is no way in hell Jefferson would have been in favor of abortion.

      “The first duty of government is the protection of life, not its destruction. The chief purpose of government is to protect life. Abandon that and you have abandoned all.” — Thomas Jefferson.

      1. Jeffersonian here as well. I’m very much a Paulian, a great man of impeccable Jeffersonian credentials, who delivered over 5000 babies.

        One final comment, it is more than apparent that there is a dearth of classically educated individuals posting here. It seems most could not think themselves out of a wet paper bag. See below.

        1. Please don’t tell me there is such thing as a “Paulian”. As to Jeffersonian, I assume that means you believe in the big government projects of his such as the LA Purchase.

          Hopefully you are not a believer in his budgetary matters (he went broke in his own self-made housing bust) – or his outlooks toward humans as property to work both his fields and his bed.

          But, yeah, I’m with him on the (lack of” God thing and much of the rest. If he would have enlarged his world to encompass other than rich white folk it would have been much better.

          You folks have absolutely no idea how TJ would have voted – we know he supported the chopping off of many heads in the French Revolution, for example.

          It will be a fine day when y’all start understanding that it’s not the 1700’s any longer – heck, Darwin didn’t even come along until much later.

          Give them their due, but learn from what has happened since.

          1. But, yeah, I’m with him on the (lack of” God thing

            Of course, Jefferson was a deist, but, uh, other than that…

            1. Other than that, he’s the one who confirmed the Wall of Separation, although many televangelists claim more credibility than Jefferson, which is like PM claiming more credibility than Jesus Christ. It happens, but only a fool would swallow it.

      2. With respect to abortion “rights,” who looks out for the right of those who are about to be born?

        By “about” do you mean 9 months later?

    2. One has to wonder whether if given the chance these ‘fetuses” would “choose” to live or…you know, be killed.

      My guess is they’d just kind of lie there, having not developed a sufficiently advanced nervous system to conceptualize an answer the the question.

    3. How many sperms and eggs have been wasted in that time?

      Based on your outlook, we should start vast baby making facilities (we can do this) and match eggs and sperms in test tubes and develop ways to grow them from there. After all, life is sacred…..at least until it is born. Then you fight to take away any possible opportunities it has and call it “reason”.

      Ah, I love then the true colors of Libertarians come out. They love to pontificate – but give them an actual decision of policy to make, and they turn into raving lunatics.

  42. Another big win for the Rand Pauls of the world and their conservative brethren. Yes, I know…..the Kochs and others who pull the strings claim they don’t support the American Talibs, but simply put – the Talibs would and could not exist without their money and backing.

    As the Kochs said “Politicians read from a script. We want to write that script”.

    1. The Kochs have no use for the Christian Taliban and are decidedly libertarian.
      Do conspiracy theories keep you awake nights in fear of Chicken Little?

  43. “undue burden” is an interesting phrase in connection with intrauterine murder. Who bears the highest “undue burden” a mother to be that has to travel a thousands miles to be an accessory to an intrauterine murder or the child to be that has to bear the undue burden of loss of life?

    1. So Ayn Rand is 100% wrong?

    2. It’s not murder. The woman has an unalienable and God-Given Right to Liberty. So on what basis do you defy the Will of God?

      Ever read our Constitution?

  44. Should’ve let us go, you Yankee idjits; then you would have had your Infanticitopia that you always dreamed about.

    1. Yeah, except you mixed up your dates. We kicked your asses in 1865 or so and abortion was illegal in many areas of the USA until about 1970.

      So it was highly unlikely Yankees considered your rights to breed when they stopped your “peculiar” institution.

      1. Like I care what a baby murderer thinks.

      2. Lol “we”. Craig was on the front lines, of course. Kinda like when “we” won the 2013 World Series.

        Not mentioning, of course, that abortion was largely legal and unregulated until the mid 1800’s.

        A quick consult with Google could have left you looking like just a moron instead of an uninformed moron.

        http://www.chicagotribune.com/…..1413.story

        1. 1890 — Abortion is regulated by statutes advocated by the AMA, and abortion is permitted upon conferral of one or more physicians who believe the procedure is necessary to preserve the life of the mother.

          ==

          The life of the mother is paramount. All the rest is details.

          1. Unalienable Rights are mere details?? Doctors have constitutional authority?? Are you pre Junior High?

  45. “Then what, indeed?how limited must abortion access become before it ceases to exist in any legally meaningful way?”

    And Brown is just inches away from concluding abortion is a positive right.

  46. Someday, I would imagine, doctors will have the technology to grab any fetus at any stage out of a woman’s body and be able to incubate/gestate it to full term. I’m not sure what this would do to the debate. It’s possible that people will become ok with that procedure (possibly eliminating all abortions) because the technology will make it so that the procedure is quick and painless and the institutions that grab that fetus would then choose to raise that child. What will society think of those who say they want those fetuses disposed of? In way this already happens, women who have fertility issues often create many eggs that are then fertilized. If successful, only a few of those eggs will ever be implanted. The rest of the eggs can be given to barren mothers, be used for science research, or disposed of completely. Personally, I think (like now), it is up to the women to decide where her dna goes – though I imagine in the future, the men will be given the option to incubate/gestate the fetus to term. So when does life begin? I sympathize with those that say at conception. But those eggs have no conscience or soul. Likewise, we may be able to build an embryo solely from one person’s cells – at what stage do we say that embryo is life? It also means that life is no longer some mark of god – would this lessen the religious side of right to life supporters? This debate is only going to become more confusing.

    1. Well as far as I am concerned? I treasure my privacy, so whether I am a Dude or Dudette, I am not telling? But if I were a Dude, I would be holding to a theory that says that every SPERM CELL (especially, those of MINE, My Precious!) has a soul, so ALL of the babes should be lined up as my sex slaves or incubator babes, that NONE of my sperm cells should be denied his or her chance at life! If I were a Dudette, I might be clinging to the idea that my body belongs to me, that I should not be reduced to incubator status? But these are just “theories” of mine?

  47. Good work, thanks Elizabeth @ Reason.

  48. Oh noes! It gets harder to hire an assassin. Why with all these laws against assassins I might have to resort to an out-of-state killer-for-hire to fix this person problem.
    Hiring someone to take care of somebody for you is hiring a hitman.

    1. Wipe the drool from your chin.

  49. Abortion is mostly leftists killing their future – who cares.

    People who don’t want to reproduce shouldn’t. And should be afforded every opportunity not to.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.