Abortion

House Leadership Should Thank GOP Women for Thwarting Anti-Abortion Bill

From a political standpoint, the legislation was baffling.

|

Rep. Renee Ellmers/Facebook

Whether it was conviction or politics that led House Republican women to object, the party's leadership should probably be thankful that they stopped the "Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act" from hitting the House floor yesterday. From a political standpoint, the legislation—which would have banned abortion after 5 months pregnancy—was baffling. After a midterm election spent making Democrat's "GOP War on Women" rhetoric look a little silly, one of the first things Republicans do in the new Congress is introduce federal abortion restrictions? And on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade at that? That's just spiteful. It's exactly the kind of thing that makes popular ideas about the party being anti-woman seem true. 

The reason Republican women* (and a few men) gave for objecting to the measure was a provision excepting rape victims from the ban only if the rape was reported to police. That this was the snafu shows the utter hypocrisy of current anti-abortion politics; either a fetus is something that deserves the full legal protections of children and adults or it is not, and if you think it is, then dismissing these rights in some instances just shows cowardice. But almost everyone was cool with exempting rape victims, there was just controvery over what hoops they should have to jump though. 

"I'm pro-life," Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-Florida) told reporters. But "I'm certainly not going to ever put myself in the position where I'm telling any woman that their account of a rape is valid or not." It's a smart quote with a fundamentally flawed premise. 

But let's look beyond women for a moment. As Peter Suderman has detailed eloquently here before, the GOP looks like a party that is out of ideas. (So do the Democrats, but that's a whole other story.) It's turning off young people like hotcakes, to use an expression that probably still seems hip to many in the party. Everyone know what it's against, but nobody knows what it is for, except for maybe war (and what is that good for? zing!). Nobody expects the Republican Party to unilaterally drop older-conservative red meat like making sure women, gays, and immigrants never enjoy quite as much personal liberty as heterosexuals, whites, and men. But that's a political agenda with somewhat diminishing appeal. Sometimes I'm foolish enough to imagine that maybe, just to hedge their bets, Republicans might want to also lead the way on things like alternative visions of health care or criminal justice reform or goddamn, any number of wacky ideas Democrats aren't—decreasing small-business regulation! letting farmers grow hemp! dealing with Social Security!—instead of endlessly making a big show about restricting women's bodily autonomy.

"This appeared to be messaging bill, and the message that was being sent was not a very good one," said Rep. Charlie Dent (R-Penn.), who helped block the bill. "I would prefer that our party spent less time focusing on these very contentious social issues, because that distracts us from broader economic messages where I think we have much greater appeal to the larger public."

Pragmatism and practical change over extremism and demagoguery? Dent must not be too popular on the Hill. But maybe that's changing? Politico writers suggest "the party's extreme right wing .. is losing relevance at the same time some of the moderates are regaining long-lost gall." 

In lieu of the 5-month limit on legal abortion, House Republicans introduced a bill which would prohibit people receiving federal tax credits toward their health insurance or buying plans through Obamacare exchanges from purchasing coverage for abortion services. The measure passed 242-179, largely down party lines. Rep. Richard Hanna (N.Y.) was the only Republican who voted against it, according to The Hill, while three Democrats—Reps. Henry Cuellar (Texas), Dan Lipinski (Ill.) and Collin Peterson (Minn.)—voted for it. "The new legislation doesn't stand a chance to become law," writes Politico's Jake Sherman, "but House Republican leadership want(ed) to have some sort of pro-life bill on the floor Thursday when the anti-abortion March for Life (came) to Washington." 

* Rep. Renee Ellmers (R-N.C.) and Rep. Jackie Walorski (R-Ind.) led the bloc opposed to the bill.

NEXT: Heathen Arizona Mayor Dares Besmirch All-Powerful NFL

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. Republicans know that living children can feel pain, right? I mean, if they are so concerned with pain, shouldn’t they be requiring everyone to terminate before 20 weeks?

    1. That *is* one nasty bill moniker.

      1. Why they didn’t call it the Viable Preborn Parasite Protection Act, I can’t imagine.

  2. It’s turning off young people like hotcakes, to use an expression that probably still seems hip to many in the party.

    Hey! I bet *many* young people like whatever hotcakes are called these days!

    1. I plan on opening a hipster friendly restaurant called “FM’s house of griddle cakes, flap jacks, and hot cakes”. If you order pancakes you will be thrown out!

      1. what if you ask for maple flavored syrup, instead of fresh tree sap?

        1. Then you are buried alive with a cask of corn syrup to keep you company.

            1. No. Just some Amontillado brand HFCS.

              1. I’m sure it’s got all the nutrients a burred alive person needs.

                1. Buried alive. Buried alive.

                  Also, “For the love of God, Montresor!”

                  1. well, being burred alive is a better alternative to being burred alive, so it’s a winning scenario for me.

                    1. i don’t understand why my autocorrect is changing buried to burred.

                    2. Because “burred” is such a common noun to use. Skynet isn’t quite on the horizon, is it?

                    3. My queation was which one was supposed to be which?

                  2. Entombed, actually. Both are horrible deaths, but with buried alive you’ll smother in probably fifteen minutes or less. Entombed and you die of starvation or dehydration.

                    1. not if I’ve got a barrel of hfcs. that stuff will keep me alive and give me the occasional burst of energy i need to escape.

                      It would be totally hipster to entomb vs. bury alive.

                    2. That’s bullshit. Entombing is not hipster. Crap, can you see any hipster actually going to the trouble to wall an enemy in, brick by brick? They’re too lazy for that.

                    3. no, they will source the brick from local materials and program a steam powered machine to build the wall.

                    4. Yes, well, the victim is hardly hanging around for all of that to happen.

                    5. do you have holes already dug awaiting your corn syrup loving victims? because i figured if I’m waiting for a hole to be dug I can wait for a wall to be built.

          1. Not immured?

            1. Word for the Day! Thanks, Puddin, that is actually a better word and one of which I was unaware.

        2. You can have cane syrup. I don’t know why you would want it but you can have that.

          1. Look, if it’s to be poured on waffles or pancakes, it needs to come out of a tree, preferably of the maple variety.

            1. I so want to like cane syrup but I just can’t convince my taste buds. Damn Canadians win the syrup round.
              *shakes fist at canada*

              1. We can produce maple syrup, too, and don’t actually need a maple syrup pipeline.

                1. But do we have to volume of maple trees we need to supply all the hipsters man!

                  1. No, which is why we must seize all of the northern states, forcibly remove their populations, destroy all structures, and plant billions of maple trees. Serviced by robots.

            2. Sorghum’s pretty damn good on waffles…

              1. I’m not familiar with sorghum. I will try it if I find it.

              2. Donald Duck used to use honey on pancakes in the old cartoons. never tried it… but crunchy peanut butter with maple syrup is amazing.

              3. Fuck Yes! Smear it on my titties!

                1. are you blue?

            3. “Damn Canadians win the syrup round.”

              I’ll take my agave syrup over maple anytime.

              1. Are you some kind of sicko? Wasting precious agave on syrup rather than tequila? Ten years on the wheel of pain.

                1. We have plenty of both here.

        3. As long as it’s locally sourced, organic, fair trade, and cruelty free (whatever that shit means) you’re OK.

            1. what percentage of maple is acceptable? can it be called maple if it’s 10% maple hybrid?

              There ought to be a law.

              1. No, no law. Just repercussions. You know, like entombment.

  3. I’m genuinely curious, ENB:

    What’s your personal take on abortion? Should it be legal right up until normal delivery, with no cutoff for late-term abortions? When does personhood attach to the fetus?

    As an aside, the 20 week cutoff actually reflects (well, kinda) the original SCOTUS position that you couldn’t regulate abortion before viability. Viability is probably more like 22 weeks or so, at this point.

    1. Oh, BTW, your overall point that the Repubs are idiots and should be focusing on shit that matters is well taken.

    2. ‘When does personhood attach to the fetus?”

      When the fetus can be safely detached from the person.

      That is to say that, the mother’s rights do not end at conception any more than they begin for the child. Until medical science allows a mother to elect the ending of a pregnancy without terminating the fetus, I don’t see how you can tell any pregnant woman she MUST carry a pregnancy to term.

      1. “When the fetus can be safely detached from the person.”

        I’m curious what the logic is behind this criteria. If a pregnant woman is murdered, the criminal is charged with 2 counts of homocide, right? Why is it so hard for us to reconcile that, at some point, there is an overlap between the child’s rights and the mother’s?

      2. I don’t think you can say both of these things:

        Personhood attaches to a fetus when it can be safely detached from the mother

        and

        I don’t see how you can tell any pregnant woman she MUST carry a pregnancy to term.

    3. I think a 20 week limit on abortion is a good thing.

      As you imply with your question, RC, at some point a fetus becomes a person. All persons are protected against being murdered by the draconian consequences of said murder.

      Twenty weeks is plenty of time to schedule and execute an elective abortion.

      By the way, I support elective abortions during early gestation (up to 20 weeks at the moment).

      Does this make me a culture warrior?

  4. Abortion is immoral and murder period. The GOP leadership is pathetic for pulling this legislation from a floor vote. How can anyone live with 57 million babies murdered in the womb???

    1. Simple.

      It is not happening to me, so it is not my fucking problem.

      Trying to stop that means inciting the aborters to vote for Democrats, which becomes my fucking problem.

      I am not going to sacrifice elections on the altar of the unborn.

      1. Said the already born person.

        1. well, no one who was aborted has EVER argued against abortion…

          1. Actually, there is a woman who survived an abortion who is a pro-life advocate.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gianna_Jessen

            1. sorry, she wasn’t actually aborted. that’s not how this works. Her abortion failed. had it not, she wouldn’t be arguing against it.

              1. “sorry, she wasn’t actually aborted”

                Feti anren’t aborted, pregnancies are. The pegnancy was terminated; she survived.

                1. well, every pregnancy is eventually terminated.

                  interestingly, “the arrested development of an embryo or an organ at a more or less early stage. ” and ” the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy.”, are both definitions.

                  Also, an abortus is “an aborted fetus.” so if fetuses (correct plural usage) aren’t aborted, what is an abortus?! new mystery!

      2. ^^THIS^^

        Also, one can’t operate under the statement “Abortion is immoral and murder period.” This is a personal values statement that parades as fact and assumes facts not in evidence.

        1. Also, one can’t operate under the statement “Abortion is immoral and murder period.” This is a personal values statement that parades as fact and assumes facts not in evidence.

          So is every other statement of moral significance, defined thusly.

          Murder is wrong.

          Prove the above statement.

          You could go with a deontological argument (assumes any number of things, especially going with a Kantian imperative).

          You could argue consequentialism (which again assumes any number of things which may or may not be true).

          You could go with the ever eloquent “fuck off, slaver” or any number of emotionally based responses (which is not an argument, of course).

          (All of the above applies to abortion, as well.)

          You could stop being a cunt and a chickenshit, and just argue why you think abortion is or is not correct instead of playing this bullshit card as if all of your morality is ironclad fact beyond dispute, whereas other moralities are just the result of people whose beliefs can be written off as personal, arbitrary and non-factual.

          1. i have no morality.

            1. Which makes you an enemy of humanity, because notions like the NAP and human rights are moral concepts.

          2. My morality is subjective, which is why I wouldn’t want laws based on it. However, this nihilist hissyfit you are throwing is meaningless, and there are objective measures on which laws can be based. They are called First Principles, and they apply to any human being. When you can objectively prove that fetuses are human beings, then they can be granted protection of laws, but I’ve never seen it done.

            1. Brain activity, heartbeat, and functioning organs. Is that objective enough?

            2. Human genome. Fetuses have, same as you.

            3. Note to self: Be armed when around HeteroPatriarch.

      3. I agree Michael. I am not willing to sacrifice our Capitalist society — handing it over to the Socialists, to fight this losing fight over abortion. And that is exactly what the Evangelical/Religious Right are doing. Continue this War on Women, and ALL of our children will be living the lifestyles of the 1950s Russians.

      4. A baby in the womb has a beating heart by 18 weeks gestation. I don’t understand people who look at a developing unborn fetus and say that’s not a human being. Even those who do acknowledge that is a human and say they don’t give a shit anyway.

    2. “Abortion is immoral and murder period.”

      It depends what you’re talking about. I don’t think an abortion very early in a pregnancy is murder. There’s really no evidence to support that assertion.

      Now, the people who want to be allowed to get abortions at 25 weeks are pure scum who are actively supporting infanticide. I’d be fine going to a standard like the French have where you’re I believe you’re not allowed to get an abortion after twelve weeks.

      1. But are extremely young infants even really people worthy of rights?

        1. We all know that you’re in favor of murdering babies Cyto. No reason to bring this up every time the subject is discussed.

          1. But it’s not murder if they’re not really people.

            1. Nazi Cytotoxic: “I mean, technically you can’t even consider Jews to be fully human, so is it really a crime to lead them to the gas chambers?”

              1. Zombie Reinhard Heydrich pounds furiously on the table in support of Nazi Cytotoxic’s argument and would like to know if he requires assistance in evacuating these non-humans.

              2. Really, Irish? The Godwin? “Accept my premises or you = nazi!” I guess when the animal rights activists come around and you point out that animals aren’t people, you’ll be fine being compared to Hitler.

                Also, people getting abortions at 25 weeks aren’t out to support infanticide they have pretty good reasons and a bad situation.

                1. OK, try this:

                  Turkish Cytotoxic: “I mean, technically you can’t even consider Armenians to be fully human, so is it really a crime to drive them into the desert to die?”

                2. people getting abortions at 25 weeks aren’t out to support infanticide they have pretty good reasons and a bad situation.

                  Some? Sure. All? I doubt it.

                  1. “Some? Sure. All? I doubt it.”

                    Why should it be your call?

                    1. Hey, I’m not the one making the call that all people getting late-term abortions have pretty good reasons and a bad situation.

                    2. But you are the one making the call that people shouldn’t be allowed to evaluate their own circumstances and make the decisions themselves, because you’ve already decided that the default should be that they have no good reason unless they present one that you find satisfactory.

              3. There has to be a Krieger quote/ Archer reference for this…

              4. That’s dishonest Irish. Cyto may have said some indefensible things about infants, but you’re just projecting there.

                1. You may have missed it, but Cyto has repeatedly said murdering infants is A-OK as they’re not really people.

        2. yes. imo, independent viability (not meaning must be able to get own food, etc.) would make for a common sense threshold. If someone relies on you for life, denying that assistance- or allowing for another to provide that assistance in your stead- is bad news.

          1. This seems more reasonable than most posts here.

            1. well i am more reasonable than most people who post on here, so it follows.

          2. So what would your cut off be? Solids (meaning the baby no longer needs to nurse to survive)?

            Genuinely curious.

            1. no. i think babies can live on formula. there needn’t be a woman in its life for it to survive.

              1. Ah, I hadn’t considered formula.

            2. He doesn’t mean viability based on nurturing, probably just breathing/heart beating. That’s what I gather from his parenthetical.

        3. Extremely young infants who can live outside the womb? Yes.

      2. The logical standard would be brain wave and heartbeat. We use those to determine death, so it seems reasonable to use them to determine the point at which the life can be considered human.

  5. But almost everyone was cool with exempting rape victims, there was just controvery over what hoops they should have to jump though.

    Goddammit, it’s either a life or it’s not. If it’s a life, then you’re a monster for ending it because of the sins of the father. If it’s not a life, then you’re a monster for forcing a woman to be an incubator against her will.

    1. ^ This. Whether someone is raped is irrelevant to the discussion and is only brought up in order to play to emotions.

      If you’re raped but the baby is a life, then you don’t get to commit homicide because something bad happened to you. If it’s not a life, then the fact that you were raped is irrelevant because you should be allowed to do what you want regardless.

      1. You mean killing the baby doesn’t reverse the rape?

        1. It does. time machines run off stem cells and fetus blood.

          1. Fetus blood doesn’t run it, it just lubricates the spiny mental gyroscope things.

            1. The flux capacitor was filled with stem cells?!?!
              /mind blown

              1. Doc brown was a dark man. we don’t want to know his full back story. Plus it was the 50s- they were probably black people’s stem cells so no one cared.

          2. This must be the real reason why some people are so opposed to stem cell research. They don’t want people to go back and fuck with the timeline.

            1. It’s happened so many times before, and we just have to keep going back and fixing what was changed.

        2. I would think having the baby and saddling the rapist with child support in perpetuity would be the second best revenge after murdering their rapist ass.. which you would do the day after the child’s too old to qualify for financial support.

          1. ahahahahahahhahaha! As if rapists have incomes.

          2. Lol, working in the prison cafeteria doesn’t pay a whole lot.

            1. when you punch people do you crouch down and does your fist burst into flame?

          3. Yeah, raising some asshole’s kid for 18 years sounds like really rewarding revenge, because you get to garnish his wages.

            1. No. There is a great demand for adoptable children in the USA, especially infants.

              1. The child support could subsidize poorer couples who couldn’t otherwise afford to adopt and raise the child. There are plenty of couples willing to raise a child in this country. Abortion has increased the demand considerably.

      2. Whether someone is raped is irrelevant to the discussion

        Not necessarily. If you say that a woman exercises her right to choose whether or not to be pregnant when she agrees to have sex, its relevant.

        1. salient point. +1

          1. Those are rare in these threads.

        2. True, but is the argument ultimately whether the fetus is a legal human being or whether the woman has a right to kill it regardless?

          1. It kinda takes a different angle, I think, although ultimately it circles back to the same core issue:

            Laws restricting abortion do not restrict a woman’s right to choose, because she made her choice when she had sex.

            Having made her choice, she has to live with the consequences of being pregnant, because (and here’s where it circles back) choosing again requires ending the pregnancy, which causes damage to others.

      3. “If you’re raped but the baby is a life, then you don’t get to commit homicide because something bad happened to you. ”

        Exactly. The abortion debate is so full of poorly thought out arguments, it’s tiresome.

    2. I agree. The cognitive dissonance on both sides of this issue drives me crazy.

      On the pro life side you have people wanting it banned but okay in cases of rape or incest as if being the product of such should be your death warrant. On the choice side you have women who claim it should be legal but could never have one themselves. Why the hell not? If it is not a life, what is the big deal about getting one? And if it is a life, then why do you want it legal?

      Neither side seems to want to actually face the logical implications of their position.

      1. The exceptions are because most people sort of disapprove of abortion but, at the same time, are strongly against forcing the victims of rape/incest living with the consequence of that crime.

        So some political hack came up with the rape/incest exceptions to thread the needle.

      2. Neither side seems to want to actually face the logical implications of their position.

        John – it is one thing to live by your principles, entirely another to try to legislate by them. The politics of legislation require tortured twists of logic to appear principled while forming a legislative majority.

        1. It is one thing to say “I think it should be illegal in all instances but will take it being illegal except in cases of rape and incest because that is better than nothing and the best I can get”. But that is not what a lot of people do. They actually think it should be legal only in those cases. And that is totally inconsistent with it being illegal at all.

          1. But that is not what a lot of people do.

            It is what they do. It is a compromise to their principled objection for reasons of political expediency. That they adopt the position does not mean that they agree that it is ideal.

      3. Re: John,

        On the pro life side you have people wanting it banned but okay in cases of rape or incest as if being the product of such should be your death warrant.

        Don’t count me in with that mushy crowd. A human life is a human life regardless of how it was conceived.

        A woman has every right to ask for a day-after pill or a shot of estrogen to stop a zygote – conceived by rape – from implanting, which is not the same as an act of aggression against the zygote. But she has no right to kill the zygote once it has planted itself, unless the life of the mother is in jeopardy.

        1. Not everyone is. And I agree with you on that. But a lot of people are and it just drives me crazy.

        2. Zyogote =/= human being, implanted or no. Believing otherwise is completely nuts.

          1. Re: Cytotoxic,

            Zyogote =/= human being, implanted or no

            I then declare that you’re not a human being either, implanted or not!

            Wow, I love this game!

            1. See, now you have to explicitly define “human being”, OldMex. It’s a difficult task and it’s impossible to get everyone to agree on it.

              1. Re: some guy,

                See, now you have to explicitly define “human being”, OldMex. It’s a difficult task and it’s impossible to get everyone to agree on it.

                Why is it difficult? A human being is anybody who IS like me. I was a zygote once, and a fetus once, and a baby – once. A child once, a teenager once, and I will be an old person in 20 years or so. I was ALL those things in my many stages of my life, so anybody who is LIKE ME is a human being: a zygote, a fetus, a baby, a child, a teenager, a man (or woman) and an old man (or woman). I can’t DENY I am human because I would be committing a perfunctory contradiction. I can’t therefore DENY the humanity of a zygote or a fetus or a child or a man or woman. To deny THEIR humanity is to deny MINE.

                1. An old person in 20 years? I feel mislead by your handle.

                2. You were also a sperm and egg once. Do we need to protect all sperm and eggs the way you want to protect fertilized eggs?

                  1. Neither of those things on their own can become a human being, so no.

                    1. A fertilized egg on its own can’t become a human being either. It needs an infusion of energy and nutrients, time and just the right ambient conditions. It needs hormones sent at just the right times to trigger growth. It needs a lot of things that it cannot provide for itself. A fertilized egg is just a blueprint for a human being. It isn’t a human, just like a CAD file of a car isn’t a car.

                  2. You were also a sperm and egg once

                    No more than I was once a star because some of the elements in my body were in a star several billion years ago.

                    I have never been a sperm or an egg. No multi-cellular animal ever is. The sperm was my fahter’s who I have never been and the egg my mother’s who I have never been. MY DNA has always been some combination of the two, I was not me until they combined.

                    I think “Every sperm is sacred” is a funny comedy bit but really, really, biologically ignorant.

                  3. No, he was not a sperm and egg. They merged to create him, but neither was him before that happened.

                3. Furthermore, Old Mex, since you extend the right life to all things that are like you were at conception, then I must assume you extend all other human rights as well. Do you extend the rights of free speech and free association to infants and toddlers? If not, why not?

                  1. Why wouldn’t infants and toddlers have freedom of speech and association?

                    1. Why wouldn’t infants and toddlers have freedom of speech and association?

                      Because parents have to take responsibility for their kids’ actions so they should have some leeway in disciplining them.

                    2. Parents regulating their children’s behavior is not the government enacting legal restrictions against the children’s right to free speech, etc.

            2. Since many zygotes are naturally not implanted and flow out with menses, do you hold services over your wife’s tampons?

        3. WTF, OM? Implantation doesn’t actually change the zygote. It’s never not alive, OM. Yes, preventing implantation is an act of aggression against the zygote, if such a thing as a zygote can truly be said to be subject to aggression.

          1. Re: Tonio,

            Implantation doesn’t actually change the zygote.

            Who said anything about change? I am talking about closing the door on someone (e.g. not allowing the zygote to implant) and letting him or her in (letting the zygote implant). You can close the door on someone you don’t want into your home. That is the exact same action as using the morning-after pill or receiving a shot of estrogen. You’re not killing the zygote, you’re simply not letting it homestead. That’s NOT an act of aggression.

            By the way, an implanted zygote is called an “EMBRYO”.

            What is an act of aggression is using an instrument to destroy the implanted embryo or fetus. Once you opened the door to your house, the embryo or the fetus is your guest and therefore you can’t kill him or her.

            1. Once you opened the door to your house, the embryo or the fetus is your guest and therefore you can’t kill him or her.

              I’ve always argued that Thomson’s attempt to argue against that in her “People Seeds” thought experiment was just merely stammering and hand-waving.

              1. Re: Heroic Mulatto,

                And you would be right, since the act of appropriating your body, which is what her example entails, is not the same as preparing a comfy bed and feeding tube for the newcomer, which is what the woman’s womb does. And the womb IS the woman’s, so she cannot allege a lack of consent. The embryo didn’t consent either and no one else is involved, unlike the people who kidnapped the woman in Thompson’s example.

                1. So you recognize that the embryo didn’t consent, but you don’t think a woman who brings it to term is aggressing against it by forcing it to live in the world? What’s the difference?

                  1. So you recognize that the embryo didn’t consent, but you don’t think a woman who brings it to term is aggressing against it by forcing it to live in the world? What’s the difference?

                    Biologically, it is fair to assume that a living creature wants to persist in this state and will do so barring any interference. I don’t see too many embryos holding hunger strikes and such — and without this assumption, it becomes very difficult to condemn any taking of life given that there is no presumption of preference for life. (E.g, how can one assume that the sleeping or unconscious person wishes to maintain their life? One cannot without a prior presumption of life.)

            2. You’re not killing the zygote, you’re simply not letting it homestead.

              You’re actually comparing this to homesteading? Really?

              That doesn’t even pass the smell test. Upon implanting the zygote immediately begins stealing resources from the woman and immediately raises her risk of being harmed.

              1. This is terrible, some guy. Women should never let such a parasite invade their uterus.

                However, there seems to be some biological, mental, and even spiritual drive in mothers to bring that parasite to term and to nurture it. There is a counterintuitive drive in humans to give to others. This drive is especially manifest in parents–even more so in mothers.

                You can’t ignore the common and normal drive to nurture. I’m not claiming that we should force people (mothers) to nurture something they don’t want to raise. Nonetheless, you can’t put aside the inherent drive to nurture that fertile and infertile mothers have.

            3. Isn’t passive aggression still aggression? Like, isn’t it still murder if I stop feeding my kids, even if I don’t physically harm them?

              1. Like, isn’t it still murder if I stop feeding my kids, even if I don’t physically harm them?

                This is more like finding feral kids in your house one day, eating your food and swinging golf clubs around. It would be awfully nice of you to take them in permanently, but you’re under no obligation until you consent to that obligation. (This is all assuming that a fertilized egg is a person, which it isn’t.)

                1. This is more like finding feral kids in your house one day, eating your food and swinging golf clubs around.

                  Sure,if you invited the kids in and gave them the golf clubs.

                  Some libertarians baffle me because they recognize actions and consequences (or increased likelihood of consequences) in complex systems like society and the economy, but feign ignorance when confronted with babies being the consequence of sex.

                  There’s a 100% foolproof way to keep the feral kids out of your house. Stop inviting them in and giving them a golf club!

                  1. Sure,if you invited the kids in and gave them the golf clubs.

                    No, I just left the door unlocked.

                    consequences

                    It isn’t about consequences, it’s about consent. If you never consented to someone living in your house then you have the right to kick them out, even if they only got in because you left the door unlocked.

                    1. Bullshit. Your analogy falls apart because there is no moral or legal breach by the fetus. The fetus doesn’t trespass, it doesn’t break and enter. There is no “getting in” because the fetus is literally created out of materials already inside the mother.

                      The mother saying the fetus is unwanted after implanted is like saying that your passenger is unwanted and shoving them out the door of your car while at freeway speeds.

              2. It’s murder if you had taken prior responsibility for feeding your kids.

        4. A zygote is a fertilized egg, Old Mexican. What difference does it make whether it’s implanted?

          1. Re: Faceless Commenter,

            What difference does it make whether it’s implanted?

            An implanted Zygote is called an embryo. Leaving that fact aside, an implanted zygote is a guest to your home. A not-yet implanted zygote is NOT. You CAN close the door on someone’s face and you can stop a zygote from implanting. Neither are acts of aggression. But in order to get rid of an embryo or a fetus (which are implanted) you would have to use an instrument to kill him or her. That’s an act of aggression. That is a violation of the NAP.

            1. But in order to get rid of an embryo or a fetus (which are implanted) you would have to use an instrument to kill him or her. That’s an act of aggression. That is a violation of the NAP

              So you’d be okay with abortion if there was a way to do it that didn’t directly harm the fetus? Say we had a chemical that would cause the uterus to stop feeding the fetus and release it into the wild, without significant damage to the fetus…?

              1. If there was a chemical that would allow mid-pregnancy relocation of the fetus, that would probably end the need for abortion at all.

                1. If there was a chemical that would allow mid-pregnancy relocation of the fetus, that would probably end the need for abortion at all

                  Agreed. If only that day were today.

      4. On the choice side you have women who claim it should be legal but could never have one themselves. Why the hell not? If it is not a life, what is the big deal about getting one?

        That makes no sense. There are lots of things I think should be legal, but which I would never do myself for a wide variety of reasons, whether ethical or otherwise.

    3. Re: Fist of Etiquette,

      Oh, you don’t need to complicate things so much, F. Look: A Fetus IS a human life that a woman can kill at will and YOU are the monster for forcing a woman to be an incubator against her will.

      See how easy one can rationalize these things?

      1. A Fetus IS a human life

        Faulty premise leads to bad conclusion.

        1. doesn’t Ayn Rand write something similar in every other line of every one of her books?

          1. Probably.

        2. That’s right – I forgot that human fetuses grow into oak trees.

          /derp

          1. What? There’s no evidence fetuses ARE human life even if they grow INTO one. Rand Paul may grow into a presidency, but he shouldn’t be treated as one now.

            1. Re: Cytotoxic,

              What? There’s no evidence fetuses ARE human life

              You’re certainly proof of the validity of that assertion.

              Oh, how I love it when idiots make such perfunctory contradictions.

              1. Careful, there, OM, you’re guilty of that, too.

                1. Re: Tonio,

                  Careful, there, OM, you’re guilty of that, too.

                  Really?

                  How?

                  1. Not a good use of my time to explain that to you OM. It would only waste my time and you wouldn’t profit from the lesson.

                    1. Re: Tonio,

                      Not a good use of my time to explain that to you OM.

                      You’re a coward, then.

                      I have taken my valuable time to explain philosophy to economics to anyone who has asked. I don’t see what would hold you down.

                    2. You’re a coward, then.

                      Perfect example of the intellectual dishonesty which has caused me not to only engage you on my own terms. You don’t know this, you’re just hurling insults.

                      There are many good reasons, including the one I stated, for me not to engage you. My time is my own, you are not entitled to it.

                      Your being giving of your own time to others does not create an obligation for me to give my time to you.

                    3. reasons..for me not to only engage you on my own terms.

          2. no- but would you call an acorn an oak tree?

            Would you call tadpole a frog? a caterpillar a butterfly? an egg a chicken?

            1. an egg a chicken?

              Or, more accurately, is balut a duck?

              1. don’t know, but I’m not eating feathers.

                1. So anything with feathers is a chicken?

                  This gets into the “Is a white horse a horse dilemma?”

                  If you’re going to define what is human, then you have to reduce humanity to the restrictions of language. The problem is that humanity is on a continuum, it doesn’t make discrete jumps, which makes it difficult (impossible?) to define.

                  1. no. balut is a duck that isn’t. the egg hasn’t hatched when it’s cooked, and then the body is eaten bones and all… it looks disgusting- so much so that I won’t try it. however, i can’t say it actually IS disgusting, but I think if it were delicious it would be more popular.

              2. Enough so that I won’t eat it.

                1. but would you eat a fetus. that’s the real question asked here.

                  1. but would you eat a fetus.

                    The first one gave me wicked gas, so probably not again, no.

                  2. but would you eat a fetus

                    If I were paralyzed and needed the fetus for its stem cells, sure. So long as Hack-man doesn’t stop me.

                  3. but would you eat a fetus.

                    There’s a TS Eliot joke in there, trying to get out.

              3. I eat eggs and chickens, so a distinction without matter.

                But tadpoles and caterpillars have just as much autonomy and life as frogs and butterflies.

            2. Would you call tadpole a frog? a caterpillar a butterfly?

              I wouldn’t call the immature form of a creature by the name of the adult form of that same creature, no.

              Would you call a child an adult? Me neither.

              1. Would you call a child an adult? Me neither.

                But I would call them both human.

                1. would you call a fetus a child? no. I wouldn’t.

                  1. would you call a fetus a child? no. I wouldn’t.

                    But I would call it human. Rectangles, squares, and rhombuses(rhombi?) are all parallelograms.

                    If parallelograms have rights, then so do rectangles, squares, etc.

                    The arguments isn’t over whether a child or adult has rights, it’s over what you consider human.

                    1. To be more specific, it’s an argument over what makes a person. No one is arguing that an embryo is not a member of homo sapiens,/em, the question is whether that is enough in itself to make the embryo a person.

                    2. And the reasons not to describe an embryo/fetus as a person are usually completely utilitarian and not conditions the proponent would be willing to apply to any other class of human. Unless, you are the type of monster who is willing to argue in favor of infanticide.

                  2. Some people do though. Although often with added descriptor of “unborn.”

                    1. some people are often wrong.

                  3. I would, but I wouldn’t call a zygote or an embryo one.

                    It’s possible for a fetus to survive out of the womb, to me that makes it an individual human life.

                    1. And what if they lose the ability to survive independently…say they have a terrible car crash and are stuck on life support for several months, do they lose their human rights?

                    2. Once you’ve earned the right, you keep it until you die, or a jury of your peers takes it away.

                    3. Once you’ve earned the right, you keep it until you die, or a jury of your peers takes it away.

                      OK, a 24 week fetus is developed to the point that it could survive outside the womb. Mommy takes a tumble and injures the fetus…not enough to kill it, but enough to permanently disable it and make it unable to survive outside the womb for a few weeks longer. Can mommy abort, or has it achieved it’s viability credentials that are never taken away?

                    4. Not at all. They have the right to all the life support they can pay for, or that someone is willing to provide for free.

                2. And I bet you would call both a tadpole and a frog rana ___________.

        3. What’s a better place to draw the line between what is and is not a human life?

          The other extreme, that a fetus becomes a human being at birth, is equally ridiculous: On one side of the epidermis, the mass of cells is a fetus and non-human. On the other side of the epidermis, the mass of cells is a human being and has rights.

          1. Any line you draw is arbitrary. Rights and personhood are made-up things, not aspects of nature. So we should probably draw the line where it makes the most practical and ethical sense.

            1. “Any line you draw is arbitrary. Rights and personhood are made-up things, not aspects of nature. So we should probably draw the line where it makes the most practical and ethical sense.”

              If any line you make up is arbitrary, then how can you claim something makes ‘ethical sense,’ since ethics itself is simply invented rather than an ‘aspect of nature?’

              Tony fails at logic once again.

              Incidentally, I don’t know how you can argue that rights are not ‘aspects of nature.’ Unless you think the human brain which is capable of developing such concepts is unnatural.

              You have a difficult time following your own train of thought, don’t you Tony?

              1. You know what I mean, and if you don’t, you need to try harder. Ethical concepts and rights are determined wholly by thinking human beings and are based on our specific qualities as thinking animals as well as choices we make about how we prefer to live. By “ethical and practical” I mean we should probably draw the line somewhere that doesn’t put 1/3rd of all women in prison for child murder. People may want to argue for the practical and ethical necessity of bestowing rights upon fetuses, but it needs to be at least as worthy–Jeebus says so doesn’t cut it, and that’s really all that side of the debate is about.

                1. as well as choices we make about how we prefer to live.

                  Ah yes, so whatever I decide to do is “right” because I prefer it to be so?

                  It must be nice being perfect in your own eyes.

                  No one here has made the argument that “Jesus says so” is a legitimate justification for any position. That’s the straw man projection in your own twisted mind. And no one has argued for putting 1/3rd of women in prison. In fact, none of the comments I’ve read have advocated that “there should be a law.” Funny thing about libertarians is that they don’t default to government solutions to try to solve their problems.

                  Moreover, practicality does not imply ethical.

                  1. Considering that ethics are made up according to Tony “Jesus says so” is as good of a reason as any anyone else could come up with I suppose.

                2. Jeebus says so doesn’t cut it, and that’s really all that side of the debate is about.

                  You spend enough time trolling these threads to have absorbed that this is really not the case. Hell, there’s arguments to be made that the antiabortion extremists actually want a more restrictive regime than the bible would recommend.

                  1. It really is the case. Some of the Christiany antiabortion obsession may have rubbed off on people who share a media diet with the Christians, but the movement to force women to give birth against their will is really all about Yahweh, particularly His penchant for telling women how to run their lives.

            2. Rights and personhood are made-up things

              God, you’re evil. So what do you think of dehumanization? Not to straight off Godwin the argument, but Jews were considered vermin by the Nazis precisely so that the treatment they received in those camps was justified.

              If Jews weren’t human, then you no longer had to treat them humanely. What’s the different for your argument? You’re just assuming the problem away. If fetus aren’t human, then you don’t have to treat them humanely.

              Practical and ethical from who’s perspective?

              1. My favorite part about Tony’s ludicrous argument is that he believes rights are ‘made up’ then says we should choose the most ‘ethical’ position.

                So rights are made up but ethics apparently aren’t. Why not? Mostly because Tony doesn’t know what words mean so he just babbles in the desperate hope that someone will be as ignorant as he is.

                1. Tony is a living demonstration of how progressive philosophy ends in totalitarianism.

              2. I can tell you the purpose of allowing abortion. What purpose does treating fetuses as full persons serve?

                1. Re: Tony,

                  I can tell you the purpose of allowing abortion. What purpose does treating fetuses as full persons serve?

                  What purpose does treating YOU as a full person serve?

                  I can’t think of one – if we’re going to judge your life according to pragmatic measures, that is.

                  How I love it when idiots make these perfunctory contradictions. Like a person who says “I deny I exist!”

                  1. There is no real purpose to treating anyone as a rights-bearing person except that it pleases us to do so. I see no purpose in making life absurdly more difficult for women by banning abortion. Nobody really feels for a zygote the way they feel for an infant.

                    1. There is no real purpose to treating anyone as a rights-bearing person except that it pleases us to do so.

                      I don’t *feel* like treating you as a person. Therefore it’s morally and ethically right for me to steal everything you have, even murder you?

                    2. IT is not a person (Tony), it is a sock.

                      It is morally and ethically right to use it to keep your feet warm, or catch your issuance when crankin’ one out.

                    3. Pure utilitarians really are the most vile of individuals.

                    4. “There is no real purpose to treating anyone as a rights-bearing person except that it pleases us to do so.”

                      Tony old chap, please include this sentence somewhere in each of your posts. It will remind us of what to expect should the country go full progressive. Also, it will encourage more support for the Second Amendment and boost firearms sales.

                    5. You are playing the part of chump for the firearms industry and I’m the one with hollow morals?

                      This isn’t a matter of opinion. The universe does not exist for our sake. We make up our rules as we go along.

                    6. “There is no real purpose to treating anyone as a rights-bearing person except that it pleases us to do so.”

                      So Tony, are you part of this “us” who vouchsafes me my rights and if so, how do I go about pleasing you?

                    7. “There is no real purpose to treating anyone as a rights-bearing person…”

                      So THAT’S why you think it’s okay to line your political opponents against the wall and execute them.

                      It all makes sense now.

            3. Re: Tony,

              Rights and personhood are made-up things

              Yes, you’re right. For instance, your personhood is entirely made-up.

              Idiot.

          2. The onus is on the anti-choicers to prove that a fetus = human. They have not brought forth proof.

            1. Why isn’t it on abortionists to prove that a human fetus it not a person? Shouldn’t the presumption be that a fetus with human DNA and human features inside a human womb is… well, human?

              How does one go about proving that it is “human”?

              1. Your arguing with a person who thinks brown people in another country should be bombed out of existence but those same brown should be able to immigrate freely to any Western democracy. For him its the location that determines freedom and rights. In the womb = not a human. Out of the womb = human. In a foreign country = kill. Immigrate to US = no restrictions

              2. The precautionary principle only applies to everything else.

            2. In a Venn diagram “human” and “person” overlap each other everywhere else, but it is on the people that believe “person” overlaps “human fetus” that have to prove it rather than those that deny it?

              Did you learn logic off a bubblegum wrapper?

          3. I have to say I line up more with Cyto on this one – they don’t start showing distinct signs of humanity until about age four. But I know from experience that this is highly unpopular position.

            1. Define ‘distinct signs of humanity.’

              A human being can say words around a year. Are you seriously arguing that by age three, when a child is able to speak in complete sentences, he hasn’t shown ‘distinct signs of humanity?’ How about when he’s an infant and laughs in a very human-like manner? Not distinct enough for you?

              Your position is ‘unpopular’ because it’s incoherent and refuted by all available evidence.

              1. yeah, 4 is burgeoning on rationality… but that sometimes never sets in for people.

              2. i.e. “distinctly different from other primates.”

                1. Or to qualify further, “distinctly and clearly superior to and deserving more rights than other primates.”

              3. Not only that “human” doesn’t equal “signs of humanity”. A human is H. sapiens, and all you need for that is to be in possession of a human genome. “Signs of humanity” is really referring to the quality of sapience.

                1. “”Signs of humanity” is really referring to the quality of sapience.”

                  Precisely – which is why I’ve long favored a view of rights that is based on minimizing suffering, not on glorifying certain genetic sequences over all others and forcing them to continue despite all opposition.

            2. So what all human beings do in the first four years of their life are not “distinct signs of humanity”? Was my hand not really a human hand until it first grabbed a tool?

              1. My premise is that the genetic content of your body’s cells =/= “being fully human.” Otherwise it would never be moral to let the most brain-dead 100-year old body finally slip away on account of it having living cells with human DNA in them.

                1. That’s not a particularly compelling argument. People die under lots of circumstances, some where morality is in play and some where it isn’t. It has nothing to do with whether they’re human or not.

                  It’s a pretty good bet that you will die someday. At that point you will no longer be “fully human”. That doesn’t make it ok for me to behead you today, on the grounds that your human-ness is not permanently guaranteed.

                  1. Whether or not all living things with human DNA have an absolutely inviolable right to life and whether or not it is always OK to arbitrarily murder any living thing are two different questions.

                    1. I find your argument lacks a “distinct sign of humanity”, can we then now abort you?

                    2. I repeat:

                      “Whether or not all living things with human DNA have an absolutely inviolable right to life and whether or not it is always OK to arbitrarily murder any living thing are two different questions.”

                2. I disagree with the premise, but then my own views don’t rely on people “being fully human” anyway. I don’t think we have the liberty to attack or terminate any human being, without their consent. Refusing to treat a braindead person is a liberty, absent any previous obligation to provide treatment (and even then, there are common sense outs for people so bound).

                  For abortion, this would leave the “expelling an unwanted party” argument, but I don’t think it beats the argument that a person is responsible for the new being it created, at least until such time as the being can be transferred to someone else. This may leave the option open for terminating rape-babies, but it can still be argued that the woman had plenty of time to do so before 20 weeks.

                  As a practical matter, I’m against banning abortions – a lot more bad comes from that than good. But limiting it at some point along the pregnancy doesn’t strike me as unreasonable (allowing for exceptions in extraordinary circumstances, anyway). But I don’t like the excuses people try to make. It’s killing another human being. A useless human being that currently just sucks up resources, but that’s what it is. And it should still be fought morally, not legally. Get on birth control, folks!

                  1. “As a practical matter, I’m against banning abortions – a lot more bad comes from that than good. . . . And it should still be fought morally, not legally.”

                    I could not agree more.

            3. It’s unpopular because, at some point, everyone was under the age of four. You can’t get more sympathetic than that.

              1. Well, everyone was also not aborted and yet people are still pro-choice…so I don’t know that your argument works.

              2. I think that’s true, and follows the logic Old Mexican makes below, which I would call argument-from-narcissism: “It resembles me, therefore it is sacred.”

                1. Replying to lap83, that is.

          4. Which essentially describes partial-birth abortion: It’s not a baby because it isn’t entirely free of the birth canal.

            1. So, if I happen to be not entirely free of the birth canal, doesn’t that mean . . . .

              1. Dr. Gosnell will see you now.

              2. Your wife is free to poke you in the head with a wire hangar when you’re banging her?

                1. NTTAWWT

        4. How many times do you think you have to write that to make it true?

          As you certainly are not making any kind of rational argument for the truth of that statement.

      2. So we’re all monsters?

  6. https://reason.com/blog/2015/01…..nt_5039696

    So that Michael Hihn guy who periodically posts here is legitimately insane, right?

    1. Perhaps, but more importantly, he made over $12,632 working on his neighbor’s laptop. I didn’t believe him until I saw his new Lancia.

      1. Is his neighbor not entitled to some of that cash?!

    2. Are any of the people who post here legitimately sane?

      1. legally, I think you could make a case that we don’t understand “right and wrong” as it is understood by our government and the larger portion of the citizenry.

        I mean, we understand it rationally, but not how they understand it.

      2. Figgle-warts the goblin who lives inside my armoire tells me every morning that I am the sanest person he’s ever met.

        1. True, no doubt, but Figgle-warts doesn’t get out much, so there’s that.

          1. Given what you likely do to someone trapped in your armoire, it is quite likely that Figgle-warts has been driven irrevocably mad, so he might not be the best judge.

        2. But what does Pillowpants, you’re GF’s pussy troll have to say about it?

      3. Blackadder: All right, right right right right, Mr. S. Baldrick. Now; distinguishing features… None.
        Baldrick: Well, I’ve got this big growth in the middle of my face.
        Blackadder: That’s your nose, Baldrick. Now; any history of insanity in the family? Tell you what, I’ll cross out the in. Any history of *sanity* in the family? None whatsoever. Now then; criminal record…
        Baldrick: Absolutely not.
        Blackadder: Oh, come on, Baldrick, you’re going to be an MP, for God’s sake! I’ll just put fraud and sexual deviancy.

  7. The rape/incest exceptions to abortion restrictions are ridiculous. Either a fetus is a human with legal rights or it isn’t. If you believe a fetus is, then one from rape/incest should not be any less human than a fetus from legal sexual intercourse (also, the definition of “incest” varies widely from state to state and at least one state doesn’t even criminalize the activity).

    1. ^This. Also, if abortion is only allowed in those cases it incentivizes women to claim they were raped. You can’t fake incest if modern geneting testing is available.

    2. I think there is a difference here between the principled stand and the politically expedient stand.

  8. House Leadership Should Thank GOP Women for Thwarting Anti-Abortion Bill

    And just in time, too, because there are still too many “undesirables” that need to be disposed of.

    1. I was just at lunch with Hadley Arkes, and he made a quite cogent point about how abortion, infanticide, eugenics, euthanasia, slavery and genocide are all on a continuum based on the premise that life is a conditional right granted by the powerful.

      Abortion is the common (wo)man’s way to be on the winning side of “might makes right”

  9. I am completely apathetic on the abortion issue. I really just don’t care.

    However, I do think it would be hilarious if a man was able to bring civil suit against a woman who aborted a fetus that he wished be carried to term…

    1. From what I’ve seen, studies show that the strongest opinions, both pro- and anti- are among women, with the majority of men tending towards the ambivalent center. (Note that this result was on the agregate and does not claim all men are apathetic)

      1. no, i’m not not all men are- but I am. I’m very passionate about my apathy on this subject. 😉

    2. This is an interesting dimension. If a man does not want to have a child, but their partner wishes for it to be carried to term, why does he forced to accept parental responsibility? Isn’t that counter to the whole ‘reproductive freedom’ argument? I’m not arguing that men should actively be able to determine whether a woman has an abortion or not, but why are there no options for men to negate their parental responsibility right off the bat if they don’t wish to have children?

      1. because the question gets icky. I am much more interested in the other way around. If I got a woman pregnant and she didn’t bring it to term- fortunately all of mine were brought to term- and I wanted that kid and absolved the mother of parental responsibility and rights.. why can’t I get that, or compensated for my loss?

        1. Because you are lower on the flowchart of victim-hood than a pregnant woman.

  10. As Peter Suderman has detailed eloquently here before, the GOP looks like a party that is out of ideas.

    Of course the GOP looks like a party out of ideas. It has NO ideas!

  11. I have an abortion of a government that I’d like killed.

      1. don’t term limits restrict my freedom to vote for who I choose to represent me?

        1. Limited government limits your freedom to force other people to do things in the first place.

          1. so, does big government embiggen this “freedom”?

            seriously though, isn’t there an issue with term limits legitimately restricting a right of the public?

            1. Well, the way I see it, we need restrictions on what we can do, too. We’ve demonstrated a total, collective insanity on voting scum into office over and over again, so we need a check on this power.

            2. Doesn’t any restriction on eligibility for office restrict that right (whatever it is)?

              Why can’t I vote for a 22 year old for President? Why can’t I vote for a foreign national for President? Why can’t I vote for the same President to have third, fourth . . . twelfth term? Why can’t I vote for a Rep who doesn’t live in my District, or a Senator who doesn’t live in my State?

              1. I find it interesting that we have age and birth requirements for president, age requirements for Congress, and no requirements whatsoever for judges. Other than the nomination and confirmation process. Legally, a judge could be a chair.

              2. i guess, really, you CAN vote for those people… it just won’t lead to their election.

                It’s all a limit, yes.

                1. Think of it this way–we’re not restricting the rights of voters, we’re limiting the privileges of scumbag politicians.

              3. You can vote for that 22-yo for pres. You can write in anyone you want, RC. You know that.

            3. Voters are limited to eligible candidates running for a particular office. How is a candidate disqualified by term limits any different from a candidate disqualified by, say, residency requirements?

              1. There should be a certification process. “This candidate certified as not yet caught doing anything unethical, illegal, or immoral.”

        2. Spencer|1.23.15 @ 12:41PM|#

          don’t term limits restrict my freedom to vote for who I choose to represent me?

          Yes, but so do eligibility requirements (age, citizenship, etc…)

  12. Not entirely off-topic:

    Woman bemoans the fact that no one wants to shoot the breeze with her on her abortion

    So sad. If it makes her feel better, I avoid talking to people about all of their medical issues.

    1. I avoid talking to people about all of their medical issues

      THIS
      Going through this at work with one of my people. who has turned off her team by wanting to constantly talk about her cancer and recovery.

      “But my doctors said I should – it’s theraputic” – “Yeah, but your people are SUPER uncomfortable about it, and you’re turning them against you, and it’s not their job to make you feel better…sorry you don’t have friends and family…”

      Tough position, but…fuck…the lack of emotional intelligence. Everyone wishes you well – STOP talking about it. And get some friends outside of work…

      1. “Please everyone, pray for me, I just got some horrible news and I really need for you all to pray for me.”

        I hate that shit.

        1. That’s certainly better than the current vogue, which is “Please, everyone, pay for me.”

  13. I have to admit, I’ve come 180 degrees on this one over the years. Definitely opposed to abortion.

    However….having the government get involved in ANYTHING is also supremely troubling, so…

    I come down on a ban after some period of time – 20 weeks? 25 weeks? Something like that, definitely not in the last three months. You gonna do it? I don’t like it, but do it as early as possible, for fuck’s sake. Working with March of Dimes has given me an appreciation of the progress in helping preemies and those with other difficulties.

    And the “rape and life of the mother” – red herrings. How about I give you those, and we eliminate the 99% of abortions that are just birth control? Cause that’s all these ruductio ad absurdums amount to – 1%, 2% of abortions. ABortion is mostly “oops, I fucked up” birth control. Horrific.

    1. I come down on a ban after some period of time – 20 weeks? 25 weeks? Something like that, definitely not in the last three months.

      Why a specific time? How about a cutoff where consciousness begins, i.e., at the onset of organized neural activity? This POV makes me popular with no-one.

      1. Yeah, I hear you. I’m just that ambivalent. People can deal with timeframes – I think that’s why I go there.

        It’s a tough topic, but I’ve decided I need to start acting on it. I think about all those babies, gone – while people get all excited about…I won’t get into it 🙂

        This is why I hate people 🙂 Not you, OM !

        1. But you should hate me. It’s the right thing to do.

      2. consciousness begins, i.e., at the onset of organized neural activity?

        Question begging. I could argue that a born baby is not conscious of it’s own existence and therefor abortable.

        1. You could, but there’s organized neural activity, objectively measurable. So your argument would be counterfactual.

          1. consciousness =/= self-awareness

            1. So true. So very, very true.

              Of course, if self-awareness is the test of personhood, there’s a lot fully-growed adults who might have a problem.

              1. Like the entire left side of the political spectrum?

            2. self aware =/= Cytotoxic

          2. I’m not saying it’s a great argument, only that ‘organized neural activity’ is just as arbitrary a milestone as anything else you could consider as ‘the beginning of life.’ or an acceptable point for the cutoff for a legal abortion. How could that be any more convincing than the division of one cell into two?

            1. Because neural activity is what defines consciousness. That’s why “brain death” is “death.”

              1. I understand your argument. What I don’t understand is why you think it is a definitive bright line of when abortion is or is not acceptable.

                And I don’t know if neural activity defines consciousness. Would this definition apply to other species? Can an earthworm obtain consciousness? It certainly has neural activity.

                1. Can an earthworm obtain consciousness?

                  Yes.

      3. How about a cutoff where consciousness begins, i.e., at the onset of organized neural activity?

        All animals have organized neural activity. It doesn’t mean all animals are conscious.

        In the end there’s no way to get everyone to agree on where to draw the line. Conception? Brain development? Viability? Birth? Why not just leave it to the mother and her doctors to decide? (And don’t start saying “so mothers can kill their infants?” We’ve been down that line of reasoning and we know it to be retarded.)

        1. Sure they are. That’s one reason I’m a vegetarian.

          Consciousness + human genome = human.

          1. Ok, at least you’re consistent. I’ll give you that.

      4. I like this idea. Then again, I’m also a fan of granting adulthood following a written and physical exam, rather than arbitrary date (which makes me popular with no-one, heh).

        1. TIT, that’s not why you are popular with non-one. Trust me on this.

          1. That’s what my wife keeps telling me, anyways…

      5. onset of organized neural activity

        Complete gibberish. Please tell us what you actually mean. With examples.

          1. HM, you actually have no idea what or how much I know about this. You only know that you don’t like it.

            Don’t fall into the same trap of intellectual dishonesty as OM. You’re better than that, really.

            I wish the Groovus Maximus was still on here we had started a good, lively and respectful discussion of all this and he was impressed by my credentials which was pretty surprising to me since MDs are notoriously dismissive of any non-MD credentials.

            Happy to discuss this with you offline, but I won’t here.

            In brief, while rapid but transient neural activity in the thalamo-cortical system can mediate complex behavior without conscious sensation, it is surmised that consciousness requires sustained but well-organized neural activity dependent on long-range cortico-cortical feedback.

            And although they actually use that phrase they don’t really define it. Also note “surmised.”

        1. You could write books answering that. And many people have, thousands of them. Being a good libertarian, I’d start with Koch’s “The Quest for Consciousness: A Neurobiological Approach.” Very readable but not at all dumbed down.

    2. Abortions in the last three months are 1) rare and 2) sometimes vital if the unborn has some debilitating deformity/retardation. Gotta get rid of it. Really, in cases where the baby is born with some awful thing that happens to it like cerebral palsy due to a brain bleed, post-birth abortion should totally be an option.

      1. Well, like – that’s just your opinion 🙂

        As is mine. I understand the point, and my position stands.

      2. This is where the rubber meets the road, I think – the “pro-life” crowd just can’t imagine that there is anything worse than death, and will condemn a severely handicapped person and their parents to a life of unbearable suffering with a completely clear conscience.

        1. Heard about a case recently where parents found out at 21 weeks that their fetus basically only had half a brain. Doctors said the child would probably survive but would have to live its life in a hospital having frequent seizures. Anyone who would force those parents to have that child is a monster.

        2. the “pro-life” crowd just can’t imagine that there is anything worse than death

          Which is ironic since the anti-abortion people are as a group highly religious. They believe that aborted babies go to heaven, I think.

          Their actual stated concern is what they view as murder.

          1. They believe that aborted babies go to heaven, I think.

            Some do, some don’t. The whole thing about infant baptism was and is an attempt to deal with infant mortality and the afterlife.

            the “pro-life” crowd just can’t imagine that there is anything worse than death

            No, I just can’t imagine drawing that line for somebody else, whether or not they are my progeny. Some disabled babies may decide that death is better than disability. Some may decide that disability is better. Who am I to decide for them?

            1. I think normally we would say that such a decision, difficult as it is, is the parents’ to make. At least more-so than it is the General Citizenry’s to make.

      3. I personally believe in retroactive abortion.

      4. There’s no such thing as “post-birth abortion”. No more than “pre-marital divorce”.

        We have words for things. If you want to put in a good word for the concept of justifiable infanticide then at least be honest about it.

    3. The only legitimate exception to abortion I see is “life of the mother” and only because it’s a choice between terminating one life (and saving another) or watching both lives terminate.

      1. What do the odds have to be of the mother dying before you’re willing to let her terminate her pregnancy? Nothing is medicine is ever 100% (except maybe brain prions… but I digress). And once you’ve picked a percentage risk you’ve basically ceded the decision to the mother and her doctor anyway. After all, no matter the condition she would just have to find a doctor willing to say the risk met your requirement.

        Of course, you could get a government panel involved or something, but history indicates that is never a good idea for anyone except those on the panel and their friends.

    4. I come down on a ban after some period of time – 20 weeks? 25 weeks?

      The middle of the road is the place where you get hit from both sides, Alma.

      You’re right, of course, but such a compromise would involve an imperfect and somewhat arbitrary definition, and people just aren’t comfortable with that.

      1. such a compromise would involve an imperfect and somewhat arbitrary definition, and people just aren’t comfortable with that.

        Indeed, since that’s exactly what we have now. I think the biggest problem, though is that the people had essentially no say in declaring the imperfect and arbitrary definition.

        1. And the people as a whole are not given to rational decision-making. Judges and congressmen are not medical experts, despite what they may think.

  14. Is sarc going to murdabort the PM links?

    1. heh!

      There’s not sugarcoating it – he was not pleased this morning….

    2. He’s going to post all of the Daily Mail. Every article. It will be hell.

  15. Jewish Law on the subject;

    The Jewish Position On Abortion

    The Jews And Partial Birth Abortion

    The Jews believe the the Mental Health of mother is more important than the item in the womb.

    1. My neighbour’s dog is more person-like than the item in the womb, and it would be ridiculous to accord rights to either.

      1. Is it a lab? because if it’s one of those stupid mexican rat dogs I will say you have crossed the line!

        1. LOL. The Mexican mutant rat things are mutant experiments made in a lab. Labradors are awesome. His is part labrador.

          1. My dog refers to them as “snacks.”

          2. My lab mix is more person-like than most people.

      2. I was just pointing out that religions differ greatly on the matter.

      3. “My neighbour’s dog is more person-like than the item in the womb, and it would be ridiculous to accord rights to either.”

        Your neighbor’s dog has opposable thumbs?

        1. No, but it might as well for all the relevance it has.

        2. wait, so people without thumbs aren’t people?

          What deformities do you accept?

    2. Re: MSimon,

      The Jews believe the the Mental Health of mother is more important than the item in the womb.

      I could make the case that a woman’s mental health is more important than the live of her husband, or her children, or her neighbor’s cat, or the president of the United States…

      I mean, has it really come to this?

      1. Yes, it has, OM. Whining duly noted.

      2. If you don’t like Jewish law take it up with the Jews.

  16. CAN’T WE TALK ABOUT SOMETHING TRULY ABHORRENT, LIKE DEEP-DISH PIZZA OR ARTISANAL MAYONNAISE, OR CIRCUMCISION??!!!

    Let’s do it for the…aborted tissue masses clumps of cells fetuses children!

    *doesn’t run away*

    1. cirucmcision is elective body modification without permission. to accept this practice one must also accept that we can perform mastectomies on female infants, and tattoos on babies.

      1. Hey, my baby loves her sleeve tattoos!

  17. But let’s look beyond women for a moment. As Peter Suderman has detailed eloquently here before, the GOP looks like a party that is out of ideas.

    Whatever the problems with the GOP, being out of ideas cannot be one of them. If only they were out of ideas. I don’t want a party with ideas. I want a party whose entire purpose is not to solve problems. Fuck the good idea fairy and fuck any bright eyed douche bag from either side who wants to ‘change the world’ or ‘rebuild America’. America is just fine. The problem is government. And the problem with government is that it has too many ideas. We need a party of no ideas. A party whose single purpose in life is to stop the government from trying to solve problems and change the country. I don’t want wan anymore ideas.

    Sorry Elizabeth but we are all full up with bright ideas. If only the Republicans were out of ideas. Saying that are is giving them the best compliment you can give them and one sadly they don’t really deserve.

    1. How about the idea of ending Prohibition?

      1. That is just stopping the government from trying to help by “stopping drug abuse”.

        I guess it is more of a state of mind. Do you want to end prohibition because you think doing so will create some better world? Fuck off I am not interested. Do you want to end prohibition because the government has no business trying to solve the problem of drug abuse or worrying about whether people are self destructive in their private lives? I am with you.

        We have got to kill the idea that it is the government’s role to engineer and solve societal problems. Even the best policy like ending prohibition sucks if it is sold as a way to change society for the good. Fuck that. I don’t care if ending prohibition results in the entire country becoming junkies. If they do, that is there problem. I want the government out of it.

        1. We have got to kill the idea that it is the government’s role to engineer and solve societal problems.

          People have lost sight of the fact that government has one and only one tool: force. Every single thing government does is predicated on a very real threat of violence or death.
          I’ve actually gotten the wheels turning in come conservative heads on the subject of drug abuse by asking “Would drug users be better off in prison? Would their children be better off if their parents were in prison? Would your children be better off in prison?”

          1. I have had less luck but have tried the same approach. I also try taking the harsher approach. Conservative supporters of the drug war usually hate drug users. So I always ask them why the hell I should be paying taxes to save a bunch of degenerates from themselves? What do I care if they want to kill themselves on drugs? They usually fall back to mumbling something about drugged out drivers and children.

      2. That is merely returning to an early state in time. Removing a “bright idea”, as it were.

  18. “This appeared to be messaging bill, and the message that was being sent was not a very good one,” said Rep. Charlie Dent (R-Penn.), who helped block the bill. “I would prefer that our party spent less time focusing on these very contentious social issues, because that distracts us from broader economic messages where I think we have much greater appeal to the larger public.”

    He must be new.

    And oh goody! An abortion thread! Judging by the number of comments I take it the KULTURE WARRIORS are already here, cyber hate-fucking each other above.

    1. I’m shocked Eddie isn’t all over this shit yet.

      1. Behold – see below.

  19. Hmmm, ENB, you’re aware that *both* women and men are divided over this “woman’s issue”? In about the same proportions?

    And ENB favorable quotes a Politico article by which those who want abortion to be legal after 20 weeks are “moderates.” How pro-abortion do you have to be before you lose the “moderate” label?

    As for the concern-trolling about the abortion exception – *of course,* if prolifers had a magic button to protect babies in the womb from being killed for their sins of their fathers, we would not hesitate to press that button.

    But here’s a revelation – we don’t *have* a magic button. We can’t even run to the federal courts, like our opponents, to get our preferred policies enacted. We can only protect as many babies as public opinion allows. And public opinion hasn’t advanced to the point of recognizing the right to life of children conceived in rape.

    So we can either adopt the position urged on us by the concern trolls, and have all our bills defeated because of the lack of a rape exception, or we can protect the *vast majority* of 20-week old fetuses – say, at a conservative estimate, 98%, who *weren’t* conceived in rape.

    The concern-trolls are worried, not about preserving our moral purity, but about protecting abortion. I have no interest in agreeing to their nonsense.

    1. Compromise is not the same as adopting a position. I would happily agree to a compromise that allowed abortion under some circumstances but improved the situation over what it is now. Doing that does not mean I support it. It just means I took the best option available.

      I am criticizing people, and there are many, who honestly think abortion should be legal in cases of rape or incest, not that is being legal is just a necessary compromise.

      1. OK, I suppose I misunderstood your point.

        There *are* some choicers, however, who like to taunt the prolifers by saying, “why don’t you lose nobly by opposing rape exceptions, thereby having your bills defeated and supporting the abortion status quo which we support?”

        Isn’t it interesting that when people urge “consistency” and “purity” on their opponents, they do so in order to have their opponents lose? Probably just a coincidence.

        1. The worst example of that is “if you really think it is murder, why aren’t you out bombing abortion clinics?” As if doing that would be in any way moral or productive or anyone not willing to murder in the name of their cause doesn’t really mean it. It makes me wonder if they would murder their opponents and assume anyone who wouldn’t must be faking it.

          1. Good question!

            1. An right below Tony makes the exact same idiotic allegation. If Tony didn’t exist, we would have to create him, assuming he is actually real and not a creation by one of the regulars.

        2. If tens of millions of children were being murdered in my own country I would get off my ass and do something real about it, and I don’t get off my ass for much. You are not exhibiting the level of concern your rhetoric demands.

          1. Why aren’t you out there murdering people who drive SUVs? You say they’re killing the planet and dooming humanity to die in everlasting fire, yet you are not exhibiting the level of concern your rhetoric demands.

          2. Ask your choicer friends – this Congressional abortion bill seems pretty damn real to them.

            Try harder. Let this guy be your inspiration:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciLllSAcF-8

          3. Re: Tony,

            If tens of millions of children were being murdered in my own country I would get off my ass and do something real about it

            Like what?

            You are not exhibiting the level of concern your rhetoric demands.

            What should it be, according to you?

            1. I dunno. Aren’t you one who says “if only the Jews had guns!”? Get your gun and go kill some of the genociders.

      2. This. I think the compromise would be that abortion isn’t something anyone wants to happen. It isn’t a net positive in anyone’s life, so we should encourage whatever reduces the number of abortions that happen.

        Making it illegal doesn’t help. Giving people the tools and knowledge to make better decisions does.

        1. Making it illegal doesn’t help.

          Poland and Chile’s experience with abortion bans would seem to indicate otherwise.

          Giving people the tools and knowledge to make better decisions does.

          Agreed. Laws on abortion and providing tools and knowledge are not mutually exclusive.

    2. And ultimately, you are not going to stop abortion until people decide to stop having them. Banning them may reduce the numbers but they won’t stop them. The problem is not the law. The problem is a whole lot of women think it is okay to have an abortion. Changing the law does nothing to solve that.

      The most important thing is not banning abortion. It is making sure the government does nothing to fund or encourage it.

      1. “Banning them may reduce the numbers but they won’t stop them.”

        Every child saved is a victory. We’re not going to reduce the abortion rate to zero, any more than we’re going to reduce the rate of “honor killing” to zero. But we can reduce the rate by making it illegal.

        1. But would making it illegal really help to stop it in the long term? Maybe you are trading long term harm for a short term victory. If making it illegal just makes people harden their opinion, then it might not be the best thing long term.

          That is a shitty calculus I know, but who says life is easy?

          1. “If making it illegal just makes people harden their opinion”

            I don’t know – slavery and honor killing have been controversial, too – and the more these practices get attacked, the more the supporters of such practices harden their hearts. I don’t think that’s an argument for legalization.

        2. One-third of women are estimated to have an abortion in their lifetime. Do you feel that in principle they should all receive trial and punishment for first-degree murder?

          1. Cite missing

            Also your assuming that all women would have an abortion by ignoring a ban.

          2. Do you feel…

            Some of us think. You should try it sometime. Or not.

          3. One-third of women are estimated to have an abortion in their lifetime.

            Bullshit. There are 150,000 in this country and only a million abortions a year, many of which are done by women for the second or third or more times.

            Math is a harsh mistress Tony, especially when you are stupid. Sorry but she is whacking your dumb ass badly over this claim.

            1. The stat is that one-third of women will have an abortion by age 45. I didn’t make it up, but if you don’t want to believe it, fine, you have proved yourself completely capable of ignoring facts you don’t like.

              But it doesn’t really matter, because we can agree that a lot of women have abortions. You are all ignoring the question.

              1. Again: Cite missing on 1/3 claim

                1. Again: Cite missing on 1/3 claim

                  http://bit.ly/1EC258n

                  hth

                  1. I’m not making the claim. And google is like statistics. You can make google give you the results you want just like numbers

                2. Here.

                  Not sure how it changes the point. If more than a million children were being systematically murdered each year, that would be a Holocaust-level crisis.

                  1. that would be a Holocaust-level crisis.

                    Why aren’t you murdering climate deniers? Aren’t they dooming the entirety of humanity to death by fire? Isn’t that a bit more important than a few million fetuses?

                    1. How would my murdering climate deniers contribute to solving the problem?

                    2. How would my murdering climate deniers contribute to solving the problem?

                      They’re murdering the planet and everyone on it. If pro-lifers are, as you say, morally obligated to kill abortion doctors, aren’t you morally obligated to kill climate deniers?
                      Oh, wait. I’m applying logic which is something you are physically incapable of understanding. Sorry. Forget it. Never mind.

                    3. If pro-lifers are, as you say, morally obligated to kill abortion doctors

                      I didn’t say that. That would be absurd. I say they’re obligated for the sake of consistency to demand that women who get abortions and the doctors who perform them receive trial and punishment for first-degree murder.

              2. The stat is that one-third of women will have an abortion by age 45.

                No Tony. You got it as your daily talking point. It is like all Prog talking points a lie. The statistic is based on this study

                http://journals.lww.com/greenj…..08.14.aspx

                The people who fed you this talking point ignored the qualification in the study.

                Considering the substantial changes in abortion rates observed among young women, African American women, and poor women, abortion rates were calculated to determine potential interactions among these groups. Because some of these subgroups are relatively small and because the confidence intervals suggest some degree of inaccuracy, these findings are best interpreted as general patterns as opposed to precise measures.

                The study was done in 2011 and assumed constant abortion rates. The problem is the abortion rate has dropped 13% since 2011 and is now lower than at any time since Roe. The study assumes the abortion rate would never drop and it has.

                So the claim is not true.

                1. So the claim is not true.

                  It feels true, and that’s all that matters with Tony. Stop confusing him with like facts and stuff.

          4. “One-third of women are estimated to have an abortion in their lifetime.”

            How is this calculated? Number of aboutions performed v. number of women existing? Because I’ve worked with kids who have had for or five abortions each.

            1. How do you remain comfortable in the presence of serial killers?

              1. Re: Tony,

                How do you remain comfortable in the presence of serial killers?

                I don’t mingle with serial killers. Maybe YOU do, but I don’t.

              2. Well I must admit that when in the presence of Obama, I do feel a bit uncomfoftable.

              3. I avoid annoying them.

    3. You don’t really believe that there is a holocaust of children happening right now. If you do, you would not be taking a wishy-washy position. Far more than I suspect you take on the more mundane subject of taxes.

      1. Re: Tony,

        You don’t really believe that there is a holocaust of children happening right now.

        Are you denying there’s one?

    4. We can only protect as many babies as public opinion allows.

      I just wish someone would explain how forcing someone to live is “protecting” them. What you actually mean is that you want to throw as many babies as possible into the constant stream of suffering that is life on earth.

      1. Life is not irreversible. Yours is such a bizarre position yet you keep repeating it like people should take it seriously. If life is so horrible, then why do so many people insist on living it?

        1. Nikki is a nihilist, I think.

          NTTAWT

          1. Nihilists! Fuck me. I mean, say what you want about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it’s an ethos.

            1. Don’t worry, there’s a clear ethos here: stop suffering. Just a plain old antinatalism. A decent nihilist would say “babies suffer and?”

    5. Again I’ll summarize a story I heard recently:

      At 21 weeks the parents discovered their fetus essentially had only half a brain. Doctors said it would likely survive but would probably spend its entire life in a hospital having frequent seizures.

      Do you really think you know what’s better for this child than its parents and doctors? Do you really think you (or your government) have any right to force these parents to have this child?

      1. Every baby condemned to a life of suffering is a victory!

        1. In this case the baby might not even be aware enough to suffer. That’s at least two victories.

          1. I’ve noticed that those people living “worthless” lives of suffering sure don’t take kindly to it when someone does them the privilege of trying to take it from them. Plenty of godforsaken shitholes with people living in misery who’ll fight like hell, harder than you would for your own, whenever someone makes the blunder of assuming that their lives matter as little to them as they do to outsiders who have never lived them.

            I would try to have some perspective before assuming the existence of millions of discard able people.

      2. Do you really think you know what’s better for this child than its parents and doctors?

        What qualifies the parents and doctors to make that decision for the child?

        1. The child is a minor.

      3. I’m disabled. Multiple people have told me to my face that if they were in my position they would commit suicide. I love living so much I’d crawl through razor wire to preserve my life. Do you really think you know better than me if I want to live or not?

  20. I fail to see how protecting male and female infants before birth is a “war on women”. Five months seems like long enough to notice you’re pregnant and decide what you want to do about it. I would throw out the law on Constitutional grounds, though — determining what is a crime is left up to the states in the document, except for piracy, treason and counterfeiting.

    1. In theory, I agree that it’s wrong to federalize the abortion issue.

      But I would leave it to the choicers to take the initiative in this matter, by getting rid of *Roe v. Wade* and stopping federal subsidies for abortion.

      1. Correction – I *would*think federalization was wrong if the Fourteenth Amendment had never been passed.

        But now we have constitutional protection for due process and equal protection, neither of which, IMHO, can be reconciled with legal abortion.

        I made an unfortunate concession.

      2. “stopping federal subsidies for abortion.”

        This would seem like a fair compromise. But it seems impossible to even suggest it without pro-choicers (not the ones on here, but typical Dem ones) accusing you of wanting to enslave all women.

  21. As far as I’m concerned abortion is terrible, and prohibition would only make it worse.

  22. I notice that an article that claimed the proposed bill was politically idiotic carefully failed to mention any of the polling on the issue, which tends to favor late-term abortion bans. I also notice that the author carefully failed to consider that a rape claim can easily be made falsely as an excuse for an abortion (which in fact was at issue in Roe v. Wade 40 years ago), but much harder when the rape actually has to be reported officially. The author also carefully failed to notice that Ellmers voted for the same bill with the same phrasing in 2013, and claimed after the bill was pulled that she would vote for it.

    Now, if the writer had concentrated on the matter of federalism (the bill should have applied only where federal law is used instead of state law), she would have had a good case.

    1. The pro abortion people are profoundly mendacious. They know that these exceptions are so easily abused that they amount to a complete gutting of any ban. They never admit that, however, and just call accuse anyone opposed to them of hating rape victims and wanting women to die.

      You can’t have an honest discussion of this issue. The Pro abortion people know an honest discussion would not work out well for them. So they refuse to have one.

      1. “The pro abortion people are profoundly mendacious.”

        That is a John line for the ages.

        Pro-choice people think abortion is a right. Why would they bother being “mendacious” about exceptions when they don’t want the ban in the first place?

        1. Yes Tony, your side never lies. They would never do something like make a talking point out of a misquoted 2011 study claiming one in three women would have an abortion in their lives. Never.

          Tony, stop projecting. Your entire political ideology is based on lies and projection. You are so fat gone, I bet it has been decades or more since you said anything truthful beyond “and” and “the”.

          1. I really hate posts that have no substance to them.

            1. Then why do you write so many?

  23. Re: some guy,

    See, now you have to explicitly define “human being”, OldMex. It’s a difficult task and it’s impossible to get everyone to agree on it.

    Why is it difficult? A human being is anybody who IS like me. I was a zygote once, and a fetus once, and a baby – once. A child once, a teenager once, and I will be an old person in 20 years or so. I was ALL those things in my many stages of my life, so anybody who is LIKE ME is a human being: a zygote, a fetus, a baby, a child, a teenager, a man (or woman) and an old man (or woman). I can’t DENY I am human because I would be committing a perfunctory contradiction. I can’t therefore DENY the humanity of a zygote or a fetus or a child or a man or woman. To deny THEIR humanity is to deny MINE.

    1. So anything with a full set of human DNA counts as a person?

      1. Re: Tony,

        So anything with a full set of human DNA counts as a person?

        I don’t know what you mean with a “full set of human DNA”. I only know that whatever I am and was, is human, and so would anybody else who is like ME.

        If you want to make the case that a cell is human, then make the case. I am not a cell. Neither are you. You’re an idiot, but that’s for another show.

        Maybe you’re not human. Care to make that assertion? Hmm?

        1. You were once a single cell. Before that there was an unbroken chain of biological forms leading back to the first replicating molecules. What counts as a person in this context is a legal question and one that can’t be answered entirely by science.

          1. Re: Tony,

            You were once a single cell.

            Read a biology book for a change.

            What counts as a person in this context is a legal question

            Ah, question-begging.

            By the way, if you want to leave the question of personhood to the courts, then for your sake let’s not have someone like Roger B. Taney deciding that issue.


            1. You were once a single cell.

              Read a biology book for a change.

              Fertilized eggs are single cells. Every biology book from the last twenty years will tell you that. Well, some of the evolution-denying Christian biology books might not…

              1. Re: Some guy,

                Fertilized eggs are NOT single cells. They’re ZYGOTES. A cell can only divide itself a few times and then die. A ZYGOTE divides to grow to a fully-developed biological being, either animal or human.

                Read a biology book, for a change.

                1. A zygote is a single cell by definition.

                  1. Re: Tony,

                    A zygote is a single cell by definition.

                    That’s not even true:

                    1. (Biology) the cell resulting from the union of an ovum and a spermatozoon
                    2. (Biology) the organism that develops from such a cell

                    Zygote can be the fertilized egg AND the being developed from that fertilized egg. But it is not “just a cell” like you’re trying to imply.

                    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/zygote

                    1. Yes it is, technically.

          2. I agree that this question can’t be entirely answered by science.

            What makes you think that it’s therefore a legal question or that legality has anything to do with morality?

            1. For Tony legality and morality overlap completely. If the republic allows it then it must be moral. If the republic does not allow it then it must be immoral. For Tony, slavery was a-ok up until it was outlawed.

              (Yes, I’m being facetious… sort of.)

            2. This whole conversation is about whether to ban abortion. It’s a conversation about the legal question.

              1. Re: Tony,

                This whole conversation is about whether to ban abortion.

                You think it does.

                Nobody should ban abortions. The State ends up making things worse. The proper punishment for a woman (and doctor) who perform an abortion should be their ostracism and banishment by the rest of the population.

                1. Where do I sign up to live in this utopia of yours.

                  1. Re: Tony,

                    Where do I sign up to live in this utopia of yours.

                    It’s not a place, it’s an attitude. Just live it.

                    But don’t fool yourself. You’re too scared. Breaking the chains can be terrifying.

  24. I hate it when I forget to refresh the HampersandR page and miss an entire abortion thread.

    1. If you like MILFs, Ellmers is pretty cute.

    2. Me too. And by hate, I mean love.

  25. I think after the lack of hits on Reason’s endless SOTU threads the other day they just put an abortion thread on here to recover revenue.

  26. From a political standpoint this is a pretty good idea. It disarms some of the “war on women” hoax and in reality, unless your life is in danger, good luck finding any doctor willing to perform an abortion after 5 months anyway.

    I’d love to know how many dr’s there are in North America who would be able to do this with a clear conscience. IMO few would because of the fear they’d be terminating something with some form of awareness.

    I think this is why nearly every country in Europe pretty much bans abortion after 3 months. You know, those countries that are supposedly bastions of women’s rights?

  27. my roomate’s aunt makes $82 /hour on the laptop . She has been fired from work for eight months but last month her income was $21833 just working on the laptop for a few hours. view it……
    ?????? http://www.netcash50.com

  28. my roomate’s aunt makes $82 /hour on the laptop . She has been fired from work for eight months but last month her income was $21833 just working on the laptop for a few hours. view it……
    ?????? http://www.netcash50.com

    1. You must be new at spamming.

  29. $89 an hour! Seriously I don’t know why more people haven’t tried this, I work two shifts, 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening?And i get surly a chek of $1260……0 whats awesome is Im working from home so I get more time with my kids.
    Here is what i did
    ?????? http://www.paygazette.com

  30. Putting aside the wisdom the proposed ban and the scope of the exemption, did anyone ask where in the Constitution Congress is granted the authority to regulate abortions? This is yet another regrettable example of the fair weather Federalism of the so-called “conservative” Republicans.

    1. Re: Gimme Some Truth,

      Putting aside the wisdom the proposed ban and the scope of the exemption, did anyone ask where in the Constitution Congress is granted the authority to regulate abortions?

      The Federal Government, including the Supreme Court, had NO business telling the States how should they regulate abortions at all.

  31. Re: some guy,

    Me: But in order to get rid of an embryo or a fetus (which are implanted) you would have to use an instrument to kill him or her. That’s an act of aggression. That is a violation of the NAP

    SM: So you’d be okay with abortion if there was a way to do it that didn’t directly harm the fetus? Say we had a chemical that would cause the uterus to stop feeding the fetus and release it into the wild, without significant damage to the fetus…?

    Yes to the first one, no to the second.

    If you can take the fetus and place it in an artificial womb (for instance) that could keep it alive so another person can take care of him or her, that would not constitute an act of aggression against another human being.

    Instead, if you use a chemical agent to release the fetus into the “wild”. like you said, and the fetus died, you could be held liable for involuntary manslaughter and child abuse, the penalty for which should be (in a libertarian society) ostracism and banishment.

    1. You’re so precious. Who decides who gets banished, and to where? Are there borders in this stateless society? Laws? Or is it just the luck of whomever your neighbors are, and whether they’re OK with your behavior or not?

      1. Re: Tony,

        Who decides who gets banished, and to where?

        I decide, by not engaging that person in trade. Anybody who finds the behavior of that person decides, by refusing to trade with them. That IS banishment, even if the person does not go anywhere, Tony. That person might was well not be there at all. The ONLY thing that is stopping Americans from using this form of punishment is the government.

        Or is it just the luck of whomever your neighbors are, and whether they’re OK with your behavior or not?

        I don’t know thet kind of savages among which you prefer to live, but I don’t live among savages and I don’t treat them like savages. We don’t need no stinkin’ laws.

        If you need laws to make you a well behaved human being, then I pity your neighbors. If you think your neighbors treat you with respect because of laws, then you’re insane.

        1. “Anybody who finds the behavior of that person outrageous decides”

        2. Nothing is stopping anyone from using social banishment against people as punishment for bad behavior. It is the preferred way of dealing with rudeness. But every society has decided that there are planes of wrongdoing above rudeness that necessitate confinement and punishment, and the best societies achieve this with strong democratic states (ours is not a great example). What do you do with a violent psychopath who insists on flouting your “please just hear me out!” conventions? You stop being his friend? Really? What if gangs of violent psychopaths decide they want to take all your stuff for themselves? Why doesn’t this form of society immediately descend into might-makes-right anarchy?

          1. Nothing is stopping anyone from using social banishment against people as punishment for bad behavior

            Yeah, it’s called the US government. Just try to not serve a person due to their behavior.

            But every society has decided that there are planes of wrongdoing above rudeness that necessitate confinement and punishment

            Yep, like hurting people or taking their stuff.

            What if gangs of violent psychopaths decide they want to take all your stuff for themselves?

            Kill them with extreme prejudice.

            Why doesn’t this form of society immediately descend into might-makes-right anarchy?

            Because armed people are polite people who work together. If you disarm all the polite people who work together (by passing a law), then the only armed people are the impolite jerks. But not just cops, also other criminals!

        3. Tony has readily admitted on multiple occasions that he thinks all of humanity are only well behaved and civilized because of laws. He literally cannot fathom people who may not do bad things because they think they are bad, even if they are perfectly legal because he would in a New York minute.

  32. 417 comments already? Did everyone take this afternoon off or is this getting abortion troll traffic?

    1. It’s Fridays. Every libertarian with a gummint job is taking the opportunity to show how much they appreciate their employer.

      1. Nice. I’ve been taking up the slack.

  33. Also. Would.

  34. my classmate’s sister makes $76 every hour on the laptop . She has been out of a job for 10 months but last month her check was $13884 just working on the laptop for a few hours. go to the website………

    http://www.Jobsyelp.com

  35. It is a religious question. Religions differ. The government should stay out. Because we have enough bureaucrats already and I’d rather not add vagina police to the mix.

  36. “After a midterm election spent making Democrat’s “GOP War on Women” rhetoric look a little silly, one of the first things Republicans do in the new Congress is introduce federal abortion restrictions?”

    In other words it was wrong because author agrees with Democrats.

    “Reason”?

    “And on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade at that?”

    Which also happens to be an important day for those against abortion, but apparently they don’t count. It was the March for LIFE – you know, those stupid neanderthals who believe it’s a baby being destroyed?

    All too often “Reason” needs to do a better job of illustrating they chose the right name.

  37. Elizabeth Nolan Brown should write for HuffPo or the DailyKos with this.

    “The reason Republican women* (and a few men) gave for objecting to the measure was a provision excepting rape victims from the ban only if the rape was reported to police. That this was the snafu shows the utter hypocrisy of current anti-abortion politics; either a fetus is something that deserves the full legal protections of children and adults or it is not, and if you think it is, then dismissing these rights in some instances just shows cowardice. ”

    So Republicans shouldn’t try to stop as many late term abortions as they can? They should demand all or nothing or they are cowards?

    Now that’s “reason”!

    IN fact, the author is propagandizing, arguing that Republicans must take up a position the author knows is less likely to win.

    I’m pro-abortion. This piece should be beneath this site.

  38. “Nobody expects the Republican Party to unilaterally drop older-conservative red meat like making sure women, gays, and immigrants never enjoy quite as much personal liberty as heterosexuals, whites, and men.”

    Wow, that’s intellectually lazy. Not wanting celebrate homosexuality or have the government recognize your relationship is not a violation of someone’s personal liberty. True personal liberty should never be dependent on those things. As far as claiming this statement applies to women, your personal liberty end where a separate set of DNA begins. In addition, you don’t have the right to seize tax dollars from people to fund policies that people find abhorrent. Libertarians should be able to come to some sort of common ground on that. As far as whites go, this is a laughable left wing talking point. The left always defines “liberty” as being social programs that apply to certain groups. But of course, those programs must always come at the expense of other individuals in society. So this version of liberty is dependent on the violation of someone else’s.

  39. the republican war on women is what we hear, why do we not hear..the democrats war on babies?

  40. If abortion is murder or infanticide, is it not intellectually and legally consistent, then, to charge women who miscarry with criminally negligent manslaughter?

  41. $89 an hour! Seriously I don’t know why more people haven’t tried this, I work two shifts, 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening?And i get surly a chek of $1260……0 whats awesome is Im working from home so I get more time with my kids.
    Here is what i did
    ?????? http://www.paygazette.com

  42. “Nobody expects the Republican Party to unilaterally drop older-conservative red meat like making sure women, gays, and immigrants never enjoy quite as much personal liberty as heterosexuals, whites, and men. ”

    I think he should have said “heterosexual white men” and not separated the words….

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.