Abortion

Catholic Congressman Tim Ryan on Why He No Longer Opposes Abortion

"The heavy hand of government must not make this decision for women and families."

|

Rep. Tim Ryan/Facebook

In a new Akron Beacon Journal op-ed, Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio) explains what led him from ardently opposing legal abortion to thinking the government should stay out of the issue. Since he was first elected to Congress in 2002, Rep. Ryan has supported a variety of anti-abortion legislation.

Raised Catholic, "I always considered myself pro-life," he writes. But talking to more and more women about abortion, as well as becoming a father himself, changed his thinking. 

These women gave me a better understanding of how complex and difficult certain situations can become. And while there are people of good conscience on both sides of this argument, one thing has become abundantly clear to me: the heavy hand of government must not make this decision for women and families. 

"This is not a partisan issue, but instead a personal one," Ryan continued. "I have come to believe that we must trust women and families—not politicians—to make the best decision for their lives." 

Good for Ryan for coming to this realization where it concerns reproductive freedom; let's hope he's equally keen on trusting people, not politicians, to make decisions in other areas as well.

Though I don't know much about Ryan's record, he seems interestingly atypical from the little bit I have read. Last fall, he wrote a book about nutrition and food policy that seems more focused on inspiring individual action than imposing government-mandated solutions (though he does, alas, favor mandatory GMO labeling). He has also written a book about mindfulness and runs a meditation group on the Hill for fellow lawmakers, called the "Quiet Caucus."  

Ryan recently told Roll Call that he may challenge Republican Sen. Rob Portman in 2016. 

Advertisement

NEXT: 'Islamic tribunal confirmed in Texas'

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. Congressman, why’d you change your position?

    “I finally got around to talking to women.”

    Great. just great.

    1. Well the pathos just didn’t come out in the binders he had previously used to guide his position on wimmen’s issues.

      It was only when he talked to them in real life that it became clear.

    2. Yeh, better if he had just left well enough alone.

    3. This made me laugh.

    4. The answer is “because he’s interested in running for US Senate against Portman, and wants the Democratic nomination.”

      1. ^This. You see this constantly with Democratic Congressman who want to go to the next level. The Democratic party is very pro-choice these days (whether that’s a good or bad thing, I leave up to the reader), and a Democratic politician can’t go beyond a congressional seat (at best) unless they are pro-choice.

  2. Ah, an abortion thread posted by ENB. I look forward to a reasonable, nuanced, and productive discussion.

    1. Is it wrong that I read the article, then scrolled right back up to verify that ENB had written it?

      1. I can tell who wrote the majority of posts based on topic and tone.

        I was referring to the delightful hint of misogyny that permeates the comments section of many of ENB’s posts, especially the ones that deal with feminism or abortion.

        1. hint? HINT? do you wear a lot of cologne?

          1. He must be bathing in it.

            1. He should stick around when Shikha writes an article.

        2. Careful, Hugh, if you seem to be treating women like people some people are going to get all upset at you.

          1. He just needs one of these: STAT!

            http://www.amazon.com/Kenroy-H…..s=pedestal

            1. No, we need to accuse him of trying to sleep with Elizabeth by acting like he’s not a misogynist! Or something! Because that makes sense, right?

              1. or that he secretly IS Elizabeth?

                wait… did I cross a line?

                1. This is H&R, dude. There are no lines to cross. Besides, we all know Hugh is actually a hermaphrodite.

                  1. I mean as an insult to Elizabeth.

                    1. Oh it was totally an insult to Elizabeth. But that’s what we’re here for, right?

                    2. I have an irrational belief in sexual karma. So, if I cross a line my wife will go to bed early.

                      Also, it impacts sports scores.

        3. misogyny
          Definition
          n. Disagreement with Hugh Akston on the subjects of feminism or abortion.

          Etymology
          From Ancient Greek misogunia and misogun?s, “Hugh Akston disagreer”, from mise?, “I disagree”) + gun?, “Huge Akston”).

          1. *Hugh, even, who may or may not be huge as well.

          2. I heard he has a huge Akston.

              1. Hugh only twerks for me.

                1. Nikki! I’ve been waiting to inform you that twerkflix.com is a website that exists.

                  So if you have any Hugh vids, upload them.

                  1. Oh shit.

            1. angina sounds way too much like man-gina.

      2. Is it wrong that I read the article, then scrolled right back up to verify that ENB had written it?

        I guess that all depends on why it mattered to you.

  3. Can y’all please stop posting pieces on a libertarian website in which it’s presented as a given that all libertarians support abortion rights? We can have an interesting debate, but these rah-rah support pieces are getting tedious.

    1. kV- no. the answer is no.

    2. Remember, human rights only apply to those people and situations which are convenient to social liberals desires.

  4. “This is not a partisan issue, but instead a personal one,” Ryan continued. “I have come to believe that we must trust women and families?not politicians?to make the best decision for their lives.”

    I’m looking forward to how people will object to this. It should be pretty entertaining.

    1. Exactly what I’d expect from TEAM BABYKILLER.

      1. Me too.

      2. I’ve tried to think of a worse team name… but I can’t.

        CHALLENGE!

        1. TEAM FETUS-SMOOTHIE.

          1. Oddly the same number of syllables… but it doesn’t flow off the tongue.

            1. Maybe the WORD doesn’t. But the smoothie itself…

            2. The consecutive S’s are a killer.

              1. Fetal-smoothie?

          2. That sounds like a California thing

            1. “Lose up to 10 pounds in one day with the fetus smoothie diet!”

              1. Fetuses (feti?) are pure calories.

                1. That’s why you give it to your friend so she gets fat and you look skinny by comparison.

                  1. Episiarch wants to know if you’re hot.

    2. That sounds very nice.

      But what if women and families think ROBBING BANKS is the best decision for their lives.

      1. That’s some mighty tasty hyperbole.

      2. wait, is John making an analogy again?!

      3. You know who else believed in ROBBING BANKS?

        1. Fauxcahontas?

        2. John Dillinger?

        3. Brick?

    3. Um, because if a child can be considered an individual human being at any point during its gestation, it’s not the mother’s choice either unless her life is threatened?

      That’s my objection in a nutshell.

      1. Say the “child” is an individual human being. How do you know it would rather be born than euthanized?

        1. You don’t. Err on the side of caution and just teach him how to use a gun at a young age.

          1. I’m not sure why you think abortion isn’t the side of caution.

            1. Seems pretty straightforward, unless one has silly Buddhist beliefs or something.

              The option for death is still present, not so for life.

              1. If the kid is born, you are guaranteeing it will suffer.

                And killing yourself is hard. Would you commit to euthanizing it if it asked you to later? How would you make up for its interim suffering?

                1. “If the kid is born, you are guaranteeing it will suffer.”

                  So what? Let the brat suffer. Is there some utilitarian pledge I signed?

                  If the suffering really outweighs the joy then he’ll take the matter into his own hands.

                  “And killing yourself is hard. Would you commit to euthanizing it if it asked you to later? How would you make up for its interim suffering?”

                  Haha, since when? Getting a gun and shooting yourself is not only painless but quite easy, so easy in fact people argue that’s why they should be banned.

                  “Would you commit to euthanizing it if it asked you to later? How would you make up for its interim suffering?”

                  Maybe, depends on the context of him asking me. I wouldn’t make it up the “interim suffering” though as I don’t owe him anything.

                  1. Is there some utilitarian pledge I signed?

                    No, there’s the NAP, which you may or may not choose to adhere to.

                    Good luck getting a gun and shooting yourself before 18 long years have passed, and good luck overcoming the fear of fucking it up and ending up with an even worse life than you had before, etc.

                    You don’t owe strangers anything, either, but that doesn’t mean you should go around punching them in the face.

                    1. “No, there’s the NAP, which you may or may not choose to adhere to.”

                      It’s the Non-aggression principle, not the No-suffering principle.

                      (Not that I adhere to either one)

                      “Good luck getting a gun and shooting yourself before 18 long years have passed, and good luck overcoming the fear of fucking it up and ending up with an even worse life than you had before, etc.”

                      In 2010 half of all suicides between ages 5-19 used guns (in the US) yet somehow only 1/3 of them live in households with guns!

                      Your quibbles just sound like sheer laziness.

                      “You don’t owe strangers anything, either, but that doesn’t mean you should go around punching them in the face.”

                      Now just extend that line of thinking to the womb.

                      http://www.usatoday.com/story/…..e/2136931/

                    2. You seem to have a lot of trouble with a few concepts.

                      The nonaggression principle != the no-suffering principle. Okay. So you don’t have to save people from suffering you didn’t inflict.

                      BUT YOU AREN’T SUPPOSED TO INFLICT SUFFERING ON THEM EITHER, WHICH IS WHAT YOU DO WHEN YOU PUSH THEM OUT INTO THE WORLD.

                      Your quibbles just sound like sheer laziness.

                      No, they don’t. Evolution makes it very difficult for people to overcome the visceral difficulties involved in committing suicide, and cultural mores also militate against the ending of personal suffering through death. And there’s no guaranteed perfect way to do it. Check out the shit lives of people who have been “saved” after shooting themselves in the head.

                      Now just extend that line of thinking to the womb.

                      I am.

                    3. Oh where to begin…

                      “BUT YOU AREN’T SUPPOSED TO INFLICT SUFFERING ON THEM EITHER, WHICH IS WHAT YOU DO WHEN YOU PUSH THEM OUT INTO THE WORLD.”

                      That’s simply not correct. Via the NAP you can indeed inflict suffering onto individuals as long as you don’t cross the line and physically “aggress” upon their person or property. I can ruin your credit, drag your name through the mud, even lobby (or pay off) stores and utility companies to not to sell you food and water so you eventually perish naturally. It’s not nice, probably not moral, but it is completely in line with the NAP.

                      Rothbard himself has been criticized extensively (on moral grounds) for his belief that it was in-line with the NAP to let your own child starve to death.

                    4. “No, they don’t. Evolution makes it very difficult for people to overcome the visceral difficulties involved in committing suicide, and cultural mores also militate against the ending of personal suffering through death.”

                      Perhaps you and I just have different work ethics here. I think blaming “Evolution” for one’s shortfalls is lazy, lazy, lazy.

                      Sure, I blame my genes for personal failings all the time, but only as a joke.

                      “And there’s no guaranteed perfect way to do it. Check out the shit lives of people who have been “saved” after shooting themselves in the head.”

                      So what? Like abortion there’s still a pretty damn effective option on the table. The small number of gun shot survivors likewise have a small impact, that doesn’t fundamentally change anything. Further still, just research the number of suicide-failures that are happy they failed. (at least they claim that, perhaps it’s all a “false consciousness or something). So that argument is a wash at best.

                      “I am.”

                      Good. Life is the default, like an unpunched face.

                    5. Life is the default, like an unpunched face.

                      That’s still a nope.

                    6. “That’s still a nope.”

                      At least you’ve dropped your silly argument.

                      That’s a good start.

                    7. “No, there’s the NAP, which you may or may not choose to adhere to.”

                      If it is a violation of the NAP to make a child live then it is your obligation to let it die, but letting it die is also a violation of the NAP and thus a paradox. As paradoxes do not exist, one of the premises must be wrong.

                      Guess which one it is?

                2. Just because 80 percent of libertatians suffer from severe blue balls doesn’t mean that all potential lobertarians should be aborted. I mean I wake up thankful every day that I’m not a a virgin libertarian 49 year old and deeply pity most of you guys but I’m glad you weren’t aborted.

                  1. “I’m glad you weren’t aborted.”

                    The feeling is not mutual, hayseed.

        2. I acknowledge your comment.

        3. You don’t, and I believe you need the euthanizee’s consent to euthanize.

          Here’s an analogy for my thought process: Consider an individual in a coma (who didn’t leave any instructions for said situation). The doctors say, barring further problems, he/she’ll make a full recovery after a couple of months.

          Is it okay to euthanize him?

          1. Has he expressed a prior preference to live, or are you just assuming he wants to?

            Children don’t consent to be born. You’re making a huge assumption in thinking that life is preferable to oblivion.

            1. If he wants to off himself, he’s free to try again. If he didn’t, then that’s a pretty big decision for someone else to make without any prior guidance from the subject.

              I’m not making any assumptions other than the decision to die is one that only the person dying has a right to make.

              1. I’m not making any assumptions other than the decision to die is one that only the person dying has a right to make.

                Wrong. You assume it’s okay to decide whether someone else lives.

                1. If, in the absence of any external pressure, the result is recovery/birth, is that really deciding something, or just letting nature take its course?

                  Although, I guess the fact that the mother’s biology forces her to support the child/fetus/mogwai could be a violation of the NAP, although I don’t know who you’d blame in that one. The uterus? God? Lou Dobbs?

                  1. is that really deciding something, or just letting nature take its course?

                    That’s my point; it is only letting nature take its course and there is no reason to think anyone would choose the same course nature just happens to take.

                    You could “blame” the impersonal processes of evolution that by their very nature lead to this, though I don’t see what that would get you.

                    1. I may not have made myself clear, but I agree with that.

                      So I guess our disagreement is my belief that since you can’t assume consent to either life or death from the subject, applying any external force to push the balance either way is a violation of the NAP?

                    2. Sure, maybe so. But anything my mom ever did was external to me, including getting knocked up in the first place. She started it, IMO.

            2. It is a leap, like all moral decisions.

              1. That’s correct, lap83, and I don’t propose the state should force people to terminate all pregnancies.

  5. Awesome! Abortion thread after the vaccination black hole.

    What’s the next one?

    1. I was just going to say, “yeah, but where does he stand on mandatory vaccinations?!”

  6. “This is not a partisan issue, but instead a personal one,” Ryan continued. “I have come to believe that we must trust women and families?not politicians?to make the best decision for their lives.”

    One of the great things about being a libertarian is that you can oppose things without thinking they should be illegal.

    1. But the writer of this piece loves abortion.

      1. Does she understand that just because he doesn’t think politicians should make choices for women, that doesn’t mean he approves of abortion?

        “Raised Catholic, “I always considered myself pro-life,” he writes. But talking to more and more women about abortion, as well as becoming a father himself, changed his thinking.”

        Just because he says he isn’t pro-life anymore doesn’t mean he doesn’t think abortion is wrong.

        I wish more Americans understood that just because they think something is wrong is no reason to get the government involved. I hope writers for a libertarian publication understand that, too.

        P.S. I bet he doesn’t think the government should arrest people for adultery either, but that doesn’t mean he approves of people cheating on their spouses.

  7. Huh. I guess I went the other way. I used to be firmly pro-choice. But when my niece died during childbirth, I realized that far too many on the pro-abortion side would conclude that since she wasn’t born alive than she didn’t exist, or was a “clump of cells”. I can’t abide that philosophy.

    My position now is that after the fetus would be viable outside of the womb, abortion should be illegal.

    If you take the staunch “no limits at all” stance that many pro-abortion people take, then a clump of cells at 1 week = fetus at 9 months. Again, I can’t maintain that belief at all anymore. I know its absolutely not true.

    So, I’m perfectly fine with limits after 20 weeks, with parental notification (children can’t even see a doctor for ANY other procedure without their parents signing off on it, why is abortion so special?), and requirements on abortion clinics to be at at least the same standards as anywhere else doing outpatient surgery. That would be common sense reasonable regulation on abortion.

    And while I know that Libertarians here fight both gun and abortion regulation labeled as “common sense” from principled grounds, the progressives reading this will be foaming at the mouth at my suggested regulations, but they still can’t get it through their thick skulls why anyone would be against “common sense” gun regulations.

    1. It’s a good thing you didn’t let emotion have any effect on your decision.

      1. c’mon man. that’s mean.

        1. Yes, I was expecting something better than mere average.

      2. Do you believe that there is anything non-subjective about a person not wanting to kill , say, their toddler when they become inconvenient? We’re emotional creatures, not robots.

        1. I wasn’t aware I said a single thing about killing toddlers or inconvenience. Strange that you would put those words in my mouth, it seems very…dishonest.

          Emotion is the antithesis of reason. Yes we are emotional creatures, and that leads to some horrible results. Putting aside emotion for reason is the only intelligent thing to do. It doesn’t mean you don’t feel emotions, it just means you don’t let them control you into being irrational.

          1. I wasn’t putting words into your mouth, just extending your logic to it’s conclusion. If decisions about determining the fate of a fetus should be based on reason than so should determining the fate of a toddler. But you don’t see people killing toddlers left and right, even though they’re extremely useless and inconvenient, because they’re cute and parents become attached to them.

            Also, if you look at neuroscience, the part of the brain that deals with emotion also allows us to make decisions. I’m not discounting reasons, they’re good for analyzing decisions after the fact. I’m just saying that we’re not as reasonable as we like to believe.

    2. My position now is that after the fetus would be viable outside of the womb, abortion should be illegal.

      So legality is a function of currently available technology? And thus a moving target?

      1. Yes. Why not. If we had a way to remove fetuses from the womb and still gestate them to term, wouldn’t that. Be preferable to abortion?

        1. What about a zygote? Or a blastocyst? Not yet a fetus, but presumably could be removed and grown with a future technology? Does that make it a human being?

          Would that also mean that you’re morally fine with any late term abortions done prior to, say, 1960?

    3. JWW — Obviously you’re not familiar with ‘The Slippery Slope Theory.”

      Neither the Left nor the Right is ever happy until they have taken their position to the extreme. Once a position is as far to the opposite side of its counter part as possible, it is that much more difficult to remove it from that position, thus insuring their position is secure for a longer period. This is an excellent strategy by the way. That’s why both sides do it!

  8. . He has also written a book about mindfulness and runs a meditation group on the Hill for fellow lawmakers, called the “Quiet Caucus.”

    Whenever I hear the word “mindfulness” I unsafe my Browning.

    1. Is satipatthana better, you big baby?

  9. Catholic Congressman Tim Ryan on Why He No Longer Opposes Abortion

    Here’s why I don’t give a shit what Congressman Tim Ryan believes:

    Non-Aggression Principle. It is immoral to murder another person.

    1. well… fucking problem solved. why didn’t anyone ever thing of that before.

      FUCKING BRILLIANT!

      1. Re: Spencer,

        why didn’t anyone ever thin[k] of that before.

        Many are still barbarians.

        1. It’s good to know we’ve got top men to sort them out.

  10. Quick, somebody post that picture of Michael Jackson eating popcorn.

  11. “one thing has become abundantly clear to me: the heavy hand of government must not make this decision for women and families”

    why that’s just crazy talk

  12. I know this is going to come off as somewhat heartless, but I believe strongly not only in abortion, but retroactive abortion up until the time they leave the house.

    Like a disgraced comedian once said, “You know, I brought you in this world, and I can take you out. And it don’t make no difference to me, I’ll make another one look just like you.”

    1. I know this is going to come off as somewhat heartless,

      Actually you come off as a Roman patriarch.

  13. “These women gave me a better understanding of how complex and difficult certain situations can become. “

    Yes, men are simply too stupid.

    Or maybe you’re an unprincipled, spineless mudsucker – a politician, to put it more succinctly.

  14. D&C

    DNC

    Coincidence? Hardly.

  15. I wonder what kind of pizza he prefers?

    1. YOU GO TOO FAR

      1. Epi is all anarchism and snark until pizza comes up and then he’s a thin-crust fascist to his very core.

        1. His very, very thin core.

        2. Whereas I maintain my philosophical commitments even as far as the open-face calzone.

          1. There are times principles must yield to reality, Miss Nikki.

        3. I’m going to have you thrown in all-veggie pizza prison for that, jesse. I WILL ABUSE MY POWER

          1. What’s wrong with all veggie pizzas? Don’t get me wrong, pepperoni is just fine, but meats are a flavor sledgehammer when sometimes only a ball-peen is required.

            1. The only veggies that should be going on a pizza are crushed garlic and basil. You don’t need meats either if you have fresh mozzarella and good sauce and thin crust. The best pizza stands on its own.

              1. I submit artichoke as a vegetable that is fucking delicious on pizza. Artichoke, garlic, and caramelized onion pizza is worth killing a bitch over.

                1. Banana peppers. Pepperoni and banana peppers.

                  1. Banana peppers are for hoagies, you sick man.

                    1. It’s called a sub, not a hoagie you cretin.

                    2. Which is accompanied with pop as is pizza.

                2. Sure, can put all that stuff on your pizza. If it isn’t good enough on its own. Toppings were created to hide the underlying shittiness of the pizza itself. Yeah, I said it!

              2. If it stands on its own, it’s been sitting around too long.

              3. The best pizza stands on its own.

                This is true, but in Thailand there is a restaurant chain called “The Pizza Company” that sells a pizza known as the Chicken Caldo. The Caldo is topped with roast chicken, pineapple, and red and green bird chili peppers.

                As it stands it shouldn’t work. But it works so well. The perfect combination of spicy, sweet, and savory.

                If you ever visit Bangkok, I would even go as far as to recommend a Chicken Caldo over a night at The Pimp Club.

                1. I’ll usually make up enough dough for two pizzas. First night is pepperoni, second could be anything I have laying around. Spicy mexican flavors, or maybe some smoked pulled pork.

                  1. Deep dish dough, right?

                    1. Deep dish dough, right?

                      You are dead to me.

                    2. Can’t a dude just ask a question?

                    3. Thin and crispy.

                2. Maybe it works, but that’s not pizza.

    2. Clump of cells deep dish with extra foreskin and but sex?

      1. Butt*

  16. “I have gained a deeper understanding of the complexities and emotions that accompany the difficult decisions that women and families make when confronted with these situations.”

    Of course, emotions. That’s what drives good policy.

  17. So Congressman, what other classes of humans shall be declared to have no rights and be outside of the protection of the law when their families decide they need to die?

    1. Elderly, mentally disabled, those with no hope of a bright future, those who are severely depressed, and gingers.

  18. These abortion articles are triggers to women who happened to be born with a penis and are alienated by being reminded that they do not have reproductive organs. This is hate speech.

  19. It absolutely amazing what one can do under the NAP when each individual can decide for themselves what another “person” is.

    1. Right, it’s better when you decide for them.

      1. If everyone can decide for themselves, a princie like the NAP has no meaning. There has to exist base, objective standard outside of individual consideration or the concept of human rights simply collapses for lack of foundation. They cannot ecist in a subjective context.

        1. Except people can’t agree. So what are you going to do, force agreement? Something tells me if you had the power, you would.

          1. That is what the concept of justice and rule of law is. Making those individuals who do not respect the rights of others not to violate them. By use of force if necessary.

            1. You keep saying the same dumb shit without answering the underlying question. Since no one can agree on when a fetus becomes rights-worthy, how are you deciding if their rights are being violated?

              Of course, I know the answer: your beliefs on when a fetus becomes rights-worthy are correct of course, and if given the power, you would use force to apply them.

              1. No no no Epi, we all vote on it, and whatever 50%+1 says, goes!

              2. You are not addressing the point originally made. There has to be an objective standard for what a rights bearing individual is, you cannot write some classes of human out of the rights bearing group merely because it is convenient for your utilitarian purposes. The standard has to be objective and it has to apply the same across all categories. Otherwise you have no rights.

                Granting individuals the authority to decide who is a petson negates human rights as a concept

                You don’t get to put the unborn beyond protection of the law because it s convenient, as othets may find it convenient to put othet classes of human beyond the law who you think should be protected. Not without an objective justification.

                1. There are only individuals. What do you think your “authority” is made up of? You keep talking about some ethereal “authority” as if it came from…oh wait I get it now. This is why you keep strenuously avoiding the question of who decides what the authority believes. Because it’s your sky daddy.

                  1. And the retarded atheist bullshit comes out when no appeal to a deity was made at all since you apparrently cannot make an argument.

                    1. So you’re still avoiding the question like the plague. Got it. That’s not obvious or anything.

                    2. See the Declaration of Independence, if Jefferson’s words are too “sky daddyish” for you than there’s no help for you.

                    3. So…Jefferson decides?

                    4. What a disingenuous thing you are.

                    5. I’ve asked you a simple question several times. You’re the one who cited Jefferson. I have literally no fucking idea why it’s disingenuous to take you at your word.

                    6. Who gets to decide which people are below the law?

                    7. Individuals. I said that already.

                    8. Why don’t you explain who decides, then, if it isn’t individuals?

                    9. Each individual can decide for himself on a subjective basis, who qualifies as a person and you can still have human rights mean anything?

                2. Granting individuals the authority to decide who is a petson negates human rights as a concept

                  Who but individuals could possibly decide? Who else is there?

                  1. Other individuals, of course. Individuals who are wiser and more moral and more important than you.

                    1. Your reputation for considering no one else is a person besides you is well known.

                    2. I love this because not only is it not clear who it’s directed at, it’s also egregiously stupid and has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

                    3. Are you trying to insult me or are you just clumsily trying to refer to the running joke about me? Either way, fuck you.

                    4. Oh yeah, I guess he might have been talking to any of us. Hey, fuck him again.

                    5. Aw, baby got his poor widdle feewings all hurt.

                    6. Argument by profanity, the hallmark of the pretentious ape.

                    7. I’ve noticed something about colossally dull people like you. You have a hard time distinguishing arguments from insults. Why? Why are you idiots so fucking stupid? The distinction is not a difficult one to grasp. Are you stupid on purpose? Does it give you some sort of sexual thrill? Whatever it is, fuck, you’re a moron.

                    8. Wait a minute. Is that you, Tulpa?

                    9. You may want to have your paranoid delusions checked out.

                    10. You are the one who took insult. Stop projecting your inadequacies on me.

                    11. Being as “fuck you” is one hell of an argument and not at all an insult.

                    12. Like Ryan who has decided certain humans are below the law.

        2. Everyone deciding for themselves is exactly how the NAP works. If you believe you’ve been harmed, you also believe you have the moral right to extract restitution. Or do you rely on someone else to decide if you’ve been harmed and have a moral right to redress?

          1. OK then, anyone may consider you a nonperson and may do anything they want to you and yours. Steal, assault, rape, enslave, murder. You have no recourse to the law to make them stop or make restitution because no one has the authority to make them respect whatever rights you think you have.

            All you have to protect you is what violence you can do on your own and those who care about you enough to do violence in your name. Good luck with that.

            1. All you have to protect you is what violence you can do on your own and those who care about you enough to do violence in your name. Good luck with that.

              Yes, that is the current state of the world.

              1. No, in the actual world you have recourse to the law. In the reality you are proposing you would not.

            2. Anyone can consider you a nonperson and can do anything they want to to you and yours at any time unless you stop them. I’m sure the laws against murder helped victims of serial killers.

              You really, really can’t wrap your little mind around this, can you. All you can do is point to vague authority and completely avoid the question of who is that authority and who controls what it believes.

              1. Which is why serial killers in the real world are never punished for their crimes, while in your world what they do could not be considered a crime as the word “crime” is a null concept.

                1. You realize that people have thought about these issues at length, right?

                  1. Yes, people like Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, and Jay. I don’t know this Huerner person from Cain, but the Amazon link does not impress me much.

                    1. That’s because you’re incurious and not very smart, Mickey. Don’t read anything. Stay just the way you are.

                    2. Yeah, Warty, “The Federalist Papers” are not anything.

                      You have no idea about what I have read and have not read.

                2. Wow, being punished sure is a consolation to their victims. And what is this babbling about “real world” and “your world”? There is only the real world. And in that real world, if someone decides they are going to kill you, words (i.e. laws) are not going to stop them. What part of this can you not understand?

                  1. “Your world” is the dystopian nightmare you are describing where human rights are a meaningless concept.

                    I am sorry, but the philosophy you are describing is merely the flip side of the coin Tony exists on.

                    1. You are clearly incapable of understanding “my world”, because I never said a single fucking thing about human rights being a meaningless concept. But you’re not interested in seeing what we wrote, you’re interested in fighting the strawman in your head. And that’s completely and totally unsurprising.

                    2. You keep saying that each individual can decide for themself whether or not another human qualifies as a person. Under that notion you cannot have human right in any meaningful sense if the word, as the concept is unenforcable.

                      You have not made an argument against what I have wrote. If anything you have agreed with the conclusion.

            3. All you have to protect you is what violence you can do on your own and those who care about you enough to do violence in your name.

              The bold practically covers “the law,” does it not? There is no objective force compelling other people, or “the state,” or “the law,” to intervene on your behalf, to defend you or avenge you. It’s all conventions and individuals respecting those conventions. Ideally, the fewer inconsistencies and the more empirical the foundations of these conventions, the better. But we get these conventions through this debate and this trial-and-error. Right now, you’re the one insisting that it be settled at once by the sword.

              1. Just so, MJGreen.

              2. “The bold practically covers “the law,” does it not?”

                No, the law does not care about you in any emotional sense of the term. That is the difference between “justice” ans “vengeance”.

                “There is no objective force compelling other people, or “the state,” or “the law,” to intervene on your behalf, to defend you or avenge you.”

                If there is no objective philosophy driving the actions of “the state” or “the law” then there are no principles driving it. Principles, by definition, cannot be subjective. They apply always, or they do not apply. Once you have called something a “human right” you said you are prepared to defend the concept by the sword.

                1. How can principles be anything but subjective? Do we need to go over the is-ought problem?

                  1. A “subjective principle” is an oxymoron. Anything subjective is just an opinion, it is not a truth. Therefore self-ownership is mere opinion. Right to property, mere opinion. Right to life, mere opinion. There is no argument that such things exist that others are bound to respect.

      2. I can’t tell which of you is the pro-baby killing one. Your comments work for both camps!

  20. Phew. I was worried when I checked earlier and this thread was fun. I’m glad things sorted themselves out.

    1. I took care of it!

      1. You could have at least posted some anus pics or something. Jesus Christ, woman.

    2. Nicole could ruin a sorority nude drunken pillow fight with heavy sexual overtones. Because she’s the worst.

      1. “Wouldn’t it be better if none of these voluptuous women ever existed?”

        1. Look, Playa, I’m only thinking of the children here!

  21. The Congressman needs an appointment with the Cardinal in San Francisco.

  22. Wow, ENB sure ferrets out these rare and unusual, man-bites-dog stories. I mean, who would have thought that a Catholic Democrat would be for depriving unborn human beings of the protection of the law?

    I mean, Democrats like Pelosi, Biden, etc. are totally prolife because they’re Catholics under the thumb of the Pope, but this guy Ryan has the courage to stand up to the Church hierarchy, despite the enormous risk that his Democratic bosses will allow him to serve on the Budget and Appropriations Committees:

    http://timryan.house.gov/about…..d-caucuses

    And don’t think he doesn’t care about the children, because he sponsored HR 1875 back in 2013, which according to the CRS summary, “[a]mends title II of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to include teacher and principal training in practices that address the social and emotional development needs of students among the activities funded under the Teacher and Principal Training and Recruiting Fund program” and “[a]llows funded training to include training in classroom instruction and schoolwide initiatives that enable students to acquire the knowledge, attitudes, and skills most conducive to social and emotional competency.

    1. So we can tell he’s a supporter of limited government, or else he wouldn’t want federal taxes to train students in “social and emotional competency!”

  23. “My faith is important to me, and like many Catholics I strive to adhere to its principles, especially one of the essential and highest teachings of “judge not, lest ye be judged.””

    As a Catholic, maybe he should look into Matt. 25:45-46.

  24. Okay, so by your account, Tim Ryan, you didn’t change your mind about the personhood of the fetus. So which is it —

    1) You were totalitarian scum, Tim Ryan, because you wanted to prohibit abortion, forcing women to risk their health and lives, despite believing a fetus isn’t a human person.

    2) You are pro-murder scum, Tim Ryan, because you still believe that a fetus is a human person, but now you think “women and families” should have the right to murder certain defenseless human people if murder is “the best decision for their lives.”

    Either way, hope you get hit by a truck, Scum Ryan.

  25. Sounds like he knows which way is up.

    http://www.BestAnon.tk

  26. All of these comments and not one of you have a clue. First of all, it’s a losing battle settled by the Supreme Court going on 50 years now. By continuing this War on Women all you are doing is handing our country over to the Socialists. Obama has a little under two years remaining and Hillary, probably, will have 8 years. How many Socialist Supreme Court justices will they appoint between them, thus the Socialists will have the majority for the next 75 years.

    If Democrats/Socialists want to abort their fetuses, more power to them. That’s a good thing as far as keeping our Constitutional, Capitalist form of government alive. I don’t want all of our children to be living the lifestyle of the 1950s Russians all because the evangelical/Religious Right wants to continue this losing fight.

    Either give in on the abortion issue or live under Socialism. It’s as simple as that. Make the wrong decision and your offspring will hate you for generations to come.

    1. “If Democrats/Socialists want to abort their fetuses, more power to them. That’s a good thing as far as keeping our Constitutional, Capitalist form of government alive.”

      Systems of government are made for human beings, not human beings for systems of government. Killing off unborn children to reach some sort of political millennium is Stalinist stuff.

      “Make the wrong decision and your offspring will hate you for generations to come.”

      Offspring? They’re probably Democrats/Socialists – kill ’em now!

      1. Notorious — You say, “Systems of government are made for human beings”

        The Supreme court ruled 40+ years ago that a fetus does not constitute a human being. Therefore you are correct. Abortion was made for “human beings” not fetuses.

        I truly don’t care if Socialists want to abort their fetuses. The way I look at it, that’s less Socialists voting for less Capitalism.

        I agree with you completely when you say, “They’re probably Democrats/Socialists – kill ’em now!”

        Are there any of my points you disagree with?

  27. Elizabeth Nolan Brown has the abortion beat covered! Whenever I’m looking for the latest in abortion news, I know where to turn to.

  28. Earning cash on-line was ne’er been straight forward because it has become on behalf of me currently. I freelance over the web associate degreed earn concerning seventy five greenbacks an hour. Get longer together with your family by doing jobs that solely need for you to possess a pc and a web access and you’ll have that at your home. slightly effort and handsome earning dream is simply a click away,

    ?????????????????????? http://www.Workvalt.Com

  29. “This is not a partisan issue, but instead a personal one,” Ryan continued. “I have come to believe that we must trust women [and men] and families?not politicians?to make the best decision for their lives.”

    start applying this rationale to taxes, income, health care and property and we have something to discuss. otherwise, you’re fucking lying ass politician.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.