Abortion

5 Ways States Are Trying to Erode Abortion Access This Week

As a bonus, a few of the measures will also put women and abortion doctors in more danger.

|

Urban Don/Flickr

ARIZONA: An Arizona bill would require doctors to tell women seeking the abortion pill that the procedure can be reversed if they act quickly enough after taking it. This is not actually a possibility recognized by most in the medical profession or by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, but Allan Sawyer, former president of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, says he has personally reversed the abortion drug's course in one woman by administering progesterone. [What's been better established is that incomplete abortion after taking the pill may lead to serious birth defects.] The proposal was added to a bill, already passed by the Arizona Senate, that would require abortion doctors (though no other medical professionals) to provide home addresses to the Department of Health Services, where they would then be available for public records requests. The bill would also prohibit private health insurers from offering add-on abortion coverage to policies sold on the state health insurance exchange. 

ARKANSAS: On Wednesday, the Arkansas Senate's Public Health, Welfare, and Labor Committee approved a bill that would require abortion doctors to follow outdated guidelines when prescribing abortion medication. "This bill is necessary to protect women from the dangerous and potentially deadly off-label use of this drug regimen," said Republican Rep. Charlene Fite of Van Buren. Under the retro guidelines the legislation would require, women would be prescribed a higher dose of the drugs than is medically necessary. They would also be barred from taking the pill after seven weeks pregnancy (the current limit is nine weeks). 

IOWA: This week the Iowa Supreme Court is considering a state requirement that physicians perform in-person examinations of patients before prescribing the abortion pill. At issue is "whether state regulators were legitimately trying to protect patient safety when they ordered limits on a telemedicine abortion system, or whether they were just trying to restrict access to a legal medical service," according to The Des Moines Register. "The rule would effectively bar use of Planned Parenthood of the Heartland's telemedicine system, which allows urban doctors to offer the service to small-town patients over a computer video linkup." 

Planned Parenthood of the Heartland brought the case against the Iowa Board of Medicine, which established the regulation in 2013. The Board's decision came after anti-abortion Republican Gov. Terry Branstad replaced all 10 existing board members with his own appointees. Previously, Iowa pregnant women could obtain an examination by a nurse and then have a doctor prescribe the drug via video call, a process Planned Parenthood has used with about 7,000 women since 2008. At Wednesday's Court hearing, Justice David Wiggins asked: "Is there any other standard of care such as this contained in any rule or regulation of the (Board of Medicine) that you're aware of?" Of course not. 

KANSAS: A Kansas bill would ban the safest and most common procedure used to perform second-trimester abortions, known as the "dilation and extraction" method. The vast majority of second-trimester abortions are performed this way, which is also the process used by doctors for women who have miscarried but not expelled the fetus. The bill, passed by the House Federal and State Affairs Committee on Wednesday and approved by the Senate last month, rebrands the procedure "dismemberment abortion." If it becomes law (and it's expected to), Kansas doctors would be required to perform second-trimester abortions using processes that have been shown to put women at greater risk.  

MONTANA: A Montana legislative committee heard arguments on Wednesday for requiring doctors to administer anesthesia to fetuses when an abortion is performed after 20 weeks. The bill's sponsor, state Rep. Albert Olszewski (R-Kalispell), told fellow lawmakers that scientific research over the last three decades has proven that a fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks gestation, and neo-natal anesthesia could mitigate this pain. In a 2005 review of the evidence, however, the Journal of the American Medical Association concluded that "fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester" (which starts around 27 weeks) and "little or no evidence addresses the effectiveness of direct fetal anesthetic or analgesic techniques. Similarly, limited or no data exist on the safety of such techniques for pregnant women in the context of abortion." Another large review, this one undertaken by the U.K. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, concluded that "the fetus cannot experience pain in any sense" prior to 24 weeks. 

Advertisement

NEXT: VIDEO: Gangs in Control of American Prisons: "The Social Order of the Underworld"

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. Was this article meant for Slate?

    1. It’s really disappointing. The first article she posted was a good one. I had high hopes for another Cathy.

    2. I know right, nobody here has a uterus.

      1. No such thing as libertarian women. Well-known fact.

      2. This might come as a shock to you, but women are more pro-life than men.

      3. Incorrect. I do.

      4. In have hundreds of uteruses in mason jars sitting on a shelf in my bedchamber.

      5. You know who also doesn’t have a uterus?

      6. I was hit by a bus the other day. Thank God I didn’t have a uterus!

  2. You know they use to do circumcisions on infants without anesthesia because they believed babies didn’t have a fully developed nervous system.

    1. Shhhh, medical science never gets better. We know everything there ever is to know about the gestation process and what makes us human.

      1. *puts hand out for quiet money*

  3. Also what is forex trading? I’m getting an ad for that.

    1. It’s the after market trading in foreskins where deep-dish “pizza” manufacturers secure enough filler for their “pizzas”.

      1. I’d be a fool NOT to give them all my money.

    2. It’s for people like Buttplug who gamble with foreign currencies.

  4. Does Planned Parenthood offer gift certificates for abortions?

    Do they have a bridal registry?

    1. Wonder what their ice bucket challenge would be like…

  5. So why should anyone care? You need to prove the premise that there is a significant difference between children one second before the second trimester and one second after before you can assume that attempting to limit abortion is bad.

    1. Third trimester not second.

    2. This reasoning is equally applicable to the difference between the birthed and on-the-cusp of being birthed child.

      1. It’s the problem with pro-choice reasoning period. Instead of trying to pick a line that makes some sort of sense (brain activity, pain nerves, viability, etc.), they just picked some arbitrary age line. Age lines may be convenient enough for driver’s licenses, but you don’t pick the convenient route when the matter is life and death.

        1. It’s pretty easy – at 25 weeks there’s a 50% chance that a fetus can survive outside of the womb. Until it can survive on it’s own, it’s no different than a tape worm acting as a parasitic organism.

          1. I had a major spinal surgery when I was eleven. Without the tireless work of dozens upon dozens of people I would have died. Last time I checked no one questioned my humanity just because I had a temporary time period were I couldn’t survive on my own.

          2. Thats not the definition of parasite.

            1. *That’s

              1. an organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host’s expense.

                Yeah, it kinda is.

                1. That’s a definition of an EBT card holder.

                  1. Thanks for the giggle!

                2. Parasites have to do harm. Your understanding of biology is limited on all counts.

            2. When you knowingly engage in activity that results in conception with hout taking the many and effective precautions available labeling said conception as “a parasite” is a straw man. In this case, ending the life of the unborn child violates the NAP.

              1. What the hell is “NAP”?

                1. Non Aggression Principle.

                2. “What the hell is “NAP”?”

                  First time here ?

                  Welcome. If you have a sense of humor you will like it here.

              2. The NAP does NOT forbid aggressive action against another person while the other person is trespassing on your property. If the other person is located inside your body, your right to aggress against him/her is even stronger, because body-ownership is a stronger form of ownership than property-ownership..

                1. So you’d support pilots kicking passengers out of their planes at 30,000 feet mid-flight?

                  In most pregnancies, the unborn child in the womb was the result of conscious actions by an able-minded adult. There are sever effective means to continue to enjoy sex without getting pregnant.

                  1. If the pilot owns the airplane, and has not entered a binding contract to allow the passenger to remain on the plane for the whole flight, then yes the pilot would be entitled to throw the passenger out, according to libertarian/propertarian ethical principle. Of course, most passengers would not be foolish enough to get on the plane in the first place without requiring the owner to enter a binding contract to allow them to remain there for the whole flight.

                    In contrast, the fetus accepts no invitation and signs no contract with the womb owner. How could it? Before conception it does not exist. In order to sign a binding contract, one must exist first. You can’t negotiate a contract with a unicorn because there are no unicorns to negotiate with.

                    1. You’re missing the part that the woman’s actions are responsible for the relationship of dependency. The fetus had no say. It would be like if said pilot kidnapped you, and then terminated your flight halfway through.

                      Or, if you like, if a person gave you an illness where you were dependent on an extract from their blood to survive (for nine months), and then claimed that they have self ownership and not required to provide you with it.

                      Yeah, there are no perfect analogies because pregnancy is a unique situation, but it’s perfectly reasonable from a libertarian perspective to be pro-life IF you believe the fetus fits the definition of a person. If you don’t believe that then the whole argument is kind of moot anyway; it’s just a simple medical procedure.

                      Essentially the entire argument hinges on whether or not a fetus has the rights of a member of our species or not.

                    2. Procrastinatus, YOU are missing the fact that the fetus did not exist at all before conception. The woman is responsible for its condition of dependency but she is also owed a debt of gratitude for its condition of existence rather than non-existence. Your analogies–to a pilot who kidnaps you and to a person who gives you an illness, are both fundamentally different from conception and pregnancy, because in both of those cases the other person TAKES SOMETHING from you–your freedom (the pilot who kidnaps you) or your health (the infector). This obligates the other person to restore to you what he took from you–your freedom (the pilot, by allowing you to stay on the plane for the whole flight) or your health (the infector, by giving you the extract from his blood).

                      (CONTINUES BELOW)

                    3. CONTINUING:

                      In contrast, conceiving a fetus does not take anything from it. Before conception, it has nothing to take, not even a self. Since conceiving it does not take anything from it nor make it in any way worse off than it was before conception, conception incurs no obligation to return anything to it nor to give it more womb-time than the womb-owner chooses to give. The conceived-and-aborted fetus has no basis for a legitimate complaint. It gets to enjoy a short life in utero, from conception until abortion, which is just so much gained for it and is better than no life at all! Donating blood does not obligate you to also donate the next transfusion the patient may need; similarly, giving someone a short life inside ones body does not obligate you to also give him or her a longer one. The fetus should enjoy the womb-time it is given, and not try to extract by force or by government intervention more womb-time than the womb-owner chooses to give. If fetuses were as innocent and morally pure as right-to-lifers say they are, then they would not WANT to take more womb-time than their mothers chose to give. A good libertarian fetus would prefer to be aborted, just as a good already-born libertarian would prefer to starve to death rather than live by stealing someone else’s property.

                      CONTINUES BELOW

                    4. CONTINUING FURTHER:

                      So no, the entire argument does not hinge (as you say) on whether or not a fetus has the rights of a member of our species or not. Even if the fetus has, or should have, the rights of a member of our species, these rights to not include access to another person’s body or bloodstream, the use of another person’s life-support functions, or the right to subject another person to major medical/surgical trauma such as childbirth, except by the other person’s continuous and ongoing consent.

                    5. That’s both fucking insane and ignorant of the fact that there are more provisions of a contract than just the explicit ones.

                      Bad analogy, bad!

                    6. Mr Toad uses “Intelligent” in his handle for the same reason people call the 7′ tall guy “tiny”.

                    7. You never read THE WIND IN THE WILLOWS??? Who brought you up?

                    8. From my perspective the actions do constitute a form of a contract. Using the airplane example again what if it is my brother-in-law who says, “Do you want to go up in my plane?” Do you think he’d be morally and ethically correct to throw me out of the plane which would result in my death?

                      Stephen Hawking can’t sign a contract either does that prevent the NEP from applying to him in situations such as these?

                    9. Chumby, by asking “Do you want to go up in my plane”, the brother-in-law has enacted a verbal contract to you to allow you in his plane without killing you.

                      Stephen Hawking can sign a contract using the robotic arm attached to his wheelchair.

                2. Being conceived is not an act of aggression.

                  1. True, PLL, being conceived is not an act of aggression. However, taking material (water, oxygen, and nutrients) from another person’s bloodstream without that person’s ongoing, continuing consent IS an act of aggression. Injecting your metabolic end-products (CO2, creatinine) into another person’s bloodstream without that person’s ongoing, continuing consent IS an act of aggression. And preparing to subject another person to major medical/surgical trauma such as full-term labor and delivery against that person’s will is an act of aggression.

                    These are all acts of aggression, even if they are committed unintentionally.

                    1. I know it’s been a few days, but I just want to make an addendum here for anyone in the future who may be reading this; Toad is not espousing a view (or views) that most Libertarians would agree with. In fact, I have never heard any Libertarian anywhere argue that if you can get someone on your plane or property without them explicitly asking; “are you going to fucking kill me”, that you then have the right to kill them.

                      Neither does he understand that aggression has to be willful and with malice. If the entire world subscribed to the NAP, occasionally there would still be unintentional acts or rights violation. Occasionally there may even be instances where two people’s rights are in conflict. A hiker may accidentally walk up onto your back forty acres. That does not give you the right to shoot them in the face with a 7 mag. They still have a right to their life. Most Libertarians will say that that’s the purpose of third party remediation, governmental or otherwise.

                      Also, most Libertarians will not argue that because someone else decided or initiated a contract for you before you existed or were sentient (in this instance a pregnancy), that you forego your rights. Leftists in general argue that with Social Contract Theory, and Tony in particular advocated that. That the rights of a living person is waved because they couldn’t agree to them before they were born is not something I have ever heard a Libertarian advance.

                    2. One more thing Toad, if you’re still on here;

                      “In contrast, conceiving a fetus does not take anything from it”…”The conceived-and-aborted fetus has no basis for a legitimate complaint. It gets to enjoy a short life in utero, from conception until abortion, which is just so much gained for it and is better than no life at all!”

                      This entire argument is not limited to a magical travel down a birth canal. If a mother gets to kill her (we presume) living child because she conceived it, then that is an argument that can be extended to a full grown adult; “He shouldn’t complain! He got to live until twenty seven years old! That’s better than not living at all!” Just because you conceived someone else doesn’t give you a right to murder them later on.

                      And the bottom line is that the mothers willful actions created a state of dependency of another life on her. She chose that relationship. Your property rights don’t mean that you can force someone else to be dependent on you, and then deprive them of that which they need to survive. No real Libertarian anywhere argues that.

                    3. Procrastinitus: RE: “And the bottom line is that the mothers willful actions created a state of dependency of another life on her.”

                      Here’s what your argument is like: suppose I give blood and the transfusion saves a patient’s life. Just as I am getting ready to go to dinner, the phone rings. It’s the patient whose life I saved, and he says: “Quick, get ready for surgery, I need a lobe of your liver as a transplant in order to stay alive!” I reply: “Sorry, I give blood but I’m keeping my liver to myself.” The patient now answers: “But you are responsible for my state of dependency and need! If you hadn’t given blood, I would be dead now, and I wouldn’t need a lobe of your liver. The fact that I now need a lobe of your liver is a direct result of YOUR action in giving blood! Since your action in giving blood has resulted in my state of need, you MUST give me a lobe of liver now, whether you want to or not!”

                      What to make of this? Technically the patient is correct–if I hadn’t given blood, he wouldn’t need a lobe of my liver, because he’d be dead. So I am, in a sense, directly responsible for his need.

                      CONTINUES BELOW

                    4. CONTINUING:

                      Even so, no one would agree with him or support forcing me to donate. The proper answer to him is, be grateful for the gift I gave you and stop trying to leverage it into a greater obligation!

                      The same answer should be given to the fetus. The fetus should be grateful to the mother for giving it a short life inside her body, and not try to claim (or have right-to-lifers claim on its behalf) that this gift obligates her to also give it a longer one.

                    5. You are right that having conceived someone does not give you the right to murder them after birth. After birth, the rules are different because the other person is no longer inside your body, no longer engaging in body-fluid exchange with you, and no longer preparing to subject you to medical/surgical trauma. Killing them cannot in any sense be called self-defense after birth.

                    6. Procrastinitus, you are wrong. Aggression does not have to be “willful nor with malice” in order to justify repulsing it. If someone trespasses on your property by accident, then according to libertarian/propertarian principle you are justified in driving him off your property, regardless of his reasons or motives for trespassing, and if he dies of exposure to the elements because you drove him off your property, that’s not your problem nor your responsibility.

                      You need to go back and reread your Ayn Rand and your Robert Nozick. Murray Rothbard, too.

                      Another example which is more relevant to the fetus: suppose a criminally-insane, and therefore innocent by reason of insanity, person attacks you with a spear, (he thinks you’re an evil space alien about to destroy the world) and all you have to defend yourself with is a shotgun. Any good libertarian would say you would be justified in shooting the attacker to death in that circumstance, even though the attacker is innocent by reason of insanity and has attacked you UNwillfully and without malice.

                      Procrastinatus, you do not seem to understand libertarianism very well. You should not be trying to explain it to me. I don’t know how old you are, but I would bet I was threshing through libertarianism when you were still an itch in your daddy’s pants. I voted libertarian in 1980.

                    7. Also, Procrastinatus, you should be aware, since you use the word “Libertarian” with a capital L, that the Libertarian Party platform has historically always been strongly pro-choice on abortion, with a couple of aberrant exceptions for the time when Pat Buchanan’s people took over the party, and more recently when the pro-government, anti-freedom Ron Paul somehow ran as its candidate. His stance on abortion drove a whole wing of the Party away from it, BTW.

                      If libertarian doesn’t mean anti-government-intervention in doctors’ offices and anti-government-intervention in women’s genitals, then it doesn’t mean anything.

                    8. “Here’s what your argument is like: suppose I give blood and the transfusion saves a patient’s life.”

                      You’re starting with a false premise. You’re not saving anyone’s life by conceiving. You’re creating a situation where a person exists who’s wholly dependent on you, and then murdering them after you’ve willfully made that living person dependent on you. The entire relationship was initiated and created by that woman. The dependent party had absolutely no say in the dependency. If we take that fetus as being a living person, she’s wholly, completely and solely responsible for it the same as if a relationship of dependency was against another adult completely without their consent.

                      “You are right that having conceived someone does not give you the right to murder them after birth.”

                      Or at all. The dependency argument is one thing, but saying that someone has an extra right to murder someone just because they conceived them is bizarre in the extreme, and not subject to a magic trip down a birth canal if we took that reasoning. If a mother made her 25 year old son dependent on her blood, and then killed him by removing him from that relationship of dependency, she would be a murderer for creating that entire situation.

                    9. And libertarians nor Libertarians have the copyright on the English word aggression, which yes, must be willful and with malice by all common definitions.

                      “If someone trespasses on your property by accident, then according to libertarian/propertarian principle you are justified in driving him off your property”. You’re moving the goalposts. No, this is not aggression, and neither is having someone leave your property. You were talking earlier about killing said person if you could trick them to get on your plane. No libertarian thinks that way.

                      ” suppose a criminally-insane, and therefore innocent by reason of insanity, person attacks you with a spear”

                      Which is aggression.

                      Folks please don’t listen to this guy. Most libertarians (or Libertarians for the pedants) don’t believe that you can murder people who wander up on your property, or if you can trick them on to your plane without signing a contract first. And if you follow a abortion thread here on Reason long enough, the libertarians here always get stuck in the infinite loop of whether or not a fetus is a person. That’s what the entire argument comes down to and there are perfectly decent, ideologically consistent liberty lovers on both sides.

                    10. RE: “You were talking earlier about killing said person if you could trick them to get on your plane.”

                      No I didn’t. I never said you could “trick” someone onto your plane and then kill them. On the contrary, I said above that by inviting them onto your plane you have agreed to a verbal contract with them, which obligates you to let them off the plane alive. You can only kill them if they enter your plane uninvited.

                      Stop setting up straw men and read carefully before you post.

                      RE: The criminally insane person who attacks you with a spear, yes that’s aggression, but it is not WILLFUL nor WITH MALICE as you said was required to justify killing him. The example therefore shows that you were wrong.

                      CONTINUES BELOW

                    11. CONTINUING:

                      RE: “You’re creating a situation where a person exists who’s wholly dependent on you, and then murdering them after you’ve willfully made that living person dependent on you. …The woman is wholly, completely and solely responsible for it the same as if a relationship of dependency was against another adult completely without their consent.”

                      Again, bad analogy. When you make another adult dependent on you, you take something from that adult–his autonomy. This obligates you to return that autonomy to him. In contrast, conceiving the fetus takes nothing from it and does not make it worse off than it was before, and therefore incurs no obligation to it to give it more life inside your body than you choose to give. This is the third time I have explained this to you and you still do not seem to understand it. I don’t think I can say it any more clearly than I already have. Procrastinatus, you should seriously consider the possibility that you may not be smart enough to think clearly about complicated philosophical matters like rights, freedom, and medical autonomy.

                      RE: “Most libertarians … don’t believe that you can murder people who wander up on your property,” If the trespasser refuses to leave, then the property-owner is entitled to violently drive him off, and to kill him if they refuse to leave. That’s libertarianism 101. If you don’t agree with that, then you are not libertarian, by definition.

                    12. RE: ” Most Libertarians will say that that’s the purpose of third party remediation, governmental or otherwise.”

                      No, Procrastinatus, most libertarians would NOT say we depend on third parties or government agents to enforce our property rights. The WHOLE POINT of libertarianism is, that we property-owners are entitled to enforce our property rights OURSELVES, without needing to appeal to government or any other interventionist third party.

                      This is probably the single most important principle of libertarianism: our property rights are intrinsic to ourselves as free human beings, and do not come from, or depend on, government.

          3. A parasite must by definition be of a different species from its host. The fetus is therefore technically not a parasite although its relation to the womb-owner is certainly parasitic in nature.

            1. Citation, please.

              1. Any high school or college level bio textbook.

          4. Strange….its DNA would say it was human. With appropriate samples they can even tell you who the parents and siblings are. So no. It’s human. It’s alive. If one were to twist the words enough he could even make ending a human life sound like a good thing.

            Sad.

  6. A Kansas bill would ban the safest and most common procedure used to perform second-trimester abortions, known as the “dilation and extraction” method. The vast majority of second-trimester abortions are performed this way, which is also the process used by doctors for women who have miscarried but not expelled the fetus. The bill, passed by the House Federal and State Affairs Committee on Wednesday and approved by the Senate last month, rebrands the procedure “dismemberment abortion.”

    Well, calling it the “induce labor and grab the fetus’ motherfucking leg to snip at its skull and suck out the brains Method For Kind and Friendly Best Abortion Experience” probably wouldn’t have been quite as clinical, Elizabeth.

    1. If we’re comparing euphemisms here, allow me to put “gape and scrape” on the table.

      1. You rape ’em,
        We Scrape ’em!
        No fetus
        Can beat us!
        Bring yer own coat-hanger…
        Back-alley abortions,
        Here we cum!

        1. That’s disgusting.

          1. But prophetic.

            1. It’s abhorrent.

    2. “grab the fetus’ motherfucking leg to snip at its skull and suck out the brains”

      Legs and skulls? But I’ve been told that it’s just a “clump of cells” equivalent to nothing more than a mole or cancerous growth until it makes a trip down the birth canal magically turning it into a baby.

      1. This debate can easily be resolved. Simply give women at various stages of pregnancy a camera pill so we can finally see what’s going on down there.

    3. Dragged on a table in factory
      Illegitimate place to be
      In a packet in a lavatory
      Die little baby screaming
      Body screaming fucking bloody mess
      Not an animal
      It’s an abortion

      Body! I’m not animal
      Mummy! I’m not an abortion

      Throbbing squirm,
      gurgling bloody mess
      I’m not a discharge
      I’m not a loss in protein
      I’m not a throbbing squirm

  7. In a 2005 review of the evidence, however, the Journal of the American Medical Association concluded that “fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester” (which starts around 27 weeks)

    We’ve had preemies in our NICU that were less than 27 weeks. I can assure you with 100% confidence that they feel pain. I doubt the pain receptors get switched on when you cut the umbilical cord, so this sounds like crap to me.

    1. I did a c-section for an 18 week old and even at that stage it looks human.

      1. It doesn’t matter if it’s human, or if it’s a person. What matters is not WHAT it is, but WHERE it is.

        If something is located inside your body, then you are entitled to have it killed, no matter what it is, even if it is a human person. If all the people in the whole world were assembled somewhere inside your body, then you would be entitled to holocaust them. That’s part of the meaning of the word “your” in the phrase “your body”.

        1. I think you need to remove the word ‘intelligent’ from your screen name…

          1. Like (nearly) all right-to-lifers, you have no answer to the pro-choice Body-Ownership/Abortion-as-Justifiable-Homicide argument, so you respond to it with insults and ad-hominem attacks.

            Fetuses are persons, and abortion is homicide. But abortion performed at the request of the womb-owner is JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE.

            1. In every case of a homicide being justified, the justification comes from the fact that it is saving the life of another.
              Your justification is not only NOT saving the life of another but actually taking the life of one, who is posing no mote threat than occurs millions of times, world-wide, to no major ill effect.
              You also seem to ignore that the life was created, almost always, by a voluntary act of the “womb owner” and is completely avoidable, by simply not performing that voluntary act.
              But that’s the point, isn’t it? Pro-abortion types just want to go through the motions of making babies because it feels good and not have to accept the natural consequences of their acts, especially since one half of the equation doesn’t have to worry about the consequence, so “IT’S NOT FAIR”.

              1. Retiredfire, you are mistaken. Saving another person’s life is NOT the only justification for justifiable homicide. Justifiable homicide can also be committed to get rid of a trespasser or burglar, or to prevent someone from injuring (not necessarily killing) you, or in order to carry out capital punishment (which saves no lives) or in order to kill the enemy in war, even if that enemy is not a deadly threat to you at the time of the killing.

                You say pregnancy and childbirth cause “no major ill effect”?!? LOL! In the absence of sophisticated, modern, expensive medical/surgical care, childbirth kills one out of every five-to-six women who endure it! And death is only one of many major ill effects. Look up “obstetric fistula”, for instance. And where sophisticated, modern medical/surgical care IS available, childbirth causes enough expense to bankrupt an ordinary person.

            2. Your basic premise fails because, for your analogy of an invader in one’s house to be valid, you have to ignore that in most cases the woman “invited” the fetus in (to further torture your already tenuous analogy). While it is true that I may use lethal force against a home invader, I can’t invite my neighbor over and then try to use the same justification.

              Your analogy also fails because a home invader brings the danger of bodily harm, which permits deadly force. If a toddler crawled into your house uninvited, however, you would not be entitled to use deadly force. You likely also wouldn’t be permitted to leave the child outside to perish, further undercutting your analogy.

              1. Individual responsibility is a major tenet of Liberty. Why should another human suffer or die because the mother wasn’t responsible enough to use protection? Epic fail on your part.

              2. Unnatural, the reason you cannot invite your neighbor over and then kill him for trespassing is that by accepting your invitation and entering your property, the neighbor GIVES UP SOMETHING–the freedom he was enjoying by being on his own property or on neutral property. You are therefore obligated to restore to him the freedom he gave up by accepting your invitation. In contrast, the fetus gives nothing up by being conceived. Before conception, it had nothing to give up, not even a self. Since conceiving a fetus takes nothing from it and does not make it any worse off than it was before, conception incurs no obligation to return anything to it nor to give it more womb time than you wish to give.

                The conceived and aborted fetus has no basis for a legitimate complaint–it gets to enjoy a short life in utero from conception until abortion. This is just so much gained for it and is better than no life at all.

    2. But that is not what they said. They said before the 3rd trimester.

      The reality is the pain receptors are likely on from the moment the nerve endings develop, what matters is when does the brain become sufficiently developed to have any level of comprehension that pain hurts as opposed to producing purely autonomous nerve responses.

      And the answer to that is likely somewhere around 25 weeks give or take 2 weeks

      1. I know they didn’t say pain receptors get switched on, etc. Based on my observation, though, that would seem to be the only possible explanation for why a 23 week old fetus doesn’t feel pain (as they claim), but a 23 week preemie does (as I have observed).

        And that’s so obviously stupid and ridiculous I didn’t think I’d have to explain it.

        1. Actually I was commenting on the discrepancy between 27 weeks and “traveling down the birth canal”

          That said, yes, a 23 week old preemie does in some sense feel pain. So does a jellyfish. The question is what level of awareness and comprehension of what that sensation means does that preemie’s brain have. The answer is likely none whatsoever. The higher order functions of the brain would just not be developed enough for that yet.

          The electro chemical sensation of “pain” is unimportant, what we should be concerned with is the mental awareness of pain and that is what will not have developed much before the 3rd trimester

          1. Well, the preemies I have seen would sure as hell pass a Turing test for whether or not they “really” feel pain.

            That’s my baseline. Speculation (and that’s all it is) about whether their brains are developed enough to really feel pain strikes me as giving insight mostly into our poor understanding of brains and consciousness.

          2. But pain or awareness of pain are not the best arguments against abortion. If they were, that would mean that if I first put someone into a medically induced coma, I could kill him as long as he didn’t feel the pain.

            For whatever reason–religious, philosophical or evolutionary–we have made killing of another human different in both kind and degree than killing other organisms. For NAP purposes, the only question is when does a human life begin and mere cells end. This question will likely never be satisfactorily answered because what makes us human is an amorphous question.

            ENB and other pro-choicers look at this and want to err on the side of permitting abortion. Pro-lifers want to err on the side of non-aggression.

    3. I have mind-melded with the BAZZILIONS of bactreria that you so callously flush down the drain after you brush your teeth every morning, and let me assure you, buddy, they DO feel pain… If we REALLY are “pro-life”, we will be troubled enough to explain to everyone else, WHOSE lives do we treasure? Fertilized egg cells? Then why not the bacteria who cling to my teeth?

      1. Way to change the subject.

        We’re talking about human lives here. Your argument is the equivalent of telling someone that they can’t oppose murder because they eat meat. (Either way, I’m a vegetarian.)

        1. Either way, I find meat consumption abhorrent, as should any other opponent of violence and exploitation.

          1. Check your mouth, those canines….

          2. Over the weekend we had some of the free range, organic deer I harvested last fall on the back forty. Thing loaded up on fallen apples in the orchard. Best meat ever. Has a fruity, apple undertone.

            1. Would you email me some backstrap so that I may examine the accuracy of your tastebuds ?

              Purely for research purposes.

              1. I actually still have the tenderloins. Wish I could share some via e-mail. He was DRT. Dressed within about 40 minutes. Temperature was around freezing. Had him at the butcher’s within two hours. So the meat care had no issues. And he had been gorging on apples for a few weeks.

      2. Because bacteria aren’t peoe – Duh!

  8. Thank God our flyover states are still not as bad as that anti-abortion hellhole known as France.

    Abortion in France is legal on demand up to 12-weeks after conception (14 weeks after the last menstrual period),[1][2] since the Veil Law in 1975. Abortions at later stages of pregnancy are allowed if two physicians certify that the abortion will be done to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman; a risk to the life of the pregnant woman; or that the child will suffer from a particularly severe illness recognized as incurable.

    1. I actually like the French law. 12 weeks should be plenty enough time to decide to murder your baby or not. I would include rape as an exception, but that may be included in the emotional harm clause. I’m not sure what counts as “severe illness,” could Down’s syndrome count?

      1. So, you recognize that an act is murder, but you still want it to be legal?

  9. Would someone post an immigration thread to complete the trifecta of derp?

    1. I think there has to be a gay marriage thread and a marijuana thread before it can be completed.

    2. Illegal humans are illegal humans… They violated the laws! Fry them!!! … Are there fertilized egg cells in the bowels of the illegal humans?!?! Just ask said fertilized egg cells, “Papers please?”, and all will be well with God… God has blessed the hatred of illegal humans, after all…

  10. Six months ago I lost my job and after that I was fortunate enough to stumble upon a great website which literally saved me. I started working for them online and in a short time after I’ve started averaging 15k a month… The best thing was that cause I am not that computer savvy all I needed was some basic typing skills and internet access to start… This is where to start……===========
    http://www.jobs-check.com

  11. Stop. Just stop.

    If we accept the fact that the unborn child is a living human being, then that unborn child deserves the right to life. It’s strange how the same libertarians who care about individual rights turn a blind eye to the value of unborn lives. Basic human embryology shows that life begins at conception.

    Younger Americans are become more pro-life, while at the same time becoming more pro-marriage-equality and pro-drug-reform. This isn’t just another social issue. It isn’t even a religious one. Christopher Hitchens and Nat Hentoff, both atheists, identified as pro-life. (I realize that Hentoff is still alive.)

    1. Give Secular Pro-Life a visit. Humanity and personhood should not be treated differently. Once a sperm and egg cell join, you have a new human life. Unique DNA, gender, race, and (possibly) sexual orientation.

    2. If we accept the fact that the unborn child is a living human being

      Yeah, if only everybody would just accept your premise!

      1. Here are studies that substantiate my claims: http://www.princeton.edu/~prol…..tes2.html.

        And yes, an unborn child is a member of the genus and species Homo sapiens, so s/he is human.

        1. Human’s got nuthin to do with it.

          A lump of cells is not yet a person.

          I reject your premise.

          1. Who grants us personhood and how do they define it?

            1. Who grants us personhood and how do they define it?

              EXACTLY why there is no true libertarian position on abortion.

              IF it’s a person, the rights of the baby to live take priority over the rights of the mother. IF it’s not a person, the rights of the host clearly take priority over those of the growth.

              When does that happen? Know one knows. I’m nearly certain it happens prior to birth and I’m just as certain it happens sometime after conception. Which is why I have no position on abortion. I have no idea whose rights take priority.

              And neither do you. And if you are wrong, by any degree you are violating the rights of one or the other.

                1. Francisco anyone who reads here regualrly knows that you know the difference between know and no.

                  Don’t freak out over a typo. Anyone who picks at that nit isn’t intellectual enough to be debating on Reason anyway and is below your intellectual level.

                  Don’t freak out over stupid typos.

              1. Who grants us personhood and how do they define it?

                EXACTLY why there is no true libertarian position on abortion.

                IF it’s a person, the rights of the baby to live take priority over the rights of the mother. IF it’s not a person, the rights of the host clearly take priority over those of the growth.

                When does that happen? Know one knows. I’m nearly certain it happens prior to birth and I’m just as certain it happens sometime after conception. Which is why I have no position on abortion. I have no idea whose rights take priority.

                And neither do you. And if you are wrong, by any degree you are violating the rights of one or the other.

                So, in the end it becomes the problem of trying to answer that question–whose rights take priority without a definitive point where a second person is actually there to have rights.

                The solution, therefore, is simple.

                Life is the most important ‘right’. Without it, there are no other rights. So life must be paramount.

                If we accept this–and I posit that it is impossible to not accept it–then the potential life–which we know will, at some point in the pregnancy, become more than simply ‘potential’ takes precedence.

                Why?

                Because the mother’s liberty is only temporarily inconvenienced, whereas abortion permanently eliminates the right to life.

                In short, looked at this way, abortion is murder to avoid temporary inconvenience.

                Of course, this is the logical solution, so it will be dismissed.

                1. Potential life? I’d like to point out (once again) that, based on human embryology, life begins at fertilization.

              2. Fine, this is certainly true, but given potentially conflicting rights, which should take precedence? I’d argue non-aggression.

                Example: I think everyone would agree that I have freedom of bodily movement, so long as such movement doesn’t cause physical or economic harm to another. Similarly, I have the right to keep, bear and use firearms so long as my use doesn’t harm another. Let’s say I go into a dark room where there may or may not be other people. Should I be free to swing my fists around or shoot my gun off on the hope that no one is there, or do I have a responsibility to err on the side of caution?

                My right of movement may be restricted, as may a woman’s right of bodily integrity, but only to such degree that it prevents a greater harm through aggression.

            2. Those who have the right to grant personhood have the right to take it away.

          2. Does the fact that this “lump of cells” (which we all are, anyway, except for Warty) will become a “person” at some point as accepted by everyone contribute at all to when you think it should be afforded legal protection?

            1. Does the fact that this “lump of cells” (which we all are, anyway, except for Warty) will become a “person” at some point as accepted by everyone contribute at all to when you think it should be afforded legal protection?

              No.

              Here is the side of the argument that most pro-life people omit. The woman has rights too. It’s not just “let’s call it a person at conception just to be sure”. Doing so violates the right of the woman to do as she sees fit with her own body.

              1. There’s a difference between the inconvenience of pregnancy (barring genuine medical justification) and killing the baby. Though I found your position above wise and an am sympathetic to the question of determining viability, this point is kinda lame.

                It isn’t often the woman’s life over the babies life. But it’s definitely always about the baby’s life.

                I have a dick and don’t plan on more breeding, but . . . the two aren’t usually equivalent.

                1. There’s a difference between the inconvenience of pregnancy (barring genuine medical justification) and killing the baby.

                  Not if it’s NOT a baby (read person). Your position is predicated on the zygote being a person (with rights). Now I’m not sure I can define what makes a person a person, but I’m pretty sure it requires some sort of self awareness. Self awareness is simply not possible without a brain, and I’d wager a brain alone isn’t enough, at that.

                  I don’t deny that when it becomes a “baby” (person), your position is completely correct. We differ over what can’t possibly be known (at least for now).

                  1. But once that group of cells feels or reacts to pain isn’t that a telltale of “self awareness”.

                    How can someone/thing not be self aware if it feels pain since the purpose of feeling pain is to warn the organism that it is in danger and is being harmed ?

                    1. But once that group of cells feels or reacts to pain isn’t that a telltale of “self awareness”.

                      I’d say yes.

                      As I said, somewhere between conception and birth.

                    2. why must it always be pain that people use? Does humanity=suffering?

                  2. I make a similar point. But I omit the emotion inducing term ‘baby’.

                    ‘Baby*’ is irrelevant.

                    This is about temporary over permanent.

                    A temporary infringement on one’s liberties over a permanent infringement on ones liberties.

                    *I do want to note, however, that the ‘baby’ is present in the equation. The woman seeking abortion does so because she is not ready to have kids. This shows that she’s viewing the ‘clump of cells’ not as a ‘clump of cells’ but as a person that can make demands upon her. ‘Clumps of cells’ cannot do this and are, in fact, regularly discarded by everyone–fingernails, hair, mucous, skin cells, blood, etc. If she is thinking of it as a person, why shouldn’t we?

              2. The body inside her body is not her body. Property rights do not include the “right” to kill.

                1. So if someone is starving, do they have the right to break into your house and take your food?

                  1. If your five year old, already born child is starving do you have the right to deny them nourishment?

                    1. You first.

                    2. I don’t walk away from my responsibilities.

                  2. A more accurate analogy would ask if I would be fine with a starving and/or homeless child breaking into my home. Obviously, I’d be fine with it, and under no circumstances would I be permitted to kill him or her.

          3. Ah, the infamous “lump of cells” trivialization. I see no point in continuing if you’re going to be that reductive, but…

            Human + living + unique DNA = person.

            1. So what about unimplanted fertilized eggs from IVF? Does the woman have the obligation to be implanted and carry to term?

              Cancer cells have your DNA. Are you committing murder when you undergo chemotherapy or radiation?

              1. No one has the right to kill the fertilized egg.

              2. in order for IVF to be permitted, there should first be somebody who is willing to serve as an “implantee”.

            2. I see no point in continuing if you’re going to be that reductive, but…

              Then…

              …fuck you.

              It IS a lump of cells. It isn’t even close to being a person and the woman most certainly is. It doesn’t even know it exists.

              1. I’m pretty sure it’s not a person when its a blastula, I’m also pretty sure its not a person when it is indistinguishable from a lizard or a chicken…after that I claim ignorance.

              2. Did you drop out of school before you got to biology?

              3. Francisco, you’re being intentionally myopic.

                I’ve told you before that, once conception occurs, you have a living human being. Your rebuttal is that the unborn child doesn’t have rights at a certain stage because s/he doesn’t look human enough. Seriously?

          4. The anti-science crowd has spoken! A human is not a person until Francisco says so! lol

      2. Yeah man… Every cell in my body (given modern tech and a willing recipient of the resulting products) can be teased into being an omni-plural-potential cell… Scrape the inner linings of my cheeks, extract the cell nuclei, implant them into donated egg cells, and then implant them into willing women who’d LOVE to serve as replicating units for mass-producing carbon copies of The SQRLSY One… And me and my descendants can RULE THE UNIVERSE!!! bwah-ha-ha!!! ALL because God (or other un-named Power? Please name, so that I can shame…) has apparently pronounced The Sacredness of The Single Omni-Potent Cell…

        If you cannot refute my logic, then EVERY time that you brush your teeth, ye are committing MASS MURDER!!!

    3. Except until it can survive on it’s own, it’s NOT a human being because it is literally a parasitic organism (which humans are not).

      1. So I guess a conjoined twin isn’t a human being.

      2. Except until it can survive on it’s own, it’s NOT a human being because it is literally a parasitic organism (which humans are not).

        It can’t survive on its own for YEARS after it’s born. Can we abort it until that time?

        You might want to rethink your criteria.

        1. No, he just needs to be a bit more precise. Given access to adequate resources (food, water, energy) and not supplied through a directly parasitic process on another human can it maintain basic autonomic functions? And we add a grandfather clause for anyone who becomes disabled. If they have demonstrated an ability to do so in the past, then they qualify.

      3. Look up the definition of parasite. An unborn child is not a parasite.

        1. Really? So without leeching blood, nutrients, and oxygen from it’s host, how will that pre-25 week fetus survive?

          Oh, that’s right, you think your invisible friend with magical powers will provide it with the ability to do all of those things.

      4. I venture to say that you cannot survive on your own as could 99.99% of humans.

        Are you therefore a parasitic organism also ?

    4. RE: “If we accept the fact that the unborn child is a living human being, then that unborn child deserves the right to life.” WRONG! Inside another person’s body, there are no rights for anyone, (including no right to life for anyone) except those rights which the owner of the body chooses to grant. That’s part of the meaning of the word “her” in the phrase “her body”.

      If something is located inside your body, then you are entitled to have it killed, no matter what it is, even if it is a human person. If all the people in the whole world were assembled inside your body, then you would be entitled to holocaust them. That’s part of the meaning of the word “your” in the phrase “your body”.

      Fetuses are persons and abortion is homicide. But abortion performed at the request of the womb-owner is JUSTIFIABLE homicide.

      Younger Americans, like Christopher Hitchens, recognize that fetuses are human persons and feel sowwy for the poor widdle “babies” when they get aborted. But younger Americans, like Hitchens, OPPOSE having government ban abortion, and will not tolerate the idea that an ordinary American woman, a woman they know, might be forced by her government to grow an unwelcome pregnancy and endure full-term labor-and-delivery against her will.

      1. You’d be surprised at the number of people who support restrictions.

        1. I’ll take a shot in the dark and say that number is equal to the number of delusional people who believe in the existence of an imaginary friend with magical powers.

          Sadly, I won’t live long enough to see religion classified as the mental illness it is.

  12. Six months ago I lost my job and after that I was fortunate enough to stumble upon a great website which literally saved me. I started working for them online and in a short time after I’ve started averaging 15k a month… The best thing was that cause I am not that computer savvy all I needed was some basic typing skills and internet access to start… This is where to start……
    ============ http://www.netjob70.com

  13. Six months ago I lost my job and after that I was fortunate enough to stumble upon a great website which literally saved me. I started working for them online and in a short time after I’ve started averaging 15k a month… The best thing was that cause I am not that computer savvy all I needed was some basic typing skills and internet access to start… This is where to start……===========
    http://www.jobs-check.com

    1. I think it’s pretty clear to everyone here why it is that you lost your job.

  14. “whether state regulators were legitimately trying to protect patient safety”

    Which of the two patients are you referring to?

    And as to the pain-capable bills, I have a serious question for ENB: You cite evidence that maybe the fetus feels pain at 25 or 27 weeks, so would you at least support a bill to require that etuses at *that* stage get anesthesia, or even that aborting them at that stage be banned?

    1. And seriously, is there *any* limitation on abortion, in the interest of the fetus, that you would support?

      1. Is there any point pastconception you’d consider allowing abortion?

        1. Feel free to peruse the other threads where I articulated my position.

        2. For consistency’s sake, I personally would ban abortion at any stage postconception. However, for political expediency (and thus realistically) I would compromise at the “capable-of-living-outside-the-womb” marker.

          1. Political expediency doesn’t apply to human lives.

            I’m pro-life and support personhood from the point of conception onward.

            1. While I have those same feelings about personhood I am also torn because of my belief that just because some people got a job working for the govenment that they should not have the right or power to tell the rest of us how to live our lives.

              I also am pragmatic enough to know that if abortion were declared illegal tomorrow then the coathanger abortions would once again become commonplace for those who couldn’t afford to travel.

              So, I am torn. I don;t like the thought of abortion. I believe that zygotes are little babies in waitiing. I also don’t think that women should be put into a position of thinking that a back alley coat hanger abortion is their only way out of a situation they are overwhelmed by.

              A total societal shift where women aren’t shamed by unplanned prenancies for any reason.

              1. I’m on board with de-stigmatizing pregnancy, but if we recognize that unborn children are living, then allowing for their continue murder essentially demotes them to second-clad personhood. And you’d be surprised at how the numbers were going down in pre-1973 America.

                Personally pro-life isn’t good enough; it doesn’t protect anyone’s rights.

            2. I also support personhood from conception onward, but I am pro-choice. Personhood does not entitle you to occupy another person’s body without that other person’s continuing consent. Personhood does not entitle you to take material (water, oxygen, nutrients) from another person’s bloodstream without that other person’s continuing permission, nor to inject your metabolic end-products (CO2, creatinine) into another person’s bloodstream without her ongoing consent. Finally, personhood does not entitle you to subject another person to major medical/surgical trauma such as full-term labor and delivery against that person’s will.

              Abortion is homicide, but abortion performed at the request of the womb-owner is JUSTIFIABLE homicide.

              1. “abortion performed at the request of the womb-owner is JUSTIFIABLE homicide.”

                No it’s not. You say it’s justifiable, but offer no evidence of this. Are you a politician?

                1. It is justifiable homicide because the target is located inside the womb-owner’s body. That’s all the “evidence” one needs.

            3. So you literally think that when a sperm meets an egg, that’s a human being? Thanks for clarifying that you’re utterly deranged.

    2. Dude……. I kept wondering where you were.

    3. When one is doing an abortion, the fetus is not a patient. There is only one patient, and that is the womb-owner, which is the pregnant woman.

      In medical terms, the fetus is the patient’s CHIEF COMPLAINT.

      1. So kill it? Adoption or other similar options never entered your mind?

        What’s it like to be still living in Sparta?

        1. Adoption is fine, if the woman is willing to undergo pregnancy and full-term labor-and-delivery. Most women aren’t, and shouldn’t be forced to do so.

  15. Everyone should just agree with me about abortion. Me. Not you. Me. Fuck you.

    1. Well, I’m sold. The best abortion argument I’ve heard all day. Or ever.

  16. Another post where most of the comments disagree with Reason and the long held LP position. The adverse possession movement by conservatives here continues.

    1. Bo, one can be a libertarian and be pro-life.

      Why should the LP be the final arbiter of what is and isn’t libertarian?

      1. It’s not arbiter, but at some point it’s worth asking why so many who consistently disagree with Reason and like minded libertarian groups comment here

        1. But do you dispute that one can be pro-life and be a libertarian? If not, then I can’t see how the comments in this article would support your general thesis.

          1. You can PERSONALLY be pro-birth (not pro-life, you guys don’t give a damn about what happens to the baby or parents after it’s born – you just want it born in hopes of it following your religion and tossing money in the collection plate) and libertarian, but not if you want to FORCE others to adhere to your religious views.

            1. It doesn’t need to be a religious position at all. Concluding the fetus is a person and is therefore worthy of protection can derive from an entirely secular thought-process.

              You might as well call being against aggression a “religious view” that one wants to FORCE others to adhere to.

              1. If you’re pro-life you want to throw millions upon millions of women in prison for murder 1 for something currently considered a constitutionally protected right.

                You wouldn’t say it that way, but you must believe it. Libertarians are completely and absurdly wrong about how they describe their relationship with collective force. You are government against taxing people. You aren’t against government forcing people into imprison or shooting them in the head. So why not drop the whole aggression holier-than-thou thing?

                1. against government*

                    1. English isn’t by far the biggest mistake you make here.

                      How old were you when your father abandoned you ?

                2. Last I checked, non-pro-lifers want to ensure the continued legality of killing over 1.2 million people per year. You can’t hold the moral high ground when you support aggression against an innocent party: the unborn child.

                  1. ProLifeLibertarian|3.12.15 @ 8:24PM|#
                    “Last I checked, non-pro-lifers want to ensure the continued legality of killing over 1.2 million people per year.”

                    That halo just might drop and strangle you.
                    You just tried to use an assertion to fool people into thinking you were making an argument.

                3. You don’t have a uterus, Tony, but you’re still a cunt.

                4. Tony|3.12.15 @ 7:25PM|#
                  …”You are government against taxing people. You aren’t against government forcing people into imprison or shooting them in the head. So why not drop the whole aggression holier-than-thou thing?”

                  For someone who spends as much time here as you do, you are amazingly ignorant of who favors what. And amazingly adept at finding false equivalences.
                  More directly, you’re a slimy little twit who is stupid and lies on a regular basis.

                5. If you’re pro-life you want to throw millions upon millions of women in prison for murder

                  The only policy position I’ve articulated is pretty much where policy is now: viability.

                  for something currently considered a constitutionally protected right.

                  So when will you stop bitching about Citizens United?

                  You are government against taxing people. You aren’t against government forcing people into imprison or shooting them in the head.

                  We’ve already settled you’re not very good with nuance.

                  So why not drop the whole aggression holier-than-thou thing?

                  Maybe when you stop being a progressive caricature?

                6. Tony:

                  If you’re pro-life you want to throw millions upon millions of women in prison for murder 1 for something currently considered a constitutionally protected right.

                  I hear that arbitrary taxation is all the rage. It’s a power defined in the constitution.

                  Therefore, I think states should tax abortions $500K each.

                  Then, when democrats wet their pants, they could just say “Hey: money isn’t abortion.”

                  I mean, really, how much freedom fucking are we supposed to take, when democracy is trying to speak? Geesh. Libertarians. Next thing you know, they’ll want to destroy civilization.

                7. Protecting our rights are why “governments are instituted among men.” Rights such as the “right to life” for example. So this is within the scope of “government” as defined in the Declaration of Independence and the ideals of liberty.

                  Everything else you just made up out of frustration. Isn’t knowing what others think something usually associated with supreme beings? Didn’t know you were so religious.

            2. You’ve made so many inane posts today, but this one is particularly inane.

              The first person to drag religion into this debate was you, not me.

        2. Your argument: “Put up or shut up!”

      2. “An embryo has no rights… a child cannot acquire any rights until it is born.”–Ayn Rand.

        “Abortion is a moral right?which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered.”–Ayn Rand.

        1. “You’re wrong.” –Bullet Gibson

        2. Ayn Rand was clueless about many things: childcare, Israel, war, and religion. Citing her on this issue is like citing ANDREW Johnson on how not to show up drunk to your own inauguration.

    2. Bo,

      Abortion isn’t an issue where I think it’s fair to play the Libertarian purity game. People on both sides can have justifiable libertarian reasoning on it.

      I suppose it might be a bit odd that most people in the comments generally seem to disagree with Reason’s position, but not really when you consider that anti-abortion readers are probably going to be more motivated to comment on an abortion thread than pro-choice people are. (Personally, I’m in the middle on this issue – I think it should be legal in early stages of pregnancy, but I would ban it earlier than it currently is in most places).

    3. God, you’re a tedious little cunt. Is Ron Paul a libertarian? Yes or no?

    4. Yet they send so much time telling other nonlibertarians to shut up and go away.

      1. Tony|3.12.15 @ 7:20PM|#
        ‘Yet they send so much time telling other *ignoramuses* to shut up and go away.’

        Just helping out, Tony; you need it.

    5. Bo

      If you accept actions have consequences then engaging in sex when you do not want a pregnancy without using the many and available precautions means you know what the result is. To abort the result is to violate the NAP. If you know you can’t care for a pet then do not allow your coworker to talk you into taking home one of the kittens that yoyr coworker’s cat had.

  17. I wonder what the cross-section of commenters is that says circumcision is heinous and abortion is A-OK.

  18. “This bill is necessary to protect women from the dangerous and potentially deadly off-label use of this drug regimen,” said Republican Rep. Charlene Fite of Van Buren.

    WAR ON WIMMINZ

    1. I do tire of some Republicans’ misdirection on the issue, though.

      A) No one believes that protecting women’s health is the purpose of these proposed laws.

      B) Even if they did, tbe sponsors are still being dishonest. They should be truthful about what they ultimately want.

      For political expediency rationales, see A.

      1. True, but that’s what happens when the SCOTUS hijacks an issue and portrays it as a kinda sorta fundamental right, people who disagree will still fight it with whatever ammunition they have: here, a mother’s health.

  19. As a bonus, a few of the measures will also put women and abortion doctors in more danger.

    Those are the breaks. Murderers usually do not operate within safe environments. That goes with the territory.

    A Kansas bill would ban the safest and most common procedure used to perform second-trimester abortions,

    Now they won’t be able to act upon their barbarism in a more common and safer manner!

    Is this article meant as a joke?

    1. Are you pro-life too, OldMexican?

  20. I demand the death penalty for the makers of the RU486 pill. It’s awesome to find out that libertarians apply value judgements to complicated issues to determine that there should be laws against things. Hey, that’s what I do! I guess my one beef is that I wish they’d stop being so up their and my ass about it and telling me that anyone who supports Medicare and Social Security must love Mao and Stalin. It’s an argument I’ve had directed my way a couple times… Maybe it’s not that compelling.

    Elizabeth, should I vote for rand Paul if I’m concerned about abortion rights? I’ve heard there’s other candidates out there that think a women’s privacy is pretty important. OTOH, those candidates didn’t go to CPAC or look to Camille paglia for inspiration so, you know, never mind. My bad.

    1. Privacy does not include the right to kill. Funny how a socialist who (supposedly) stands up for the downtrodden is supporting their continued subjugation through legalized (and state-sanctioned) murder.

      1. But I bet you “kill” by brushing your teeth, do you not? Kills bacteria, ya know… If you do NOT want to kill the bacteria on your teeth, better not be brushing… Or, god, forbid, kill HUMAN CELLS on your cheek linings, you had better NOT be eating or drinking ANYTHING other than THE very most softest of liquids!

        1. Nothing wrong about killing a few brain cells though, huh ?

        2. Your argument only works if you think there is no difference between humans and animals. Socrates, Plato, Jefferson…..might as well have been fish huh?

          Get real.

    2. Given how seriously you were fapping about all the “accomplishments” of the USSR, you’ve got not reason to whine about criticism of your support for proven and unquestionable murderers.

    3. Pay your mortgage yes, asshole? Still licking mass-murderer ass?

      1. He’s still at the SEIU rally whilst his wife is getting raped by two white supremicist dudes. The neighbor that would have helped hot locked up last week for walking around California with a concealed gun. Amsoc found out and called in an anonymous tip.

    4. libertarians apply value judgements

      Having values, that is required. If you value Liberty then the very first and most important Liberty of all is the Liberty to not be killed.

      If you believe in natural rights, you believe that your right to live is based solely upon the fact that you are a living, human individual. At the moment of conception a new living human individual begins his life. This is scientific fact. It is taught in 10th grade biology and has been known to mankind for millenia. We do it in labs all the time. We have described in great scientific detail what occurs. How could someone who believes that their rights are inherent believe that they come with life? Consistency.

      Funny how your snark “the death penalty for the makers of the RU486 pill” is all about collective and corporate punishment. Unsurprising that you are not familiar with (hate?) the idea of personal responsibility. I have absolutely no problem with anyone making or taking RU486, but if they use it to kill a living human, I oppose it as being murder.

  21. You’re kidding me. I take it that Reason is in favor of abortion. I am an atheist, and a long time admirer of the works of Ayn Rand, but I disagreed with her reasoning when she justified abortion, and I disagree with you now. The beginning of an individual life occurs when the ovum is fertilized by a sperm, and it continues through the blastocyst, through the fetus, and on to the newly birthed infant. In all stages of that continuum, the rights accorded to an individual persist, and that continues until the day we die. The parents of that life must protect and nourish it. To do otherwise denies the parents their right to life.

  22. You’re kidding me. I take it that Reason is in favor of abortion. I am an atheist, and a long time admirer of the works of Ayn Rand, but I disagreed with her reasoning when she justified abortion, and I disagree with you now. The beginning of an individual life occurs when the ovum is fertilized by a sperm, and it continues through the blastocyst, through the fetus, and on to the newly birthed infant. In all stages of that continuum, the rights accorded to an individual persist, and that continues until the day we die. The parents of that life must protect and nourish it. To do otherwise denies the parents their right to life.

    1. That honestly kinda blows my mind… Atheists against abortion, atheists believing there’s something sacred about HUMAN life beginning at conception… I just don’t get it. Religious whack-jobs, I can just blow off, as in, religion can explain or smooth over ANY kind of good, bad, or intermediate horse-shit, it just “machs nix”… Religion? Logic goes out the window, period… I thought most atheists cling closely to logic, to the evidence of our senses alone…

      Well anyway, HUMAN conception, something sacred? What about gorilla conception, cetacean conception, orangutan conception, cat or dog conception? Robin conception, lizard conception, locust conception, fish conception, intestinal-parasite conception? WHOSE lives are sacved, and WHY? WHERE does the sacredness come from? I would just like to know, just an honest question…

      1. I’ll be praying for you and your comrades.

        1. FloridaProf|3.12.15 @ 9:14PM|#
          “I’ll be praying for you and your comrades.”
          How kind of you. I’ll be happy to sneeze for you.

      2. It has nothing to do with sacred; it is about science. Pick up a 7th grade biology textbook, and take a look at photos of fetal development. I dare you to tell me that what you are seeing is not a person.

        1. I dare you to tell me that what you are seeing is not a person living human individual.

          “Person” is a weasel word used to describe an obviously living human as morally OK to kill. Not that you meant it that way.

        2. Anby|3.12.15 @ 10:44PM|#
          …”Pick up a 7th grade biology textbook, and take a look at photos of fetal development.”

          Yeah, if you get to the 12th grade, you might find that a bit simplistic.

          1. I hate to break it to you, professor, but scientific fact doesn’t change by grade level. BTW Congratulations on resorting to personal insults when you obviously don’t have an intelligent response.

            1. Anby|3.13.15 @ 12:14AM|#
              “I hate to break it to you, professor, but scientific fact doesn’t change by grade level.”
              I hate to break it to you; you have no ‘facts’.

      3. It begins when the One, strongest, luckiest, fastist swimming, hard chargingist little spermatoziod mingles with the object of it’s desire after beating millions of it’s competetiors to the goal line. That is the begining, period.

        It ends when you’re dead.

    2. See my post above on IVF. The eggs are fertilized but not implanted. Are you willing to force a woman to accept implantation (Having seen it multiple times I can guarantee it is in invasive procedure) and carry to term?

      If a woman miscarries before she even realizes she’s pregnant as a result of strenuous exercise, is it negligent homicide?

    3. Bless you, my atheist friend.

  23. Nice to know that one can’t be a libertarian unless one supports abortion. That helps me to realize I can never be a fetus-hating libertarian.

    1. I refer to myself as a Ratbertarian. Our mascot is a rat.

    2. Libertarianism has no position on abortion.

      PERIOD!

      Anyone with an opinion on abortion here, didn’t derive it from libertarian principle.

      1. Agreed.
        I’ve seen plenty of attempts at basing a position on l’b’t’n principles; none persuasive.

      2. Libertarianism has no position on abortion.

        PERIOD!

        Ohhh, are we playing “Who can be the Biggest Botard” game? I want to try!

        A Libertarian can never work for the government. A Libertarian can never send their children to public schools. A Libertarian can never be on the receiving end of a wealth transfer, especially Social Security.

        PERIOD!

        Nah, you are still better at it.

        1. Nice, but you might try to refute the argument.

        2. Please, MG, go on. Start at first principles and give me the play by play libertarian position either for or against abortion.

          I’m all ears.

          1. 1. It is illegitimate to inflict unprovoked violence upon another person
            2. A fetus is a person
            3. It is illegitimate to inflict unprovoked violence upon a fetus

            OR

            1. It is illegitimate to inflict unprovoked violence upon another person
            2. A fetus is not a person
            3. It is permissible to inflict unprovoked violence upon a fetus

            The second step in the logic chain is contentious, but you could, at least theoretically, arrive at either conclusion from first principles if either position were conclusively demonstrated.

      3. Not having a position IS having a position though, because it entails permissibility of whatever is in question. What you’re saying is that there’s plenty of room for pro-life/anti-abortion libertarians, as long as they never articulate their beliefs and sit in the corner with a dunce hat. It’s as absurd as saying you “have no position” on any ethical question. You’re giving the benefit of the doubt to one position. “I mean, personally I think fraud is wrong, but it’s a question of individual morality, so I wouldn’t outlaw it” sounds kind of silly, doesn’t it? It’s a cop out. Have the balls to say what you actually mean.

        1. What you’re saying is that there’s plenty of room for pro-life/anti-abortion libertarians, as long as they never articulate their beliefs and sit in the corner with a dunce hat.

          No PM, that’s NOT what I said. I said anyone who has a position on abortion did not derive that position from libertarian principles, as the information required to make a libertarian argument is not knowable.

          Fraud is wrong. I can argue it from first principles. No such argument can be made about abortion, for the reasons I state above (and link to).

          Anyone claiming to know the answer is full of shit. It’s an opinion based on feelz.

          1. The actual effect of holding “no position” though is pro-abortion/pro-choice. So there is, in fact, room for only one policy position from a libertarian perspective, by your reasoning.

            I’m not entirely sure if the information required to reach a conclusion from the NAP is actually unknowable either. Unknown currently, perhaps. I have a feeling that biological certainty about consciousness probably wouldn’t change many people’s opinion on the matter anyway.

            1. PM|3.13.15 @ 12:32AM|#
              “The actual effect of holding “no position” though is pro-abortion/pro-choice.”
              IOWs, we’re not willing to let a bunch of ‘feelz’ arguments be used as a justification for gov’t coercion.
              Surprise!

              1. And all while claiming to hold no position. Nice work if you can get it.

            2. The actual effect of holding “no position” though is pro-abortion/pro-choice.

              Why do you assume the only two acceptable answers are either conception or birth?

              I do hold a position. It’s sometime between conception and birth and that’s as close as I can make a moral decision.

              You told me:

              It’s a cop out. Have the balls to say what you actually mean.

              So what is more forthright, making a decision based upon insufficient information or having the balls to admit I don’t know enough to make an informed decision? Why would I make a “policy decision” without a clear moral basis? Why not just leave it alone?

              1. Why do you assume the only two acceptable answers are either conception or birth?

                I don’t.

                I do hold a position. It’s sometime between conception and birth and that’s as close as I can make a moral decision

                Making policy on the basis of your moral position would be no more legitimate than making policy based on anyone else’s moral position. If you don’t believe the moral question is objectively answerable then you must accede to the most permissive position, which is pro-choice/pro-abortion. So, in practice, the only libertarian position on abortion, in your view, is pro-choice/pro-abortion. That is the position the LP takes as well. It’s the same logic as telling an abolitionist in 1850 that the humanity of blacks is a very personal moral judgment, so you take no official position. That seems like a ridiculous comparison in the modern context, but there was a legitimate belief at the time among many that blacks were something less than actual human beings. Taking no position on the matter would, in practice, entail permitting slavery based on each person’s individual moral judgment. Saying “I support full abortion access because the moral and ethical issues are not settled” is more honest than saying “there is no libertarian position on the issue”. There is a libertarian position – it’s pro-abortion/pro-choice.

                1. Saying “I support full abortion access because the moral and ethical issues are not settled” is more honest than saying “there is no libertarian position on the issue”.

                  No, it isn’t.

                  Because I do NOT support full abortion access any more than I support banning abortion. I support neither. The null set.

          2. You think that this revolves around the question of when, during pregnancy, potential goes to actual.

            But it doesn’t.

            It revolves, at least for libertarians, around which right takes precedence. One can also extend it to whether those rights are permanently abrogated or temporarily inconvenienced.

            Either way, for the purposes of this debate potential is as good as actual because the precedence of the right to life cannot be denied.

  24. Wow, dudes and dudettes.. I have time to kill, so why not… I am actually a believer of sorts, but I have no real animus towards atheists or agnostics of any sort… Such folks have REAL understanding of how utterly, utterly much God respects free will, more than us believers do. God is SO utterly devoted to free will, that He / She It will NOT interfere, one way or the other, in whatever good, intermediate, or bad things we chose to do… Such that God might as well not exist. For that insight alone, I respect atheists and agnostics, and have no fight with them, at all. Rationality is to be respected, period. If God was all egotistical about INSISTING that we believe in He / She / It, “It” would be far more forth-right in showing Herself… As is, we have an “Unseen God”, in Jesus’s words…

    1. But I am really left agape at several instances that I have now seen, on these pages, of “human-sacred-life-begins-at-conception” thinking from atheists. I just don’t get it. I would like to know… Really! No disrespect intended… This may sound “whack”, but I am a VERY broad-minded believer who has ALL the respect in the world for the “un-believers”, and I just don’t get this one… Seems to me, life and sacredness runs a spectrum of some sort. I love my 3 cats and one dog, but yes, I eat the flesh of chickens and pigs and cows… Just trying to muddle along as best as I can here, I know that the difference between “pets” and “let’s eat them” animals may be silly and arbitrary… But the lines between us humans and the other animals? Why sacred, how, how can we try and tackle this in any kind of logical and / or loving manner?

      1. PS, I have a “funny” for you… Along the lines of sacredness v/s deep-seated skepticism about organized religion…

        I met a man, many years ago, he said to me… And it has VERY much stuck with me, to this day…

        “SQRLSY One”, he says to me, “I believe in God, but I do NOT believe in His Little Helpers!”

        Amen…

        1. As I say above, natural rights come with life. Life begins at conception according to science, not religion. If my rights are based upon the fact that I am a living human individual, how could I possibly not posses them while alive?

          What is really funny here is that it is apparently you who are religious. Natural rights don’t occur at the beginning of life but when the soul magically enters the body? Since science has yet to define, or even discover! the mechanism by which a living human becomes a “person” all beliefs that it does indeed exist amount to belief in the supernatural.

          1. “Life begins at conception according to science, not religion”

            Which is irrelevant. Human life begins sometime later.

            1. What sort of life is it at conception? Reptilian?

              1. PM|3.12.15 @ 11:39PM|#
                “What sort of life is it at conception? Reptilian?”
                Doesn’t matter; it’s not human. Take you fake questions elsewhere.

                1. It wasn’t a fake question. I was curious about what sort of “life” you think a human zygote actually is if it isn’t human, because you seemed to be accepting the premise that a zygote is “life”, but rejecting that it is “human life”. Which is biologically… interesting.

                  1. Interesting posts? I am, sadly, STILL puzzled by any atheist who is greatly concerned about the some-how magical thing that happens at specifically HUMAN conception, as opposed to a higher-animal conception? ESPECIALLY supposedly “libertarian” atheists, taking this kind of view? I just, still, don’t “get” it?

                    1. Here’s a straight-forward analogy: I think cats and dogs are great pets, and, unless I am literally at the edge of starvation, I should not kill and eat my pets. But if I want to keep “pet” chickens in my yard, and eat one from time to time, I think I should be allowed to do that. If my friend or neighbor wants to raise and kill and eat cats or dogs, and put CHICKENS way high on his or her pedestal instead, opposite of the way I think about such things, as a libertarian, I should feel free to use gentle verbal persuasion to try and change my friend’s views. Or I could buy his cats and dogs and go buy him some beef at the local store. I should ***NOT*** try and get the policeman to pick up billy-clubs and guns and go and FORCE my friend to “look at” things my way. ? Very analogous to abortion? We should use persuasion here, not force? The world has sufficient space that different views (and actions based on those views) should be allowed (short of things that tear down civilization, and, sorry? voluntary abortions do NOT endanger the essence of continued civilization as we know it, in my opinion). Murdering adults? Civilization breaks down. Allow women to “murder” a small clump of cells? So what?

                      MeThinks, the energy spent on fighting about abortion could be MUCH better spent on other, pressing issues? Like the horrible-horrible way we treat illegal humans from other nations, for example?

      2. All you really need to do is look at some fetal photos. There is no way to dispute that what you are seeing is a baby. “For the biology textbook tells me so!”

        1. Anby|3.12.15 @ 10:39PM|#
          “All you really need to do is look at some fetal photos. There is no way to dispute that what you are seeing is a baby.”

          Those who agree with you are convinced.

          1. Those who have eyes and brains should be convinced.

            1. Anby|3.13.15 @ 12:16AM|#
              “Those who have eyes and brains should be convinced.”
              Those with brains would question your feelz.

  25. Dirty rotten swines. More darn childrens.

  26. Of course, most people who treasure liberty also respect life (and property), so unlike the author, we cheer any protections the unborn are provided.

    1. That’ll convince those who agree with you that you’re just a wunnerful guy, but it isn’t shit as an argument.

  27. Hooray for the pro-life atheist who posted! I am, I guess, a theist, in that I believe that someone or something had to have created the universe, though I don’t believe that this entity is involved in our daily lives.
    Any 7th grade health textbook will tell you that there is no difference between a fetus and a baby, other than that magical trip down the birth canal. You blew it, Reason. As lubertarians, you should support the rights of ALL people, not just those who were lucky enough to not be murdered. Pro-science- pro-life!!

    1. “Any 7th grade health textbook will tell you that there is no difference between a fetus and a baby,”

      Assuming that’s true, it is a good reason not to stop education in the 7th grade.

      1. Resorting to personal insults because you have nothing intelligent to say?

        1. Anby|3.13.15 @ 12:17AM|#
          “Resorting to personal insults because you have nothing intelligent to say?”
          Aw, did Anby get called on bullshit? So sad…

        2. If you haven’t figured out yet, that is the way Sevo is. The more trollish or ignorant the comment the more he responds in kind. If you can’t handle the abuse it’s best to not respond to him. This is nothing against Sevo. I wouldn’t challenge him unless I was dead certain on my facts. And as FdA has stated several times there really isn’t a “correct” libertarian position on abortion. So resorting to childish comments will just get Sevo to follow you around the thread torturing you.

  28. A committed Leftist can simultaniously support giving animals civil and support abortion. This is why they are called “committed”; they should be.

    1. Reminds me of a line in a song, “Have we made this world better or worse, now that the life of a tree comes first?”

  29. Abortion is killing another human being regardless the situation. How 57 million babies executed since Roe v Wade in the womb exceptable? This insanity of killing human beings has to stop.

    1. 1. The ones killed were not “babies”. They were fetuses. Any medical or technical dictionary will tell you that until birth it is a fetus and it becomes a baby when it is born.

      2. Every one of those human beings killed was located inside the body of another person, and was not welcome there. Therefore, these killings were not murders, but justifiable homicides.

      1. Ah, the magical birth canal… Where blobs of tissue are miraculously turned int real babiea…

        1. Ah, the magical claim that a collection of cells is a baby!
          See how easy that is?

        2. I didn’t say “blob of tissue”; I said “fetus”. I agree with you that fetuses are human persons; however, they are located inside the body of another person, and if it is not welcome there, then the other person is entitled to kill the fetus EVEN THOUGH it is a human person. That’s part of the meaning of the word “her” in the phrase “her body”.

          1. IMT, you used this argument many times.

            Then she shouldn’t have invited it into her body knowing it has no recourse in leaving if she changes her mind until the pregnancy is over.
            This isn’t Blue Lagoon where people bump uglies and are later surprised that her belly is becoming larger. The woman can’t knowing participate in a life creating process and then proclaim “Wait, I don’t want that thing in me!” Your argument would have more merit if women somehow became spontaneously pregnant.

            1. RE: The woman can’t knowing participate in a life creating process and then proclaim “Wait, I don’t want that thing in me!”

              Yes, she can. Giving you a short life in her body is just so much gained for you, does not take anything from you nor make you in any way worse off than you were before, and therefore incurs no obligation to also give you a longer life.

    2. Jonathan G|3.12.15 @ 11:06PM|#
      “Abortion is killing another human being regardless the situation.”

      That is an assertion, not an argument. I think the moon is blue-cheese; we now have equal ‘arguments’.

  30. The so-called “abortion reversal” procedure–taking progesterone to counter the RU486–is likely pure placebo. If you simply omit to take the second drug–the misoprostol in the RU486/misoprostol abortion regimen–the abortion fails 50% of the time. This is probably the effect the right-to-lifers are seeing. The progesterone likely has no effect at all.

    The same is NOT true for the superior METHOTREXATE/misoprostol abortion regimen. The methotrexate alone will kill the pregnancy, and cannot be reversed.

    Methotrexate abortion is also superior to RU486 abortion in another way: if the pregnancy is ectopic, methotrexate will kill it and prevent it from killing the woman, but RU486 has no effect on ectopic pregnancy, and leaves the patient vulnerable to tubal rupture and subsequent death by internal bleeding.

    I really don’t understand why people use RU486 when methotrexate is better in so many ways.

  31. Justice David Wiggins asked: “Is there any other standard of care such as this contained in any rule or regulation of the (Board of Medicine) that you’re aware of?” Of course not.

    Is there any other circumstance where doctors perform exams over Skype?

    There oughtn’t be a law, of course, but it’s a relevant question in the context of the existing regulatory structure.

    1. What are you talking about? Doctors do phone consults all the time. Most radiologists never meet their patients.

      1. This isn’t a phone consult or relaying test results, it’s a doctor performing an examination by video conference and writing a prescription on that basis.

        As I said, I don’t think there should be any such law banning that practice, but I don’t think it’s especially common in other areas of medicine. In California, for example:

        There are laws to consider when assessing any prescribing issues which include: 1) a physician cannot prescribe without a “good faith” exam and 2) a medical record must be created which documents the medical need for the prescription.

        So, since regulators gonna regulate, I can see how that might pose a unique issue.

  32. Note to self: don’t expect much reason from the “Reason” comment section.

  33. I am pro life, meaning I think abortion is killing, no matter what, and would never have an abortion at this point in my life, although I did have one when I was 17. I was damned if I did, damned if I didn’t. I might have been of the opinion that both the baby and I were damned if I did, damned if I didn’t. I have never held the position that a fetus isn’t a life. Yet I still have a problem with legislation.
    …what happens to all the women who do not care what anyone says about legal or not, if it’s human or not, whose fault it is that they are pregnant, etc. Regardless, they will do whatever necessary to abort. Back alley, self mutilation…whatever. Also, what happens to all those 16 year old girls who are too immature to realize the consequences of a) having a baby OR b) having an abortion? Do we lock up the 16 year old who was discovered having an illegal abortion and label them murders for the rest of their lives?
    I have more questions than answers or opinions.

    1. Ksk, how do you think you should be punished for having your unborn child murdered?

      Death penalty? Life in prison? Ten-dollar fine? How?

  34. Many things in the human reality cannot ever be prohibited. Period. Abortion is one of them.

    Abortions will happen no matter how many pro-lifers whine and scream into the winds or how many of us are concerned with the ethics or how many find the process tragic, horrifying, or sad. Abortions exist for a reason and many of these reasons are not strictly related to blind indifference to life- there are complicated and discouraging situations occurring in thousands of women’s lives that cannot just fucking be fixed with the callous statement of ‘Well, she spread’em so she owns it” and “Abortion is murder”.

    Prohibiting abortion or clamping down on abortion creates a far greater violence against the living than developing approaches that make medical sense and promotes an environment that encourages women to seek help quickly, safely, and without compromising their lives.

    I’d much prefer seeing a distraught woman with a 2 month year-old fetus NOT die due to complications from a botched abortion or being tossed into prison for 30 years because she aborted an undesired fetus at an ethical point in her pregnancy.

    Is this hard to accept for many? Yes. A LOT of stances on social issues can be hard to accept if you hold even a rudimentary construct on ethics- hell, even something as seemingly natural as the factory slaughter of animals for food can be unsettling if given enough thought but I still enjoy the goddamn bacon.

    1. Two month old fetus. Not fucking 2 month year-old fetus. Shit.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.