How Can Liberals Be Pro-Choice on Abortion and Anti-Choice on Everything Else?

The left makes a first-principles defense of abortion rights regardless of its consequences, but is hostile to individual autonomy on nearly every other issue.


Abortion is a great tragedy, but it is also a powerful spotlight that illuminates American inconsistencies about when the use of government force is justified.

The country has just endured an angry debate over whether businesses whose owners object to gay marriages on religious grounds should be forced to assist them anyway. Generally speaking, liberals said: Yes, because the principle of equal treatment trumps freedom of conscience. Generally speaking, conservatives and libertarians said the opposite. (If you want to read a calm, intelligent and thought-provoking piece on the subject, check out "Discriminating Between Discriminations" at juliansanchez.com.)

As with any complex debate, however, this one involved more than just two ways of parsing the issue.

GOP presidential hopeful Marco Rubio recently drew a distinction between discriminating against people (e.g., by refusing to serve an LGBT customer at a restaurant) and declining to participate in an event (e.g., by refusing to officiate at a same-sex wedding). And there is another distinction, spelled out in an amicus brief by Eugene Volokh in the Elane Photography case, between forcing people to provide services that have no expressive component (such as driving a limousine) and services that do (such as writing press releases for various groups).

Given that, as Volokh wrote, "speech compulsions are generally as unconstitutional as speech restrictions," you could argue that photographers, writers, and perhaps even cake-makers have a First Amendment right not to provide expressive content with which they disagree.

Consider, for instance, whether a Jewish printer should have to print placards promoting the American Nazi Party. Or consider the views of Kathy Trautvetter, a lesbian who owns a T-shirt company. Despite her sexual orientation, she defended a Christian printer's right not to make signs for a gay-pride event: "When I read the story I immediately felt, 'If I were in his shoes, what would they be forcing me to do?'?"

But the Supreme Court did not hear the Elane Photography case, which groups such as the ACLU took as a victory over the free-speech argument: "A commercial business cannot solicit customers from the general public to buy its services as a photographer for hire and then claim that taking those photographs is a form of its own autonomous expressive activity."

Yet this doesn't mean the question of compelled speech is moot. In December the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Richmond struck down a North Carolina informed-consent law requiring doctors who perform abortions to display a sonogram of the fetus to the mother, describe it to her, and offer to let her hear the heartbeat. As J. Harvie Wilkinson wrote for the court, "The requirement is quintessential compelled speech." In that instance, the ACLU sided with the doctors—who, like photographers, "solicit customers from the general public and then claim to be engaged in autonomous expressive activity."

The flip side, of course, is that some on the right who object to compelled speech regarding gay weddings favor it regarding abortion.

And this is small potatoes compared to the implications of abortion rights for, say, welfare spending or health care. Take the recent case in which a pregnant Colorado woman was beaten and stabbed by another woman who then cut the baby out of her and tried to claim it as her own. The baby died, and the sickening case has prompted legislation that would add Colorado to the majority of states that make fetal homicide a crime.

Writing in The New York Times last week, law professor Debora Tuerkeimer argued that this was a very bad idea: "Granting personhood to fetuses makes women criminally responsible, not only for the life of the fetus, but also for its well-being. This is a particularly high burden. … Pregnant women have already been prosecuted for using drugs, refusing a cesarean section, having sex against a doctor's recommendation and attempting suicide. … Prosecutors could, in theory, use the notion of 'prenatal abuse' to pursue pregnant women who consumed too little folic acid; neglected exercise; gained too much or too little weight; continued on a course of anti-depressants; or had a stressful job. Under the mantle of fetal protection, pregnancy could become subject not only to criminal sanction but to pervasive state regulation."

All of this raises an obvious question: If a pregnant woman is not responsible for the welfare of the child within her womb—the child she willingly helped create—then why should that pregnant woman be responsible for the welfare of a child she has never met? Or a middle-aged man halfway across the country who just lost a job? Or an old woman five states away who needs a hip replacement? Indeed, why should anyone be responsible for anybody's welfare but their own?

And yet vast portions of the federal government are given over to forcing millions of people to guarantee the well-being of people they have never met, and whose needs (let alone lives) they had no role in creating.

Likewise, the logic of reproductive freedom implies that we should not impose conditions on pregnant women, such as requiring them to take folic acid, refrain from using drugs, and get sufficient exercise. They have no duty to do these things simply because it could affect the life to which they will soon give birth.

But if a pregnant woman has no such duties, then it is hard to see how she, or anyone else for that matter, has a duty to buy health insurance. Yet Obamacare forces everyone to buy health coverage (or pay a penalty). And it forces them to buy coverage not because their doing so will benefit others directly.

Rather, the reason is that if too many people fail to buy insurance, then the rules that force insurance companies to cover people regardless of pre-existing conditions could allow people to wait until they are sick before buying insurance. This would bankrupt insurance companies, and then the whole edifice of Obamacare would come crumbling down.

In short, the government can use force to make you buy health insurance so that other laws forcing insurance companies to accept all buyers will prove workable.

A great deal of conventional liberal wisdom about public policy grows out of a concern for equality, rather than liberty. While libertarians will argue that gay people should be free to marry whomever they choose, liberals are more likely to say marriage law should treat everybody the same.

Abortion rights is one of the few areas where liberals still make a first-principles defense of individual autonomy regardless of its consequences. But that approach doesn't square well with the progressive approach on so many other issues—and you don't have to look long or hard to see the cracks.

NEXT: 'Institutionalized Fear' Tarnishes Boston Marathon

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. All liberals are anti-choice, unless it is they who get to do the choosing.

    1. I was coming in to say just that.

    2. When Obama chooses, America loses.

  2. Indeed, why should anyone be responsible for anybody’s welfare but their own?

    They’re not; that’s what the government is for.


    1. You mislabeled that… it should have been “/Tony”.


    Did I do it right?



      Obviously, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.

    3. except that when you are pregnant it’s not just your body is it, there is another life involved!

  4. Everybody is a hypocrite, it’s just a matter of degree. Everybody has an “unless”.

  5. “While libertarians will argue that gay people should be free to marry whomever they choose…”

    Then grant an amnesty to all the same-sex couples in prison for getting gay-married, and the ministers who married them.

    Now, as to comparing compulsory cake-baking to requiring doctors to show women their unborn child before doing an aboriton: One of these things is not like the other. To make a complete parallel, we’d have to have a law requiring doctors to perform abortions against their will. Instead, we have a law by which, *if* a doctor is going to do an abortion, (s)he has to share information about the entity which is to be killed in the proposed abortion.

    If this is compelled speech, so is forcing companies to put lists of ingredients on the food and drinks they sell. How can you say the candy company has to disclose the existence of monosodium glutinate in their candy bar, but a doctor doesn’t have to disclose information about the child in the womb?

    It’s not as if the legislation is forcing doctors to give false medical information – they aren’t required to say abortion causes herpes, they’re required to show what the fetus looks and sounds like.

    1. You can be a libertarian or you can be for government putting grandstanding politicians between doctors and patients, but you can’t really do both.

      1. Whoa, Tony is right about something.

      2. “You can be a libertarian or …”

        So Tony are you for or against mandatory food labelling?

        1. I don’t think Tony has ever claimed to be a libertarian. Not even close.

        2. For! The freedom lost is negligible; the freedom gained is immense. I am a real libertarian; I believe in maximizing freedom.

          1. So I shouldn’t be penalized for not having insurance?

      3. Or you can accept that abortion is murder of another human being, and is never excusable in any circumstance other than self defense. Yeah, I get that a woman loses some liberty when she has to carry a child for 9 months, but after that she is done she can give the child up for adoption. On the other hand the child loses life, that is it; no rights, no growing up, nothing. You either respect human life, liberty and human dignity or only power.

        1. I think that un-fertilized human egg cells have souls (AKA, are human life) as well… They should ALL be forced to be fertilized! Preferably by power-pig egomaniacs like you and me…

        2. But “Thinkmore”, abortion IS self-defense. The fetus is taking materials (water, oxygen, nutrients) from the womb-owner’s bloodstream–conducting continuous raids on her bloodstream. The fetus is injecting its toxic metabolic end-products (carbon dioxide, creatinine) into the womb-owner’s bloodstream–poisoning her. And the fetus is preparing to subject her to major medical/surgical trauma in the form of full-term labor and delivery, which is a substantial assault upon her. The womb-owner’s right to defend herself entitles her to stop or prevent these assaults, even by using deadly force against her fetus, just as you would be entitled to,use deadly force against anyone who tried to do these three things to you without your ongoing, continuing consent.

          You either respect the womb-owner’s libertarian right of body-self-ownership, or you are not libertarian.

    2. If this is compelled speech, so is forcing companies to put lists of ingredients on the food and drinks they sell. How can you say the candy company has to disclose the existence of monosodium glutinate in their candy bar, but a doctor doesn’t have to disclose information about the child in the womb?

      I don’t believe in compelled speech at all, in any circumstances — not in food labeling, not in abortion counseling, not in cake baking.

      Sorry you feel OK about compelled speech to muzzle things you find icky. Hopefully you will get over that statist mindset.

      1. No food labelling?

        1. And who am I muzzling?

    3. Who is in prison for getting gay married? WTF?

      1. Isn’t prison where most of the forced gay marrying happens?

        1. When I was in prison for blowing on a cheap plastic flute w/o a prescription (search for “lung flute” at http://www.churchofsqrls.com ), I was forced to gay-marry all the rats, pigeons, gangbangers, and cockroaches that all had a free run of the place. The only way I was able to survive the starvation rations and the freezing nights, is that once in a blessed while, the Patron Saint of Prisoners (St. Barfholeamule the Ass-Fucker of the Ass-Fuckers) granted me mercy, and occasionally allowed me to turn tables on at least some of them? And then I would dine in style, on cockroach stew, clad in my rat-fur coat! Alexander Solzhenitsyn, as in THE GULAG ARCHIPELAGO, has NOTHING on me, I’m a-tellin’ ya!

      2. It’s a little thing I do called sarcasm.

    4. Notorious G. K. C. you are wrong. In several states, rhe right-to-life legislation DOES force doctors to give false medical info–it requires the docs to tell patients that some studies show that abortion is associated with an increase in breast cancer risk, but does not require them to also tell that other studies show that abortion is associated with a REDUCTION in breast cancer risk, or that ALL the mainstream medical, oncological, and gynecological professional organizations deny any link between abortion and breast cancer. A government-mandated lie of omission is still a lie.

      Same for mental-health issues–the right-to-life legislation requires docs to lie about that too.

  6. Kathy Trautvetter, a lesbian who owns a T-shirt company. Despite her sexual orientation, she defended a Christian printer’s right not to make signs for a gay-pride event: “When I read the story I immediately felt, ‘If I were in his shoes, what would they be forcing me to do?’?”

    This is good to hear and is a measure of sanity that is *rarely* portrayed in the (presumably) pro-‘gay rights’ community.

    Completely predictable that it would come from Glenn Beck’s The Blaze rather than a conventional progressive news outlet.

  7. Abortion rights is one of the few areas where liberals still make a first-principles defense of individual autonomy regardless of its consequences.

    No, pro-choice is a consequentialist position too (though liberals do respect individual autonomy). It’s just that we’re not insane freaks who think that protecting the dubious personhood claims of a fetus is worth charging millions of women and their doctors with capital crimes (which isn’t so great for the fetus anyway).

    1. “…(though liberals do respect individual autonomy).”

      Oh, that Tony. Always good for a chuckle.

      1. He’s right however. Liberals do respect individual liberty. Tony is not a liberal however. He is a progressive and progressive /= liberal.

        1. Fair point FUQ. A self-described “classical liberal” Tony is not however.

      2. I laughed, too. I mean, this is the poster who has openly expressed a desire for dictatorship. To speak about individual autonomy is to speak about things it has no clue about.

        1. It’s the same waste of oxygen that said, “Order is freedom”. That thinks majorities are always right (as long as they agree with him), really wants a single leftist party “democracy”, etc, etc, etc.

          To say this POS believes in freedom is akin to saying that Stalin was just a misunderstood soul who really wanted to free all those millions he killed but he had to kill them for their own sake.

        2. Have we considered the fact that Tony may be Krugman?

      3. Yes they do they respect their own autonomy. Everyone else’s not so much.

    2. Of course anyone who disagrees with you is an insane freak.

      Fucking piece of shit.

      1. Anyone who thinks this society should throw a third of the female population into prison for life or execute them is an insane freak. Because if abortion really is child murder, that’s what we have to do.

        1. not really, because a lot of those women wouldn’t get abortions, you know, cause it’d be illegal

          dumb ass

        2. Oh Tony, don’t try to redeem yourself now. You think that anyone who disagrees with you on anything is a, take your pick:

          Insane freak
          Privileged white male (even though your attitude reeks of this (how did I guess your upbringing when I have no idea who you are?))
          All of the above

        3. How about we kill abortion and welfare subsidies instead of the unborn? If the rest of us stopped paying for your girlfriend’s abortion and food stamps she might go out and find a man who could support her lifestyle choices adequately.

          1. PD Quig, we don’t PAY for abortions; we ENJOY EXTRA MONEY by having government subsidize abortions. An abortion costs about $500.00 and prevents more than $18,000.00 in obstetric and neonatal care costs. If we “kill abortion”, your taxes and insurance rates will go UP.

            Right-to-life laws, especially the Hyde Amendment, are tax hikes.

        4. Bullshit! They could use birth control like the other two thirds do. Pregnancy is avoidable.

          I happen to be against federal government involvement in abortion issues, but I’m also against describing a child as a disease so the parents can feel more at ease about ending its life. People should take responsibility for the consequences of their actions.

          1. 33% of women don’t get abortions. That number was created by dividing total abortions into female population over a number of years and assuming no woman ever got more than one. The CDC claimed 18% in 2011.

            1. Good point.

            2. One of my exes had three abortions. None related to my jizz. I also know of someone who had four. Plenty of women have multiple abortions.

        5. The vast majority of laws that criminalize abortion place the blame on the physician, not the woman. Unless she’s doing it at home with baking soda and bleach, I guess.

          I’m 100% for abortion. Not even pro-choice, I’m pro-abortion. But stop distorting the reality of the situation.

          1. “I’m pro-abortion”

            Since I prefer the terms pro-abortion and anti-abortion instead of the mealymouthed pro-choice and pro-life, I appreciate your honesty.

        6. Since Roe v. Wade, about twenty-one million females that would have been born in this country instead were killed while still inside their mother’s womb. Who’s hating on females?

        7. Hoo-Ray for Tony! All ye anti-abortion fanatics PLEASE read this, and THEN keep on bitching! THIS is where some Rethuglicans (and sadly, some of their fellow traveler SO-CALLED or self-styled “Libertarians”) want to take us? http://www.latimes.com/world/g…..tml#page=1 El Salvador jails women for miscarriages and stillbirths

        8. So, if admitting you were wrong means having to accept negative consequences of having been wrong, that means you weren’t wrong?

          Got it. You’re a dumbass.

    3. So, that means that if the majority in society decide that abortion is consequentially a net minus they can outlaw it and nobody’s rights will be violated (especially as you hold that nobody has any rights anyway).

    4. A fetus is a person when it achieves sentience. Which is a scientific standard not subject to a sliding scale relative to technological advances,

      1. But… The fetus that becomes a person… Human? Blue Whale? Dolphin? Chimp? Gorilla? Dog? Cat? Lizard? Frog? Grasshopper? Protozoa? Intestinal parasitical worm? AIDS virus? What is “sentience” and how is it measured? I think I see a sliding scale here…

    5. You were once a fetus with dubious personhood claims as well (unless, you are some prog-bot which, based on your comments, you might very well be). And since you admit that such claims are “dubious”, i.e.uncertain, shouldn’t we err on the side of reasonable doubt rather then sentence potential humans to death, just as we do in capital cases?

      Anyway, this is a very well reasoned article and I want to thank Reason for publishing it.

      1. In capital cases, “reasonable doubt” costs of gazillions of dollars, and 20 and 30-years appeals and expensive lawyers costs can be spread across all of us sorry-ass taxpayers. “Reasonable doubt” about the Down’s Syndrome fetus to be born to a rape victim, falls fair and square on the shoulders of the poor babe (and her support network, if she has one), and so your analogy sucks my putrid hemorrhoids!
        Also? “You were once and un-fertilized egg cell”? So all egg cells should be brought to term, preferably fertilized by power pigs like you and me!

    6. Tony; nobody I have ever heard or read has been able to come up with a definition of “Person” that could be logically used to identify the point at which a fetus becomes one. And yes, I’m sure you have one that satisfies you. And no, I don’t want to read it again.

      The position that a fetus is not a person until birth is no more defensible, so far as I can see, than the position that a child is not a person until it is baptized.

      Until somebody can convince me that they can prove when a child is human, without appealing to emotion, jargon, or obfuscation, I think there are arguments both ways.

      And I notice that the Progressive Left is more interested in making sure poor brown women abort their unwanted children than they are in making sure that recognized abortion clinics are not filthy abattoirs that risk the lives of those same women.

      Which is totally consistent with the Progressive Left’s long flirtation with euthanasia and eugenics, and they clear despite of poor brown people.

  8. Liberals don’t support abortion out of principle. They support it because they like having sex with dirty hippies who can’t afford birth control.

    1. Haha, nice.

      If you’re a guy that can’t afford condoms or Plan B for the chicks you bang, you’re a lazy piece of shit and need to step your game up.

      1. Hoo-Ray for all! Yes, I agree! Sad to say, there’s a whole shit-load of lazy pieces of shit men out there, and worse! Including lying “Romeos” who say, “Love-ya-love-ya-love-ya, babe, PLEASE sleep w/me, and ahs will LOVE ya forever!!!” Then as soon as she gets pregnant, the bastards beat her, and berate hert, and worse! Do you want THEIR genes passed on?!? To SOME extent, we cannot deny (if we live in the real world) that there is a genetic component of behavior. Ass-hole men who carry ass-hole genes? Their BAD evolutionary tendencies can be nipped in the bud, by giving women the power to abort! Abort Adolph H. in the womb, I say, if Adolf’s mom says OK! FUCK the bastards and their progeny (and the devils that they rode in on), to the 10th generation, I say! Empower women to thwart devious lying ass-hole men!

  9. I would have figured that anyone with a brain would have figured this out by now.

    Modern leftists hail themselves as some sort of liberating force but really they only want to legalize a couple of things. Beyond gov’t recognition of gay marriage and abortion they are complete psychopathic totalitarians. Oh I forgot the stolen idea for drug law reform.

    Leftists should be treated with the contempt and pity that one gives a stray, mangy dog. You pity it for its sorry state but you don’t let it hang around either.

    1. It’s easy to expose many of them using SSM to ask them why they wouldn’t support state-sanctioned polygamy. Or why the Controlled Substances Act and its Schedule is wrong about marijuana but right on everything else. As posters here are fond of saying, when it comes to modern leftists, it’s all about principals, not principles.

      1. After gay marriage is legal in the whole country, they’ll hang around and do their usual witch hunts but they will eventually lose steam. They will have to move on to the next “oppressed” group. I’m betting on polygamy and I’m betting they will be saying, “We’ve been there all along with you guys.” knowing damn well they haven’t.

        Just as communists need the proletariat, progs need “victims” or their little movement would fizzle out.

        1. No way theyre picking polygamist. Those people tend to be very religious. Unless you mean Muslim polygamist maybe.

  10. Liberals believe everyone should be free to make the same choices that those same liberals would make. Indeed, they believe everyone should make those same choices — and no others. They live up to the maxim that T. H. White had the ants using: “Everything not forbidden is compulsory.” It also helps that abortion (and indeed sex without any consequence, even moral disapproval) is increasingly the sole religious standard of modern liberals.

  11. I did not find the “Discriminating between Discriminations” article thought provoking at all. Too much signaling language for my tastes and really just the same ole talking points.

    To me the whole situation is easy to explain. People have been calling the religious hypocrites for refusing to serve gay weddings, citing that religious people serve liars, adulterers, etc.

    However, if someone walked into a religious person’s business and said, “I want you to cater our American Liars Club meeting. We are seeking to get people to do nothing but lie and we hear your food is the best.” Do you think the religious person would cater this event?

    What about if the Adulterers Society of America walked in and said, “Hey we want photos from our cheating party. See we all get together and cheat on our spouses and we want photos to commemorate the occasion.” What about this scenario?

    This whole time it has always been about the action and not the people doing the action. It’s a simple concept (as simple or more simple than 2 + 2 = 4). Yet it has been blown up into this fucking grand conspiracy and now all we get is “BIGOT, RACIST, HOMOPHOBE, BIGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!).

    In reference to the aforementioned article, I feel that anyone who uses such words is not making an argument but rather just signalling to look cool, modern, and enlightened.

    1. I think you’re missing the point that a lot of people find equating gay people with liars and adulterers to be reprehensible, and not just because they want to “look cool.”

      1. It doesn’t matter what everyone else finds reprehensible. It may be silly to equate those things together but we all know that they are all considered sinful to the main religions in question. To force someone to violate their principles is reprehensible as well.

        This is an issue that we (general term) will never agree upon. It is best to not force people to participate in actions that they object to when no one will be harmed by them not participating.

        Basically it harms no one to not get a cake or whatever. Now if some religious whacko wants to sacrifice a kid or something then that is obviously different.

  12. Fucking NC, I hate this place. If you want to live somewhere ruled by Democrats yet without ANY redeeming qualities cities like NYC, Seattle, and others may have, choose NC. Shitty climate sometimes too, at least inland.

    On second thought, I guess all the rural space is a redeeming quality. Makes it easier to get away from some people.

    1. There are no redeeming qualities to large urban areas. They are all shit holes with gaggles of people everywhere. Noisy, dirty, and it takes for fucking ever to do anything because all you do is sit in traffic or stand in line.

      More fun stuff to do in rural areas, if you have the space, time, and knowledge to do them.

      1. Meh, I’ve lived in both. You can keep your cow-tipping.

        1. Screw you, you urban elitist!

        2. BLASPHEMY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          How dare you question the righteousness of cow tipping.


          1. I agree!!! When my cow gives me good milk, I tip here with a BIG bale of hay!

            Also I like my cows that look like this…

            ? http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0310/S00003.htm ?

      2. Despite being a redneck, I do enjoy visiting museums and symphony events. You can usually only find the good ones in metropolitan centers.

      3. Please keep that to yourself. Do not talk urbanites into moving out into the country. Let ’em stay where they are.

        I live far enough away from the highway that I can’t hear much traffic and I am on the end of a dead end road, right on a bayou. It is unbelievably peaceful, quiet, and private. I want it to stay that way.

        1. Very true.

          Everyone I take back what I said earlier. Living in the country is much like the movie Wrong Turn. If you come out here you will be killed by mutant hillbillies and then eaten. We have bugs the size of cars and if that doesn’t kill you then the minotaurs certainly will.

          1. “Gonna make you squeal like a piggie, boy!”

  13. //” If a pregnant woman is not responsible for the welfare of the child within her womb?the child she willingly helped create?then why should that pregnant woman be responsible for the welfare of a child she has never met? Or a middle-aged ma…”

    uhhhh… because she IS responsible because she WILLINGLY CREATED that person, and even ignoring that part, what she does can be DIRECTLY responsible for harming a person or soon-to-be person. If you really want to be a aspberger’s conceptual stickler, then OK, fine, we would have to wait until the baby is BORN to charge the mother after the fact, but either way you could still reasonably criminalize stuff that messes with now-born people’s lives

  14. Yet in that case, Hinkle notes, many of the same liberals who favor compelled speech regarding gay weddings now oppose compelled speech regarding abortion. So much for being consistently “pro-choice.”

    What’s interesting is that the ‘informed-consent’ laws were taken straight out of the left-wing playbook by conservatives.

    After watching the success of so-called ‘informed consent’ type laws pass for all manner of things *cough*tobacco*cough* the conservatives thought they could use the same tactic for their own hobby horse.

    it seems to have backfired here, but only here.

  15. OK, so what’s the resolution?

  16. “How Can Liberals Be Pro-Choice on Abortion and Anti-Choice on Everything Else?”

    Because “pro-choice” is a euphemism for “pro-abortion” just as “pro-life” is “anti-abortion” disguised hoping nobody will notice.

    One group doesn’t care about choice, the other isn’t interested in the lives of the wrong people.

    1. “hoping nobody will notice”

      WTF, dude? We’re *concealing* the fact that we’re against abortion? Then we’re not doing a very good job!

      1. I’d be *happy* to be called anti-abortion, because it freaks out the choichers, because it conveys the clear message that those who disagree with us are pro-abortion.

        For some reason, the choicers don’t want to be viewed as pro-abortion – “how *dare* you claim to be the anti-abortion faction! We’re just as much against abortion as you, we just want abortion to be legal, subsidized by the government, taught in medical schools, and protected by law above and beyond legitimate medical procedures! How does this make us, quote, pro-abortion, unquote?”

        1. I get tired of hearing “no one is pro-abortion.” I usually ask, “What’s wrong with being pro-abortion? It’s a legal medical procedure.” No one gives me an answer.

    2. should have been called “How can some Libertarians be Anti-Life on Abortion and Pro-Liberty on Everything Else?”
      This would make a good article and I should write it i guess…

  17. As a liberal I am pro-choice on abortion/contraception, prostitution, euthanasia, guns, schools, hiring, association by choice, location (immigration), drugs including heroin, and everything else i can think of.

    1. I dont recall you ever arguing in any way that would support those assertions. Everything you argue for precludes choice regarding any of those.

      I am gonna call bullshit.

    2. PB

      Are you pro-choice whether to pay taxes? Or Whether to even have public schools?

  18. Except in cases of rape and when the famemale does not have adequate mental faculties at the time of conception, abortion violates the NAP.

    When you chose an action you chose the consequences. There are several effective, affordable, and readily available means of birth control that don’t involve abstaining from sex.

  19. Proggies have always been for the creation of the new soviet man, the master race…etc.

    Eugenics has always figured prominently on their agenda. I see no inconsistency with their being pro-choice regarding abortion and no-choice regarding everything else.

  20. Start working from home! Great job for students, stay-at-home moms or anyone needing an extra income… You only need a computer and a reliable internet connection… Make $90 hourly and up to $12000 a month by following link at the bottom and signing up… You can have your first check by the end of this week……………..


  21. “How Can Liberals Be Pro-Choice on Abortion and Anti-Choice on Everything Else?” ..Duh. This is a silly exaggeration and best left to FOX News, not a thinking man’s article.

    Liberals are pro-choice in many aspects of life. Abortion is one (a woman’s choice, and a practice that is and has been universal), pro-free speech (as long as it’s not offensive to others), pro-consumer’s rights (should we know what’s in our food), etc..etc…. And let’s not forget, our Founders were liberals. Our divorce from Britain turned generations of thought on its head, and established us a secular nation, based on the right of the individual as opposed to one based on the divine right of kings.

    1. You don’t support free speech at all then.

    2. In other words you can’t think and are complete statist. Your free speech rights aren’t determined with a hecklers veto. There is no such thing as consumer rights. When you must enslave another person then that isn’t a right. Your last sentence was half right. It was based on the rights of the individual as opposed government or group rights.

      There is no libertarian position on abortion because we are unable to clearly define when a baby has rights. Is it conception or when they pass thru the magical vagina or somewhere in between? I have my opinion and others have differing ones.

  22. “Laws will ensure that no one can own a gun” said the liberal who smokes weed.

  23. OT but kinda related to stupid leftists bs:

    NPR is beating the gun drum again. They approached it in a cost analysis way and stated that guns cost Americans $292 billion a year. They also went on to foot stomp about the NRA and how it has shut down any attempt by the CDC to study gun violence (even though the stats are right on the FBI website for all to see).

    The opposition was a doctor who doesn’t think doctors should be in the business of deciding about gun ownership was not treated very well. He started off by referencing the dreaded Constitution in which he was interrupted and told, “We understand that, that’s not what we’re discussing.” He then went on to cite 11 studies, various books, etc. about defensive uses of guns in the U.S. The hosts and those on his side kept interrupting and saying, “We want numbers, how much money do guns save then?”

    To this the opposition replied, “Well if I use the same methods as you guys then the numbers would be in the trillions.”

    This was balked at saying, “Well those studies only asked people if they had used a gun to protect against a crime and there’s nothing else to back that data up.”

    I would have killed if the doctor woulda said, “So you believe that 1 in 5 women are raped because of a survey done at 2 colleges asking women if they had been raped but you don’t believe a nation wide survey asking people if they used their guns for self defense. Interesting.”

    1. To add to that the dumb ass gun control advocate defeated his own point by saying, “Well if people shoot other people in self defense then that would be added in my numbers.” It went right over his head that if this is the case then he should account for that and instead add it to a counterbalance to the costs.

      1. I recommend* you cut back on your NPR listening, it can be dangerous to your mental health.

        *I’m not a medical doctor, just a witch doctor.

        1. I don’t normally listen to it. I was driving home this afternoon and was flipping through the stations, heard “NPR” and “Guns”, so I decided I would listen.

          The stupidity was overwhelming so I had to turn it.

          Gun ownership increases your likelihood of death by 300%. Hmmm, I’ll bet owning a chain saw increases your likelihood of getting cut by a chain saw by about a million %. I’ll bet riding in a car increases your likelihood of getting a car wreck by 1,000%.

          Funny how I’ve own guns my whole life and never: had an unintentional firing, shot myself, shot anyone else, shot someone’s house, almost shot myself or anyone else, etc.

          Maybe I’ve been lucky that my guns are chill and don’t aren’t as vindictive as other people’s guns.

          1. The NIH study was weaker than a one-legged man in an ass kicking contest. They took an urban demographic that had been arrested before in an area frequented by gangs with people looking to get into an altercation and extrapolated that into broad application.

          2. Aborigines living where there are no roads and no cars, NEVER get run over by cars! Let’s all give up cars!

            Let’s be totally safe and use no tech at all! All tech has dangers, after all! Then we will die in our thirties at best, for most of us, and the saber-tooth tiger will re-evolve, and knock it back to our late teens instead, since napped-rock-tipped spears are technically forbidden “tech”… Gotta thank those lib-tards for lib-tard “logic”…

  24. Stop calling profoundly illiberal people “liberals”. Call them left-statists, call them socialists, call them collectivists, call them govermentalist or even govern-mentalist, call them thug-statists, call them buttmonkeys even. But stop taking the bait by calling illiberal thugs “liberal”.

    1. Restrictionists. The only thing “liberal” about them is how they spend other people’s money.

  25. Most people I know who are for 100% unrestricted, any time, mother’s decision is all that matters, abortion – are 100% against capital punishment for any reason, no matter how rock solid the evidence may be.

    How warped in the head is that? To be in favor of killing innocent persons merely because they are still contained within the bodies of their mothers yet they’ll protect the lives of heinous killers and child rapists like Joseph Edward Duncan III as if they were their own children?

    JED3 just needs his head bashed in with a hammer, like he did to three of his victims.

    1. Which major metro are you from?

  26. This really isn’t so hard to understand when you realize it is ‘ALL’ about control. Keep in mind that being ‘pro-choice’ on abortion ignores the essential question…when do we have the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness? Abortion takes away the right to life before we are born! So the question in the title is a false premise..liberals are not ‘pro-choice towards abortion and anti-choice everywhere else…they are anti-choice everywhere and use abortion to take away the right to life…they give the unborn no choice…it’s ALL about control

  27. I get paid over $87 per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I’ve been doing,

    ————- http://www.work-cash.com

  28. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.incomejoin70.com

  29. Regarding first principles, I’m thinking about first premises. The first promise of this article, that abortion is a tragedy, assumes readers accept this starting place. But tragedy for home? The woman who was raped? The woman who was impregnated by her father? Or, the woman who learns that the fetus is damaged in some fatal way?

    As the first premise is questionable, the premises which follow must be called into question.

  30. Regarding first principles, I’m thinking about first premises. The first promise of this article is that abortion is a tragedy. But tragedy for whom? The woman who was raped? The woman who was impregnated by her father? Or, the woman who learns that the fetus is damaged in some fatal way?

    As the first premise is questionable, the premises switch follow must be called into question.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.