Abortion

More Liberal Hypocrisy on Abortion

What happened to being more like the rest of the world?

|

In his State of the Union address in January, President Obama bemoaned America's standing in the world. The U.S., he lamented, is "the only advanced country on Earth" that doesn't guarantee "paid maternity leave to our workers."

Apparently this is supposed to be some kind of devastating argument, because you see it a lot. When Seattle Mayor Ed Murray announced a paid maternity leave policy for city workers, he also noted that "the United States is the only developed nation in the world without a statutory right to paid parental leave." PBS NewsHour has made the same point: "Almost every country in the world offers more generous maternity leave than the U.S." (To prove just how backward we are, PBS lumps America in with Papua New Guinea. Boy, someone in the PBS newsroom needs some remedial training in cultural sensitivity!)

And it's not just maternity leave, either. The U.S. gets rebuked for being an outlier for lots of things. "Here's a Map of the Countries That Provide Universal Health Care," scolds The Atlantic. "(America's Still Not on It)." It's a popular point to make in arguments over capital  punishment, too. As a Los Angeles Times news article reprovingly noted after a jury condemned Dzhokhar Tsarnaev to death, "today 105 of the 192 countries represented at the United Nations have abolished the death penalty by law, and at least 43 more have abolished it in practice. … Those that still employ the death penalty—among them Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Somalia, China, Japan and the U.S.—are outliers and strange bedfellows."

Oh, and "The United States has such an unequal distribution of wealth," says a piece on the Huffington Post, "that it's in the league of corrupt underdeveloped countries, no longer in the league of the developed nations."

You get the point. If the rest of the civilized world is doing something and we're not, then clearly we need to mend our ways.

But this line of reasoning recently came to an abrupt halt when it slammed into a brick wall labeled "abortion." The Family Foundation of Virginia had claimed the U.S. "is one of only seven nations that allows elective abortions after 20 weeks post-fertilization." The others: China, North Korea, Singapore, Canada, the Netherlands, and Vietnam. PolitiFact Virginia rated the statement true. Similar statements have been made before, by Rick Perry's wife Anita (PolitiFact checked that in 2013) and Carly Fiorina (who was checked by Politifact on the point in 2011). Their statements received ratings of half-true.

The ratings, however, matter less than the reaction. When asked about the figures, a spokesman for the Center for Reproductive Rights said data showing the U.S. fails to conform to international norms are "an imperfect way to think about abortion laws." Oh.

Just a guess, but most supporters of abortion rights probably don't give a fig what the rest of the world does. They believe abortion should be widely available even in later pregnancy—and if America's laws are more liberal in that regard, then it's the rest of the world that needs to catch up, not the other way around.

The U.S. is exceptional in other ways as well. As The New York Times reported in a 2008 article, we are the only country that blocks prosecutors from introducing certain evidence in criminal trials if the police obtained it improperly: "The rule applies whether the misconduct is slight or serious, and without regard to the gravity of the crime or the power of the evidence. 'Foreign countries have flatly rejected our approach,' said Craig M. Bradley, an expert in comparative criminal law at Indiana University. 'In every other country, it's up to the trial judge to decide whether police misconduct has risen to the level of requiring the exclusion of evidence.' "

The U.S. also deviates from international norms by providing for punitive damages. After an Alabama couple won $1 million from a company for a defective motorcycle helmet that contributed to their son's death, an Italian court refused to help them collect because, the Times said, punitive damages were "so offensive to Italian notions of justice that it would not enforce the Alabama judgment."

If you're running in one direction and everyone around you is running the opposite way, it's prudent to wonder whether you haven't made a mistake. But it doesn't prove a thing by itself. The Xin dynasty Emperor Wang Mang abolished slavery, however briefly, in China in the first century. It must have seemed mad at the time, but that didn't make it wrong.

Policies are good or bad policy independent of how many other countries have them, and in some cases—such as the exclusionary rule—the trait that makes the U.S. unique in the world is a significant virtue. "Collective wisdom" often isn't. Remember the Demotivator poster about business meetings: "None of us is as dumb as all of us."

NEXT: Apple CEO Tim Cook Pushes Back on Government Efforts to Stymie Private Encryption

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. Also loser pays. “The rest of the civilized world does it.”

  2. For progs, the ratchet only goes one way.

    1. like most ratchets?

  3. Is it any surprise that the most juvenile of political ideologies constantly employs an argument equivalent to “but all the cool kid are doing it!”?

    1. They routinely argue like middle schoolers, so imo that sort of behavior is par for the course.

  4. The “all the cool kids do it” argument has been applied in a cherry-picking manner since at least the fifties. When anyone dares to suggest that America consider how other developed nations (apart from a single outlying data point) educate their children, progressives turn purple with rage.

  5. Single payer, high speed rail, free college…

    1. Guaranteed job for life with full pay should one become disabled due to physical, emotional, etc. reasons.

      1. Actually I would be kind of okay(ish) with this. I’d rather see people working than mooching, at any rate.

        1. Who said they were working? Just because they have a job, doesn’t mean they are productive. When you can’t be fired, mooching is the most likely job.

          1. Better than flat-out mooching. With our current system, you can be paid for 0% productivity. I’d rather pay them for 1% than 0%.

            1. You’ve obviously never worked in a place where a fellow employee got in the way of productivity. I told one boss once to pay a woman to stay away from the workplace because she cost more being there than she would’ve not showing.
              Also you missed the part above where I said job-for-life with pay even when you couldn’t go to work anymore for any reason.

              1. Yes, I have worked with people like that multiple times. If your boss or you are in any way competent, it’s pretty easy to deal with.

                Also, “should one become disabled due to physical, emotional, etc. reason” does not equal “even when you couldn’t go to work anymore for any reason”.

        2. everything the govt tries to do about this just makes it worse. look at employment of the disabled and the ADA. i have no issue with disability qua disability though, we just need to be a little more exacting about who gets it

    2. high speed rail

      FWIW, rail in America IS uniquely hampered by burdensome and costly regulations compared to the “rest of the developed world”. Even Europe and several Asian countries are moving back towards privatization, for example.

      1. We are also uniquely burdened by size.

        1. Which would not be an issue with privatization.

        2. Some of us are just blessed like that…

        3. story of my life

  6. I don’t employ the “love it or leave it” argument very often, but I do wonder why so many people that seem to idolize Europe don’t just move there. Plenty of them certainly have the means, as it’s usually upper middle class urban dwellers that make these kinds of arguments.

    1. That’s like asking Torquemada to kindly stop his “conversions” and emigrate from Spain.

      1. If you like Christianity so much, why don’t you go to the Vatican?

        1. You’ve got a one way stub for Moscow then?

    2. Yurop doesn’t want them anymore than we do.

    3. upper middle class urban dweller

      I think you overestimate the liquid assets of such people. From my observation, the only people who have true assets are the elderly and the upper class. Everybody else is leveraged beyond the hilt.

      1. Mx, the best response to the ‘problem’ you stated at the end of your comment is: “WHY?”

        and trust me on one thing… the first ‘answer’ anyone comes up with is NOT likely the root cause of the issue.

        Give it a shot. Socrates would be proud of you.

    4. I don’t understand why people idolize a continent that started two world wars in less than a century. They clearly ain’t right in the head.

  7. Paid maternity to workers? Isn’t she supposed to be in the kitchen making pies? i don’t get it.

    1. Pies, yes, but also, don’t forget, buns in the oven!

      1. With shoes on? Pregnant?

        1. Yeasty or non-yeasty?

          1. Yeast? Yeast of the least, is not deceased! Let me tell you about yeast!

            Q: What do you call a lady with anorexia nervosa and a yeast infection?

            A: A quarter pounder with cheese!

  8. Abortion.

  9. I used to be neutral about abortion but in the last few months I’ve seen scientific studies that show the unborn do feel pain so now I’m almost 90% against it.

    1. Not as painful as having a “Progressive” single mother! I find it abhorrent too, but it at least keeps their numbers in check. And abortion is no where near as abhorrent as the justification these idiots use to keep themselves living. “Oh, it’s just a clump of cells!” “Oh, it’s a parasite!” “I’m not killing my child, it’s not born yet!”

      1. Readily available abortion hasn’t decreased the number of single mothers though. The rate of single parent families has tripled since 1960.

        1. No, it decreases the number of single mothers by a lot, it’s just that there is much less stigmatization for being a single mother and not having a father around. And the government now subsidizes single motherhood through child support and welfare.

          1. I agree that those factors are in play too, but don’t say that abortion decreases single motherhood if there is no actual effect except for a hypothetical one in your mind.

            1. lies, damned lies, and statistics. there are waaaaaay too many factors in play here for one number to say anything meaningful

        2. And most studies say that 93-98% of abortions are done in the first 20 weeks anyways, so it is relatively irrelevant that as a country, abortion is legal after 20 weeks.

          1. Irrelevant to *whom*? Not to babies who survive to 20 weeks.

            1. To most of them, yes it is.

      2. “I used to be neutral about abortion but in the last few months I’ve seen scientific studies that show the unborn do feel pain so now I’m almost 90% against it.”

        Let’s have some links.

    2. I can’t see a situation where id be in favor of an abortion.

      I also can’t see where it’s any one else’s business. If you choose to have an abortion its none of my business. If you chose to abort my baby, that would be a different matter. So would blocking my decision to abort…

    3. Links to those ‘scientific studies,’ please?
      And how much is ‘almost 90% against’ ? 89%? 75%?

  10. Abortion should be mandatory for all parasitical and blood-sucking organisms… Can you imagine life w/o leeches, fleas, intestinal parasites, disease organisms, mosquitos, ticks… And communist politicians!

    1. Parasites drive evolution. WIthout the host-parasite dynamics, the host genomes would tend to stagnate.

      1. I believe you are actually correct… Worse yet, once an organism (or a bunch of them, a bunch of species) “forget” how to deal with parasites, they are SCREWED if/when the parasites re-evolve or otherwise re-appear…

  11. We didn’t need paid maternity leave when women stayed home and their raised kids. Wages were nice and high too so a single man could support his whole family on. Now that women are largely working wages are much lower so that it’s nearly impossible to support your own family with a single breadwinner. You can’t increase the labor supply without a market need for such an increase without having such a negative effect on wages. Of course, Progs don’t understand economics at any rate.

    The only silver lining in the Prog’s push to end the family is that the Progs aren’t producing kids themselves at any worthwhile rate. They love fucking around for 20 years and when they want to start a family they’re 40 and their eggs are fried and if they had kids before then they aborted them all.

    1. Your alleged benefits of keeping women barefoot and pregnant are hardly a justification for rolling things back to when there were few opportunities for women*, but besides that, …

      The reason it takes two people to make what one used to make in real terms is probably more a function of our increased tax burden. If the government didn’t used to take half the average working person’s salary, but it does now, then it takes twice as many people now to make the same amount of money in real terms.

      *Please never make a similar argument for Jim Crow in the name of libertarianism.

      1. The tax burden was higher in the 50s.

        1. See my link below.

          PDF page 9 of 79.

        2. That isn’t true.

          The overt tax burden as represented in their effective tax rates on lower and middle class families might have been higher but the total taxes collected and total spending by the government were lower.

          Total government spending (this includes Fed, State, and Local) has risen from 19% of gdp in 1947 up to 35% of GDP today, total revenue has risen from 22.3 to 33.2% of GDP and while that rise may not be reflected on their paystubs the working classes one way or another they ARE paying for the bulk of those increases either through reduced wages or increased prices

          1. Was that directed at me? I never said anything about taxes collected or government spending.

            1. Yes, that was directed at you.

              You said the tax burden was higher, and you are probably correct if you restrict your view to just income and payroll taxes.

              The point I was making is that those are not the only taxes a person pays and when you factor all of the other taxes as well as the cost burden of indirect taxation (higher prices or lower wages as a result of corporate taxes) the actual tax burden is significantly higher today.

      2. Barefoot and pregnant? Few opportunities of women? Save the SJW mantra. Women have always worked. In fact, it was women who promoted that women stay at home and raise kids instead of working. In Australia just before the turn of the 20th century they even got their government to pass a law that set a woman’s pay at .57 of a man or thereabouts for the same job.

        1. Just because you don’t like SJW doesn’t mean we have to pretend that women don’t have more career opportunities than they did before.

          You may find this hard to believe, but there are more opportunities for minorities post Jim Crow than there before, too.

          Being a libertarian means not having to pretend things are other than they are just because we don’t like the implications. You can still be against the excesses of SJWs even if women and minorities do have it better than they used to.

          P.S. Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt my arguments.

          1. They may have more career opportunities than they did before, but they still tend to stay in the same professions that they did before. The only ones feminists want more women in are the higher paying jobs or ones with lots of power like CEOs or a politician. They don’t want to be garbage women, sewage workers or coal miners. The last one is ironic since that actually was considered a women’s job 300 years ago.

            1. “We didn’t need paid maternity leave when women stayed home and their raised kids. Wages were nice and high too so a single man could support his whole family on. Now that women are largely working wages are much lower so that it’s nearly impossible to support your own family with a single breadwinner. You can’t increase the labor supply without a market need for such an increase without having such a negative effect on wages. Of course, Progs don’t understand economics at any rate.”

              One of the reasons progressives are so wrong about so much when it comes to economics is because they assume the economy is a static, resource limited pie, and they obsess about who gets how much of it–rather than how much it can grow.

              Labor is a resource. Having more of a resource is better. If bringing millions of productive workers into the economy had a negative impact on economic growth and the standard of living, then China would have had the slowest economic growth in the world over the past 15 years, and their standard of living would have fallen precipitously.

              1. Having more of a resource is better IF there are people willing to exploit that resource. China had a lot of very cheap labor to build a lot of cheap crap that we were buying. China wouldn’t have such a great economy had all of their workers demanded $15 an hour!

                1. If American women can command salaries higher than their Chinese counterparts, then that’s good for the economy–because sustainable wage growth is a function of productivity.

                  Meanwhile, taking hundreds of millions of unproductive peasants doing subsistence farming and giving them something productive to do is good for the economy.

                  And taking hundreds of millions of unproductive housewives and giving them something productive to do is also good for the economy.

                  Sending hundreds of millions of productive Chinese workers back to do unproductive subsistence farming would harm their economy.

                  And sending hundreds of millions of American women back to being relative unproductive housewives would be bad for the economy–not good.

                  You understand that employed women are also consumers, right? Do you have any idea what would happen to our economy if all those consumers exited the market? The observation to make is how much higher a standard of living we would be enjoying if all that productive capacity from women had been channeled through markets into profitable activity rather than squandered by way of unprofitable and unproductive government spending.

                  1. Do you have any idea what would happen to our economy if all those consumers exited the market?

                    Couldn’t give a flying flip. It’s not womens’ responsibility to prop up a credit-based economy with consumption.

                    I also think that much more damage is done by letting daycare and public schools raise almost every child in the country than the benefit that comes from having the overconsumption that comes with 2 income households.

                    Idk, maybe I’m just old fashioned, but I’d rather have a small house and raise my children myself than have the standard American consumerist lifestyle complete with standard American kids.

                    1. The suggestion was that the economy would be a better place if women hadn’t joined the workforce.

                      Pointing out what would happen to the economy if they were exited is entirely relevant.

                    2. No, the suggestion was that women entering the workforce created a glut of labor supply, thus reducing real wages. I think that’s just basic economics.

                      If all the women just immediately pulled out of the workforce on the same day, sure, it would be catastrophic. I don’t think anybody is stupid enough to advocate for that.

                    3. “If all the women just immediately pulled out of the workforce on the same day, sure, it would be catastrophic. I don’t think anybody is stupid enough to advocate for that.”

                      Actually, it wouldn’t be that catastrophic. Other than nursing and health related fields, all of the important jobs that keep society afloat are in male dominated fields. Your lights will still be on at night. Your sewage will be taken from your home and cleaned to returned as potable cleaning water. Your trash will be collected. Your cable TV will still be on. Your grocery store shelves will still be stocked with fresh fruit and vegetables.

                      Most people, especially feminists, ignore how much better their lives are because of men.

                  2. “And sending hundreds of millions of American women back to being relative unproductive housewives would be bad for the economy–not good.”

                    How are lives of housewives unproductive? The raise their children. They go shopping for the family. They feed the family. They aren’t just sitting around doing nothing all day. The only housewives that did that were the rich entitled ones that lo and behold became the early feminist movement.

                    “Do you have any idea what would happen to our economy if all those consumers exited the market?”

                    Women have ALWAYS been the main consumer. You don’t have to work to be a consumer.

                    1. How are lives of housewives unproductive?

                      Yeah, I thought I Love Lucy settled this issue 60 years ago.

                    2. Yeah, Rhywun…

                      How are the lives of housewives unproductive? I’d say that it’s hard to quantify the positive effects of unpaid housework on GDP, but…

                      One of these guys is making fun of progressives for not knowing anything about economics–and then saying things that don’t make a bit of economic sense.

                      And another one of them is being so willfully obtuse, it can only be Tulpa.

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cWnubJ9CEw

                    3. Yeah, more workers = depressed wages. Basic economics.

                      But working women are now producers. I.e. there are now more things for society as a whole to consume. I.e. lower prices. Also basic economics.

                      Workers in a free market universally produce more than they consume, and more workers are a net positive for the standard of living of a society.

                      You’re basically making the same nonsense argument about labor glut that anti immigration people argue.

            2. We need more bitches in this IT shop. Smells like ass in here.

          2. Just because you don’t like SJW doesn’t mean we have to pretend that women don’t have more career opportunities than they did before.

            That’s the wrong comparison, though. The right comparison is what career opportunities they would have had in the absence of affirmative action and similar SJW legislation, and arguably, they would have had more opportunities.

            The problem with progressive policies is not that things don’t improve under them, it’s that they tend to improve less compared to doing nothing at all.

            1. The statement under consideration was that the world was a better place when women weren’t participating in the workforce.

              “We didn’t need paid maternity leave when women stayed home and their raised kids. Wages were nice and high too so a single man could support his whole family on. Now that women are largely working wages are much lower so that it’s nearly impossible to support your own family with a single breadwinner. You can’t increase the labor supply without a market need for such an increase without having such a negative effect on wages.”

              I wasn’t making a comparison. I was refuting a stupid statement.

              He was bemoaning the fact that women entered the workforce–not how they got there.

              He blames our lower standard of living on women entering the work force. Progressive policies are beside the point.

              He’s wrong on so many points, it isn’t even funny. And he’s so willfully obtuse about it, I’d give three to one odds that it’s Tulpa.

    2. Someone linked an article that show 2 family incomes earn more that single income adjusted for inflation. It’s just standard of living was lower in the 50’s. 1 care, 1 TV, no dryer, etc. I’ll google for it.

      1. Man what mess. 1 car. Also I mean house hold income today vs 50’s adjusted for inflation.

      2. Here’s a link showing total taxation as a percentage of GDP–which includes federal, state, and local. Go to PDF page 9 or 79.

        It shows that the total taxation level in 1922 was 11.1% of GDP, and in 1988, the total taxation level was at 34.7%

        http://www.nber.org/chapters/c5981.pdf

        It stops in 1988, but here’s a reference showing that the percentage of GDP taken by federal taxes in the U.S. is now 26.9% by itself.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue _as_percentage_of_GDP

        Assuming that local and state taxes haven’t been raised one iota since 1988 (which is a ridiculously conservative assumption) would put our present total taxation level at 41.4% of GDP.

        What year do you want to compare that to for one income earners? How about 1949?

        In 1949, local, state, and federal taxation amounted to 22.6% of GDP.

        If we have to sacrifice almost twice as much of our productive output as we did before to pay for the government, then it’s no wonder why women have to go to work (to make a little less than men) to achieve the same standard of living that only one person could achieve before.

        1. Taxation may be higher now, but a lot of things cost a lot different too. Food is far, far cheaper today than it was 50 years ago, but daycare is very, very, very expensive. I know families where one person stopped working for the very reason that it was cheaper or the same for one to stay home and raise the child instead of paying someone else to do it.

          1. That’s why we’re talking about the tax burden as a percentage of GDP.

        2. “If we have to sacrifice almost twice as much of our productive output as we did before to pay for the government, then it’s no wonder why women have to go to work (to make a little less than men) to achieve the same standard of living that only one person could achieve before.”

          Feminists should latch onto this.

          If there’s any government policy that drives women to seek and stay with an abusive man, maybe it’s big government and the fact that it’s so big, individual women can’t earn enough to enjoy a high standard of living by themselves?

          Supporting big government is misogynist.

          No wonder the government is in the marriage business. If enough people aren’t linked together that way, they might not be able to afford to support such a high level of taxation.

        3. You can get a full vcustomizable data series here…

          http://www.usgovernmentrevenue…..ent_Of_GDP

          It even includes state and local government costs

  12. They believe abortion should be widely available even in later pregnancy […]

    And beyond.

    1. Gay messican ass sex, while smokin’ pot, along with that deep derp dish!

  13. I’ll tell you what doesn’t go over well in a discussion with a group of female HR professionals. Asking why an employer should be mandated by law to pay money to someone for not working.

    1. Vagina. BOOM! Debate over son!

    2. I hope you’re an employer and not an employee if you are in the habit of saying such things to HR people.

      1. I’m dumb but not that dumb. These were female HR professionals working at different companies that I’m friends with. We were in a social setting and they were talking shop. I asked the question and seriously thought one of them was going to fetch all the skee-balls in Dave & Buster’s so they could stone me for my impertinence.

        1. Ah, thank you for the clarification.

        2. Not a surprise that you got that reaction from HR people. I once asked our HR “professionals” why our company chose to cap health insurance premiums at the rate that a family of four paid, regardless of family size. Their incredulous reaction to the question was “If we charged a lot to large families there would be a disincentive to have a lot of kids!”

    3. Having the word HR next to the word professional in the same sentence is a joke.

  14. Reason, why am I getting advertising banners against concealed carry without a permit in Maine?

    I hope it is pay per view and you’re just hosing these statists.

    1. I’m getting “join Hilary’s campaign” ads.
      [STANDARD AD BLOCK COMMENT]

    2. Screw it, I’ll click if it costs them!

      1. This.

        Every Reason reader should click on those, then click on something else on their website. Maybe leave it open in another tab for a few minutes. That way, they think they’re actually snagging readers who are interested in their bullshit. They’ll keep paying for those ads while most likely getting zero “conversions” (e.g. those who donate money”) from Reason.com readers.

        Think of it as a negative campaign donation. Together, we can all defund Hillary Clinton! (or at least take a small chunk out of their budget for symbolic value)

    3. These are targeted ads, based on sophisticated analyses of your interests and preferences. (Narrows eyes.) What exactly is your political orientation again?

  15. I thought this was a libertarian oriented site. Why does this sound like partisan Republican liberal bashing? Libertarians have very little agreement on abortion.

    1. The article isn’t about abortion, it merely uses abortion to highlight the flaw in the common progressive argument of “everyone else is doing it so we should be too”.

  16. From the link about the Chinese emperor who abolished slavery in the first century A.D. – he was overthrown by something called the Red Eyebrow Rebellion, a rebellion designed to restore slavery.

    Imagine that – a proslavery rebellion!

    1. And it’s interesting that an emperor who gets overthrown is called a “usurper.” Not surprising, just interesting.

      1. I mean, George H. W. Bush was removed from office, but that doesn’t make a “usurper.”

      2. History is written by the victors.

      3. Tell that to Stannis Baratheon

  17. Speaking of abortion hypocrisy: Here’s a paraphrase of two Joe Biden statements I once saw in close proximity of each other.

    1. As a Catholic I have always believed that human life begins at conception.

    2. I have always supported a woman’s right to an abortion. It is entirely the woman’s choice.

    It takes about 3 brain cells to combine these two strong beliefs into an interesting synthesis: Biden supports murder so long as it is the mother murdering the human living in her abdomen.

    1. Using the word “murder” adds an element not included in Biden’s original two statements. A more accurate synthesis, which doesn’t add to or remove any element of those statements is: “I have always supported a woman’s right to take human life between conception and birth.” (Biden probably would argue that if the law doesn’t make taking those lives illegal, then taking them isn’t murder. He can’t wiggle so easily out admitting that he supports letting women take at least some human lives.)

      1. When one human intentionally kills another human, it is murder, that’s why I used the term. It clarifies things when you use the correct terminology and avoid bullshit like “taking a life”.

        1. I think alight amendment is necessary to your definition. When a human intentionally kills an innocent human it is murder.

          Killing can be done in defense, murder cannot be.

        2. Not true.

          We do not say that soldiers fighting in a war have committed murder. We do not say that someone defending themselves from an attack has committed murder. We do not say that the hangman has committed murder.

          Murder is specifically a legal term and it is only murder if the law determines that the killing of that victim under those circumstances was not acceptable.

        3. Why don’t you avoid bullshit like “human” or “human life” then?

          Murder requires that the “human life” being killed is a person, not merely a clump of human cells. A fetus may be a “human life”, but a fetus is not a person.

          1. Go tell Joe Biden that you dumb fuck.

            And go read my original post.

            Biden believes an embryo is a human at conception.
            He also believes a woman can destroy that human (murder)

            Joe Biden supports legal murder according to his own definitions.
            You’re fucking thick if you don’t get the point.

            1. Go tell Joe Biden that you dumb fuck.

              Catholic tradition is actually pretty reasonable on this point (before the new-fangled politicization): a fetus is a human being at conception, but until the quickening (roughly, end of the first trimester), it lacks a human soul. Therefore, first trimester abortions are considered sinful but not murder.

              He also believes a woman can destroy that human (murder)

              “Destroying a human” is not synonymous with murder; for example, self-defense is not murder.

      2. If I deliberately off your 6 month old fetus . . . legal murder.
        If you deliberately off your 6 month old fetus . . . ?

    2. I read it like a strange loop

      Statement A: Statement B is true.

      Statement B: Statement A is false.

    3. It takes about 3 brain cells to combine these two strong beliefs into an interesting synthesis: Biden supports murder so long as it is the mother murdering the human living in her abdomen.

      Where do you see the contradiction? Just because something is morally wrong doesn’t mean we need to make it illegal.

      And not every taking of a human life is “murder” either. Even Catholicism used to consider most abortions no to be murder.

  18. “the United States is the only developed nation in the world without a statutory right to paid parental leave.”

    I would consider that one of our few claims to fame.

  19. The Left’s rhetoric is “whatever works in the moment” story #76,386.

  20. So much of the discourse is around how to spotlight and persuade liberals to make smart choices. Thing is, the political types (media included) use this method of persuasion to manipulate the Stupids to promote their socialist idiocy.
    I think that rather than try to figure out how to persuade the Stupids of what is reasonable, it should be for reasonable people to figure out how to survive the coming train crash – and locate the surviving leftist pols and make sure they benefit from the crap sandwiches they’ve doled out.

    Just a thought.

    1. They hung Il Duce Mussolini from a lamp-pole, that was good…

      Other than that, I hear you and agree… But HOW, more specifically and broadly at the same time? We have had SOOOO many idiotic socialistic politicians, AND voters, don’t forget voters, we can’t track them all! And when the whole shit-house goes up in flames, all who live in the shit-house, ALL get all covered in flaming shit! Guilty and innocent alike, sad to say. I agree with you, but see no wonderful solution here either.

      HELP! What IS the fix we are looking for? Genetically engineered humans or cyborgs, programmed to reject voting socialist, maybe?

      1. Drug induced submission . . .

  21. Women don’t work as much in many countries compared to the United States. Did you ever of some white woman say “I’m going to go to Vietnam to find more opportunities, because they have maternity leave”? With the birth rate around the world is plummeting, I imagine paid maternity leave (publicly funded anyways) isn’t much of a burden to most businesses elsewhere.

    A woman will get pregnant maybe 2,3 times in their life. In the United States women can get a bunch of free stuff for the rest of her life, even if they’re not citizens. Places like Japan have no rape crisis centers and would be rapists get off with a slap on the wrist.

    Why can’t some libs consider things in proper prospective? Mexico (I assume) and Canada have universal healthcare and maternity leave, but they have 1/100 of our immigration population. Gee, why is that?

  22. Does Planned Parenthood offer gift certificates for abortions? Do they perhaps have a bridal registry?

  23. So, essentially, the point of this article is that libruls are hypocrites because they bitch about how backwards the country is when compared to Europe, but then don’t bitch about a few things this kracked-up kountry does well. Hahahahaha… Fuck me. I have to get one of these jobs where I write for an audience of aggrieved right-wingers. That’s got to be real easy.

    1. As someone who actually comes from Europe, I can’t think of many areas in which the US is “backwards when compared to Europe”. Most of the beliefs people like you hold are simply rooted in your ignorance.

  24. Comrade Bernie Sanders – there should be a right to free Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream at any time – for life.

    It is only just and right and good! Oh so good !!

    I want to walk into any establishment that sells Ben & Jerry’s and walk out with whatever I want – for free. Because it is my right!!

  25. “Here’s a Map of the Countries That Provide Universal Health Care,” scolds The Atlantic. “(America’s Still Not on It).”

    The map is bogus, like many of the “in civilized countries” statements. And even when statements are true, people simply pick and choose the countries to fit their agenda.

    If we really wanted to be like, say, Germany, we’d have to…

    – massively cut welfare
    – privatize all health care while strictly regulating it
    – strongly restrict abortion
    – lower corporate taxes
    – increase income taxes
    – exclude the majority of students from attending university
    – massively fund the Catholic and Lutheran churches from tax dollars
    – consult church leaders on legislation
    – stop keeping data on racial discrimination
    – allow spying on US citizens by police without a warrant

    That’s just for starters.

  26. In most European countries, gun owners are allowed – and in fact encouraged – to own suppressors. We’re the only country in the world where the gun owners are forced to bother everyone else with the noise from their hobby! When will we Americans see the light and move forward??

    /snark

  27. 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.www.jobnet20.com

  28. Nathaniel . although Stephanie `s rep0rt is super… I just bought a top of the range Mercedes sincee geting a check for $4416 this last four weeks and would you believe, ten/k last-month . no-doubt about it, this really is the best-job I’ve ever done . I actually started seven months/ago and almost straight away started making a nice over $79.. p/h….. ?????? http://www.worksite90.com

  29. I think that the exclusionary rule standard to be fair is pretty stupid. Basically you’re saying that the manner in which evidence is collected is more important than establishing all the facts in a case, which is paramount in trying to establish justice. Stephan Kinsella wrote a really good paper on this some years ago and came to the same conclusion.

    The only thing exclusionary rule is good for is preventing the state from convicting people for things which are bogus crimes to begin with (basically all the consensual vices). Here the use of evidence exclusion is great. Other than that though it’s pretty stupid.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.