Abortion

Planned Parenthood and Our Abortion Choices

The latest scandal probably won't lead to any changes, if American ambivalence is an indication.

|

Credit: Wolfgang Moroder

Confronting reality is not always a pleasant experience, but it is always a useful one. The covertly recorded videos of Planned Parenthood officials are a reminder that destroying fetuses is an ugly process with fatal results. 

In private, these abortion providers don't conceal what the procedure entails. Discussing the harvest of medically useful tissue from aborted fetuses, for which the organization is compensated, a senior official said, "We've been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, 'I'm not gonna crush that part.'" The image of doctors finding the ideal way to dismember a living organism does not have great appeal. 

If the Center for Medical Progress, which released the footage, expects it to change minds about government policy, though, it will probably be disappointed. 

Anti-abortion advocates insist that abortion takes a human life. Abortion-rights groups argue that every woman has a right to end a pregnancy. Americans have fully considered these views—and decided both are correct. 

A few months ago, the website Vox interviewed an Ohio man who was the picture of ambivalence. "Abortion is killing a baby," he said. "But I'm not saying it's always wrong." 

Karlyn Bowman, a polling expert at the American Enterprise Institute, says his opinion is the dominant one. A majority or plurality of people regard abortion as murder, but most think it should be legal. 

Is that an incoherent view? Not really. This is one of those rare issues where two strong principles collide, and there is no way to reconcile them. Abortion policy is not a matter of right vs. wrong. It's a matter of right vs. right. 

As such, any resolution produces tragic results. Allowing abortion sacrifices the lives of fetuses. Forbidding it violates the bodily integrity and autonomy of women. One or the other has to give way. 

In the political arena, abortion-rights supporters often rely on terms that obscure the nature of the operation. But the women who undergo abortions are generally not oblivious. One study found that most of those who get abortions feel regret afterward. Nearly all of the patients nonetheless reported "that abortion was the right decision for them." 

Few people make the decision without understanding what they are doing. Where state laws require doctors to perform an ultrasound before each abortion, 98 percent of the women who watch them proceed to end their pregnancies. 

In a sense, this awareness is a tribute to the success of anti-abortion groups—and modern technology—in familiarizing Americans with prenatal development. Photos of fetuses at various stages of development are a favorite tool of these activists. Nowadays, every parent first glimpses a new child before birth on a computer monitor, and only later in the flesh. 

But the expansion of knowledge has not driven Americans to deprive women of the ultimate decision on their pregnancies. Given a terrible, tragic dilemma, they have elected to leave it to the mother. 

More than 40 years after the Supreme Court found abortion rights to be constitutionally protected, popular support for a ban is still modest. The court has rejected every opportunity to reverse itself. 

So anyone who wants to reduce the number of abortions has two basic options. The first is to publicize the facts about it, in the hope of persuading women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term. This has already happened. A report last year by the Guttmacher Institute found that in 2011, the number of abortions fell to the lowest level in three decades. 

Carole Joffe, a sociologist at the University of California, San Francisco, told The New York Times one explanation was that opponents have "been very successful at stigmatizing abortion"—or, put another way, heightening concern for the unborn. Rates have fallen even in states with liberal abortion laws. 

Many Republicans have responded to the videos by proposing to bar Planned Parenthood from receiving federal family planning funds. But that would be completely at odds with a second proven method of reducing abortions: contraception. 

The program that would be defunded pays for birth control and related services. When young women gain access to free, long-term contraceptives, their pregnancy and abortion rates plummet. Less use of birth control would produce more unwanted pregnancies, many of which would be medically terminated. 

As the videos confirmed, abortions are something to be avoided and lamented. It would be a shame if the revelations led to more of them. 

© Copyright 2015 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

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.

118 responses to “Planned Parenthood and Our Abortion Choices

    1. Since we all believe in science and math as truths, it is hard to argue that abortion is not killing a living human being. It is preposterous to consider that not murder by definition.

      What is even more scary is if we did not allow abortion. We would have even greater throngs of zombies wondering around with voting rights, reproductive capabilities, and applications for government jobs.
      All I can say is at least the dipshits are the ones getting abortions. We should be happy although it is clearly killing a human, which I thought was illegal.

      1. Since we all believe in science and math as truths, it is hard to argue that abortion is not killing a living human being. It is preposterous to consider that not murder by definition.

        Abortion is no more murder than withdrawing life support of a body with no higher brain activity is murder.

        1. Brain activity is a necessary qualifier for murder? So if I went in as a random person off the street and unplugged the “body” you reference from life support, without permission of the family, what would I be charged with? Destruction of property? What’s the substantive difference between the brain activity of a fetus at 8 months and a 1 month old infant? What higher level functions are necessary for you to determine the humanity of someone?

          If you don’t see the eugenicist implications of your arbitrary application of what you deem to be the parameters of human life, I’m not sure how to make it clearer. If you can define a certain threshold of “brain activity” as being a prerequisite to humanity, what’s to stop the next guy from bumping that threshold a wee bit higher until we’re talking full blown Holmsian “3 generations of imbeciles is enough” type declarations stripping rights from those not considered “fit” (sub “high enough brain activity” here). Human life is human life. Either we value it for its own sake or we don’t. Equivocations such as yours do nothing to answer the question.

          1. But … but … you also say that freely choosing to have sex is the limit of my unalienable right to Liberty.

            1. I said no such thing.

              1. I said no such thing.

                Your shame is understandable:

                https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_5481472

          2. Brain activity is a necessary qualifier for murder?

            You can only murder someone who isn’t dead, so, yes.

            So if I went in as a random person off the street and unplugged the “body” you reference from life support, without permission of the family, what would I be charged with? Destruction of property?

            You’d be hard pressed to do that. If you unplug them before the absence of brain activity has been established, you’d be committing murder. Once it has been established, life support gets withdrawn immediately anyway.

            If you don’t see the eugenicist implications of your arbitrary application of what you deem to be the parameters of human life

            First of all, it’s not what I “deem to be the parameters”, these are our legal parameters.

            You also seem to mistakenly believe that “eugenics” means “killing people we don’t like”. Actually, it is about (supposedly) improving humans through interfering with reproduction, and it specifically refers to state interference in such choices (since men and women engage in eugenics privately every time they select a mate).

            If you can define a certain threshold of “brain activity” as being a prerequisite to humanity,

            It’s not a “certain threshold of brain activity”. The issue is personhood. The law protects persons, not lumps of human tissue.

            1. Human life is human life. Either we value it for its own sake or we don’t. Equivocations such as yours do nothing to answer the question.

              It’s you who is literally “equivocating”, using the term “human life” in two different senses in order to confuse the issue, referring to human tissue on the one hand, and to born human beings on the other.

              We don’t value “human life” in the sense of “human tissue”: every day, you excrete plenty of stem cells that could be grown into a full copy of yourself, and you do so without giving it a second thought. What we value is personhood. In religious terms, we value a body containing a sentient, sapient soul. The body doesn’t even have to be human. Confusing a soulless human body with a person isn’t just wrong, it is obscene and perverse.

              1. So … the soul is conferred upon exiting the birth canal? You sure? I’m an atheist, so not positive, but I believe most religious organizations don’t agree with you so not sure why your tone is so authoritative and adversarial.

                I don’t necessarily believe that a COMPLETELY brain dead vegetable surviving solely on life support fits the definition of “life”. But any amount of brain activity would throw doubt on the assertion. And since fetuses HAVE brain activity, your assertion is that there is a minimum amount or certain type of brain activity required for “personhood”. And whatever minimum you (or “the law” for that matter”) set is arbitrary. So that assertion is what I was responding to.

          3. Brain activity is a necessary qualifier for murder?

            You can only murder someone who isn’t dead, so, yes.

            So if I went in as a random person off the street and unplugged the “body” you reference from life support, without permission of the family, what would I be charged with? Destruction of property?

            You’d be hard pressed to do that. If you unplug them before the absence of brain activity has been established, you’d be committing murder. Once it has been established, life support gets withdrawn immediately anyway.

            If you don’t see the eugenicist implications of your arbitrary application of what you deem to be the parameters of human life

            First of all, it’s not what I “deem to be the parameters”, these are our legal parameters.

            You also seem to mistakenly believe that “eugenics” means “killing people we don’t like”. Actually, it is about (supposedly) improving humans through interfering with reproduction, and it specifically refers to state interference in such choices (since men and women engage in eugenics privately every time they select a mate).

            If you can define a certain threshold of “brain activity” as being a prerequisite to humanity,

            It’s not a “certain threshold of brain activity”. The issue is personhood. The law protects persons, not lumps of human tissue.

            1. I find it telling that you’re hyper-focused on your analogy of the brain-dead patient, to the exclusion of what we’re actually discussing. Fetuses are not brain dead clumps of cells that magically start operating upon exiting the womb. Stimuli and response occurs as early as the first trimester. It’s not the mothers brain that sends signals for the fetus to kick. In some senses the fetus has a much HIGHER level of brain activity compared to full grown adults as the synapses rapidly develop and grow. The process of which starts fairly shortly after conception.

              Your definition of eugenics is only semantically different from “mine” (even though I never attempted to define it). How does one “improve” humanity without defining traits that are undesirable? And who decides what those traits are? So then how would the deciders not then be “killing people they don’t like”?

              As far as the laws surrounding end of life decisions, I don’t really care as it’s irrelevant given the (normal healthy) fetus isn’t brain dead as I pointed out. But my understanding is that the laws vary by state, and that not in every case would life support be “withdrawn immediately”. It would be withdrawn at the behest of the competent person identified to make decisions or per the directions of the deceased prior to whatever circumstance led them there. Not an expert though. But, again, it’s irrelevant.

      2. Since we all believe in science and math as truths,

        And equal, unalienable and/or God-given rights as more relevant truths here. This is a libertarian site, eh?

        it is hard to argue that abortion is not killing a living human being.

        Only if you reject equal rights. That’s like the Klan saying it’s hard to argue against slavery,

        It is preposterous to consider that not murder by definition.

        It’s preposterous to consider that all unalienable rights are not equal to each other, by definition.

        What is even more scary is if we did not allow abortion. We would have even greater throngs of zombies wondering around with voting rights, reproductive capabilities, and applications for government jobs.

        Your contempt for equal rights is matched by your contempt for most Americans.

        All I can say is at least the dipshits are the ones getting abortions.

        If you fancy yourself as a libertarian, this is why our brand is rejected by 91% of libertarians (Cato/Zogby Survey) At least your opposition to abortion is not on a religious basis.

        1. This line of thought was confusing to me in the article and still is when you present it. No one is infringing upon anyone’s “Liberty”. Consensual sex, was, at least the last time I checked, consensual. So pregnancy is a consequence of a choice freely made. Except in the obvious case of rape, which most people make exceptions for. To be free from consequences of one’s actions isn’t liberty.

          1. No one is infringing upon anyone’s “Liberty”.

            Liberty is so much broader than having sex.

            Consensual sex, was, at least the last time I checked, consensual. So pregnancy is a consequence of a choice freely made

            How is that relevant to Liberty? Are you saying the unalienable right to liberty applies to only “sex”?

            If I freely choose to buy a car, then I forfeit my property right to … own the car?

            1. No. Using your car analogy, the correlation would be you choosing to buy a car then choosing to not pay for it. The debt incurred is the consequence of your decision, freely made, to purchase the car. Deciding subsequently that the consequences of your actions aren’t desirable doesn’t mean that your “liberty” is being infringed upon if you have to face up to them regardless.

              If I say to a new mother “if you kill your 1 month old, I’ll arrest you”, am I infringing upon her “liberty”? Her life is just as much dominated by the child as before birth, if not more so. She now has to actively feed, cloth and generally care for the baby as opposed to when her body performed all of those functions automatically. Why is it then that the “liberty” of the mother does not then trump the life of the child?

              1. No. Using your car analogy, the correlation would be you choosing to buy a car then choosing to not pay for it.

                The issue is STILL WHAT’S SHOWN ON THE VIDEO..

                If I say to a new mother “if you kill your 1 month old, I’ll arrest you”, am I infringing upon her “liberty”?

                Essentially the same answer as a viable fetus, no. But yes if it’s a pre-viable fetus. Viability is the boundary between two equal rights, a boundary which MUST best defend BOTH rights, BECAUSE they are equal, determined only by the judiciary, the principle of competing rights.

                Her life is just as much dominated by the child as before birth, if not more so. She now has to actively feed, cloth and generally care for the baby as opposed to when her body performed all of those functions automatically

                That’s her decision. NOT yours and NOT the state. It’s called individual liberty.

                Why is it then that the “liberty” of the mother does not then trump the life of the child?

                And vice versa. “Equal” means … equal. I think “share” makes more sense than “trump” — because it’s not the contest some try to make it. They share a moment, currently at viability

                The woman ALWAYS has a right to expel, but there is no separate right to kill a fetus who can survive on its own. At viability an attempted live birth should be required (except the health of the mother)

                1. My arguments are specifically concerning post-viability. Was not clear from your argument that you made that distinction. So, different conversation. Maybe if the post-viability rights of the fetus were made as vociferously as the liberty argument for the mother (or … treated equally as it were) we’d avoid this confusion.

                  Of course it’s the mothers decision to have the child. My point was that we wouldn’t allow her to reverse course at that point. Her decision has been made and the consequences are hers. What I’m trying to get at is that the FIRST decision in the chain was choosing to have sex. Which has consequences. Not imposed by the state or by me.

                  1. My arguments are specifically concerning post-viability.

                    (yawn) but you keep lying that the issue is WHAT IS SHOWN IN THE VIDEO.

                    I’m now considering that you and Win Bear may be the same person.

  1. Well, that was a rambling mess. Abortion may be the greatest issue in search of a libertarian position. (Not the libertarian solution of our dogmatists) It’s an example of competing or conflicting rights, as we learned in high school. Even unalienable (fundamental) rights are not absolute, because they can intrude on each other. There’s no free speech right to yell fire in a crowded theater.

    Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose, where the tip of my nose is the boundary between two conflicting rights. That boundary can only be established by the judiciary, which is obliged to draw a line which best defends both rights. But the abortion debate is dominated by loud extremists who reject equal rights.

    Extreme pro-lifers deny a woman’s unalienable right to liberty. Extreme pro-choicers deny a fetal child’s unalienable right to life. Those rights are precisely equal per the definition of unalienable, and per the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. But dogmatists reject both reality and dictionaries.

    Ironically, what Chapman misses is seen, instinctively, by most Americans. Yes, abortion is killing a life ? but it’s not murder. The fetus does have full rights at conception, but so did the woman.

    Recognizing either right does not define the issue. Recognizing both rights is the pro-liberty starting point. And for the religious, God-given rights cannot be temporary

    1. tldr Mikey is off his meds.

      1. Jay Dubya
        tldr Mikey is off his meds.

        (snicker) Can’t challenge a single word so we get “Mikey” jokes from an (adult?).

        1. To be fair, you are being quite civil and calm today. I will attempt the same.

    2. The fetus does have full rights at conception, but so did the woman.

      So, what is your proposed solution? Absent that you are merely bloviating.

      1. So, what is your proposed solution?

        Both rights are now satisfied, with one major exception. The woman always has a right to expel the fetus but there is no separate right to kill a fetus which can live on its own.

        Fetal rights have been defined at viability, but not defended. Once the fetus is viable — which includes mechanical means.– abortionists must be banned and a live birth attempted, DUH. (normal exceptions for the woman’s health)

        That could have been done one day after Roe v Wade, but pro-life leadership is more concerned with political power than savings babies’ lives. That’s shameful. Americans on both sides of the issue oppose later-term and partial-birth abortion.

        Absent that you are merely bloviating.

        Either way, you can’t rebut a single argument — without denying the meaning of unalienable, and the 5th and 14th Amendments.

        And those “horrifying” videos, in addition to obvious lies, were filmed a year ago. These pseudo pro-lifers, knowingly and intentionally, allowed multiple federal crimes every day for an entire year. And if “harvesting” causes more abortions, then how many babies could have been saved in that year? You can’t rebut that either. The date is shown in large type — but the brainwashed never noticed. I wonder why.

    3. Does a grown man have the natural right to take up residence in a woman’s womb against her will?

      1. Only is he’s very, very tiny.

        Even better, can government deny your individual liberty, claiming to save the life of a total stranger who lives 2000 miles away?

        1. Only is he’s very, very tiny.

          That blows a massive hole in your argument…

          Even better, can government deny your individual liberty, claiming to save the life of a total stranger who lives 2000 miles away?

          You have no right to aggress against another live human being, so no, the government cannot deny that “liberty” because it is no liberty at all.

          1. That blows a massive hole in your argument…

            It was a joke!

            Even better, can government deny your individual liberty, claiming to save the life of a total stranger who lives 2000 miles away?

            You have no right to aggress against another live human being, so no, the government cannot deny that “liberty” because it is no liberty at all.

            Which is also why government cannot deny the woman’s right to liberty, to save the life of a fetus within her body …. or else the fetus would have MORE rights than a living human, eh? Sometimes we have to step back a bit to see the entire issue.

            1. It was a joke!

              Fair enough.

              Which is also why government cannot deny the woman’s right to liberty, to save the life of a fetus within her body …. or else the fetus would have MORE rights than a living human, eh?

              No, because you are claiming the right to stab at things within your body. That is true, you can… as long as they aren’t living human beings. That violates NAP, as it is aggression.

              Sometimes we have to step back a bit to see the entire issue.

              Yes, which is why it is so important to understand that your right to do with your body as you please only extends to acts which don’t aggress against other humans.

              To bring up the only argument that fits, let’s do a thought experiment. Let’s assume that a tiny human (dwarf, whatever) volunteers to be swallowed by a giant human. They could survive for about 8 mins without air. If your assumption is correct, that you have the right to stab at anything within your body, then immediately after swallowing the tiny human, the giant could stab them as they are in his body, and therefore he can do what he wants.

              Unless you want to change your argument, that is what you must believe. And that is obviously wrong. You do not lose rights by existing within another human, voluntarily or not.

              1. No, because you are claiming the right to stab at things within your body.

                Strawman fallacy.

                .. it is so important to understand that your right to do with your body as you please only extends to acts which don’t aggress against other humans.

                If you ignore the unalienable right to liberty.

                Let’s assume that a tiny human (dwarf, whatever) volunteers to be swallowed by a giant human. They could survive for about 8 mins without air. If your assumption is correct, that you have the right to stab at anything within your body, then immediately after swallowing the tiny human, the giant could stab them as they are in his body, and therefore he can do what he wants.

                You need a MUCH better analogy! And you continue the strawman fallacy by falsely stating my assumption. Plus, you “forgot” to get the giant’s agreement, so the dwarf is an intruder.

                Unless you want to change your argument, that is what you must believe

                Same straw man.

                You do not lose rights by existing within another human,

                When have I said otherwise? You deny the woman’s right to Liberty, then fail to see what’s called competing rights. No rights are absolute, because they can interfere with each other. It’s like your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose, as we learned in high school.

                1. Strawman fallacy.

                  Possibly, do you have the right to stab at your body even if there is a live human in it?

                  If you ignore the unalienable right to liberty.

                  You have no unalienable right to violate NAP. You know this.

                  You need a MUCH better analogy!

                  Not really. It fulfills all the requirements.

                  Plus, you “forgot” to get the giant’s agreement, so the dwarf is an intruder.

                  Again, you assume that the giant involuntarily swallowed the dwarf (with no real reason to think so). Out of the things swallowed by humans, what percentage would you say are involuntary? Less than 1%, right? So if I told you that you swallowed a bite of donut, you’d immediately assume you did it against your will?

                  Fine, the Giant agrees to swallow the dwarf. I really can’t believe I had to say that.

                  Same straw man.

                  Answer my first question and we’ll see. After all, in order to deny that you can stab your body, you’d have to “ignore the unalienable right to liberty”. Turnabout is fair play.

                  When have I said otherwise?

                  It is the only logical result of your chain of thought.

                  No rights are absolute, because they can interfere with each other.

                  NAP is absolute. There are no other rights. All other “rights” you claim are only the logical conclusions of NAP.

                  1. NAP is absolute. There are no other rights. All other “rights” you claim are only the logical conclusions of NAP.

                    (yawn) You claim NAP allows you to use force to prohibit me from exercising my rights … which is how you people justify your initiation of statist force. But many libertarians are confused about NAP — which is Objectivism not libertarianism — and use it to dismiss anything beyond their thinking capacity

                    Libertarians, for one example, have expanded it to initiating “force or fraud”
                    But you people DEMAND the right to initiate fraud, which then excuses (in your case) your moral lapse on abortion.

                    There’s a bit more too this than repeating memorized slogans and phrases, which requires zero intelligence. Think outside the too-narrow box. The mind needs stretching exercises just like the body does, and for the same reason.

                    1. (yawn)

                      Unnecessary immaturity…

                      You claim NAP allows you to use force to prohibit me from exercising my rights…

                      You have no right to murder. NAP precludes this.

                      But many libertarians are confused about NAP — which is Objectivism not libertarianism

                      NAP defines libertarianism. Nothing else does. You do realize that by arguing against NAP being the sine quo non that you are indirectly arguing that it is OK to aggress under some circumstances? I really don’t want to do business or live near people like that…

                      I see you absolutely refuse to answer my direct question. Good, you can see at least one move in advance and realize that either way you answer it you lose the argument.

                      Pride goes before destruction (Proverbs 16:18, for those who were wondering).

              2. I guess the difference there is that the little person volunteered to go into the giant’s large belly. The baby did not volunteer. So I guess the giant can crush the little guy if he wants to. I don’t think the woman should be able to kill a human anymore than you are allowed to kill someone you don’t want around.

                Again, lets be happy the abortions are happening in the first place. How many more people identifying as other people do we really need?

                1. Murder, if it is murder, is never good.

                  Justice would demand “an eye for an eye”. You must repay for what you have taken.

                  1. You must repay for what you have taken.

                    How do you plan to repay — and to whom — your taking of the entire concept of equal, unalienable and/or God-given rights, which you repeatedly take/deny, apparently for mere political convenience?

                    1. You have no right to murder/assault/steal.

                      If you have done any of the above, the victim or victim’s representative may demand a full or partial repayment (after a trial by a jury of your peers, of course).

                      So, nothing I have suggested has done what you accuse me of.

    4. Michael,
      It is murder by definition. It does not seem to be a breach of liberty to have a kid. The woman should not have gotten pregnant. Is it not a human? is killing a human not illegal to any rational person.

      All of this is said with a staunch record of not giving a shit about abortion. Without it, millions more imbeciles would be wondering the street. It is probably more good than harmful. Mostly useless zombies are the ones getting abortions, not smart people. They are doing us all a favor.

      What’s the next distraction for the sheep?

      1. It is murder by definition.

        The rights to life and liberty are equal, also by definition.

        It does not seem to be a breach of liberty to have a kid.

        Only if you agree that being forced to wear a 200 pound weight is no breech of YOUR liberty. Do you?

        The woman should not have gotten pregnant.

        How does pregnancy forfeit an unalienable right?

        Is it not a human?

        Of course. So’s the woman.

        is killing a human not illegal to any rational person.

        Is it rational to deny the founding concept of equal, unalienable and/or God-given rights? Or to the religious, to deny the Will of God in the name of God?

        What’s the next distraction for the sheep?

        Perhaps pondering your contempt for equal rights? 🙂

        1. You’re assigning more rights to one human over another. How do I have contempt for humans rights to life and liberty. No one is killing the mother. She made a choice and should have to deal with it.

          And for the final disclosure; I am glad that woman is getting an abortion because she obviously cannot raise it properly and we don’t need any more parasites out there. But is is murder by definition.

          1. You’re assigning more rights to one human over another.

            Again, it’s you with the contempt for equal rights

            Perhaps pondering your contempt for equal rights? 🙂

            How do I have contempt for humans rights to life and liberty

            That’s not what I said, And your contempt for equal rights is in your very next sentence

            No one is killing the mother

            Why would that matter, when the woman’s right to liberty is equal to the fetal child’s right to liberty … and you say you are NOT rejecting equal rights?

            I am glad that woman is getting an abortion because she obviously cannot raise it properly and we don’t need any more parasites out there.

            My, you are oozing with hatred and contempt.

            But is is murder by definition.

            Same contempt for equal rights

    5. “Ironically, what Chapman misses is seen, instinctively, by most Americans. Yes, abortion is killing a life ? but it’s not murder. The fetus does have full rights at conception, but so did the woman.” Like, say, War, and Capital Punishment?

  2. abortion might be the single trickiest moral issue politics deals with today. if you’re not conflicted about it you’re not thinking about it hard enough

  3. The abortion debate won’t get interesting again until medical science progresses to where they’re viable outside the womb much earlier in development.

    1. And, when a gay gene is identified.

      If that happens, you’ll find the “lgbt” crowd all of a sudden being best friends with Pat Robertson and holding Jerry Falwell memorials.

      1. Why? Because the same people who hate gays would suddenly start liking abortion?

        1. Because some people who currently like abortion would suddenly like it a good bit less.

          1. Society will soon have to begin working on a lot of tough questions with respect to designer babies. The eager anticipation of embryonic gay genocide by right-wing idiots perhaps indicates that that segment of the population has more to think about than others.

            1. And the most epic failed abortion chimes in

    2. until medical science progresses to where they’re viable outside the womb much earlier in development.

      Already happened, way back in 1972. That’s when Roe v Wade’s trimesters were replaced with Casey vs Planned Parenthood (viability).

      The current standard is viability outside the womb, including mechanical means. So any and all advances in medical science are automatically self-correcting for the fetal child. Roe intended the trimesters to mean viability, but viability had already advanced by 2-4 weeks (IIRC).

      1. ACCCCK typo Roe v Wade’s trimesters were replaced in 1992, not 1972..

    3. The abortion debate won’t get interesting again until medical science progresses to where they’re viable outside the womb much earlier in development.

      Already today, you can transfer a fertilized egg from one mother to another, so a fertilized egg is “viable” outside its mother. But a fertilized egg isn’t really substantially different from a stem cell either; with a little bit of help, even a stem cell can develop into an adult human being.

      Viability, that is the potential to develop into an adult human being outside its mothers womb, simply is not a meaningful criterion in the abortion debate.

      1. (laughing)

        viable outside the womb

        Already today, you can transfer a fertilized egg from one mother to another, so a fertilized egg is “viable” outside its mother.

        (laughing) How to be a psycho.
        1) Lie by changing “womb” to “mother”
        2) Be too fucking stupid to know the eggs is still inside a womb.
        3) To cover your tracks, also lie about “viability”

        Viability, that is the potential to develop into an adult human being outside its mothers womb,simply is not a meaningful criterion in the abortion debate.

        OMG. You don’t know what “viability means either!

        http://www.thefreedictionary.com/viability
        “Capable of living outside the uterus. Used of a fetus or newborn.”

        We should all hope (and/or pray) that Win Bear is able to defeat the demons which possess him (or her)

  4. Republicans have responded to the videos by proposing to bar Planned Parenthood from receiving federal family planning funds. But that would be completely at odds with a second proven method of reducing abortions: contraception.

    I was with you until you put your hand in my pocket.

    1. I was with you until you put your hand in my pocket.

      That’s not the issue here, Republicans (especially Rand Paul) want to defund PP, but nobody else who provides the same programs. It’s crony medical care.

      PP’s FEDERAL funding, unlike abortion, is highly concentrated in the inner cities, where the women are merely black. Title X, Family Planning for low-income women, is nationwide program that has successfully reduced both abortions and unwed births in the inner cities.

      Paul and the GOP would also defund cancer testing and related services, paid primarily through Medicaid, where PP is the sole Medicaid provider in many inner cities.

      So while you personally would repeal Title X and Medicaid, they want to keep it just for “certain people.”

      And pity the pro-life rank-and-file being bamboozled yet again. Defunding Family Planning is politically correct for them, but will obviously INCREASE abortions and unwed births. What would Jesus say?

      1. I don’t know what Jesus would say, but a libertarian would say that the government has little business to give money to an organization like PP, in particular given PP’s history with eugenics.

        We all have medical insurance now. PP should transform itself, and operate like, any other hospital chain or chain of medical providers. I.e., it shouldn’t receive any other funding besides what it gets through regular billing.

        1. a libertarian would say that the government has little business to give money to an organization like PP, in particular given PP’s history with eugenics.

          So you know nothing about Title X family planning, since 1970.
          And perhaps know even less about eugenics, which was not that uncommon 100 years ago. Alexander Graham Bell also supported eugenics. Should I destroy my phone?

          http://bitly.com/1Dd8rPj
          The American eugenics movement received extensive funding from various corporate foundations including the Carnegie Institution, Rockefeller Foundation, and the Harriman railroad fortune. In 1906 J.H. Kellogg provided funding to help found the Race Betterment Foundation in Battle Creek, Michigan….
          Eugenics was widely accepted in the U.S. academic community. By 1928 there were 376 separate university courses in some of the United States’ leading schools, enrolling more than 20,000 students, which included eugenics in the curriculum

          We all have medical insurance now.

          Very funny.

          PP should transform itself, and operate like, any other hospital chain or chain of medical providers

          They already do.

          . I.e., it shouldn’t receive any other funding besides what it gets through regular billing.

          Also already done.

          1. So you know nothing about Title X family planning, since 1970.

            If you start concluding things about what I know from my statement about what a “libertarian would say”, you’re even more confused than usual.

            1. So you know nothing about Title X family planning, since 1970.
              And perhaps know even less about eugenics, which was not that uncommon 100 years ago. Alexander Graham Bell also supported eugenics. Should I destroy my phone?

              If you start concluding things about what I know from my statement about what a “libertarian would say”, you’re even more confused than usual.

              Irrelevant to your obvious ignorance of Title X funding … and eugenics.
              Plus all your other noted errors,

              1. Of course I know about Title X funding. My statement meant clearly that a libertarian would like to see this kind of funding abolished, not that it doesn’t exist.

                You are so mentally confused that you don’t understand basic English anymore. But even from your semi-coherent ravings, it’s clear that you are not a libertarian.

                1. My statement meant clearly that a libertarian would like to see this kind of funding abolished, not that it doesn’t exist

                  (lol) My statement clearly had nothing to do with existence ? that you want to abolish the funding … with no fucking clue what it pays for … thus you would increase government spending, but don’t even know it … on top of your bullshit on eugenics … and your wacky notion that everyone has health insurance since Obamacare.

                  You are so mentally confused that you don’t understand basic English anymore

                  (snicker) Like “exists”

                  Title X provides family planning counseling, contraception and related services to low-income women. If you understand human sexuality, then you MAY understand this REDUCES both abortion and childbirths, which are far more costly than birth control (gasp)

                  For every $100 million in program cuts, taxpayer costs will INCREASE by $350 million in the first year alone: childbirth, hospital care for both mother and child, plus adding the child to food stamps, Medicaid , EITC and other taxpayer expenses.

                  it’s clear that you are not a libertarian.

                  It’s clear that you goobers are why the libertarian brand is rejected by 91% of libertarians ? who are ashamed of you … With good reason. Thanks for helping me show why, the only reason I wasted time baiting you.
                  You may now resume your cyber-bullying

  5. “Few people make the decision without understanding what they are doing. Where state laws require doctors to perform an ultrasound before each abortion, 98 percent of the women who watch them proceed to end their pregnancies.” — Citation??

    1. I generally don’t believe anyone who says 98% of people do/believe X.

    2. Citation??

      It’s actually 98.9%.

      http://www.cbsnews.com/news/mo…..und-study/

      The ultrasound fallacy is revealed in that story. This is just an excerpt from a lengthy data analysis.

      women who were 17 to 19 weeks pregnant were 20 times more likely to decide not to get the abortion compared to women who were less than nine weeks pregnant.

      Pro-choice spokespersons describe fetal development at a time well beyond the vast majority of abortions and ultrasounds Hence, what most women see is nothing like what is described.

      Also detailed, women who are unsure of abortion are more unlikely to cancel the abortion after the ultrasound but that, too, is later in the pregnancy.

  6. “As the videos confirmed, abortions are something to be avoided and lamented. It would be a shame if the revelations led to more of them.” Safe, legal and rare. Except that is a complete sham.
    Planned Parenthood has no reason to reduce the number of abortions. And folks like Amanda Marcotte and the broad who just made the comedy about an abortion (don’t remember the name) don’t want to make it rare. They want to make it as normal and accepted as any procedure.

    And I am not sure Chapman characterized American opinion completely. The majority of Americans wanted to ban late term abortion. The majority of Americans don’t want to ban early abortions (or Plan B, IUDs etc.) Texas seemed to have the majority of Texans when it passed the 20 week limit. And while this is an arbitrary date, I would imagine a libertarian position would be while the mother is the only sentient being involved, her choice is the only thing that matters legally. When the fetus becomes viable, then now its right to life kicks in. Obviously the devil is in the details regarding viability. So lets meed somewhere and try to get close. 20 weeks, 24 weeks etc. If only there was a process in the US that allowed the individual states to make different laws………

    1. The majority of Americans wanted to ban late term abortion

      Which could have been done quite easily, 40 years ago, but political power and fundraising are more important to pro-life leadership than saving lives.

      If only there was a process in the US that allowed the individual states to make different laws………

      Not possible where fundamental rights are involved.

      Obviously the devil is in the details regarding viability.

      Only to the dishonest. 20 weeks is currently WAY before the vast majority of viability instances. It’s explicitly unconstitutional, thus a tool for political manipulation and hysteria mongering.

      1. 20 weeks is currently WAY before the vast majority of viability instances.

        If the state is going to intervene at all, viability should be irrelevant. If you use viability as the criterion, in a few decades, you won’t be able to perform any abortions after fertilization.

        From a practical point of view, it is long after the vast majority of abortions, so it would have little impact. It is also not a hardship to ask women to make a decision on whether to carry to term before 20 weeks, with medical exceptions.

        From a biological point of view, what matters is neural development. 20 or 24 weeks is a reasonable cutoff based on that.

        1. 20 weeks is currently WAY before the vast majority of viability instances.

          If the state is going to intervene at all, viability should be irrelevant.

          States are forbidden any role in fundamental rights. And why is the right to Liberty irrelevant?

          If you use viability as the criterion, in a few decades, you won’t be able to perform any abortions after fertilization.

          BINGO! The Court knew that nearly a quarter-century ago!!.

          From a practical point of view, it is long after the vast majority of abortions, so it would have little impact.

          Precisely. (Not to imply “practical” as an acceptable standard)

          It is also not a hardship to ask women to make a decision on whether to carry to term before 20 weeks, with medical exceptions.

          So you would abandon equal, unalienable and/or God-given rights as a constitutional standard … to be replaced with … hardship, inconvenience? Why should libertarians want unalienable rights to be based on convenience, instead of Natural Law?

          From a biological point of view, what matters is neural development. 20 or 24 weeks is a reasonable cutoff based on that.

          Replace the Supreme Court with Biology teachers. Abandon fundamental individual rights for 153 different versions of “neural development.”

          1. So you would abandon equal, unalienable and/or God-given rights as a constitutional standard … to be replaced with … Replace the Supreme Court with Biology teachers. Abandon fundamental individual rights for 153 different versions of “neural development.”

            The US Constitution protects the unalienable rights of persons and the individual rights of individuals. A fetus is neither a person nor an individual. While there may be many good practical and moral reasons to enact legal protections against abortion of a fetus, they are not rooted in the US Constitution.

            God-given rights

            Ah, for good measure, you add the usual historically ignorant bullshit about the Christian god being the source of individual rights.

            In any case, Christianity, for nearly two millennia, did take a “neural development” view of abortion, believing that ensoulment happened at the time of the quickening, a couple of months after conception. That was a far more reasonable view than the idea that ensoulment happens at conception.

            1. The US Constitution protects the unalienable rights of persons and the individual rights of individuals. A fetus is neither a person nor an individual.

              Not yet. But the issue is WHEN, which makes it constitutional.

              While there may be many good practical and moral reasons to enact legal protections against abortion of a fetus, they are not rooted in the US Constitution.

              See previous paragraph.

              God-given rights

              Ah, for good measure, you add the usual historically ignorant bullshit about the Christian god being the source of individual rights.

              Ah, for good measure, you’re a massive fucking liar on what I said, which was this:
              equal, unalienable and/or God-given rights

              In any case, Christianity,

              Ignored, as derived from the same “massive fucking lie.”

              1. Not yet. But the issue is WHEN, which makes it constitutional.

                When it stops being a fetus. You know, according to the meaning of the word in English.

                you’re a massive fucking liar on what I said … “and/or”

                No, you’re just a “massive fucking” idiot who doesn’t understand basic English.

                1. Not yet. But the issue is WHEN, which makes it constitutional.

                  When it stops being a fetus. You know, according to the meaning of the word in English.

                  Like a VIABLE fetus? (snort)

                  you’re a massive fucking liar on what I said … “and/or”

                  No, you’re just a “massive fucking” idiot who doesn’t understand basic English.

                  (laughing) Just compare the words. You lose again, chump.
                  Your fucking lie was documented here, cyber-bully.

                  https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_5481303

                  And you lied AGAIN (snicker) The part in boldface.
                  (walks away laughing at the psycho)

  7. I think I lean anti-abortion because of my personal views, and I don’t really see the life of a fetus as a woman’s choice. I really value life, and as a father I have a soft spot for children. However I still support abortion being perfectly legal and it is a moral decision.

  8. Does Planned Parenthood offer gift certificates?

    Do they have a bridal registry?

    1. Yes. They reside in your wallet.

  9. Abortion is one of the rare subjects that I will take a hard right stance on and one that I feel the libertarian platform really needs to align right on as well. Without the right to life all other rights that we fight for don’t matter one bit. In my opinion, the failure to take a stand on that issue oftentimes makes many libertarians look like hypocrites.

    Look, I understand women’s rights, I really do. I sympathize with them and I am all for those rights. But what about the baby’s rights? That is a unique human being, with their own set of DNA, growing inside the woman. It’s not just a clump of cells and tissue.

    No one can deny that the vast majority of abortions are performed not because of rape or incest or to save the mother’s life. But out of convenience. Which means that if the woman, and the man, kept their pants on, or taken proper steps to prevent pregnancy, then the child would not have come into being.

    As for the potential loss of Planned Parenthood funding for other services? I’m going to paraphrase what Julie Borowski said on this issue. If you’re a college kid and your parents send you money for bills with a note specifically telling you not to buy ‘booze’ with the money it doesn’t matter if you don’t buy booze with it or not. Your parents just bought you booze. Why? Because the money you were going to spend on bills you are now going to spend on booze.

    1. That is a unique human being, with their own set of DNA, growing inside the woman. It’s not just a clump of cells and tissue. It is just a clump of cells and tissues. People, dead or alive, are clumps of cells and tissues. The important difference is a functioning brain. Our brains make us human. Our brains allow us to interact with the world and perceive the world even if some people’s brains develop with limitations compared to “normal” brains. To me, the brain seems awfully important to the issue–more precisely the cerebral cortex since the cerebral cortex governs cognition rather than things like respiration and a heart beat as in the brain stem, which happens in other animals. An embryo at a few weeks in development doesn’t have a functioning brain or a developed cortex at all, so it seems silly to get all bent out of shape over an embryo without a brain. Sure, it could develop into a being with a functioning brain, but so what? It doesn’t have one at that moment, so it’s not losing anything. To me it’s losing the potential just like sperm loses potential to be united with an egg if uninserted.
      It may be difficult to define a functioning brain or the important moment for the cortex. But Carl Sagan wrote about the issue saying the linking up of neurons and regular brain waves typical of adult brains don’t occur until about the 30th week of pregnancy onward. If the case that basically seems like a good point to me to have a cut off.

  10. Without the right to life all other rights that we fight for don’t matter one bit. s.

    Not true in a constitutional or natural rights context, If you check the definition of unalienable, and the phrasing in both the 5th and 14th amendments, the right to Liberty (woman’s) is precisely equal to the right to Life. (child’s).

    Indeed, ALL fundamental rights are precisely equal. The Declaration was intentionally placed in the 9th Amendment, which states fundamental rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness … among others.

    ALL rights not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution are reserved to ONLY the people. Thus, government never had any power over marriage or abortion, because no such powers have ever been delegated.

  11. If women have a God given right to eradicate their spawn, then their mates have the right to not pay child support. Of course men’s autonomy counts for shit in this country.

    1. If women have a God given right to eradicate their spawn, then their mates have the right to not pay child support.

      What women have is a God-given right to Liberty. Men SHOULD have a right to Liberty in how child support is awarded and/or calculated, but what does that have to do with the woman’s right to Liberty?

      1. I am staunchly anti abortion. I find the argument that freedom is predicated on legalization of the practice utterly bereft of logical consistency.

        But *if* you believe that anti abortion laws unduly restrict a woman’s bodily autonomy, you at least ought to acknowledge that — on the same principle (which again I reject) — child support laws infringe on a man’s financial independence. 18 years of bankrolling your bastard is, arguably, far more of an impediment to autonomy than carrying a fetus for 9 months.

        One of the many reasons I find the mainstream pro abort movement reprehensible is that it is motivated by misandrist feminism rather than a genuine concern for equal rights. It sanctifies female promiscuity but demonizes male sexuality.

        1. I find the argument that freedom is predicated on legalization of the practice utterly bereft of logical consistency.

          How does your logic reconcile the definition of unalienable and the text in both the 5th and 14th amendments?

          But *if* you believe that anti abortion laws unduly restrict a woman’s bodily autonomy, you at least ought to acknowledge that

          I already defined it as an application of equal and unalienable rights. The foundation of our constitution.

          https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_5478815

          child support laws infringe on a man’s financial independence.

          That’s why I suggested only if improperly applied.

          18 years of bankrolling your bastard is, arguably, far more of an impediment to autonomy than carrying a fetus for 9 months.

          The premise seems to be a straw man fallacy — autonomy, which you ASSUME as my own premise, in direct contradiction to what I’d said and what you first replied to.

          Your logic SEEMS to assume that it’s acceptable to deny one package of rights because OTHER rights are being denied. If so, then even the Magna Carta should have never been adopted. The expansion of recognized rights will likely sontinue one at a time, as it has for centuries, no?

          1. Michael,
            If it is a human, how is the women not infringing on the rights of another human by killing it?

            And it likely does not matter. Obviously not enough people in Baltimore and our capital building were aborted so we need another solution.

            1. If it is a human, how is the women not infringing on the rights of another human by killing it?

              The woman is human with an unalienable right to liberty. Life and liberty are precisely equal, per the definition of unalienable and the 5th and 14th Amendments.

              1. yes but no one is taking the woman’s life. How is killing a living human being not infringing on liberty. I cannot stand my neighbor and don’t want him. What’s the difference again?

                Were it not for abortion, we would have so many more people that watch reality TV. I say, go get em PP. Just don’t get my tax dollars.

                1. yes but no one is taking the woman’s life.

                  Already answered. Irrelevant.

                  How is killing a living human being not infringing on liberty.

                  Already answered

                  I cannot stand my neighbor and don’t want him. What’s the difference again?

                  Relevance?

                  Were it not for abortion, we would have so many more people that watch reality TV. I say, go get em PP. Just don’t get my tax dollars.

                  Speaking of reality, your tax dollars don’t pay for abortion.
                  And I’d best give up on trying to explain equal rights for you.

        2. I like the way you talk Pope.

  12. I’m pro choice. However, I don’t see why tax dollars should go to Planned Parenthood, just like I don’t see why tax dollars should go to Christian family planning organizations or churches. From a libertarian point of view, defunding one group selectively makes little sense.

    Politically, defunding PP may be a good play during the Republican primary, but it’s going to hurt candidates in the general election.

    Despite its questionable history, PP still has a fairly good reputation, and it does perform useful services. The supposed “sale” of fetal tissues based on that feeble video is a red herring, utterly irrelevant, a legal gray area violating nonsensical knee-jerk legislation, and I think most supporters of PP will see it as such.

    1. . From a libertarian point of view, defunding one group selectively makes little sense.

      Except to the purists! I said the same thing SOMEWHERE in this page! (selective defunding). But for the rest, I can’t ignore the lessons of 40+ years in retail politics.

      It’s the moral equivalent of crony capitalism to defund one group but not the entire program. But defunding both entire programs is not even close to politically possible. Family planning (Title X) saves more than it spends, because those low-income women give birth on the public dime, and their kids are on public support. So you’d also have to cancel all of Medicaid. Yeah, right.

      Politically, defunding PP may be a good play during the Republican primary, but it’s going to hurt candidates in the general election.

      I submit that it’s even dumb. The extreme socon LEADERSHIP has NEVER determined the GOP nominee.

      I’ve worked with hundreds of Christian conservatives on local issues. Very few of them support the extremes of their “political” leaders, but nobody else is defending their values.,

      The supposed “sale” of fetal tissues based on that feeble video is a red herring, utterly irrelevant ? I think most supporters of PP will see it as such.

      I’m concerned about the swing voters, but it will take a while to measure the hysteria on them.

  13. I don’t like laying pro-choice all on bodily autonomy. It’s just not convincing to people who think the fetus has the same right. More convincing to me is to seriously look at the consequences of banning abortion. Of course we will no more eradicate abortion than we have murder, only abortion will be black market and thus riskier, and, importantly, women and doctors who are caught will have to face severe legal consequences. If we’re actually operating under the claim that a fetus is the same as a person, then that means first-degree murder of an infant. We’d be saying that the large fraction of women who will get an abortion in their lifetime all deserve to be in prison for life.

    Moral norms are to some extent, perhaps entirely, arbitrary. That is why this issue is difficult. People are coming from different starting places. One side is pretty much universally coming from a religious perspective and is being dishonest about its motivations. They have not developed a comprehensive ethical framework on the rights of fetuses. They are simply obsessed with controlling sexuality, particularly women’s.

    The pro-choice side is not, as it might be claimed, coming from a place of enjoying the killing of fetuses. It is on its face the more pragmatic argument.

    1. As an empirical matter, would many women who currently patronize abortion clinics resort to coat hangers if abortion was banned? Many of these women are already extremely conflicted. Its not analogous to drug markets where addiction makes demand highly inelastic. I could see how increasing the safety risks would dissuade many mothers from aborting.

      On a moral level, I think many pro lifers would be content with a radical shift in social and cultural norms in lieu of 100% elimination of the practice. Specifically, for abortion to become a taboo like incest or racism rather than a symbol of women’s empowerment.

      1. I would not, as it would mean the state forcing women to give birth against their will, or else charging them with first-degree murder of an infant. That does society (meaning individuals in society) no good.

        The only good claimed by banning abortion is that we’re saving the lives of babies. If it were actual babies, sure we’d move heaven and earth to come down on their side and not whatever good comes from, say, a factory polluting their drinking water. But it is not a long-established norm to treat a fetus as a person with rights. It’s a pretty recent rhetorical invention. We are free to make that choice, but we are also free not to, and I say let’s not and thus make society better off for it.

        1. An appeal to tradition by a progressive? That’s interesting.

          Surely you can see why a reasonable, non religious person might have trouble distinguishing between third trimester abortions and infanticide, “recent rhetorical inventions” notwithstanding?

          1. Yeah, but if we’re acknowledging that the fetus becomes more of a person as the pregnancy progresses, that means at some point it lacks personhood rights. Where the line is drawn is completely arbitrary from a scientific standpoint (as what a person is is not a scientific question). Since all we have to consult are specific cultural norms, we should draw it at a place that minimizes the harm to the safety and freedom of women while acknowledging that at some point the fetus gains the attributes we associate with personhood. We should not force women to give birth against their will because the patriarchy demands to assert its ownership of women’s sexual behavior and its consequences (except for child support?).

            1. Where the line is drawn is completely arbitrary from a scientific standpoint (as what a person is is not a scientific question).

              That’s a true statement though not a particularly helpful one. NAP protects live human beings, not “persons”. You can easily take rights away from humans by telling others they aren’t “persons”, just like Dred Scott took rights away from blacks by telling others they weren’t “citizens”.

              The term “person” is subjective; the term “human” is not. When in doubt, use the objective definition.

              1. It is not objective. In this context you’re just switching out terms and not solving the problem. Thus is an embryo a human? In this context what matters is whether it has the rights of a baby or not.

                Besides, the NAP is quite a problem here considering that the mother is also a person. Libertarians have been all over the place on applying NAP to abortion. Of course, since NAP is both immoral and impractical, I don’t think it is relevant.

                1. See? Aggression is hard-wired into the code that took them over when brainwashed into superstition. Since the non-aggression principle says they cannot napalm Vietnamese babies or bake Jewish mothers for altruistic reasons, the non-aggression principle has to go! These malware victims made it illegal to teach evolution in 1927, banned condoms, banned beer, have people tortured and murdered in their “war on” you-name-it, keep the LP off the ballot in antiabortion dictatorships susceptible to their coercive influence, but claim to be all in favor of live so ling as it does not interfere with the initiation of deadly force against genuine individuals. These desperate creeps have no appeal to anything but force, having rejected reason the day they were taken over by superstition.

                2. It is not objective.

                  How isn’t it?

                  Thus is an embryo a human?

                  It isn’t part of a human and it has human DNA…

                  In this context what matters is whether it has the rights of a baby or not.

                  Correct.

                  Besides, the NAP is quite a problem here considering that the mother is also a person.

                  You only have the right to stab yourself if it doesn’t kill another human being. That’s just like the right to dump crap on your property as long as it doesn’t get on mine. This is totally consistent with NAP.

                  Of course, since NAP is both immoral and impractical…

                  Under which circumstance is it immoral to NOT aggress by assaulting/killing/stealing from someone?

                  And the tyrant always says that whatever they don’t like is “impractical”. The most dangerous word from a politician’s mouth is “necessary”…

                  1. You only have the right to stab yourself if it doesn’t kill another human being.

                    It’s not stabbing, and you’re still rejecting equal, unalienable and/or God-given rights.

                    Pro-choice statists deny the fetal child’s right to Liberty
                    Pro-life statists deny the woman’s right to Liberty.
                    Each trying to impose their own anti-liberty beliefs on everyone by force

                    All unalienable rights are precisely co-equal, per the definition of unalienable, and confirmed in both the 5th and 14th Amendments. Elementary reality which you continue to deny.

                    1. It’s not stabbing

                      Indeed, it is. You stab the small human’s skull and suck out their brain.

                      you’re still rejecting equal, unalienable and/or God-given rights.

                      You have no right to violate NAP. Murder violates NAP. Therefore, you have no right to murder. (Modus ponens)

                      Pro-life statists deny the woman’s right to Liberty.

                      See above.

    2. If we’re actually operating under the claim that a fetus is the same as a person, then that means first-degree murder of an infant.

      Only if you reject your own premise! The woman is a person, with 100% equal rights.

  14. Oh, I get it. We libertarians are supposed to be against federal funding for things only if they are not in the service of the Greater Good(tm).

    Got it.

  15. Choice?

    As regards God’s law: In the New Testament, Jesus of Nazareth consistently preaches individual freedom, compassion and personal responsibility. If He told the adulterous woman to “go and sin no more,” what would He have us tell a woman seeking an abortion? Would He grant her the freedom to choose? Would He allow her the personal responsibility for her action?

    As regards civil law: The question, “When does life begin?” – can be argued philosophically, physiologically or emotionally without ever reaching a consensus. So shouldn’t a Constitutional Republic focus on a legal definition? “Life” is mentioned in our Declaration of Independence – so let’s define when life legally begins and pass law that defends it as the founding documents require, end the debate and move on to other matters. Civil law could “draw a line” that the medical profession (or Planned Parenthood) could not legally cross without facing murder indictment. At the same time, no one would be deprived of their right to carry a baby to term.

    1. Grant, that is certainly a more sound solution than offered by most. I don’t understand why, like you said, that scientists cannot determine an point with a well defined range when the fertilized egg becomes a human.

      After all, these government workers have been able to forecast the date when the earth is going to boil under our feet every 5 years without fail.

      1. Just determine a point when a fertilized egg becomes an actual human. Easy peasy. And while you’re at it, figure out what the phenomenon of consciousness is. Jeez, those whining scientists! Anyone could do their jobs!

        What date did they give us, pray, for when the earth was going to boil under our feet? Scientists, that is. Not the news media. What dates have scientists give us, in five-year intervals?

        1. Just determine a point when a fertilized egg becomes an actual human

          The woman is a human and possesses a right to Liberty which is precisely equal to the fetal child’s right to Life — per the definition of unalienable, plus the 5th and 14th Amendments.

    2. “Life” is mentioned in our Declaration of Independence –

      So are “Liberty” and “unalienable” — which says that Life and Liberty are precisely equal (among other fundamental rights), which is the definition of unalienable, and confirmed by the 9th and 14th Amendments.

  16. “A report last year by the Guttmacher Institute found that in 2011, the number of abortions fell to the lowest level in three decades.

    Carole Joffe, a sociologist at the University of California, San Francisco, told The New York Times one explanation was that opponents have “been very successful at stigmatizing abortion”?or, put another way, heightening concern for the unborn. Rates have fallen even in states with liberal abortion laws. ”

    Hold on, there, though. The abortion rate is measured per 1000 women. It’s not measured for every 1,000 pregnancies, and it’s certainly not measured per 1,000 pregnancies that were unintended or regretted. The abortion rate itself doesn’t actually tell us WHY abortions have gone down. Were there fewer pregnancies? That’s probably measurable, but what about unwanted pregnancies? I doubt there’s a metric for that. But we certainly don’t have enough information to say definitively that it went down *because* abortion has been stigmatized. We don’t have enough information to say anything further than that it decreased, one way or another.

  17. The 14th Amendment begins with “All persons born…” not conceived. True, cults of drooling mystics are anxious for brainwashable hosts for their ideas (death is good, hence the initiation of deadly force is good and wonderful). This has nothing to do with the value of life: Christians and Mohammedans bomb, napalm and murder everyone they can get at. It is about making women into slaves by robbing them of individual rights, and propagating cruel mindless superstition by brainwashing those too helpless to resist. It is not that they “believe in God,” but rather that “God” whispers to them they have to send men with guns to git them commies, queers, naygurs, hippies, infidels, papists, protestants, ragheads, plutocrats, jews, gentiles (enter additional minorities here). The countries that ban abortion are the most backward and corrupt cesspools on the planet, where actual individuals are gunned down daily on whispered instructions from God and His agents. There you see the results of letting similar creeps use the force of law to ram their agenda down your throats at gunpoint. They banned condoms, got that? Superstition is malware.

    1. The 14th Amendment begins with “All persons born…” not conceived.

      Exactly. The US Constitution is clearly intended only to apply to “persons” and “individuals”, which means human beings after birth. Of course, that doesn’t mean the states can’t regulate abortion for other reasons, but you can’t derive an obligation to do so from the Constitution. (Even if the Constitution did apply to a fetus, it would still be difficult to derive prohibitions against abortion from any of its provisions.)

      1. that doesn’t mean the states can’t regulate abortion for other reasons

        The Ninth Amendment explicitly denies states such a power.

        (Even if the Constitution did apply to a fetus, it would still be difficult to derive prohibitions against abortion from any of its provisions.)

        You confuse rights with their many applications — thus deny the application of both Life and Liberty, which both apply to abortion. If we could ignore the woman’s right to liberty, then banning abortions at conception could be defended as constitutional

    2. Christians and Mohammedans bomb, napalm and murder everyone they can get at.

      Funny, I’ve never bombed, napalmed, nor otherwise murdered anyone. I must be doing it wrong.

      It is not that they “believe in God,” but rather that “God” whispers to them they have to send men with guns…

      “Do unto others.” Some do think “god” tells them to send men with guns to git others. Some other people think that “inequality” or “social justice” or “unfairness” tells them to murder too. So what? Abusus non tollit usum.

      The countries that ban abortion are the most backward and corrupt cesspools on the planet…

      Guilt by association? How many fallacies can you stuff into one post?

  18. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…
    http://www.jobnet10.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.