Abortion

Ron Paul: 'Unborn Black Lives Matter'

Paul thinks "black lives matter" movement should spend more time stopping abortions.

|

George E. Norkus/Flickr

This summer, presidential candidates from Hillary Clinton to Ben Carson have been taking heat for uttering the phrase "all lives matter," which many interpret as a way to diminish the "black lives matter" movement's concerns. Now former presidential candidate Ron Paul has put a new spin on appropriating the slogan. In an August 2 column on his website, Paul suggests that activists against police brutality, bias, and militarization should focus more on stopping black women from getting abortions. 

"I support the black lives matter movement," writes Paul, pointing out his advocacy on issues such as drug decriminalization and ending police militarization. "However, I wish some of the black lives matter movement's passion and energy was directed to ending abortion. Unborn black lives also matter."

Oof. It seems at best tone-deaf and at worst totally fucking insulting to compare the killing of black adults by armed (and unaccountable) government agents to the abortion of embryos and fetuses by the women whose bodies are hosting them. Surely even those who think these women murderers see a difference between their actions and those of, say, Darren Wilson or George Zimmerman, no? I know the most ardent pro-lifers don't assign different moral weight to killing an insentient 3-week-old embryo that can't survive outside the womb and killing grown adults with full lives, feelings, and families, but even among the anti-abortion crowd that's a pretty minority view. 

Not content to compare pregnant women with racist cops, however, Paul also suggests that they're closet eugenicists. "Planned Parenthood may have abandoned the explicitly racist and eugenic views of its founder Margaret Sanger," writes Paul, "but the majority of its abortion "services" are still provided to lower-income and minority women. Every day nearly 2,000 African-American babies lose their lives to abortion, a rate five times higher than the Caucasian abortion rates." 

Paul is right that the majority of Planned Parenthood patients are low-income and minority women, because these are clinics for low-income women, and in this country that includes a lot of minorities. Wealthier and whiter women are also terminating pregnancies, they just go to different places. They also don't have as many abortions, in part because they tend to have better access to preventative measures (like birth control and sex education) and, should an unintended pregnancy occur, are more likely to have things that make parenting seem feasible, such as money and stable employment.  

Myriad studies have shown that most people who have abortions do not come to regret the decision. (It turns out women are pretty good at figuring out for themselves whether they have the financial, emotional, and other resources to raise a child and whether abortion fits within their personal moral framework.) So if a few thousand black women are choosing to terminate their pregnancies each day, I trust that that it's the right decision for a few thousand black women in this country each day. It is not Planned Parenthood creating this need, it is things like poverty, lack of contraception access, sexual norms, the fallibility of birth control, and any number of things rooted in the realities of individual women's circumstances. But by Paul's logic, these black women are acting like eugenicists by putting themselves (and any already-existing children of theirs) before the welfare of "unborn black lives."

NEXT: Denver Activist Arrested for Passing Out Pamphlets, Which Apparently Is a Felony in Colorado

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. It is not Planned Parenthood creating this need, it is things like poverty, lack of contraception access, sexual norms, the fallibility of birth control, and any number of things rooted in the realities of individual women’s circumstances irresponsible behavior.

    ftfy

    1. How is it irresponsible given that abortion is legal?

      1. Other than rape, I can’t think of any way for an unwanted pregnancy to occur other than irresponsible behavior. Holy shit you’re dense.

        1. Given that abortion is legal and can be used to deal with the issue why is it then irresponsible behavior?

          1. *stares blankly at the wall*

            1. Don’t expect it to understand something it can’t experience.

              1. The funny thing is the whole ‘why can’t these people be more Prufrockian about their sex?’ is the attitude that I think denotes a lack of or a pretty mild, tame sex life. Anyone who’s actually had even a fair amount of good, wild sex knows that getting carried away at times is part of that.

                1. Anyone who’s actually had even a fair amount of good, wild sex knows that getting carried away at times is part of that.

                  I’ve had my share, and I didn’t get anyone pregnant until I knocked-up my wife after marrying her and purchasing a home. Golly. I guess I was just lucky or something. It couldn’t be because I’m responsible and not prone to making poor decisions.

                  1. and I didn’t get anyone pregnant until I knocked-up my wife after marrying her and purchasing a home

                    That you know of.

                  2. “I’ve had my share, and I didn’t get anyone pregnant”

                    In all cases did you yourself use contraception? If you didn’t you just got lucky.

                    1. In all cases did you yourself use contraception?

                      Yes. Even when she said she was on the pill. It’s called being responsible.

                    2. If every sexual encounter you’ve had was with a condom then I think you’ve had an interestingly restrained sex life. Though no doubt an impeccably responsible one. No doubt.

                    3. Every sexual encounter before I got married and bought a home. I don’t consider abortion to be birth control, regardless of what the law says. Therefore I never put myself into a situation where it was a choice to be considered. Call it what you will, but if I managed to not have a kid until I could provide a home and two loving parents, anyone can. If they choose to be responsible that is.

                2. Wow… that comment reminded me of middle school where one virgin would call another virgin a virgin as some sort of insult.

                3. A particular activity’s consequences are solely the responsibility of the individual engaging in that activity. If an individual commits an act which, in that instance, yields an undesirable, or detrimental result, the commission of the aforementioned act can be defined as irresponsible.

                  Additionally, the legality (or illegality) of a specific behavior does not speak to the moral and practical qualities and consequences of that behavior.

                  Is that simple enough for you to understand?

                  1. If an individual commits an act which, in that instance, yields an undesirable, or detrimental result, the commission of the aforementioned act can be defined as irresponsible.

                    I baked a cake last night that didn’t come out very well. I can’t believe how irresponsible I was with the flour and eggs!!

                    1. Nikki, you are responsible for the cake being in existence. If you don’t like the cake, you have no one to blame but yourself.

                      If you don’t want to get pregnant, give the guy a blowjob. If you just absolutely have to get it on and can’t go on the pill or use a condom, that is your choice and you should bear the consequences.

                      Neither the cake nor the kid asked to be created.

                    2. Neither the cake nor the kid asked to be created.

                      Um, that’s my argument for why it’s wrong to keep the kid, John.

                    3. Nikki,

                      It is too late. The kid already exists. You can’t kill him. And again, you don’t believe that or you would not be alive. Don’t tell me you believe in non existence when you choose existence every day. That is ridiculous and you know it. Choose non existence or come to terms with the fact you think existence is preferable.

                    4. It is irresponsible to waste food.

                    5. The “detrimental result” is eating the disgusting cake.

                    6. [insert snide sexist comment about how women should be able to bake a cake]

                    7. “It is irresponsible to waste food.”

                      You have to give him credit this is how devoted he is to his original comment, that he’d follow it out to condemning the errant cakebaker’s ‘irresponsibility’ somehow.

                    8. It was a snark, idiot.

                    9. You could have been functionally irresponsible in your endeavor, given the subpar result, but because the faults in the desserts you produce do not generally inflict meaningful detriment upon anybody, I think your attempt to draw equivalence with such a retarded example is disingenuous, and obviously so. Try harder.

                    10. “because the faults in the desserts you produce do not generally inflict meaningful detriment upon anybody”

                      And if you don’t accept the pro-life axioms the same can be said of the woman who elects an abortion! That’s the entire point.

                    11. I’m not trying to draw equivalence, I’m trying to say your formulation of the rules of responsibility is retarded. Try harder.

                    12. They just can’t operate in an argument world where their starting axiom is not accepted at the beginning. It’s particularly funny because if, as they fall right back on when pushed, abortion is plainly murder, then there’s no reason to talk of ‘irresponsibility,’ it’s plain old evil.

                    13. It’s not irresponsible behavior if it then necessitates surgery, and murder if you’re pro-life?

                      Are you serious?

                    14. Many abortions don’t involve surgery at all, it involves taking a pill. The ones that do involve surgery are usually not much more expensive or problematic as getting a bunch of stitches re my backyard football analogy.

                    15. Almighty God, you’re an ignorant kid. Do you know anything about any sort of abortion, medically?

                    16. Your stupendously tiresome, self-righteous canards are most retarded, above all the other misadventures of your irritating character. Present a contrary formulation, or argue the point. Stupid, shit-eating examples of how you fucked up your afternoon snack aren’t a counter to anything. Try harder, or fuck off. Seriously.

                    17. Argue the point? Would you like to go back to basics and argue why it’s morally acceptable to bring a sentient, suffering being into the world?

                      We have very different premises.

                    18. Absolutely. I welcome it. Introduce the premise, and elaborate upon its facets.

                    19. See my post below.

                      There are plenty of couples in this country willing and waiting to love, nourish and raise these unwanted children. Do the deed: bring the child to term and adopt it out. Simple solution. Or, use contraceptives. It’s not rocket surgery.

          2. If I need to buy things, it’s legal for me to run up huge credit card debts to pay for them. Does that make it automatically responsible to do so just because it’s legal?

            1. Sorry, I didn’t see this argument was already made just below.

          3. “can be used to deal with the issue.”

            I’m not a screaming pro-lifer but, my word, could you possibly be more cavalier about it.

            1. Abortion is either murder or it’s really not a big deal. If it’s murder then any view allowing it at all is beyond cavalier. If it’s not then it’s silly to give it all this moral import.

              1. “Abortion is either murder or it’s really not a big deal”

                I’m going to go out on a limb here and assume you’ve never had to personally deal with the subject. Abortion can be, and is a big deal for a lot of men and women. It can destroy relationships by way of being a non agreed upon decision by one party, it can also create a stronger bond between two people who struggle with the decision, yet find support and comfort from each other. Only the most callous of people say to themselves “Ah shit! Got knocked up again. Oh well, fuck it. Off to the clinic, then, cocktails!”

                As much as you’d like it to be, the decision to have an abortion isn’t a purely intellectual endeavor. Your flippant attitude towards the subject is more than rude, it’s insulting.

                1. Your flippant attitude towards the subject is more than rude, it’s insulting.

                  I’m thinking that his attitude is also ignorant. He doesn’t think about the human cost of any of this. It’s all about political logic (an oxymoron?).

              2. murder implies pre-meditated – it’s more akin to voluntary homicide (or infanticide as the case may be). The reason it gets sort of a pass from pro-lifers (in that they aren’t treating it like a true holocaust) is probably historical. Way back when, we knew much less about natal development and just how human the fetus is. If abortion didn’t exist until today, then I do think we’d see a much bigger hullaballoo. But it’s snuck in through the years so we tolerate it to some degree. FWIW, I’ve always thought it makes more sense to fight a civil war over abortion than it does slavery.

              3. murder implies pre-meditated – it’s more akin to voluntary homicide (or infanticide as the case may be). The reason it gets sort of a pass from pro-lifers (in that they aren’t treating it like a true holocaust) is probably historical. Way back when, we knew much less about natal development and just how human the fetus is. If abortion didn’t exist until today, then I do think we’d see a much bigger hullaballoo. But it’s snuck in through the years so we tolerate it to some degree. FWIW, I’ve always thought it makes more sense to fight a civil war over abortion than it does slavery.

            2. Hey! Don’t use my name in vain!

          4. Ordering someone out of their car, etc. is also legal. Most cops shooting blacks are also legal. Slavery was legal. So was “Jim Crow”. Was lynching “irresponsible behavior”?

        2. You think birth control is 100% effective?

          Or is all fucking irresponsible?

          1. No preventative measure is effective to an absolute, or in all instances. Ascertaining the nature of what can reasonably be construed as irresponsibility by limiting your definition of responsible behavior solely to acts for which precautions that are mathematically certain can be taken is nonsensical, because such things don’t exist.

          2. If you cannot deal with the consequences of an action without taking a human life, perhaps you should you should avoid the action until you can.

            1. All you had to say was, “Yes, all fucking is irresponsible.”

              1. Squeeze an aspirin between the knees, ladies, or suffer the consequences gladly.

              2. He didnt say that. Much fucking is responsible.

                1. It all is for someone who doesn’t believe in procreation.

                  1. Nikki you just need to get married and get knocked up. You are so overcompensating on this subject.

                  2. You say above that contraception is not always effective. The only way for someone to be to sure to avoid procreating is not to engage in a procreative act (abortion does not prevent prcreation it just destroys the result). Otherwise you have to accept that the result you do not desire may happen and deal with it in an ethical fashion.You want to have your cake and eat it too and get upset when told it is not possible. That is childish

              3. Except that was not what I wrote.

          3. Call me mildly pro-life (or mildly pro-choice whatever). I don’t believe that a group of cells 2 weeks after fertilization is “there” yet. But in the third trimester it is pretty much a human.

            Besides, the fact is the vast majority of unwanted pregnancies are not due to the condom breaking. If a woman implants an IUD, or is responsible about taking the pill, or the man puts the condom before genital contact, the odds are greatly in their favor of not having a baby.

            In addition, there are plenty of options:
            –Abstinence (I am not a fan of this, but lets face it, no sex=no baby)
            –OTHER FUN THINGS
            –Use Plan B right away.
            –Carry it to term and put it up for adoption
            –Raise the baby

            1. I would be rather happy to compromise on Plan B. Make Plan B an OTC available to all in exchange for no abortion once Plan B becomes ineffective.

              I think most pro-lifers would be dancing in the streets if that became law. It’s not perfect, but it would be a damn huge step in the right direction.

            2. When do you believe a fetus magically becomes a human?

            3. Whether human or not, I’d err on the side of caution.

          4. 69 is fine.
            Double stroke- you don’t choke.
            Anal is banal,,, butt fun.

            If you let a male ejaculate into your non-menopausal pussy, you are responsible…

            1. I realize I “corpse-fucked” this thread… wait, that’s another choice!

        3. I can’t think of any way for an unwanted pregnancy to occur other than irresponsible behavior. Holy shit you’re dense.

          Holy shit you’re dense.
          What does that have to do with equal, unalienable and/or God-given rights?
          Why such contempt for fundamental rights?

          1. What does that have to do with equal, unalienable and/or God-given rights?

            You have all the right in the world to do irresponsible things. You do not have all the right in the world to murder people to avoid the consequences.

            Why such contempt for fundamental rights?

            Because pro-lifers start from a different premise than you. I believe that you are the one with a contemptuous view for fundamental rights by promoting the extermination of innocents.

            1. What does that have to do with equal, unalienable and/or God-given rights?

              You have all the right in the world to do irresponsible things. You do not have all the right in the world to murder people to avoid the consequences.

              What does that have to do with equal, unalienable and/or God-given rights?

              Why such contempt for fundamental rights?

              Because pro-lifers start from a different premise than you.

              Contempt for fundamental rights. I appreciate your confession.

              I believe that you are the one with a contemptuous view for fundamental rights

              Translation: “I believe you are the one with a contemptuous view of fundamental rights, because you defend the most fundamental human rights: equal, unalienable and/or God -given rights.”

              Yes, these people actually “think” that way, which is why every single one of them refuses to address our primary founding principle. Do we agree with Jefferson, the founders and the 5th Amendment, 9th and 14th Amendments? Or rude people who shit on every bit of that?

      2. Abortion is the riskiest and most expensive way to not have a baby. If you choose this method of contraception, then you’re being irresponsible. Unless you’re suggesting that some women get pregnant specifically because they want to get an abortion…?

        1. Let me make that second sentence more clear:

          If you choose this method of contraception, then you’re being irresponsible.

          If you choose this method of contraception, then you were probably being irresponsible at some point in the past (unless you were raped or had unexpected complications with your wanted pregnancy.).

        2. No, what sarcasmic is suggesting is that, due to the pervasiveness of contraceptive measures, at all levels of affordability, outside of rape, unwanted pregnancy is generally indicative of irresponsible behavior.

          1. I think I will suggest something further: Bo is a moron.

          2. And what I’m saying is that just like contraception is available abortion is too. Why would acting with the knowledge that it is a potential safety valve be so irresponsible?

            I also think this whole ‘irresponsible behavior’ thing is indicative of people who for whatever reason seem to not recognize the strong pull of sexual desires. I guess you could be the Prufrock of sexuality and say that someone who sometimes gets caught up in what is quite literally the passion of the moment and, say, has sex without a condom, is ‘irresponsible’ but I think it better said that it’s somewhat foreseeable to get carried away at some time in one’s sexual history.

            1. Ummmm…no. Fucking without contraception – unless you are trying to get pregnant – is irresponsible. “This feels really good” is not an excuse. You have readily available means to prevent a pregnancy from occurring in the first place. If you choose not to use them, that’s on you.

              1. I don’t think it’s not ultimately ‘on you,’ I’m just saying if it happens to you I understand more than I want to play the Pharisee, and that’s because I get that sex is a pretty powerful wave.

              2. Umm, what the FUCK does that have to do with fundamental human rights?
                No soundbites or slogans. What?

            2. Given that a properly insured driver can drive like a fucking retard without incurring the cost of his misbehavior (a safety valve, by your definition), is it therefore not irresponsible for him to play chicken with road trains overtaking cars in front of him on a single-lane-each-way road?

              Are you being intentionally obtuse?

              1. Are you being intentionally obtuse?

                It’s Bo. He’s Botarded.

              2. This is not remotely analogous to playing chicken with head on traffic, you’re the one being obtuse if you think so. For the woman involved it involves maybe two trips to a clinic and often at most a couple hundred bucks. It’s the equivalent of playing backyard football without a helmet and possibly incurring stitches.

                Unless of course you’re obtusely talking about the ‘murder of the child’ involved, in which case your circling the argument into eternal question begging.

                1. Playing chicken with oncoming traffic at delirious speeds is relatively safe if you’re a decent driver, and are of sound judgment. Subjectively. Your weighing of these activities’ respective risks is entirely subjective also.

                  Are you being intentionally obtuse?

                  1. Look at how crazy you’re getting here, playing chicken with oncoming traffic, for the driver = getting an abortion, for the woman. That’s nuts.

                    1. … as accorded subjective appraisals of risk and moral heft.

                      Are you always so disingenuous?

      3. How is it irresponsible for me to take on a bunch of debt I know I can’t repay when bankruptcy is legal?

        1. Bankruptcies are much bigger deals than abortions.

          1. Tell that to the kid. Oh, you can’t.

            1. See, this is the thing: you think the embryo or fetus is a ‘kid’ and that it’s murderously irresponsible, period. OK, fine, that’s a view, but ENB, and I, am talking about people that of course don’t share that view. Which is why I said GIVEN that it’s legal…

              1. Abortion is also largely a surgical procedure that is by definition exponentially more dangerous than putting a balloon on your dick or taking a pill. By simple risk comparison, not employing contraception is irresponsible.

                1. I think most abortions are early term and are very safe and non-problematic. Many of them just involve taking a pill.

              2. See, this is the thing: you think the embryo or fetus crippled, criminal, Jew and Slav is a ‘kid’ and that it’s murderously irresponsible, period. OK, fine, that’s a view, but ENB, and I, am talking about people that of course don’t share that view.

                1. Again, pro-lifers and Godwin, a strong message. And they can’t get past that to get to any further part of any argument. Predictable.

                  1. Yes, they actually object to the industrialized murder of human beings.

                    Bastards.

                    1. But they have to have some inkling that they’re talking to people who might not find the comparison as obvious as they do, and that’s what’s crazed about it.

                    2. Clarifying the comparative similarities between the two separate processes is a necessary, rudimentary part of debating this subject. That’s nothing objectionable.

                      You’re being purposely obtuse. A conscious refusal to engage in good faith the people you argue with is your choice, and you’re rightly being scolded for it.

                    3. It’s a conscious refusal of good faith to elide what are potential differences to reasonable people who disagree. If you can’t see that despite your ultimate conclusions about the value of embryonic/fetal life that those are not obvious to many reasonable, and you carry on as if they are, then that’s being obtuse.

                  2. You make an argument that it is ok to kill a human because you have rationalized to yourself that it should not count as a human and you complain bitterly when anyone brings up the obvious historical paralells. The pro-choice arguments that insist on dehumanizing the unborn child are a step backward in the history of universal human rights.

                    1. They’re not obvious because there are vast differences between a 15 year old Slavic boy, 30 year old Jewish woman and a two day old embryo. You’re eliding that chasm in the parallel.

                    2. You are arguing that rights are not an inherent quality of humans, but think that humans who you think should have rIghts is plainly obvious and everybody should acknowledge it without explanation. Your argument is terrible.

                    3. They’re not obvious because there are vast differences between a 15 year old Slavic boy, 30 year old Jewish woman and a two day old embryo.

                      Tell us about the vast difference between the 15 year old Slave, the 30 year old Jew, and the 8 month embryo. Bo.

          2. Signing some papers and appearing before a judge is a bigger deal than the finite risk of a medical procedure? That’s some fancy hand waiving.

      4. How does abortion being legal make it responsible?

        Legal and ethical are not synonyms.

        1. The ‘responsibility’ argument is ‘there were measures to prevent pregnancy, so if they end up pregnant and didn’t want it they must have been irresponsible in neglecting these measures.’ My point is that there is also this measure called abortion. It’s legal and available, they didn’t neglect it.

          1. My point is that there is also this measure called abortion. It’s legal and available, they didn’t neglect it.

            Just like the person that doesn’t want to work an instead elects to sit and home and collect disability or food stamps. There is a measure called welfare it’s legal and available.

            1. If the woman is counting on an abortion payed for by someone else then you’ve got an analogy there.

              1. Sure…responsible persons, instead of using a contraceptive, are choosing to pay out of pocket a few hundred dollars for an abortion.

                1. Let me use my example from above. A lot of guys can get convinced to play backyard football. Playing football without the ‘proper equipment’ certainly increases risk of injury. Sometimes in backyard football a person gets hurt and has to go get stitches, which can run a couple hundred dollars.

                  Now, if you told me that happened to you I could go all Prufrockian sarcasmic: ‘Oh my, tsk, tsk, how irresponsible of you!!!’ but I’d probably go ‘was the game fun?’

                  Of course rabid pro-lifers can’t deal with this analogy because they are like OMGZ BABIE HOLOCAUST YOU”RE EQUATING BABY MURDER WITH STITCHES!!! But the whole point is that some people don’t buy the pro-lifer’s axioms.

                  1. I’d say the objection to that analogy is it makes no sense at all. It is simply a faillure ad it does not appear to have a point.

                  2. The analogy is stupid because you’re equating injury to willing participants to injury to a person that didn’t ask to be involved in your activity, whether it’s stitches or sucking brains out of fetuses.

                    1. Good lord, we’re not operating under your axiom that abortion involves murder in this. Of course if it does then the behavior goes miles beyond ‘irresponsible’, it’s murder!

                    2. Yes we are.

                      You dont get to set the axioms of the argument.

                    3. Abortion is the intentional destruction of a living human organism. That is an inarguable fact. Any analogy which does not take that fact into account fails, as it does not offer a true paralell to aborton.

                    4. Mickey Rat,
                      The woman has a totally equal and unalienable right to liberty. That’s an unarguable fact … so you close your eyed and ignore it.

                    5. The adult humans who created the child had choices in the actions that led them to that point, the unborn child does not,

                    6. The adult humans who created the child had choices in the actions that led them to that point, the unborn child does not,

                      What does that have to do with equal rights? One more time::

                      The woman has a totally equal and unalienable right to liberty. That’s an unarguable fact … so you close your eyes and ignore it. (Again)

                    7. What does that have to do with equal rights?

                      You have no right to rid yourself of the consequences of your actions via the murder of an innocent.

                    8. What does that have to do with equal rights?

                    9. It has a great deal to do with weighing a conflict of rights. Sorry, but one individuals right to live trumps another’s right to liberty, especially if the latter had options to avoid the current situation. Screaming that the woman has rights does not change thst there is a conflict to be resolved.

                    10. Sorry, but one individuals right to live trumps another’s right to liberty,

                      Jefferson says you’re full of shit.
                      The Fifth Amendment says you’re full of shit.
                      The Ninth Amendment says you’re full of shit.
                      The 14th Amendment says you’re full of shit.
                      Have you never studied Civics or US History?

                      Screaming that the woman has rights does not change that there is a conflict to be resolved.

                      That’s MY point, Sport. We’ve been dealing with that conflict for quote some time… about which you obviously know nothing. When you were in school — have you graduated yet? –what is the principle behind “Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose?”

                      Do you know what a principle is?
                      Quit the bullshit about screaming

                    11. Have you never studied Civics or US History?

                      Considering that you said yesterday that the 10th amendment trumps the 9th amendment and do not know the philosophical or functional difference between government powers and individual rights, this is rather comical. You’re basically the personification of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

                    12. Aggressor screws up again

                      Considering that you said yesterday that the 10th amendment trumps the 9th amendment

                      Liar. The 9th trumps the 10th, because states can have no power to deny or disparage fundamental rights.
                      This links to you being publicly humiliated on this exact issue, … and documents your lie here, chump

                      https://reason.com/blog/2015/08…..nt_5489801

                      do not know the philosophical or functional difference between government powers and individual rights, this is rather comical

                      The link proves you the liar. (smirk)

                      Whenever PM makes a total ass of himself, which is often, he comes back for revenge, like here, and makes an ass of himself again. Over and over and over and …

                      (My tone is in defense of the latest aggression and laughable lie by my stalker)

          2. Intentionaly killing a human because its existance is inconvenient to you can never be considered a responsible solution to the problem which one’s own actions have created.

            1. They really are totally incapable of argument arguendo in this. Wow.

              1. That a human organism is killed as the entire point of an abortion is not an arguable point. It is a plain fact. They are stubborn things, those facts.

            2. Calling it inconvenience is dishonest, self-serving and morally shameful.

              1. Why? That is what the pro-choice sode argues is an acceptable reason for abortion.

                1. Why? That is what the pro-choice sode argues is an acceptable reason for abortion.

                  Save the massive bullshit for the other puppets.

                  1. So, you got nuthin’?

                    1. So, you got nuthin’?

                      MORE bullshit???

                      Convenience is not cited as an acceptable reason for abortion, and who brainwashes you to swallow it?. But you need lame alibis to justify (to yourself) your total contempt for fundamental human rights.

                      (Which memorized soundbite will he continue repeating next?
                      While running away from he issue again?)

          3. So, electing a birth control method that runs between $300 and $500 per usage counts as “responsible” in your line of thinking?

            1. So, electing a birth control method that runs between $300 and $500 per usage counts as “responsible” in your line of thinking?

              None of your business.

      5. Let’s see Hmmmm. Perhaps the use of contraception would prevent having to go through the abortion procedure. Using contraception when having sex knowing full well you didn’t want to get pregnant would be considered by some to be responsible. Having consensual sex without any protection and falling back on abortion as a form of birth control would be considered irresponsible by many.

        1. Having consensual sex without any protection and falling back on abortion as a form of birth control would be considered irresponsible by many.

          Fuck ’em. They’re dedicated statists who spit all over individual liberty, equal and unalienable rights

  2. It seems at best tone-deaf and at worst totally fucking insulting…

    Most likely only to those already predisposed to voting against “Pro Life” candidates. I doubt he thinks he’s going to convince the “Pro Choice” crowd with this. He’s aiming to win the GOP primary at the moment.

    1. Except, of course, it’s Ron not Rand. Even have a picture up there.

      1. I thought Ron was running again this year because he’s always running.

        1. At some point if he keeps talking it will seem like he’s running against his son.

          1. Or just trying to stop his son from running.

      2. DURRRRRR!!!

        Just kidding. We all make mistakes.

        1. Is it the use of scare quotes? Because I think I doled them out equally to both sides there.

          1. Except, of course, it’s Ron not Rand. Even have a picture up there.

            It was in regards to this. I thought you got confused.

            1. Oh, I absolutely did. But whether it was Ron or Rand, I tried to keep my comment durrrr-free.

      3. You’re a minute late and a penny short.

  3. What does it matter if the women regret it? We don’t care if any other murderer regrets their actions except as possibly a factor in making their punishment not as bad.

    Seriously ENB, you really don’t seem to understand what the whole abortion debate is about. Its not about Utilitarianism. Its about if the unborn have human rights. Everything else is just a side show.

    1. Exactly that. People are expert at rationalizing their decisions. Unless the decisions harm them directly, very few people regret even monstrously evil decisions.

      1. You and llocust are not getting her argument. Paul, like much of the pro-life movement, is eliding the agency of the women involved, trying to argue PP is at fault for the women’s decisions. ENB is saying they make these choices themselves, the fact they rarely regret it later is supposed to bolster that.

        1. Responsibility can be shared. Sure those women are responsible for their decisions. That, however, does not mean Planned Parenthood is blameless for enabling and in many cases encouraging those decisions. Saying they are not is like saying BASF is in no way responsible for the Holocaust because all they did was make the gas and it was the Nazi government who used it.

          1. It doesn’t take a pro-lifer long to Godwin, that’s for sure.

            1. Well it’s logically consistent to compare the two if you believe the fetus has human rights.

            2. Just because you don’t like the analogy doesn’t mean it is not true. And yes, late term abortion is infanticide.

            3. Since Roe v. Wade, some 53 million babies have been “aborted.” About 60 million people were killed in WWII. The comparison is apt.

              1. It’s ridiculous because it’s plain the 60 million people had rights, it’s not about the 53. You might ultimately think the 53 were full persons with full human rights, but don’t pretend like it was obvious.

                1. It’s ridiculous because it’s plain the 60 million people had rights,

                  Yes, if you just define the victims of murder out of the human race, it is no longer murder. You think people don’t have rights before their mothers give birth. That is nice. The Nazis thought people who were not part of the master race didn’t have rights. Both of you are using the same logic.

                  1. And the Nazi’s view is more obviously wrong.

                    Again, if you look at a microscopic couple of unviable cells with no brains, no limbs, etc., and you conclude that it’s the same as a grown Slavic man or Jewish teen, that’s a view. But don’t pretend like it’s obvious.

                  2. + 60,000,000

                2. If you believe that some humans do not have rights then you believe that rights are not an inherent quality to.humanity. Therefore you cannot claim it is a given that those 60 million plainly had rights without some explanation. Particularly sonce the people who killed them were explicitly arguing that they were subhuman and without rights.

    2. But it’s Ron that misses this message too. Responding to ‘black lives matter,’ which is about born black lives which everybody agrees have full rights, with ‘well why are they ignoring embryonic and fetal black lives?’ is equivocation or ignorance of the knowledge that the entire debate about embryonic and fetal black lives is whether they ‘matter’ (have full rights as persons) or don’t (are not persons with rights). He thinks it’s clever but it’s very tone deaf.

      1. Paul thinks they do. Not everyone in the “black lives matter” movement disagrees with him. He is talking to the people who agree with them and pointing out the logical implications of their position. There are plenty of black ministers in the black lives matter movement who are pro life. And it is to those people Paul is talking to.

        1. How do you know that? I’m quite a fan of Paul and I doubt that this was anything more than his attempt at saying something he thought clever, maybe profound, about how embryonic/fetal life is being ‘slaughtered’ and why oh why won’t someone think of the children in all of this.

          It comes off as tone deaf, as if some PETA spokesperson tried to take some kind of statement about lives matter and said ‘why don’t more people think of animal lives!’ That’s not going to move many people in the original movement, they’re going to see it as a tone deaf attempt to hijack their movement for that person’s hobbyhorse.

          1. How do I know that? Because I can understand the English language and listened to what Paul said. It is not hard. Sure, if you are down with abortion, then Paul’s point won’t convince you. If you are, however, then is point is anything but tone def.

            comes off as tone deaf, as if some PETA spokesperson tried to take some kind of statement about lives matter and said ‘why don’t more people think of animal lives!’

            That may be dumbest thing you have ever written on here. Maybe you missed it but Paul thinks life begins before the magic trip down the birth canal. He is not talking about animals he is talking from his perspective at least about humans.

            1. “Because I can understand the English language and listened to what Paul said. It is not hard.”

              Where in his language do you find support for your interpretation? Specifically. The language itself.

              You see, I think you’re going beyond the language (I know you are because his language doesn’t make any explicit appeal to ‘pro life elements in the black lives matter movement.’). You’re imputing to Ron that he’s not wasting his time on a tone deaf appeal to a movement that is, well, going to just reject it as tone deaf, that he’s actually talking strategically to elements in the movement that will be receptive to it.

              And you don’t understand analogies, I get it.

            2. …and that’s how PETA feels about animals. To a pro-choice person, Paul’s stance on this is totally analogous to PETA’s. Do you really not see that?

              1. They don’t get analogies. Too abstract.

              2. Yes niki you don’t agree with him. Since when is saying something that not everyone agrees to automatically tone deaf?

                1. It’s not “automatically tone deaf,” but the analogy you complained about is apt. Would you find PETA’s statement tone deaf?

                  1. No I would just disagree with it. You are only angry here because Paul has the nerve to argue from his principles that you don’t like. That is it.

        2. Yeah, though I disagree with Paul 100% and thank god for the number of black babies that are aborted this year (how exactly would this nation be better off with 15 million more low income blacks?), if you look at it from a purely political tactics perspective, his argument is solid. Sure, the rich liberal white women segment of the “black lives matter” movement will be totally unmoved by this argument, but among black people themselves, it certainly resonates.

    3. Its about if the unborn have human rights.

      It’s also about what rights they have and how those rights are weighed against the rights of other interested parties. We’ve often seen the argument that the unborn have a right to life, but not the right to room and board.

      1. Yes they do. Maybe you missed this but you can’t abandon your children to die in the elements or fend for themselves.

    4. Its about if the unborn have human rights. Everything else is just a side show

      So do the born, which makes you a sideshow also.
      Or suffering severe denial.

  4. abortion of embryos and fetuses by the women whose bodies are hosting them

    Fetuses are just like Aliens. They wait for an unsuspecting host and crawl up in there until it’s time to burst from their cozy habitat to wreak havoc on us.

  5. “Planned Parenthood may have abandoned the explicitly racist and eugenic views of its founder Margaret Sanger,” writes Paul, “but the majority of its abortion “services” are still provided to lower-income and minority women…”

    It’s funny how the progressive agenda rarely changes, even when the rationalization does a 180. They used to support abortion as a method for checking the population of “undesirables”. Now it’s because MY BODY MY CHOICE(but only with abortion). They used to support minimum wages and unions to keep blacks from taking the good honky jobs. Now, same exact policy, but for fairness supposedly.

    1. Actually, Sanger was against abortion iirc, she argued that contraception availability and education was important because without it women turned to abortion, which she thought a bad result.

      And I think what you might also be doing is the fallacy of assuming that mass movements had one motive at any given time. Some proponents of the minimum wage undoubtedly wanted to protect white jobs, others probably genuinely felt it was good for workers of all races. Some proponents of abortion probably saw it as a eugenic tool, others undoubtedly saw it as a tool for gaining control over reproduction for women.

        1. Bagge’s book is excellent, though I wouldn’t expect many of the right wingers here to read it or give it a fair shake. Sanger’s too good of a boogeyman for that crowd.

    2. She was not racist, so shame on you for spreading bullshit,. And you seem to have been brainwashed out of knowing that eugenics was an accepted theory at the time, in over 300 college curricula and accepted by such people as Teddy Roosevelt and Alexander Graham Bell.
      Let’s skip the slander, eh?

      1. 1. I mentioned no particular person, so I’m not sure who “she” is.

        2. I was speaking of progressives, so I’m not sure how invoking TR is supposed to be a counter argument.

        3. Shame on me? No, shame on you for advocating legalized murder and having the gall to call it freedom.

        1. I mentioned no particular person, so I’m not sure who “she” is.

          I wasn’t talking to you.

          No, shame on you for advocating legalized murder and having the gall to call it freedom.

          This is all too deep for you? Equal, unalienable an/or God-given rights?. I have the definition of unalienable plus the 9th and 14th Amendments. You have noting but induced hysteria. Spare me the memorized slogans and soundbites,

      2. Sanger apparently wrote this:

        Article 1. The purpose of the American Baby Code shall be to provide for a better distribution of babies? and to protect society against the propagation and increase of the unfit.
        Article 4. No woman shall have the legal right to bear a child, and no man shall have the right to become a father, without a permit?
        Article 6. No permit for parenthood shall be valid for more than one birth.

        1. You know who else wanted to decrease the number of people who were “unfit?”

          1. Michael Bloomberg?

          2. You know who else wanted to decrease the number of people who were “unfit?”

            Theodore Roosevelt and Alexander Graham Bell come to mind. And the 362 colleges which had eugenics in their curriculum.

            1. Racism, sterilization and genocide are all okay as long as everybody does it, you see.

              1. PM
                Racism, sterilization and genocide are all okay as long as everybody does it, you see.

                (yawn) More senseless bullshit.
                You dumbfucks have been brainwashed into confusing Hitler’s eugenics with the bullshit you attribute to a half-century earlier, in the United States.

                Eugenics was also supported by African Americans intellectuals such as W. E. B. Du Bois, Thomas Wyatt Turner, and many academics at Tuskegee University, Howard University, and Hampton University; however they believed the best blacks were as good as the best whites and “The Talented Tenth” of all races should mix.[10] W. E. B. Du Bois believed “only fit blacks should procreate to eradicate the race’s heritage of moral iniquity.”[10][11]

                The American eugenics movement received extensive funding from various corporate foundations including the Carnegie Institution, Rockefeller Foundation, and the Harriman railroad fortune.[6]

                All part of your massive conspiracy?
                You’ve been called out.
                Again.

                1. I understand how difficult it is for you to appropriately respond to any comment that doesn’t fit with one of your pre-scripted answers, like some kind of defective rudimentary Turing machine. But actually what I was saying is that eugenics is a stain on humanity regardless of its popularity or its champions, including in its academic and technocratic formulations (that you think being on the same side of history as W. E. B. Du Bois is noble kind of says as much as needs to be said). The American legacy of forced institutionalization and sterilization is only marginally less shameful than the genocidal fulfillment of the movement’s objectives realized later by Adolf Hitler.

                  You of all people should be keenly aware of the dangers of such poisonous thinking. Any sensible eugenicist in the year of your birth would have seen to it that your birth was prevented.

                  1. Is PM a psycho? This is his fifth lie about his own words on the page

                    This is his lying denial: But actually what I was saying is that eugenics is a stain on humanity regardless of its popularity or its champions,

                    This is what he really said: “Racism, sterilization and genocide are all okay as long as everybody does it, you see.”

                    (snicker) See “genocide?” Hold that thought!

                    Me: “You dumbfucks have been brainwashed into confusing Hitler’s eugenics with the bullshit you attribute to a half-century earlier, in the United States.

                    There was no genocide during the period in question. (snicker) And not ever in the United States … so you’re outed again.

                    That you think being on the same side of history as W. E. B. Du Bois is noble kind of says as much as needs to be said

                    Did he commit genocide, chump?

                    This is how they work. Throw a massive shit fit aggression … get humiliated …. escalate. Cyber-bullies. Rage. Out of control

                    (My tone and ridicule in defense of aggression and more documented llying.)

                    Belligerent Blowhard (documented)

      3. And you seem to have been brainwashed out of knowing that eugenics was an accepted theory at the time…

        When did slavery lose it’s “Top Men” endorsement? Or, was it always wrong?

        Think hard, Hihntard…

        1. And you seem to have been brainwashed out of knowing that eugenics was an accepted theory at the time…

          When did slavery lose it’s “Top Men” endorsement? Or, was it always wrong?

          Dumbfuck equates slavery with 19th century eugenics … to cover his original fuckup. In so doing, he minimizes the horrors of what Hitler added.

          (walks away laughing, still)

  6. They also don’t have as many abortions, in part because they tend to have better access to preventative measures (like birth control and sex education) and, should an unintended pregnancy occur, are more likely to have things that make parenting seem feasible, such as money and stable employment.

    Does ENB actually think that poor women are too stupid to understand how to use birth control? What could possibly make you think that? And if you do think that how can you then say,

    So if a few thousand black women are choosing to terminate their pregnancies each day, I trust that that it’s the right decision for a few thousand black women in this country each day.

    How is it that they are too stupid and uneducated to use birth control but you still trust them to make the right decision about having an abortion?

    Beyond that, this article talks right past Paul by avoiding the central question of whether abortion is taking a life.

    1. As a general rule, poor people are poor because they irresponsible and make poor decisions, not because they are being held down by mysterious outside forces.

      But that is a very politically incorrect thing to say.

      Just as it is very politically incorrect to suggest that poor people who have unwanted pregnancies were irresponsible and made poor decisions.

      No, it’s caused by mysterious outside forces.

      1. That is true. This is why the sex education unicorn never works its magic. Poor people know very well how to use birth control, they just choose not to use it because making poor decisions is what poor people do.


      2. As a general rule, poor people are poor because they irresponsible and make poor decisions, not because they are being held down by mysterious outside forces.

        This describes my brother. He is hard working and talented, he just makes terrible choices.

        1. I have a brother and a sister like that. Both very smart hard working people who should have been much more successful than they were.

    2. such as money and stable employment.

      I’ve lived in the South my entire life and have yet to see the lack of either stop many people from having babies.

      1. That is true for the entire world. And who says they are wrong? For every poor young woman struggling with kids there seems to be a upper middle class woman in her late 30s trying desperately but unsuccessfully to have them.

        1. As an adoptive parent this is one thing that pisses me off the most. Bring that baby to term and let someone more responsible and loving raise it.

    3. Does ENB actually think that poor women are too stupid to understand how to use birth control? What could possibly make you think that?

      Racism, that’s how.

      And if you do think that how can you then say,
      “So if a few thousand black women are choosing to terminate their pregnancies each day, I trust that that it’s the right decision for a few thousand black women in this country each day”

      Racism again.

      Let me progsplain it.

      The darkies are too dumb and impulsive to control their primal urges and use contraceptives and it’s also the reason that we need them to abort as many of the resulting offspring as possible, because they would make horrible parents and raise a generation criminals.

    4. “this article talks right past Paul by avoiding the central question of whether abortion is taking a life.”

      Actually it’s Paul that talks past that by conflating fetal/embryonic life with the lives that BLM is talking about.

      1. No you idiot. Paul is talking to the pro life people in the movement. Just because you are too dense to understand that doesn’t mean the rest of the world isn’t.

        1. Or he’s talking to himself (he thinks it’s clever/profound), or his base.

          You’ve got no more reason from the language used to your conclusion than mine, and I have the advantage of hearing Paul talk about this subject more than you I suspect.

          1. Or he’s talking to himself (he thinks it’s clever/profound)

            Admittedly Bo is an expert in this.

  7. It’s too early for this shit.

    1. Yeah, can’t we talk about gay marriage instead?

  8. I was waiting for my order at Taco Bell the other and thinking about abortion. I think my personal cut off would be brain function, because that is what we use for organ donation in adults. I guess the fetus organ harvesting got me thinking about it.

    1. Taco Bell makes you think of abortions? Good, then it’s not just me.

      1. I had the smothered burrito. It does kind of look like an aborted fetus.

    2. I think you are right about that. There is no definitive answer to the question what is a human life. I cannot however think of any better way to answer that question than does the thing in question have human DNA, some recognizable form of a human body and brain function. If something that has all of that is not a “human life”, then a whole lot of people we currently think of as humans don’t meet the definition.

      1. Umm, the woman has human DNS, the form of a human body and brain function.
        But you somehow excuse the moral atrocity of denying her right to liberty. Why?

        1. Because your right to liberty doesn’t include murdering other people you half wit.

          1. Because your right to liberty doesn’t include murdering other people you half wit.

            (snicker) Look up the definition of unalienable … while I keep laughing at your bullying.

            1. So you think it does? You actually think parents have the right to murder their children or that society should be able to kill anyone it finds to be a burden?

              1. So you think it does? You actually think parents have the right to murder their children or that society should be able to kill anyone it finds to be a burden?

                Cut the hysterical bullshit and learn what unalienable means

                1. I love how Hihn is legitimately stupid enough to ignore how anti-abortion people are equally arguing for ‘unalienable’ rights, but those rights have no merit because…Hihn doesn’t offer an answer. He just keeps screaming about how people don’t know the definition of ‘inalienable’ when he himself ignores it.

                  1. Hihn is doing yeoman’s work for the abortion movement by demonstrating what can happen when you carry a mentally defective fetus to term.

                    1. a mentally defective fetus to term.

                      That was uncalled for. More bullying and aggression from the tribe.

                  2. Watch the dumbass

                    I love how Hihn is legitimately stupid enough to ignore how anti-abortion people are equally arguing for ‘unalienable’ rights,

                    (lol) You don’t know what it means and made a fool of yourself.

                    Hihn doesn’t offer an answer. He just keeps screaming about how people don’t know the definition of ‘inalienable’ when he himself ignores it.

                    Unalienable means they’re co-equal, which I keep repeating to you retards … including the constitutional manner of dealing with conflicting rights. But keep playing to your tribe of liars.

                    You just lost again.

                    1. Unalienable means they’re co-equal, which I keep repeating to you retards.

                      Now see, if I were Hihn, I’d throw a temper tantrum right now and start screaming about how you’re ‘bullying’ me. Fortunately, I’m not as horribly immature as you.

                      Shorter Hihn: Because you won’t accept my premises and moronic argumentation, you’re wrong. Brilliant as always Hihn.

                      You just lost again.

                      Again, Hihn, repeating your vapid catchphrases, ignoring everyone else and then declaring yourself the winner is not an argument. It’s really just an illustration of how utterly unbalanced you are.

                      In short, Hihn, your value in life is this: H&R, and the world, will be slightly improved when you have the decency to die of old age.

              2. So you think it does?

                Does what?

                You actually think parents have the right to murder their children

                (sigh) Why are you so incapable of simple honesty?

                or that society should be able to kill anyone it finds to be a burden?

                Have you no shame at all?

                Repeat: “(snicker) Look up the definition of unalienable … while I keep laughing at your bullying.”

                Laughing harder at your latest scam/

  9. OT: No Trump Dump but something fun from TorpidPrognostications (can’t find another link to the story)

    http://thinkprogress.org/healt…..kles-kids/

    Court documents say that Sumner handcuffed the youngsters for at least 15 minutes while they sat in the principal’s office crying and yelling. A video released by ACLU shows Sumner belting orders at the boy shortly after placing him in shackles. The girl’s mother also recalled seeing the officer holding her daughter’s hands “over her head while handcuffed in a shoulder hypertension position.” The young lady, who also has post-traumatic stress disorder, later underwent a psychiatric assessment and treatment at a local hospital.

    1. During one episode last May, a Houston police officer struck a 16-year-old student more than a dozen times with a baton after an exchange outside of the principal’s office. Earlier this year, a law enforcement official in Louisville, Kentucky allegedly punched a 13-year-old student in the face for cutting the lunch line. Reports also say he placed another young person in a chokehold until they became unconscious.

      Experts say police officers assigned to schools often use a tactic known as “restraint and seclusion” that involves pinning down students against their will and isolating them. And as seen in the Kentucky school case, young people with special needs often bear the brunt of police force on campus. A 2014 Propublica investigation found that three-fourths of students who were victims of “restraint and seclusion” had physical, emotional, or intellectual disabilities.

      As horrible as that is, it is even worse than it sounds. Remember that thanks to “mainstreaming” the schools can’t turn away students no matter how disturbed or disabled they are. So the schools often have students who have serious mental and emotional issues and are totally incapable of functioning in a school environment. And this is how the schools are handling such kids; by hiring sociopath thugs to beat and terrorize them.

  10. lack of contraception access

    Oh, the elusive condom. Rarely seen in nature.

    The root cause of all of this is poor decision making. Good luck fixing that quickly.

    1. Don’t you know? They don’t have condoms in poor neighborhoods, because contraception deserts, or something.

      1. Contraception deserts. I like that term.

  11. in before the links, nice.

  12. Oof. It seems at best tone-deaf and at worst totally fucking insulting to compare the killing of black adults by armed (and unaccountable) government agents to the abortion of embryos and fetuses by the women whose bodies are hosting them.

    Maybe you’re the tone deaf one Brown. A baby growing in its mother’s womb isn’t a virus and the mother isn’t a host.

    1. Yeah. That is pretty horrific language when you think about it. And if ENB believes this, how then does she explain the devastating emotional effects of having a miscarriage.

      1. “…how then does she explain the devastating emotional effects of having a miscarriage.”

        See, John, when you WANT that clump of cells, it magically becomes a BABY.

        1. No, but when you want it, it’s something you want.

          When you don’t, it’s not.

          I have no idea what makes that remotely complicated.

          1. No, but when you want it, it’s something you want.

            So you are judging whether the child is a life or not by the subjective feelings of its mother?

            Not to be judgy or anything Nikki, but that is the kind of thing lunatics think.

            1. You’re not judging “whether it is a life.” As we have talked about, that’s not necessarily the calculation women are making. But yeah, that is obviously how you are deciding whether or not to keep it. And if you think that sounds crazy, you should look around, because a lot of women have done it.

              1. So? A lot of people have killed people in war. Does the fact that many of them don’t feel bad about it make it not killing?

                1. Did I say that?

                  1. But you did state the proposition that it’s not crazy if a lot of people have done it. Surely you know that’s a false premise.

    2. Maybe you’re the tone deaf one Brown. A baby growing in its mother’s womb isn’t a virus and the mother isn’t a host.

      You’re even worse. They both have equal and unalienable rights. Period.

      1. “They both have equal and unalienable rights. Period.”
        Then the fetus has the right to life. Since it was ultimately the mother’s choice to have the baby in the womb, then her right to “privacy” has been superceded by the baby’s right to live.

        Anymore than if you invite a stranger into your home, it doesn’t mean you can kill them because your right to private property is more important than their right to live.

        You can’t have it both ways. At least argue the fetus doesn’t have any rights.

        1. “They both have equal and unalienable rights. Period.”

          Then the fetus has the right to life.

          Duh. Of course,

          Since it was ultimately the mother’s choice to have the baby in the womb, then her right to “privacy” has been superceded by the baby’s right to live.

          That’s not equal rights!

          You can’t have it both ways. At least argue the fetus doesn’t have any rights.

          Then I’d be ignorant of the Constitution and the Judicial process
          You SHOULD have learned in high school that NO rights are absolute, and how our form of government deals with competing/conflicting rights. — instead of ignoring an inconvenient truth.

  13. So ENB posts this drivel at the same time another PP video emerges which shows them discussing other ways to generate money with dead baby parts. Here’s a quote that will chill your bones:

    “If we alter our process and we are able to obtain intact fetal cadavers, then we can make it part of the budget, that any dissections are this, and splitting the specimens into different shipments is this. I mean, it’s all just a matter of line items,”

    How someone can read that and be just peachy with “abortions for all, and for any reason” is lacking in basic human compassion and empathy. You know, like a psychopath.

    1. How can anyone read that much less hear it and not be horrified? Seriously, how in the hell do people think this should be legal?

      1. I don’t get it either John. I am for 90% or so of Libertarian ideas like ending drug war, freedom for all, etc, etc. But the lack of basic empathy and kindness on the abortion issue is startling. Shouldn’t learned people at least err on the side of caution and take a more conservative or measured view on the subject?

        But I believe this is all spiritual anyway and a sign of the times.

        1. Before brain activity, I get it. I think life does begin at conception but I think it is a very close call. So I completely understand people who say otherwise. Once we are talking about brain activity and arms and legs and all the rest, I cannot see any rational case for it not being a human life. And the people who try to make the case rely on utter bullshit terms like “personhood” and never rely on any objective factors. Worst of all, they constantly accuse the pro life side of being superstitious and irrational when it is the pro life side that is talking about science and fetal development and the pro choice side that is relying on made up completely subjective terms like “personhood”.

          1. What objective factors? All you’re saying is “it feels like it should be a person to me.” What does science have to say about when rights are bestowed?

            1. Human rights are for humans, you insufferable nitpicker. The question is: when does a fertilized egg become human. We can discuss that, but the notion that human rights do not pertain to a human life is just ludicrous.

            2. So science dictates when rights are bestowed? Dude, your world view is really, really disturbing.

            3. That is a question that by its nature can be informed by science but cannot be answered by science. On the other hand the information science gives on the subject is not really in favor of abortion rights.

      2. The same way that normal, well adjusted people could serve as cogs in the holocaust.

      3. Because the donated tissues save lives, and that’s a better outcome than throwing them in the dumpster because some asshole a thousand miles away on the Internet thinks it’s icky?

        I think colonoscopies are icky but wouldn’t dream of banning them.

        1. Every time Tony gets a colonoscopy, someone dies.

    2. I agree.

      The ‘optics’ are awful.

      I’m no fanatic either way but it did bother me.

    3. I’m a psychopath then. I don’t care. It’s dead baby parts. In this context, it is just a matter of line items, as the number of expected casualties is just a line item for an insurance company calculating its premium for a company.

      I’m pretty sympathetic to the pro-life side, but the “isn’t this icky?” argument just puts me off and pushes me towards the other side. Stick with the philosophical argument.

      1. Dude you just said “It’s dead baby parts.”
        The reason the baby is dead is because it was aborted. If it isn’t a baby, or if it is a baby and it died naturally, then ok. But if it is “dead baby parts” (your words) and PP killed it, then it isn’t just about “ickyness” or “optics”. It is about murder.

      2. It’s dead baby parts. In this context, it is just a matter of line items, as the number of expected casualties is just a line item for an insurance company calculating its premium for a company.

        You’re right, and it’s absolutely an emotional argument. However, it is a compelling argument in a society that values emotion over principle. You want the principled argument? Go check out the debates on the Mengele research. There were many principled people on both sides arguing about whether it was ethical to use Mengele’s data from his experiments on the Jews.

        The same undercurrent exists here. Is it ethical to use “dead baby parts” obtained in an unethical way? To complicate things even more, it’s not like Mengele, where the threat was over. There is now a market for aborted fetus parts, with the supply of aborted fetuses continuing to be supplemented every day.

        Ethics of using medical data from unethical sources

      3. I’m pretty sympathetic to the pro-life side, but the “isn’t this icky?” argument just puts me off and pushes me towards the other side.

        Indeed. Working at a morgue during university has basically destroyed my ability to be ‘grossed out’ by bodies (for the record severe burn victims are the worst).

        1. *Though I’ve heard that drowning victims who have been in the water for awhile to be worse. Thankfully we never had to deal with that when I was working there.

  14. If I’m to take PP’s word that the majority of what they do is not abortion but the provision of larger family planning/contraceptive services, how is it that ENB can say with a straight face that these “few thousand black women” are choosing to terminate their pregnancies at PP due to “lack of contraception access?”

    1. Once you’ve made the decision to endorse infanticide, logical contradictions become much easier.

    2. “few thousand black women” are choosing to terminate their pregnancies at PP due to “lack of contraception access?”

      That’s not what she said. And why do so many of you people lack basic honesty?

      1. FTA
        “Wealthier and whiter women are also terminating pregnancies, they just go to different places. They also don’t have as many abortions, in part because they tend to have better access to preventative measures (like birth control and sex education)”

        You’re too stupid to even be a decent troll.

        1. Dumbfuck liar picks a quote which does not have the lie he quoted. (snicker)
          Never says contraception and switched from black women to wealthier a whiter women. (sigh)

          Here’s the actual words you lied about

          It is not Planned Parenthood creating this need, it is things like poverty, lack of contraception access, sexual norms, the fallibility of birth control, and any number of things rooted in the realities of individual women’s circumstances.

          Second to last sentence

          Liar called out and documented

          Again: And why do so many of you people lack basic honesty?

          You’re too stupid to even be a decent troll.

          (walks away laughing)

          (My tone is in defense of aggression by the documented liar.)

          1. Dumbfuck liar picks a quote which does not have the lie he quoted.

            Uhhh…

            in part because they tend to have better access to preventative measures (like birth control and sex education)

            Birth control = contraception. Your dementia is getting worse.

            1. Birth control = contraception. Your dementia is getting worse.

              Can someone teach PM what quotation marks mean, and the proper way to use them?. (smirk)

              1. I’ll take your randomly-bolded text and complete non-sequitur statement as your concession that you misunderstood the prior post and the quoted portion from the article that you didn’t read (or couldn’t comprehend) initially. It’s okay, buddy. We all get “that age”.

  15. Not content to compare pregnant women with racist cops,

    Oh dearie,

    He’s not comparing pregnant women to racist cops. He’s comparing wealthy white SJW to other racists.

    Paul also suggests that they’re closet eugenicists.

    Yes, how dare he expose the racists for what they are.

  16. After medtech reaches a point where a 1-second old clump of cells is viable, then we’ll all look back at this period and laugh and laugh.

  17. “Focus on the lives I say matter and which you clearly don’t think matter, at the expense of the ones you actually care about.” I mean that sums up a lot of why people are just talking past each other. “You need to care about this thing that you totally don’t care about! Because I do!”

    1. Except is that Paul’s point? He cares about both so he wants to discuss and find solutions to preserve both sets of lives?

      1. “Is” = “isn’t”

        Needz the koff-ee.

      2. He cares about both so he wants to discuss and find solutions to preserve both sets of lives?

        He does. The women getting the abortions don’t.

        1. Ah, misunderstood the target of your comment. You’re the best. 😉

  18. Isn’t it about time yet for ENB to do the inevitable and just start writing for Jezebel?

    1. I thought the whole point of these abortion argument threads was that libertarians don’t all agree on abortion.

      1. It’s not the content of the piece that prompted my comment so much as the style.

  19. “It seems at best tone-deaf and at worst totally fucking insulting to compare the killing of black adults by armed (and unaccountable) government agents to the abortion of embryos and fetuses by the women whose bodies are hosting them.”

    Comparing the killing of black adults to abortion might be insulting–but you know what would be even more insulting than that?

    Suggesting that Ron Paul made such a comparison when no such comparison was made.

    Let’s look at what Paul actually wrote again:

    “I support the black lives matter movement,” writes Paul, pointing out his advocacy on issues such as drug decriminalization and ending police militarization. “However, I wish some of the black lives matter movement’s passion and energy was directed to ending abortion. Unborn black lives also matter.”

    I care about issue x, and I also wish that more people cared more about issue y–is not making a comparison.

    1. Yeah, this article is more smear than commentary, and I expect better of ENB (usually I like her articles). The fact that she thinks this is a ‘tone deaf’ statement only really shows how she’s projecting her own views on abortion onto everyone. ENB, Paul didn’t make this speech for you or anyone else who is pro-abortion. He made it for the anti-abortion part of the black community.

      1. and I expect better of ENB

        Based on what?

  20. If Planned Parenthood are not closet eugenicists, why are they so obsessed with making sure poor women have abortions? And why are they not bothered by the disproportionate number of abortions had by poor women and black women in particular? There are 45 million black people in this country. Black women have had over 10 million abortions since 1973. The black population has been cut by nearly 20% over what it would have been because of legalized abortion. Blacks have 20% of all abortions but are only 12% of the population. If they are not eugenicists, they sure are achieving the same effect.

    1. I’m predicting that one of the future planned parenthood videos will have a functionary saying something like “no one cares about these specimens because they’re from black mothers” or some such thing.

    2. And why are they not bothered by the disproportionate number of abortions had by poor women and black women in particular?

      Why would anyone be bothered there were disproportionately fewer babies born in poverty?

      1. The economic boon created by an influx of cheap labor?

        1. “Why would anyone be bothered there were disproportionately fewer babies born in poverty?”

          This caught my eye as well. Apparently native-born poor people are undesirable but we are supposed to import as many of them as can make it across the border.

          1. Again a racist sentiment.

            Our poor (blacks) suck; so we need to replace them with noble hard working poor Mexicans – / JEB!

      2. The same people who are obsessed with how everything fro IQ tests to checking IDs to vote having a disparate impact on minorities yet forget all of that when it comes to abortion.

        1. Did I ask about minorities? I asked about poor people. Why do you want there to be more poor children?

          1. We only want the import models of poor children.

      3. “Why would anyone be bothered there were disproportionately fewer babies born in poverty?”

        We may need to consider the possibility that some anti-abortion people are principled in their opposition to abortion, and they genuinely believe it’s intrinsically immoral regardless of whether abortion is a net benefit to the rest of society.

        I lean towards keeping it legal, but I’m not about to pretend that purely elective abortions are always perfectly moral. It’s just that I don’t think something should be criminal just because it’s immoral, and I’m taken aback by the kinds of rights violations I think the government would need to perpetrate in order to protect the unborn.

        1. You cant judge its morality on how poor the parent is. If you do, the. Why not just kill poor people or anyone you feel is a net negative on society?

    3. “why are they so obsessed with making sure poor women have abortions?”

      They believe, like Sanger, that unwanted pregnancies create burdens/hardships and the poor are less able to bear them.

  21. That being said, comparisons are only bad insofar as they’re bad comparisons. To whatever extent abortion and racist police murders are similar, they are similar in that way. If Ron Paul had said that racist murders are like flowers–because they’re all beautiful in their own way, we should jump on his case for that because there isn’t anything beautiful about a racist murder by the police.

    But simply disparaging any comparison because the two things compared aren’t alike in every single way completely ignores the whole concept of making comparisons. Women are like flowers in that they’re all beautiful in their own way is an apt comparison between women and flowers in that one way. If women aren’t pollinated by bees, that hardly makes it an offensive comparison.

    Again, not that Ron Paul made any comparisons in this statement.

    If I say that I support black lives matter–and I also wish the black lives matter people cared more about ending the drug war, that doesn’t mean I’m comparing the smoking of marijuana to white cops senselessly beating the shit out of innocent black people. And if ENB suggested I was a racist because I was comparing smoking marijuana to racist killings, then that would be entirely offensive.

    1. That is a great way to put it. What Paul said is no different than someone saying “If you think black lives matter, then you should also be concerned about the hundreds of thousands of black lives ruined by the drug war”. There is nothing wrong with saying that or saying what Paul said. He wasn’t making a comparison. He was pointing out the logical implications of claiming to believe black lives matter. Well sure they do and more than just the ones murdered by cops matter.

      That is all Paul was saying.

    2. But some comparisons are tone deaf.

      What if strong pro-life advocates created and pushed the motto ‘all lives matter’ to stress that every living human, fetal or not, matter. And then some PETA advocate said ‘I hear about how all lives matter, and I agree human lives matter, but let’s not forget that animal lives matter too, what about them?’ I wouldn’t expect anything better than eye-rolling from the pro-lifers. Because they point of their slogan was to focus attention on fetal life as neglected in valuation, they don’t want that focus shifted to someone else’s hobby horse. Likewise the BLM people, even ‘pro-life black ministers’ as John invokes, are not going to take kindly to the shifting of focus to another hobbyhorse.

      But again, Paul’s comment will play more with people already following him on abortion and other issues, they will see it as clever/profound, and I suspect that was it’s purpose all along. It’s just that it’s going to be tone deaf at best to those sympathetic to BLM, and that’s ENB’s point.

      1. “And then some PETA advocate said ‘I hear about how all lives matter, and I agree human lives matter, but let’s not forget that animal lives matter too, what about them?’

        I’ve had real deal animal rights people as coworkers.

        I’ve volunteered for dog rescue and dressed up as Santa so people could have their pet’s picture taken with Santa–to raise money for dog rescue during the holidays.

        When I was in Mexico, where they don’t have publicly funded animal control and the packs of wild dogs run through the streets, I volunteered for private charities that bring dogs in off the street, fix them up, and find homes for them. We’d also do drives where people could get their dogs fixed by local veterinary students for a small donation or free.

        I’ve heard lots of people make arguments like what you’re talking about. Once, it was after we had both ordered steaks.

        Comparisons are apt to whatever extent they are valid. If people are trying to make the point that all life is sacred, including those of animals, and so the pro-life people, in addition to caring about the lives of unborn babies, should also care about animals, too? Then their comparison is valid insofar as it’s valid.

        “I wouldn’t expect anything better than eye-rolling from the pro-lifers.”

        Much of your thinking seems to be a reaction to the social conservatives that live in your head.

        “Because it would make the social conservatives’ eyes roll” isn’t a good reason to do–or not do–anything.

  22. Surely even those who think these women murderers see a difference between their actions and those of, say, Darren Wilson or George Zimmerman, no?

    Well, sure, the most obvious difference being that Darren Wilson and George Zimmerman didn’t kill innocent non-aggressors.

    1. I’m now getting this hilarious/horrifying image of a baby jumping out of its mother’s womb, smashing her head into sidewalk and then getting shot. That’s what PP does right?

  23. Not content to compare pregnant women with racist cops, however, Paul also suggests that they’re closet eugenicists.

    Does he? In ENB’s passionate defense of abortion she drifts very close to intellectual dishonesty.

    1. In ENB’s passionate defense of abortion she drifts very close to intellectual dishonesty.

      Yeah! FUCK the founding principle of equal, unalienable and/or God-given rights. And FUCK the 9th Amendment.

      1. Yeah. Killing people violates all of that.

        1. Yeah, violating the woman ‘s equal rights is so easy for you to excuse.violating all of that,

  24. There’s something about the ENBs, Dalmias, Soaves, Weigels, et. al. that often seems to rub us the wrong way, and part of it is that they seem to think the destination matters–and it doesn’t matter how you get there.

    The other day, we were in a Dalmia thread, where I was openly advocating for open borders–just like Dalmia was, but in order to do so with any integrity, I had to eviscerate the logic she used to get there.

    And I often get the feeling that they don’t understand why we’re not receptive to their arguments–since we’re on the same side they are. Why would we shoot down a libertarian argument if we’re libertarians, too?

    The answer is that how we get there is more important than landing on a libertarian square by accident. In fact, it could be well argued that the way we get to our positions is what makes them libertarian–rather than the issues themselves.

    It isn’t being for or against the Iraq War, Ron Paul, or any other specific issue, that makes someone libertarian. It’s how you got where you landed. …but the people I listed above, sometimes, don’t seem to give a shit about how they got there.

    Shrike and Tony don’t care about how they get to their positions either–and to whatever extent that comparison is valid–it is valid (or not) in that one way.

    1. There’s something about the ENBs, Dalmias, Soaves, Weigels, et. al. that often seems to rub us the wrong way

      “Us” is the Paulista Cult. And they are libertarian. So who gives a shit if you get rubbed the wrong way in defense of individual rights?

      1. You mean like the right to murder people if they’re inconvenient right?

        1. You mean like the right to murder people if they’re inconvenient right?

          Spare me the bullshit.

          1. Ooh good argument Mikey. Have you ever written anything that was even half ass cogent?

            1. Ooh good argument Mikey. Have you ever written anything that was even half ass cogent?

              The bullies get vicious when they’ve been called out.

      2. I don’t understand what this criticism is supposed to mean or even whether it’s supposed to be a criticism.

        Have you ever been diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder?

        P.S. I’m not a Ron Paul fan. I’ve probably used the term “Paul-tard” in threads here as often as anybody.

          1. Forget it Ken, it’s Hihntown. Says the aggressor who rejects equal, unalienable and/or God-given rights. No wonder they talk like thugs and brag of woodchippers.

        1. Have you ever been diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder?

          Says the cyber-bully. So that’s your bullshit for anyone who dared to defend individual rights? What is it with you people and your trashmouths?

          1. It was an honest question, Mike.

            You think you’re really good at filling in the blanks, but you’re actually way off most of the time.

            Your responses to people often betray the fact that you don’t understand what other people are saying.

            It’s symptomatic of an autism spectrum disorder. You should probably contact a specialist and have yourself screened. I have a relative with that problem. They were able to help her. Maybe they can help you.

            Or maybe you’re just a troll. Although a lot of trolls don’t know they’re trolls. To them, what they’re doing is normal. You probably think what you’re doing is normal, too. But it isn’t. Anybody that didn’t know anybody in this thread would pick you out as the most trollish person in the thread, Mike. And if you don’t see that, and don’t understand why other people see it that way, then you really should go get yourself screened for an autism spectrum disorder.

            If your behavior is obviously trollish to everyone else but you, don’t you want to know why?

            1. (laughing) What does your latest aggression have to do with equal, unalienable and/or God-given rights? And why are all of you people running away from a major founding principle of individual liberty here? I won’t assume it’s the raw statism it appears to be, but …..

              1. It’s pretty funny to me that you would call one of the most civil, polite, and thoughtful posters here a “bully” and an “aggressor”.

                Especially since his initial post was postulating about what it is about some of the articles from different author’s that rubs some of the commenters the wrong way. And then YOU attack and name call HIM.

            2. Your responses to people often betray the fact that you don’t understand what other people are saying.

              It’s symptomatic of an autism spectrum disorder.

              Well it’s also symptomatic of a lot of other mental problems, and of course there’s always the classic, just being an arrogant asshole. Hihn isn’t consistent or analytical enough to be autistic.

              1. (laughing) Another bullly running away from equal rights.

                1. (laughing) Another bullly running away from equal rights.

                  And this has absolutely nothing to do with what I said, you illiterate fool.

                  Misdirection and failure to understand or follow actual conversations, let’s throw that onto the pile of symptoms.

        2. Have you ever been diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder?

          Hihn either legitimately has dementia or a mental illness. Either way it manifests pretty obviously with extreme paranoia and delusions. I severely doubt he’s on the spectrum, he doesn’t have a great deal of ‘autistic’ tendencies.

    2. There’s something about the ENBs, Dalmias, Soaves, Weigels, et. al. that often seems to rub us the wrong way, and part of it is that they seem to think the destination matters–and it doesn’t matter how you get there.

      And I often get the feeling that they don’t understand why we’re not receptive to their arguments–since we’re on the same side they are.

      I would distinctly set Dalmia apart from the others on this. The latter have their pet issues where they walk the line between encouraging social pressure and welcoming the force of government. Most of the time, they can be given the benefit of the doubt that, under the guise of honest impartial journalism or pragmatism, they have to make naive assumptions or refuse obvious presumptions.

      Dalmia’s pet issue is all of them (just immigration around here). She makes no bones about welcoming greater government involvement to advance her position on issues. She will frequently make phenomenal contortions of logic (or just plain blunders) to justify/involve the government in achieving ends that *she* deems right or moral. I don’t know the specific immigration article you’re referring to, but the only reason she claims any ‘libertarian’ credit is that she argues the use of said means in direct opposition to convention(al conservatism). Many/most of us recognize her pro-government/anti-conservative stances as a dyed in the wool progressivism.

  25. Whatever. We all know Ron Paul is very opposed to abortion. I respectfully disagree with him.

    My criticism would be that making things about race is annoying and unhelpful.

    1. Yep.

  26. Oof. It seems at best tone-deaf and at worst totally fucking insulting to compare the killing of black adults by armed (and unaccountable) government agents to the abortion of embryos and fetuses by the women whose bodies are hosting them.

    It would only seem so if you show less regard for the latter than the former. For us who believe all lives matter, there is no distinction: both actions are equally criminal, immoral, despicable, odious, and deserving of scorn.

    Besides, by making the distinction that these unborn humans are hosted by their mothers inside their bodies instead of calling them “part of their bodies” like abortionists do, you at least conceded these are separate beings, didn’t you?

    1. For us who believe all lives matter

      As a lame excuse to deny that all RIGHTS matter.

      1. Re: Michael Hindered,

        As a lame excuse to deny that all RIGHTS matter.

        Which rights would you be referring to, Hindered? There’s no fundamental right to murder.

        1. Which rights would you be referring to,

          Umm, the fundamental individual rights which are also called unalienable.

          There’s no fundamental right to murder.

          Not everyone was as helplessly brainwashed as you — into thinking that’s the issue. It allows you to ignore equal, unalienable and/or God-given rights … convenient to your scam.

  27. Ron Paul RARELY makes sense. And his contempt for equal rights and the Constitution is morally shameful. No level of government has ever been delegated any power to deny fundamental individual rights … as secured by our Founders in the 9th Amendment.

    1. CONTAMINATED! Get the HAZMAT team! Hose it down!

      1. Thugs and bullies are always afraid to deal with the actual issues.
        So they spew aggression instead.

        1. Calling you an idiot isn’t aggression. No amount of repeating that bullshit will make it true.

          1. Look up ad hominem, Sport,
            (lol)

            1. You probably should, because, like most people, it doesn’t mean what you think it means (hint: ad hominem is not synonymous with “name calling”). Of course, it would hardly do you any good when you won’t remember it a day from now. Dementia is a terrible disease.

              1. Watch the thug’s aggression AGAIN!

                (hint: ad hominem is not synonymous with “name calling”)

                “Name calling” never appears. (smirk)

                (My tone is in defense of the aggression, based on documented bullshit by my stalker)

  28. Oof. It seems at best tone-deaf and at worst totally fucking insulting to compare the killing of black adults by armed (and unaccountable) government agents to the abortion of embryos and fetuses by the women whose bodies are hosting them. Surely even those who think these women murderers see a difference between their actions and those of, say, Darren Wilson or George Zimmerman, no? I know the most ardent pro-lifers don’t assign different moral weight to killing an insentient 3-week-old embryo that can’t survive outside the womb and killing grown adults with full lives, feelings, and families, but even among the anti-abortion crowd that’s a pretty minority view.

    Godammit, ENB.

    As an adoptive parent I am appalled at your cavalier attitude toward the destruction of human lives that are cherished by some of us.

    My wife and I went through six years of expensive and discouraging infertility treatments before deciding to adopt internationally. We waited anxiously two years for each assignment. We wanted children. And we know many other couples with similar experiences. New life is precious to some of us even if you think it a burden, or even a curse.

    1. Yeah. I hate that attitude most about the pro abortion people. It shows they are not pro choice they are pro death. It is a poor or a black kid, it would better if it were dead that is all they are saying.

    2. I will add that there are more couples (and singles, too, for that matter) willing and waiting to adopt children then there are children available–especially infants. There is absolutely no reason to terminate an unwanted child. And with SSM legal and most likely increasing, the demand will grow significantly.

      Bring the child to term and adopt it out!

      1. There is absolutely no reason to terminate an unwanted child.

        What if it’s unwanted because it would severely injure or kill the mother? Must we then say that an adult female’s life is more important than an infant’s?

        1. I would allow for abortion to save the mother’s health. That’s pretty much a no brainer. And abortion for this purpose is not at all uncommon and rarely contested.

          1. Indeed, why is it a no-brainer? If the fetus is actually a full rights-bearing person, doesn’t this become a trolley problem? If mother and infant were in a car wreck and there was only time to save one, which do you choose? Aren’t there at least valid arguments for either one? But when it’s in the womb, it’s a no-brainer. Doesn’t that indicate that we don’t actually feel that the fetus is precisely the same as an infant with respect to a right to life?

            1. Do you know what triage is? I’m thinking that you have an intellectual disability.

            2. Re: Tony,

              If the fetus is actually a full rights-bearing person, doesn’t this become a trolley problem?

              No, it doesn’t. The problem is that you assume shared responsibility, a collectivist argument, to then conclude people are not being morally-consistent. But the trolley problem is just pure bullshit based on shared responsibility, a meaningless concept as only INDIVIDUALS step on this Earth.

              If the woman aborts her child, that turns HER into a murderer, not ME. It’s HER problem, not mine. I simply would not accept her actions as morally justified and treat her as she deserves: like a pariah.

              1. What if someone decides it’s morally acceptable to murder your children? You are, probably without realizing it, pushing the most radical moral relativism anywhere on this board.

                1. Re: Tony,

                  What if someone decides it’s morally acceptable to murder your children?

                  I will be there to blow his or her head off at whatever attempt in that regard, of course.

                  You are, probably without realizing it, pushing the most radical moral relativism

                  That conclusion is not justified at all. You’re making shit up.

                  You still don’t get it, do you? It doesn’t matter how many deranged individuals are out there. I know that murder is morally wrong and thus I do not commit murders. The Non Aggression Principle is an individual’s moral principle since only individuals act. You, as a moral coward, prefer to believe that moral justice has to be dispensed by a government. Again,I pity your neighbors ? somebody should warn them about the ticking time-bomb living among them.

                  1. In your fantasy world absolutely nothing forbids someone from adopting a moral stance that mass murder is his god-given right. That guy could amass an arsenal or an army and decide to flatten cities. The only thing that could stop him is a bigger army. All of a sudden we have collectives of people acting for common purposes in the service of either chaos and destruction, or order and decency. Exactly how many days do you predict your stateless utopia will actually exist?

      2. I will add that there are more couples (and singles, too, for that matter) willing and waiting to adopt children then there are children available–especially infants.

        My only real argument in favor of abortion (read: weak devil’s advocate here) is that while there are lots of adoptive parents waiting on infants. As I understand it, the number of *abortions* relative to adoptive parents is staggering and the ability to conceive/abort unfathomably outstrips the ability to adopt. I think it’s hilarious that having this amount of ‘foresight’ and acknowledging these facts

        I’m *certainly* not calling for more/more free abortions, just being clear about what I think are obviously foreseeable unintended consequences.

    3. You cherish lives that you don’t even know exist?

      1. Yes. Do you have a problem with that?

        I’m talking about couples (and singles) wanting and waiting for a child of their own, only to wait months and years for an assignment because there are just not enough children available for adoption. There is no good reason to abort a child except for the convenience of the mother and deadbeat father.

  29. Talk about tone deaf…..

    This article makes one absolutely huge assumption: that unborn fetuses are not people and not deserving of human rights. Everything else hinges on this one assumed truth.

    Everything Ron Paul says hinges on his stated assumption: that unborn fetuses are fully human and deserving of all of the respect and rights that every other human being is. Everything else flows from this base assumption. Everything that follows is not only perfectly consistent, but morally compelled by this assumption. Worries about marketing or perceptions are really crass at that point.

    If Ron Paul’s base assumption is true, rather than ENB’s assumption, then everything that follows in her article goes way beyond tone deaf and into very dark territory.

    That is the problem with this argument. Unless you are bringing something new to the table with regard to those two base assumptions, everything you say is not just ridiculous, but specious and even evil to those on the opposing side. Just as there is nothing that Ron Paul can say to ENB about how important it is to save unborn black children, there is nothing that she can say to Ron Paul about how important it is to respect the choices of others to end those lives. It is a stupid and pointless argument as long as those base assumptions remain irreconcilable.

    1. If Ron Paul’s assumption is “true” then the dire consequences I list below are absolutely imperative.

      But his assumption cannot be “true” in a scientific sense, only in a legal sense, meaning we as a society make the choice to accept it. That necessarily means weighing the pros and cons.

      1. You know better, from a scientific point of view, than a long practicing OBGYN?

        1. What counts as a rights-bearing person isn’t a scientific question, it’s an evolving ethical and legal concept.

          1. You’re the one who said his assumption cannot be “true” in a scientific sense…dumbass.

            1. I welcome a rebuttal to the actual points I’m making. I’m totally open to the possibility that there are holes in them, because pro-lifers do not seem to actually want to imprison 1/3 of all women for first-degree murder. But I don’t know what point you’re trying to make and the name calling is not actually helpful.

              1. You were trying to lord “Science” over Paul’s argument. I was pointing out that you sound like a dumbass because he is a long practicing OBGYN and you are a dumbass. So in this case, name calling helps a lot.

              2. You conflate being against needless abortion on demand as being for incarcerating mothers who made a bad decision. Dumb.

                1. Murder is not a mere “bad decision.” It is among the worst of crimes. If fetuses are persons, then aborting them is murder. Pro-lifers say that exact thing all the time.

                  1. There are many types and variations of murder (see this, for example). Abortion can be treated differently than premeditated murder by law. There is no logical reason to equate murder and abortion. Nonetheless, infanticide is extremely serious.

                    1. It’s obviously premeditated. It’s infanticide according to pro-lifers. What other possible conclusion could we reach?

                  2. Re: Tony,

                    Murder is not a mere “bad decision.” It is among the worst of crimes. If fetuses are persons, then aborting them is murder. Pro-lifers say that exact thing all the time.

                    The problem being?

                    A fetus is a person. You and most others forget that “fetus” is just a stage, not a thing in itself. just like a child human is still a human compared to an adult human (the only difference being the stage in life at which each happens to exist), and so is a fetal human a human being when compared to a baby human or an adult human. Fetus, Child, Adult, these are stages, not things. The thing itself is the HUMAN.

                    1. Yeah, everyone knows that, Mr. Atomist. At some point in the process it becomes impermissible to terminate the development–where the line is drawn is the entire debate. Your absolutist stance requires you to treat even an unnoticed miscarriage two days after fertilization as the death of a baby. Yet nobody has a funeral. It’s a freaking baby, and nobody cares. You must be the only morally upright person in the world.

                    2. Your absolutist stance requires you to treat even an unnoticed miscarriage two days after fertilization as the death of a baby. Yet nobody has a funeral. It’s a freaking baby, and nobody cares. You must be the only morally upright person in the world.

                      You are either extremely ignorant, or you’re an immoral monster.

                      People grieve over miscarriages in the same way that they grieve over any other death.

                      You should get out more. Maybe hang around some real people who have lives, and children, etc..

                    3. 50% of pregnancies end in miscarriage, often without anyone realizing there was a pregnancy. Is this a natural holocaust of an unimaginably horrific scale? Or is there some practicality to not investing too emotionally (thus legally) in pregnancy until certain benchmarks in development are met? I’m not saying we shouldn’t try to improve on nature, or that it’s not good that we’re past the time when even fully born babies were not emotionally invested in because they were 50% likely to die, but maybe we should consider the consequences before we leap all the way to the maximum.

                    4. I love it, a fucking flaming queer explaining to straight people how miscarriages are just no big deal.

                      Tony, check your fucking homo privilege. Miscarriages are a breeder thing you will never understand.

                    5. I am not flaming, and this is so fucking rich coming from the hetero-marriage-only dead-ender. Why don’t you stop buttraging over my people’s lifestyles, hypocrite.

                    6. You are so ignorant, Tony, you don’t recognize how naive you are. Losing a child is a big deal–especially to women (you misogynist ignoramus).

                    7. The current abortion legal regime in the US is an absolutist stance that gives an unborn child no moral consideration until birzj and even beyond. It is really bizarre for the abortions rights side to argue that the other sife is unnuanced.

    2. Talk about tone deaf…..

      Or fucking dishonesty.

      This article makes one absolutely huge assumption: that unborn fetuses are not people and not deserving of human rights.

      No, it does not. As you assume the woman is not deserving of human rights.

      1. Well that’s just infantile and stupid. I didn’t assume anything. I’m merely describing two sides of an argument and pointing out the true nature of the argument. I didn’t stake out my position on the argument.

        One cannot be in favor of abortion on demand and at the same time argue that unborn fetuses are full human beings imbued with all of the rights that go with being a human being. It just isn’t compatible in any way. To argue otherwise is silly.

        Now, if a fetus is not yet a fully realized human life, then you have a completely different argument.

        Pretending that the argument is about anything other than this is pointless. But arguing with straw men is infantile.

        1. I didn’t stake out my position on the argument.

          Pathetic liar.

          One cannot be in favor of abortion on demand and at the same time argue that unborn fetuses are full human beings imbued with all of the rights that go with being a human being. It just isn’t compatible in any way. To argue otherwise is silly.

          BUT THE FUCKING THUG DIDN’T STAKE OUT HIS POSITION! (omg)

          Pretending that the argument is about anything other than this is pointless. But arguing with straw men is infantile.

          No, you’re WAY over your head.

          It’s your premise which is full of shit. Because … wait for it … the mother’s right to liberty is precisely equal to the fetal child’s right to life. Game. Set Match.

          Stop screaming; you’ve been manipulated, and check the definiition of unalienable, plus the 5th and 14th Amendments. Gor ir?

          Well that’s just infantile and stupid.

          Stop drooling

          I didn’t stake out my position on the argument.

          Why are so many of you people such fucking bullies and liars?

          (My tone is in defense of aggression by this liar who is way over his head)

  30. Pro-choicers understand the moral argument of pro-lifers. It’s pretty simple. Do pro-lifers consider the moral arguments of pro-choicers? Or are they absolutists who are so convinced of their rightness that it’s not necessary?

    The pro-life argument, while simple to understand, is alas too simple, as it rarely acknowledges its own consequences. Treating 1/3rd of all women as first-degree murderers? Government forcing women to push babies out of their bodies against their will? If pro-lifers don’t even acknowledge these as problematic, and even extremely draconian on their assault on freedom, autonomy, and civil society, then they haven’t actually given the moral argument the level of thought it deserves.

    Be pro-life but don’t just shut your brain off at “it’s murder!” Bonus points if they acknowledge that the entire movement was never about the strange and ahistorical notion of treating embryos as persons, but as an instrument of the patriarchy to control what women do with themselves.

    1. Oh Wow, everybody! Tony’s talking about abortion!

      Yeeeeeeeeee-HAW!

      What could be more interesting than that?

      I’d rather listen to the sound of fart frogs at a bean burrito convention.

    2. Hmmm, I’ve never met a pro-lifer who wants to treat a woman who gets an abortion as a criminial. Usually the pro-lifers are outside the abortion clinics offering to pray with and comfort these women before and after their abortions.

      1. If they don’t want to treat the women as murderers, then they don’t really believe the fetus is equal to a person.

        1. Re: Tony,

          If they don’t want to treat the women as murderers, then they don’t really believe the fetus is equal to a person.

          You’re unjustifiably assuming a tit-for-tat.

          I still feel pity for your neighbors. God knows at which moment you will start running amok.

          1. Didn’t you say something about being consistent and intellectually honest below? And that it means treating embryos as fully rights-bearing persons? So how do you maintain such consistency while treating their murderers different from the murderers of post-womb persons?

            1. Re: Tony,

              And that it means treating embryos as fully rights-bearing persons? So how do you maintain such consistency while treating their murderers different from the murderers of post-womb persons?

              Why do you assume that the only and proper response by a society towards murder is to place people in jail?

              Again, I don’t trade with murderers or deal with them, and I will never do it willingly. I don’t see how I am being intellectually dishonest. The problem with your proposition is that you beg the question by assuming the necessity of a government agency dispensing justice. There is NO reason to believe in the universal inevitability of government, therefore the one engaging in intellectual shenanigans is YOU, not me.

              1. Oh you are being intellectually consistent–you’re applying your batshit insane nonsense to all corners of this argument. “I don’t deal with murderers.” Well that solves everything!

                1. Re: Tony,

                  you’re applying your batshit insane nonsense to all corners of this argument.

                  What is it about my argument that is nonsense? Just because you’re a moral coward does not turn my argument into “nonsense”. I don’t ask a government to rape everybody in order to provide me with peace of mind. I make my own decisions as to how I deal with abortionists, just like a free person would.

                  1. I get it, despite your claims to the contrary, you are a total moral relativist, and alongside that you are a dogmatic anarchist. So your form of society is obviously unworkable to a laughable extreme, but your mental fixations won’t permit anything else.

                    Not that it isn’t obvious that you pull this bullshit in order to change the subject.

                    1. Re: Tony,

                      I get it, despite your claims to the contrary, you are a total moral relativist

                      Nothing I’ve said could lead a person of reason to that conclusion. Instead, I’ve been accused of being a moral absolutist (which I take with pride).

                      and alongside that you are a dogmatic anarchist.

                      That has nothing to do with dogma, but with the reasonable conclusion stemming from the Non-Aggression Principle. Your name-calling is not even clever, like calling a physicist “dogmatic in his regard for gravity” when he does not follow you off the mountain cliff.

            2. Do you know the difference between an embryo and a fetus? Or, are you purposely using “embryo” to avoid the obvious difference between the two?

              1. Yes. OM doesn’t permit a distinction, I believe.

                1. He was talking to you, Tony. You tend to switch terms as expediency dictates.

        2. You’re confusing the argument. In this case, there is an issue of ignorance. I don’t believe the average woman getting an abortion believes that she is ending a human life. That is one of the reasons the progressives are so ardently opposed to the idea of providing ultrasounds prior to abortions. It humanizes the experience.

          The abortionists, on the other hand, know exactly what they are doing when the disassemble the body in utero and reassemble the body in a tray to make sure they didn’t miss any parts.

          1. That is one of the reasons the progressives are so ardently opposed to the idea of providing ultrasounds prior to abortions. It humanizes the experience.

            The main reason is that we don’t believe conservative theocratic politicians (or any other kind) ought to be requiring doctors to perform medically unnecessary procedures in the service of an attempt at emotional blackmail (not that it works). Surely everyone here can agree, at the very least, that pro-choicers are for smaller government in this case.

            I may need an appendectomy one day, and you know what, I don’t want to see the procedure. I want to remain ignorant, because I don’t want to be traumatized by the sight of someone slicing me open and removing parts of me. Women choosing to get abortions, when abortion is a perfectly legal medical procedure, should be as free of trauma as possible too, no? Or do you think it right for politicians to impose trauma on women for their medical choices?

            1. I didn’t ever say I was for forcing the ultrasound. But the major reason pro-abortionists are against it isn’t a limited government argument. Most of them are progs who want as much government as possible.

              Still, the point remains that the ignorant woman who gets an abortion is ignorant, not criminal. The doctor who jokes about the baby being big enough to walk down to the bus station is.

              1. Since when is ignorance a defense in cases of murder? You shoot someone deliberately, then claim you didn’t realize it was a rights-bearing person, and you get to walk home? Come on, you’re actually making my point for me: even the most rabid pro-lifers can’t stomach the thought of rounding up women en masse and putting them in prison for life. A bit easier perhaps to stomach to idea of doing it to doctors, who are fewer and farther between, and easier to dehumanize.

                But I repeat since you don’t seem to believe me, the reason liberals (and all reasonable people) are against forcing doctors to perform medically unnecessary procedures for the purpose of emotional blackmail is… evident.

    3. Re: Tony,

      Do pro-lifers consider the moral arguments of pro-choicers?

      Pro-abortionists don’t make moral arguments; they make utilitarian arguments.

      The pro-life argument, while simple to understand, is alas too simple, as it rarely acknowledges its own consequences.

      Since moral arguments are not consequentialist arguments, your conclusion constitutes a non sequitur.

      Treating 1/3rd of all women as first-degree murderers? Government forcing women to push babies out of their bodies against their will?

      We don’t need government. As for treating women like murderers, I don’t see why not. How many murderers do you deal with willingly every day? I certainly don’t and I won’t.

      as an instrument of the patriarchy to control what women do with themselves

      Oh, a bogeyman! Now that’s a simplistic argument!

      1. Utilitarianism is a normative moral system, you idiot.

        1. You don’t have to go that far. If a fetus is not a human life and it is morally acceptable to terminate that pregnancy, then any interference with a woman’s healthcare choices are morally reprehensible and certainly no valid role can be found for government in interfering with those choices.

          That is why this argument is unproductive. Without agreement on the core assumption, there can be no agreement on any of the rest of the argument.

        2. Re: Tony,

          Utilitarianism is a normative moral system, you idiot.

          Ah, again, you commit intellectual fraud.

          1. And name called. Which you previously said was not useful. HYPOCRITE!

            1. It’s OldMexican, it’s beyond help.

              1. He was referring to you, Tony.

      2. OldMexican|8.5.15 @ 10:44AM|#
        Pro-abortionists don’t make moral arguments; they make utilitarian arguments.

        (yawn) The woman has an unalienable right to liberty, which is precisely equal to the fetal child’s right to life. (Learn what unalienable means)

        1. Re: Michael Hindered,

          The woman has an unalienable right to liberty, which is precisely equal to the fetal child’s right to life.

          A person’s right to life is also unalienable, Hindered.

          You seem to be bored, but your argumentation is so banal and superficial that your boredom seems ironic.

          1. A person’s right to life is also unalienable. Hindered

            (laughing) Since you agree that life and liberty are both unalienable, then … wait for it… they’re precisely equal … and you’re full of shit again. … until you reverse yourself again.

            I’m sorry if this is way over your head. I’ll try to dumb it down even more.

            (My tone here is in defense of aggression by the thug)

  31. I know the most ardent pro-lifers don’t assign different moral weight to killing an insentient 3-week-old embryo that can’t survive outside the womb and killing grown adults with full lives[…]

    The Non-Aggression Principle does not suggest moral gradations or moral relativism, Elizabeth. Either you decide not to commit an act of aggression against another human, or you decide to commit one. There is no You may want to call us “ardent”. I point out the fact we’re simply being consistent and intellectually honest. Unlike others, it would seem…

    1. Either you decide not to commit an act of aggression against another human, or you decide to commit one

      Uhh, no. Not in the way you lie about.

      I point out the fact we’re simply being consistent and intellectually honest.

      Only if you admit rejecting the entire concept of equal and unalienable individual rights. Do you?

      1. Re: Michael Hindered,

        Not in the way you lie about.

        What?

        Only if you admit rejecting the entire concept of equal and unalienable individual rights.

        Care to elaborate? Because you’re not making sense. When have I rejected equal and unalienable individual rights? Please explain.

        1. Care to elaborate?

          DUH

          Because you’re not making sense.

          Because you’re a fucking fraud.

          hen have I rejected equal and unalienable individual rights?

          TRY YOUR STATEMENT THAT I QUOTED BEFORE CALLING YOU OUT, DUH.

          One more time for the mentally challenged. You cannot be “intellectually honest” if you’re also rejecting the entire concept of equal and unalienable rights.

          1. Try building your argument in logical steps that build on one another, based on agreed fundamentals. Just saying it louder is not helping any, Michael.

            Calling people “mentally challenged” will not persuade them, or perhaps more importantly, those reading but not posting. Throwing out phrases like “the entire concept of equal and unalienable rights” is not effective. Start with basics that can be agreed on and develop logical positions from them.

  32. ENB must be on her period. This emotional rant belongs on Salon.

    1. How many of the commentariate are totally fucking stupid on what libertarianism is?
      Has their bullying scared off the Politcally Incorrect yet?

      1. I don’t know what point you’re making. This “article” is an emotional rant filled with emotional words and emotional points that purposefully misstates the intent of the target it is attacking.

        1. What does that have to do with what I said?

  33. In Libertopia, is it up to each woman to decide her moral position on abortion, or do we get armies of firearm-bearing goons shoveling them into prison? I mean, Libertopia sounds fun and all, I just don’t want to go if it’s populated by the conservative Christianists who seem to actually dominate libertarianism. (Said goons would also be deporting Mexicans en masse, I gather.)

    1. conservative Christianists who seem to actually dominate libertarianism

      They’re a tiny percentage. Over half of all Americans are fiscally conservative and socially liberal. (Cato survey)

      They dominate here because they bully anyone (including you)who doesn’t toe their line. Such is the Christian Taliban launching their New Inquisition. A major reason the libertarian brand is rejected by 91% of even libertarians. (Same survey)

      1. It must really burn you up Hihn. You tried to promote libertarian ideas for decades, only to get a few college kids who mostly ” grew out of it” as they got older. Always reassuring the people who you thought were your allies that you hated all the right people just like they did. Only for Ron Paul to come in and do more for the liberty movement in one election cycle than you’ve done in decades. And to make it even worse, he brought icky people into the movement too.

        1. (laughing at the bully) Now explain why the libertarian brand is rejected by 91% of libertarians. (gasp)

          And since 59% of Americans are fiscally conservative and socially liberal (Cato), keep humiliating yourself and I’ll continue laughing.

          1. “Now explain why the libertarian brand is rejected by 91% of libertarians”

            Well, if you’re any indication, I’d say because of purity obsessed unhinged lunatics who don’t know how to talk to people without insulting half the crowd.

            “And since 59% of Americans are fiscally conservative and socially liberal (Cato),”

            Wasn’t that a self reported survey? I don’t think those words mean what you think they mean, but that seems to be a constant stumbling block of yours.

            1. fiscally conservative and socially liberal

              All too often, this is code for “other people should be taxed blind to pay for my hobbyhorses”.

            2. “Now explain why the libertarian brand is rejected by 91% of libertarians”

              Well, if you’re any indication, I’d say because of purity obsessed unhinged lunatics who don’t know how to talk to people without insulting half the crowd.

              (laughing) All the aggression is from you people ? who refuse to accept reality. Like Birthers.
              You’re also fucked up on what “purity” means.
              Next lame excuse:

              “And since 59% of Americans are fiscally conservative and socially liberal (Cato),

              Wasn’t that a self reported survey?

              (TOTAL Lame) Conducted by Zogby Polling, a top political pollster. Respondents were asked how they’d identify themselves.

              59% accept fiscally conservative and socially liberal
              44% (a 25% drop) if they add “also known as libertarian”. (People accept fiscally conservative and socially liberal UNLESS it’s also called libertarian.
              A tiny 5.3% accepted the libertarian label — and you’re a fraction of THAT

              don’t think those words mean what you think

              (OMG) Anti-abortion statists would label themselves as socially LIBERAL You missed the entire topic when you started lobbing grenades,

              Are Americans cool with feeding people into wood chippers?

              (walks away laughing at the thug)

            3. Well, if you’re any indication, I’d say because of purity obsessed unhinged lunatics who don’t know how to talk to people without insulting half the crowd.

              Seriously, this. I love the fact that Hihn decries everyone else here as thuggish and undermining libertarianism when in reality his mentally unbalanced rants are probably the most uncomfortable and awkward things posted here, aside from when racists pop over from Facebook. Back when I lurked every time Hihn jumped onto a thread he made everyone else look sane and rational by comparison.

              Hihn, the clown in the room is YOU.

              1. Titor is PISSED because his fellow gang member was humiliated by the Cato survey. (laughing) Why do these pathetic losers lie about the message directly above???

                Seriously, this. I love the fact that Hihn decries everyone else here as thuggish

                Here’s the exact quote he lied about, from directly above his “reply”

                Then why the libertarian brand is rejected by 91% of libertarians”

                Well, if you’re any indication, I’d say because of purity obsessed unhinged lunatics who don’t know how to talk to people without insulting half the crowd.

                Thuggish reaction to a question now documented. … because the guy knew nothing bout the Cato survey, tried a bullshit con and got burned. So his fellow gang member jumps in with another unprovoked assault And Cato’s survey made monkeys of them both. Here..

                http://bitly.com/1AGaBU7

                Scroll down 2/3 to “How libertarians see themselves (smirk)

                1. Hihn, where did I mention anything about Cato? Oh, I didn’t. That actually has absolutely nothing to do with what I said and is just further proof of your inability to actually read what people write. What I’m showing is how you, Hihn, the person who screams about how thugs are undermining libertarians, are the most alienating commentator on H&R.

                  You scream insanity entirely unrelated to the conversation, write in an incoherent, childish manner, consistently throw hissy fits, are openly anti-Semitic, and continuously obsess over your delusions. Any person unfamiliar with H&R would rightly see you as the broken, delusional old man that you are. New commenters regularly ask what exactly is wrong with you, and the fact that this has happened multiple times should clue you in. The problem isn’t us Hihn, the problem is you.

                  1. Hihn, where did I mention anything about Cato? Oh, I didn’t.

                    Nobody said you did, (smirk)

                    the guy knew nothing bout the Cato survey, tried a bullshit con and got burned. So his fellow gang member jumps in with another unprovoked assault.

                    (laughing) Pay attention.

                    “That guy” is RC Dean, who knew nothing about the Cato survey.
                    “His fellow gang member” is your unprovoked assault. And you now have two bullyings (lol).

                    Are you still stalking me? How can you DARE tell such a pathetic lie in denying your unprovoked assault, which is clearly visible?

                    My tone and ridicule is in defense of unprovoked aggression, here:

                    https://reason.com/blog/2015/08…..nt_5492986

                    (walks away laughing)

          2. Actually, the libertarian brand gets rejected when it gets associated with anarchists, which it too often does.

            I have to draw the line with people all the time to get them to consider libertarian ideas, because they believe that libertarian means the same as anarchist. It chases people away from even considering libertarian ideas, since they are embraced by “nuts”.

            I’d like to thank you (and others) for that.

      2. CATO SURVEY !!!!!!!!!!!!!
        (snicker)

        9th AMENDMENT BITCHES!!!!!!!!!!!!
        (snort)

        CHRISTIAN TAILIBAN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
        (sniffle)

        CYBER BULLY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
        (laughing)

        UNALIANABLE RIGHTS !!!!!!!!!!!!!
        (farting)

        I AM THE TRUE SCOTSMAN DAMNITTTTTTTTT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
        (shitting)

        FUCK YOU ASSHOLES WHO WON”T ACCEPT MY BRILLIANCE !!!!!!!!!!!!!
        (drooling)

        oops, someone change me please

        1. JPyrate goes apeshit as he continues stalking me with different aliases… but the same bullying nature, Such is the nature of aggressors.

          1. 59% of people that are smelling me right now think I need to be changed.

            1. More childish aggression! (smirk)

          2. Do you truly care about spreading libertarian ideas Michael? If so, I just want to point out that it is not your ideas that run others off, but your presentation. If, you truly care, you will back down on the hyperbol, the shouting (caps), and the snide responses. You are not winning anyone over, and running many away.

            This is not a request you go away, or change your views, but rather to, shall we say, market your ideas better. The current approach is ineffective at best, and more generally counterproductive.

    2. Re: Tony,

      In Libertopia, is it up to each woman to decide her moral position on abortion,

      And so it would be for everyone else.

      or do we get armies of firearm-bearing goons shoveling them into prison?

      Only in socialist-topia.

  34. I never get invited to these abortion debates until there’s several hundred comments, much of it consisting of engaging with clueless choicers.

  35. “I know the most ardent pro-lifers don’t assign different moral weight to killing an insentient 3-week-old embryo that can’t survive outside the womb and killing grown adults with full lives, feelings, and families, but even among the anti-abortion crowd that’s a pretty minority view.”

    “full lives” – what does that even mean? The unborn have lives, now who gets to decide if they’re full lives, or whether their lives are or will be so empty (the opposite of full) that it’s OK to kill them.

    “feelings” – again, they’ll develop their precious feelings later – if allowed to live.

    “families” – the unborn have families just as surely as we postborn people do.

    “Myriad studies have shown that most people who have abortions do not come to regret the decision.”

    My study of four women who told me about their abortions, or attempted abortions, shows that one of them was messed up emotionally as a result, and one couldn’t go through with the abortion because it freaked her out too much. I can’t speak for the other two one way or another.

    1. You miss the biggest fallacy of the article. ENB assumes we are talking about three week embryos, like those are the only abortions that ever happen.

      We are talking about fully functioning human beings, with arms, legs, hearts and brains that are sucked out of their mother’s womb to have their skulls crushed. That is what we are talking about and what people like ENB don’t want to admit.

      1. Let’s cut to the chase, already.

        Planned Parenthood is making money by parting out viable fetuses. Fetuses that could be delivered and have a chance of survival. Its not a perfect match, of course, but I gather that most fetuses that are developed enough to have marketable organs are developed enough to be viable.

        I think its utterly indefensible.

        There’s basically three places to draw the line on abortion: when the umbilical is cut (this is the hard-core abortion-on-demand) position, at fertilization (the hard-core pro-life position), and at viability (when a fetus can live outside the womb, now at basically 22 weeks, maybe 24 weeks conservatively).

        24 weeks is the beginning of the third trimester. Personally, at that point, to me its unacceptable. And to listen to these smug, self-righteous PP honchos coolly talk about parting out a baby that they could have delivered alive and could have survived to adulthood is horrifying and infuriating.

        Maybe it comes from working down the hall from a NICU, but right now in my building are probably 20 preemies. Most of them will grow up to be just fine, but PP would have been perfectly willing to kill them all and sell their parts for profit.

        I’ll put it right here, in short words:

        Abortion should be illegal in the third trimester.

        1. I agree with you about 24 weeks. We can debate it before then. But there is no debate after that. And it appalls me that Libertarians would object to that, if for no other reason than they should have a commitment to personal responsibility. If a woman cannot take responsibility for her actions after having six months to do so, how in the hell can you claim her “rights” are being denied?

          1. Less than 1% of abortions happen after 24 weeks. There are like 4 doctors in the country who do it (after Dr. Tiller was murdered). Sometimes it’s performed this late because of medical complications, but often it’s simply because the woman waited or because she didn’t know she was pregnant. It’s morally and emotionally fraught, but here’s what you’re not saying:

            Late-term abortions, and their moral and emotional implications, are being exploited by activists who want to ban all abortions.

            Furthermore, as politicians write laws that skirt Roe and shut down clinics that perform any abortions, inevitably late-term abortions will become more frequent (as women will have less access in earlier stages).

            Sure maybe the moral calculation is that government should force women to give birth against their will after 24 weeks. But let’s not pretend that this is the only controversy.

            1. But PP is finding plenty of fetal organs and extremities to market. They may not be 24 weeks old, but they are old enough to be marketable. So, focus on you meaningless, frivolous details if you want to show your lack of grasp of the big picture. But the issue here is more than abortion–it is abortion for profit.

              1. It is already illegal to profit on the sale of fetal tissue, and PP at least claims not to be doing so. If they are, then they are legally responsible. But guess what, a criminal investigation is not what happened, fucking Congress voted to defund PP entirely.

                As I said, these issues are part of smear campaigns in service of a larger agenda.

                1. Yeah, an organization that admittedly (according to video) takes steps to maximize the viability of fetal parts while terminating the viability of the fetus itself, is being smeared by the exposure of its tactics and its motivations.

                  1. I don’t understand the problem. The abortions were going to happen regardless. Some people generously decide to donate fetal tissue to medical science.

                    You think when regular surgeons get together and talk shop, it doesn’t get gruesome sometimes?

                    You’re being had by these people. Why can’t rightwing activists ever uncover actual wrongdoing? I assume it’s out there. But they insist on doctoring videos and taking a sledgehammer to context every single time.

                    1. You think when regular surgeons get together and talk shop, it doesn’t get gruesome sometimes?

                      I’m married to a nurse, I know more about this than you do.

                      But my spouse is a baby nurse with decades of experience in NICU. My opinion is not merely academic nor is it merely convenient. While I am no expert myself, I’ve lived with one for more than thirty years. I do understand a bit of what goes on with people who lose a child–you heartless cumquat. It’s not merely a matter of convenience.

                    2. But you’re the one who wants to invite politicians to that heart-wrenching decision.

            2. Less than 1% of abortions happen after 24 weeks.

              If true, then it should be no big thang to ban, them, right?

              There are like 4 doctors in the country who do it.

              And we know this, how?

              The rest of your post is just more irrelevant handwaving.

              1. If true, then it should be no big thang to ban, them, right?

                The pro-life leadership has been fucking that up for 40 years.

            3. Tony you are of course lying your ass off.
              http://www.lifenews.com/2015/0…..-24-weeks/

              In 1995-96, many mainstream media outlets reported as unvarnished fact the claims of pro-abortion advocacy groups that partial-birth abortions were very “rare” and performed only in acute medical circumstances. These claims were later proven false by congressional investigators and investigative journalists, and were even ultimately repudiated by the head of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers (NCAP), who described the claims as a concocted “party line.”

              NCAP Executive Director Ron Fitzsimmons admitted to the New York Times that the partial-birth abortion method was used 3,000-5,000 times annually, and “in the vast majority of cases” on “a healthy mother with a healthy fetus that is 20 weeks or more along” (New York Times, Feb. 26, 1997).

              1. (laughing) Your pro-life propaganda site is shocked … SHOCKED … that abortions are performed on non-viable fetuses … proving again how eager you people are to be brainwashed.

                1. Hmmm I have a suggestion that we experiment with post-birth abortion. Michael Hihn and Tony should be our test subjects.

        2. Let’s cut to the chase, already.

          More hysteria

          Planned Parenthood is making money by parting out viable fetuses.

          Bullshit. And you don’t even know what viable means

          I gather that most fetuses that are developed enough to have marketable organs are developed enough to be viable.

          WATCH THE VIDEO!

          I think its utterly indefensible.

          Yes, you are.

          listen to these smug, self-righteous PP honchos coolly talk about parting out a baby that they could have delivered alive and could have survived to adulthood is horrifying and infuriating

          Do you have any shame at all?

          Abortion should be illegal in the third trimester.

          It mostiy is. But tell your state government. Pro-life leadership could have done that the day after Roe v Wade, but politics and fundraising are more important than babies.

          1. And you don’t even know what viable means

            I know precisely what it means. I work down the hall from a NICU. Depending on what chance of survival counts, its between 20 and 24 weeks.

            Do you have any shame at all?

            Yeah. Apparently, though, not everyone does.

            1. And you don’t even know what viable means

              I know precisely what it means. … Depending on what chance of survival counts, its between 20 and 24 weeks.

              Then why did you lie about the video?

      2. You miss the biggest fallacy of the article.

        (lol)

        ENB assumes we are talking about three week embryos, like those are the only abortions that ever happen.

        That’s as wacky as the bullshit videos.

        iThat is what we are talking about and what people like ENB don’t want to admit.

        We’re also talking about equal and unalienable rights, which you refuse tio accept.

        We are talking about fully functioning human beings,

        Umm, then they’d be viable!

        1. Umm, then they’d be viable!

          Who says they aren’t?

          1. Here’s some background that I didn’t know:

            Apparently, you start getting harvestable organs at around 12 weeks, but it sounds like many organs aren’t marketable until later.

            “At my affiliate, we did abortions at the time up until 16 weeks. You can begin harvesting fetal tissue at approximately eight weeks,” Ms. Johnson said. “Organs are present earlier, but you can’t really decipher them until about 12 weeks. That’s not all of the organs, but some of the larger ones, you can pick those out and say, ‘OK, this is a liver.’ And that’s usually around 12 weeks.”

            http://www.washingtontimes.com…../?page=all

            So, there’s more organs from non-viable fetuses than I thought, but, once you’re in the business for profit (and PP is, in violation of the law), then your incentives are going to push you toward later term fetuses because I’m sure that’s where the good money is.

            There’s more than enough here for a criminal investigation, which might turn up some interesting facts. It is suggestive that the buyer wanted to ban video which allegedly goes into the sale of the entire cadaver; that’s probably where the info on viability and fetal age would come from.

            1. your incentives are going to push you toward later term fetuses

              What, someone comes in looking for an abortion and PP tells her to wait a few weeks?

              1. All they would need to do is delay the appointment. It will be interesting to see if some installations actually do that.

            2. RC Dean admits his bullshit, then repeats another lie.
              There are no profits and you got manipulated again.

          2. Umm, then they’d be viable!

            Who says they aren’t?

            (laughing) You say they are and you’re fuil of shit.

  36. I know the most ardent pro-lifers don’t assign different moral weight to killing an insentient 3-week-old embryo that can’t survive outside the womb and killing grown adults with full lives, feelings, and families, but even among the anti-abortion crowd that’s a pretty minority view

    Fuck people without full lives. Those niggers in Africa don’t even watch cable or hang out with their friends.

    Fuck people without feelings. Aspies don’t deserve to live.

    Fuck people without families. The estranged have earned their deaths.

    The above, of course, would all be variously included among the reasons for the murder, enslavement, and elimination of the rights of those who are perceived differently from one’s own frame of reference.

  37. Not content to compare pregnant women with racist cops, however, Paul also suggests that they’re closet eugenicists. “Planned Parenthood may have abandoned the explicitly racist and eugenic views of its founder Margaret Sanger,” writes Paul, “but the majority of its abortion “services” are still provided to lower-income and minority women. Every day nearly 2,000 African-American babies lose their lives to abortion, a rate five times higher than the Caucasian abortion rates.”

    That is rank dishonesty. Clearly the comparison is between cops and Planned Parenthood, not between cops and pregnant women. And frankly, there’s more evidence both for Planned Parenthood’s racism than that of your average cop. Police brutality is awful, but the number of blacks killed unjustly by cops this year is in the low hundreds at a high estimate. This is known as “a slow Thursday” for the national Planned Parenthood organization.

    Think what you will of Dr Paul’s views, but if you think what he does about abortion then you will also find it to be a very serious problem very easily comparable to that of police brutality (particularly with the knowledge of PP’s eugenicist beginnings).

    1. It can’t just be a serious problem, it has to be the serious problem. Thousands of babies murdered daily by premeditated, highly organized means. And people do take it that seriously, at least rhetorically, equating it to the Holocaust and such. I’m usually the one arguing for ethical shades of gray, but either it’s baby murder or it’s something else, in which case we might as well permit it in order to gain all the social benefits of legalized abortion. If it’s a baby holocaust, then we have the moral imperative to mobilize just as we did when ending the Nazi’s one.

      As I’ve been arguing, I just don’t think even the most ardent pro-lifers have their heart in treating this issue as seriously as they claim it is (imprisoning 1/3rd of all women for life or executing them for first-degree baby murder). The pro-lifers made this about absolutes, so I think they should have to vocally endorse the obviously necessary consequences.

      1. As I’ve been arguing, I just don’t think even the most ardent pro-lifers have their heart in treating this issue as seriously as they claim it is (imprisoning 1/3rd of all women for life or executing them for first-degree baby murder). The pro-lifers made this about absolutes, so I think they should have to vocally endorse the obviously necessary consequences

        You stupid, disingenuous idiot. There is no reason nor excuse for claiming that opposing abortion is proposing incarceration of mothers.

        I am against abortion, but I am not for burdening others with my choices. I would avoid abortion as much as possible, but I would not force others to make the same choice. There is a difference between making a choice for oneself and with forcing others to live according to my truths. But you can’t understand this because you so easily conflate your life choices with what you would require of others.

        Tony, you either argue in good conscience or you’re an asshole. Which do you choose?

        1. So your position is that you personally wouldn’t have an abortion, but other women should be free to? Or are you advocating a social policy against abortion?

          Guess what, one is pro-choice, and the other is pro-life.

          And the pro-life side says that abortion providers and seekers are murderers of babies, which, unless someone can tell me why not, necessitates the criminal justice system treating them as such.

          1. Nuance, Tony, what is it.

            I can, and do, make choices and standards for myself that I do not expect government to hold others to. BTW, this is the very basis of Christianity. You, on the other hand, hope that government will adopt your values and force them on others to effect your goals. This is the major difference between me and you. You expect others to live up to your standards, while I expect myself to live up to my standards. Which of us is the more liberal?

            1. We both apparently hold a pro-choice position on this issue, so what’s the problem?

              I do draw the line on freedom, however, when it comes to murder. Government should get involved then.

          2. And the pro-life side says that abortion providers and seekers are murderers of babies, which, unless someone can tell me why not, necessitates the criminal justice system treating them as such.

            For the same reason that involuntary manslaughter is treated differently from capital murder. Intent.

            1. And abortion is always the premeditated intentional killing of an infant.

    2. And all but the most isolationist/relativist among us must also support invading other countries with legalized abortions to stop their holocausts.

      1. Here’s the funny thing, though:

        Many countries don’t have legalized abortion, and we may be about the only one that allows late-term abortions.

      2. Nobody suggested anything even remotely similar–you hyperbolic, disingenuous liar.

  38. Looks like the Hihn-denburg crashed in this thread and Tony came along to shit on the embers.

  39. Shorter Hihn: I’m going to lecture everyone on using slogans and catchphrases, and then continue to ignore my opponents’ actual arguments in favour of just repeating slogans and catchphrases. And of course I lack the self-awareness to realize this because I’m the mentally unbalanced clown of H&R.

    Hihn’s argumentation style can be summed up as Hihn plugging his ears, screaming ‘LALALALA’ and then spending the next twenty minutes stroking his own ego about how ‘brilliant’ he is and whining that people are ‘bullying’ him for actually challenging his position.

    Oh I’m sorry Hihn, I’ll translate this to your idiot language: *Snicker* Hihn is a dumbfuck and a coward. *Laughing* Now don’t respond to my post or I’ll start screaming like a lunatic about how you’re bullying me.

    1. See trhe aggressive bully, Titor is PISSED because he got called out on equal rights … and ridiculed for his cowardice.

      1. Again, your statements have absolutely nothing to do with what I actually said. What I did was show you as a hypocrite, ignoramus, and a coward. I pointed out that your arguments consist of slogans and whining that people are ‘bullying’ you. You responded with a slogan and whining that I was ‘bullying’ you. Thank you for validating my point by doing exactly what I said you do. Your lack of self-awareness is stunning.

        Seriously Hihn, are you utterly incapable of actual understanding what people are writing, rather than constructing some delusion?

        1. Seriously Hihn, are you utterly incapable of actual understanding what people are writing, rather than constructing some delusion?

          If you say anything for which his single-routine algorithm doesn’t have an answer, he utterly breaks down and just starts spewing random stored information from the routine regardless of its appropriateness to the subject. It’s like asking a really dumb AI what rain hats are made out of.

  40. Re: Tony,

    Yeah, everyone knows that, Mr. Atomist.

    Yes, Mr. Collectivist. We’re certainly NOT Borg. There is NO social conscience or society as a being with organismic attributes.There are only individuals, with individual minds and preferences.

    At some point in the process it becomes impermissible to terminate the development–where the line is drawn is the entire debate.

    If that is the debate, it is based on a question-begging assertion: that at some point it is unthinkable to terminate a pregnancy.

    Your absolutist stance requires you to treat even an unnoticed miscarriage[…]

    That’s a lie. I am required to do no such thing. A miscarriage is not a purposeful act committed by an individual. If you care not about the principles being applied, then do not presume to be properly equipped to discuss about their merits. You look like a fool when you do.

    1. There are only individuals, with individual minds and preferences.

      You keep insisting on this, but it’s really stupid. Of course there are societies. I can describe groups of people and qualities they have that individuals don’t. It’s in fact what politics and political discussions are always about. Can you describe everything there is to know about a bird without discussing flocks? Bees without discussing hives? Humans are not in fact naturally solitary–we’re one of the more social species, actually, so ignoring the social element is to ignore vast aspects of our makeup and to therefore get a lot of stuff wrong if you’re trying to tell everyone how to live.

      A miscarriage is not a purposeful act committed by an individual.

      Is the death of a baby not a tragedy if it happens in a tornado?

      You are fallaciously obsessed with individualism and agency. It’s why you believe the crazy things you do.

      1. Is the death of a baby not a tragedy if it happens in a tornado?

        OM’s point sailed clear over your small head.

      2. Unfortunately Tony, it is pretty much impossible to insult you. An insult suggests you are in some way less than you actually are.

  41. Re: Tony,

    In your fantasy world absolutely nothing forbids someone from adopting a moral stance that mass murder is his god-given right.

    You are conflating moral norms with armed resistance or punitive action, as if one required the other. That’s not the case. Even a Joseph Stalin would not have been able to order milions of deaths if it wasn’t because of decisions made by each of his minions. At the moment they stopped complying, Stalin would’ve been not much of a dictator.

    That guy could amass an arsenal or an army and decide to flatten cities. The only thing that could stop him is a bigger army.

    Sure, a bigger army stops a lesser army.

    Exactly how many days do you predict your stateless utopia will actually exist?

    So are you know arguing for armed defense of the territory? I don’t understand what does this have to do with your fixation with punitive action against criminals. You are also begging the question by assuming criminal behavior should be stopped by punitive action in order to argue anti-abortionists are inconsistent for not wanting punitive action against women who abort their babies. Wanting to show that a stateless utopia is impossible does NOT give validity to your assumption.

  42. George Zimmerman? Who is f’in tone deaf now?

    1. BAM!

    2. I was waiting to see if anybody would get around to that after the initial abortion clusterfuck.

      Apparently ENB also didn’t get the memo that Zimmerman, despite his delusions to the contrary, wasn’t a cop:

      It seems at best tone-deaf and at worst totally fucking insulting to compare the killing of black adults by armed (and unaccountable) government agents to the abortion of embryos and fetuses by the women whose bodies are hosting them. Surely even those who think these women murderers see a difference between their actions and those of, say, Darren Wilson or George Zimmerman, no?

      Well, yes, presumably one of the largest being that George Zimmerman wasn’t an armed (or unaccountable) government agent, you mindless twat.

  43. Ms Brown argues the Left’s abortion position. Libertarians are of two positions on abortion depending one whether they believe 1 or 2 moral agents are present in the pregnant woman. Using the terms embryo and fetus do not change the fact it is a human life being ended.

    The most up to date abortion stats I can find show black women 4 times more likely to abort than white women. To argue this is because sex ed and cheap BC aren’t available strains credulity. Then again, the blacks looted a CVS in Baltimore; perhaps they stocked up on condoms and morning after pills…

    1. Libertarians are of two positions on abortion

      Not really true. The degree to which you oppose abortion is the degree to which you’re not a libertarian. The “official” libertarian position is the LP party line: “we recognize there are many moral viewpoints on this issue, and therefore, unrestricted abortion with no limitations of any kind is the only acceptable legal position”. Which to pro-life people is no different than saying, “recognizing that there are a variety of views on murder, the law should be agnostic on the matter. If you oppose murder, don’t kill people”. You can be an anti-abortion/pro-life libertarian only so far as you’re willing to concede the entirety of your moral viewpoint (and endure constant mockery for your trouble). For a lot of people, sitting in the corner with a dunce cap isn’t worth it to be in the “big tent”.

      1. Another PM lie documented

        The “official” libertarian position is the LP party line: “we recognize there are many moral viewpoints on this issue, and therefore, unrestricted abortion with no limitations of any kind is the only acceptable legal position”.

        Liar.

        http://www.lp.org/platform

        1.5 Abortion (Libertarian Party Platform)
        Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

        I just documented another outrageous lie of yours here, on this very page

        https://reason.com/blog/2015/08…..nt_5494177

        Why are you so totally pathetic?

        1. He may have not used the exact wording on the LP manifesto, but the content is the same. The LP believes government should not interfere and that it should be left up to individual conscience, which is another way of saying that abortion should be freely available to anyone who wants it. The only thing that should stop a woman from aborting her baby is her own conscience, nothing more, according to the LP.

          Now try replacing “abortion” with “murder” and see whether you agree that the choice to commit murder should left up to the individual conscience and that government should not interfere.

          My personal view is that, if the child can survive outside the womb, it should be illegal to abort unless it’s the only way to protect the life of the mother. If the child cannot survive, the mother should be free to abort at will.

  44. amazing that so called libertarians can somehow not value the life of an unborn baby. She talks about a 3 week old abortion but what about the morality of late term and middle term abortions which science has shown that babies can easily survive outside of the womb if they come early. As a libertarian leaning conservative and someone who has seen the Planned Parenthood videos it is just plain sick that people can justify abortion. If you have any moral compass it isn’t hard too see it is just plain and simple not right.

    1. You know what, giving birth is pretty fucking icky too. Let’s ban everything that’s icky. Start at the source. No more heterosexual intercourse. For freedom.

    2. There’s no evidence that the unborn are people worthy of rights. It’s just meat.

      1. The same has often been said of you.

        1. Admittedly, if we were to have some kind of ‘Most Dangerous Game’ style hunt of Cytotoxic, I wouldn’t consider it murder, just a really, really, really late abortion. If we can get Mama Cytotoxic to sign some papers we’re all good.

    3. what about the morality of late term and middle term abortions which science has shown that babies can easily survive outside of the womb if they come early.

      That’s up to each state. The only major restriction on states is they cannot ban abortions before viability (generally 20-22 weeks, which few would call middle-term). This is a major failure of the pro-life leadership for 40 years.

      someone who has seen the Planned Parenthood videos

      They conned you too?

      If you have any moral compass it isn’t hard too see it is just plain and simple not right.

      Your moral compass rejects THE primary constitutional principle: equal, unalienable and/or God-given rights. That means the woman’s right to liberty is precisely equal to the fetal child’s right to life. The lies on this can be severe, but it is easily confirmed by the dictionary definition of unalienable, plus the 5th and 14th Amendments.

      When two fundamental rights are in conflict, only the Judiciary is empowered to establish the boundary between them.. And because they are equal, the Court is obliged to establish a boundary that best protects BOTH rights.

  45. would the author also argue that if a pregnant woman is murdered that the murderer should only get one count of murder or 2, or does the definition of a person just change depending on if they are “wanted” or not by the woman. Where do we draw the line, what if women change their mind after they have the babies, should they be able to kill their kids as long as they aren’t over 1 year old. It is a slippery slope that I wish we would just get off of as a country.

  46. As tone deaf as Ron Paul’s comments were, I too think creating and aborting babies is, on the whole, pretty fucking irresponsible, and I want to remind the libertines among us that abortion is NOT a libertarian issue. Some consider it the taking of a human life and some do not. I hope we can agree that it’s pretty stupid to expect the government to do anything effective and/or intelligent about it, and that’s on what we should agree. I’ve noticed that, where we once had to worry (and still do) about right wingnuts grabbing the flag of liberty and running with it, we now know fully clearly that we have to also worry about left wingnuts doing the same. Sadly, supposedly libertarian literature is sounding too fucking libertine these days. I couldn’t get past the first few paragraphs of this article.

    1. The cuss words especially made me think I was reading Salon or Jezebel, not Reason.

  47. I might add that I suppose the same libertine who wrote this is just fine with the government funding of the Walmart of abortions.

  48. This article is a perfect demonstration of Robert Conquest’s Second Law of Politics, as applied to Libertarianism:

    Any organization not explicitly and constitutionally right-wing will sooner or later become left-wing.

  49. Reteroactive abortion by cop is apparently legal too.
    If one can unreasonably and arbitrarily decide whom has and whom does not, then liberty is a sham.
    I think women should be treated equally, but would limit the exercise of rights by idiots and imbeciles. Like the author of the post.

  50. And he pretends to be a libertarian. No, he’s a kook, he wants control not Liberty.

  51. I am a male that participated in the use all kinds of “birth control”. It was best, when the girls were on oral birth control. (an i am old!) Nothing, including OCP, is perfect. If you are not protected it is irresponsible. I feel that all girls,(99.9%) who are of an inclination to be, heterosexually, active, should be on some form of birth control. That would mostly be OCPs. I happen to feel it is irresponsible of the parents not to protect their girls that “could” or “might” be sexually active. I think it would be great to offer girls, starting with the age of twelve (in our society), to be able to get PROTECTION! It is one way that fathers, and parents, can assure their girls don’t have their lives stolen from them, by irresponsible males. Intercourse can be safely performed, with simple precautions. Really, most girls are entering marriage with a few sexual partners. (that is their choice!) If they are having sex, they, mostly, feel love for their partner. For those few girls that do not have anything other than sexual desire, they, especially, need protection. If it feels good, they will do it. I think they would act just like us guys, having it as often as can be be arranged! Protect the children. I did way to many gallbladder operations on children, in my surgical residency! They were all mothers! Our children deserve to be protected! And, abortion still is taking a young life! Who has the right to their own life, in the Libertarian corner?

  52. Paul is right that the majority of Planned Parenthood patients are low-income and minority women, because these are clinics for low-income women, and in this country that includes a lot of minorities.

    I think ENB has a fundamental misunderstanding of what eugenics was about. It wasn’t about the elimination of specific racial minorities, it was about the elimination of supposedly genetically inferior human beings in order to address social ills like poverty. So, the fact that PP targets low income women is entirely in line with what eugenics is all about.

    (However, in Sanger’s defense, one has to say that she emphasized that such choices should be voluntary and that they also had big benefits for the individual. That’s very different from the other breed-humans-like-cattle eugenicists of her time.)

  53. ENBrown writes “Oof. It seems at best tone-deaf and at worst totally fucking insulting to compare the killing of black adults by armed (and unaccountable) government agents to the abortion of embryos and fetuses by the women whose bodies are hosting them.”

    Oh really? Who is tone-deaf and who is insulting? The supposed “Reason” leaning libertarian who champions individual rights to Life, Liberty, and Property for all persons of all kinds everywhere, but can’t reason themselves to appreciate the fact that fetus’s are indeed human “persons”, no matter what the 1972 Roe Vs Wade Supreme Court said. Shame on your failure to use reason and derive individual rights for all persons. This failure to think is insulting to the intellectual heritage of libertarians of old who correctly reasoned against the Supreme Courts 1857 Dred Scott decision saying black Americans are not “persons” either, thus denying their individual rights to Life, Liberty and Property. What is truly insulting is REASON mag, which fails to reason out anything. And who is tone-deaf is ENBrown. And what is thoroughly embarrassing is libertarianism is thoroughly a pro-individual rights philosophy, but like Ayn Rand, can do nothing but belch out emotions about the subject. Try harder.

  54. “It seems at best tone-deaf and at worst totally fucking insulting to compare the killing of black adults by armed (and unaccountable) government agents to the abortion of embryos and fetuses by the women whose bodies are hosting them.”

    Then why did you?

  55. Another progressive “journalistic effort” by Elizabeth Nolan Brown. How nice.

  56. “Oof. It seems at best tone-deaf and at worst totally fucking insulting to compare…”
    Nope, murder is murder. You are disgusting and do not deserve to be called a decent human being much less a platform to spew your garbage.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.