Joe Biden

Biden Bashes Abortion, Defends Religious Freedom

The vice president told Catholic magazine America that abortion is "always wrong" but he respects that not everyone believes the same.


America magazine

Vice President Joe Biden told the Catholic magazine America that "abortion is always wrong," but he accepts that there are "God-fearing (and) non-God-fearing people that have a different view" and doesn't wish to impose his religious views on them. Biden sat down with the magazine for an interview about Pope Francis' visit to Washington, whether the pope should stay out of politics, and how Biden's own Catholic faith influences his views. 

"I'm prepared to accept as a matter of faith" (the Catholic position) on abortion," said the vice president, "but what I'm not prepared to do is to impose a rigid view—a precise view, rigid sounds pejorative—a precise view that is born out of my faith on other people who are equally God-­fearing, equally as committed to life, equally as committed to the sanctity of life. I'm prepared to accept that at the moment of conception there's human life and being, but I'm not prepared to say that to other God­-fearing, non-­God­fearing people that have a different view." 

"Abortion is always wrong," Biden continued, "but there's been debate, and so there's, for me… I'm not prepared to impose (Catholic) doctrine that I'm prepared to accept" on everyone else. 

A new poll shows Biden, who still hasn't said he's running for president, has the support of 25 percent of registered Democrats—not too far behind frontrunner Hillary Clinton (33 percent) and just ahead of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders (24 percent).

Statements like "abortion is always wrong" could hurt Biden with women in the party, especially if the Clinton campaign decides to run with them. Female Democrats already lean overwhelmingly toward Clinton, with 50 percent of female respondents supporting her in a national poll from August (compared to just 38 percent of the male Democrats polled). But Biden's position on abortion—that it's immoral but should still be legal—also hews closely to the view espoused by many millennials on abortion. And millennial women have so far been the least susceptible to Clinton's alleged charms, which may make them a good demographic grab for either Clinton-opponent looking to boost support among Democrat women. 

NEXT: Life-Saving Anti-Opiate Drug Naloxone Now More Widely Available in California

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Is it bad that I really, really want to see Uncle Joe run and say increasingly buffoonish things in the process? That I would–literally–like to see him put his foot in his mouth? Seriously, I’d actually pay good money to see that. Do you think he’s flexible enough?

    1. Trump v. Biden debates. What could be more awesome?

      1. A televised eye rolling competition? Reality TV at it’s finest.

        1. Johnson: [on TV] It’s time someone had the courage to stand up and say: “I’m against those things that everybody hates”.

          [The other candidate is John Jackson.]

          Jackson: [on TV] Now I respect my opponent. I think he’s a good man but, quite frankly, I agree with everything he just said!

          Fry: These are the candidates? They sound like clones. [He looks a little harder.] Wait a minute. They are clones!

          Leela: Don’t let their identical DNA fool you. They differ on some key issues.

          Johnson: [on TV] I say your three cent titanium tax goes too far.

          Jackson: [on TV] And I say your three cent titanium tax doesn’t go too far enough!

          Fry: If I were registered to vote, I’d send these clowns a message by staying home on election day and dressing up like a clown.

          1. “There’s a political debate on. Quick, change the channel!”
            “That’s what Fry said when we turned on the debate.”

          2. Turanga Leela: You’re not registered?

            Fry: Nope. Not vaccinated, either. Besides, it’s not like one vote ever made a difference.

            Turanga Leela: That’s not true. The first robot president won by exactly one vote.

            Bender: Ah, yes. John Quincy Adding Machine. He struck a chord with the voters by pledging not to go on a killing spree.

            Professor Hubert Farnsworth: But, like most politicians, he promised more than he could deliver.

            1. Leela: Look, I know there are no car chases but this is important. One of these two men will become president of the world.

              Fry: What do we care? We live in the United States.

              Leela: The United States is part of the world.

              Fry: Wow, I have been gone a long time.

              1. This is in the top five best Futurama episodes list. Just so many brilliant lines. And Nixon is classic.

              2. That was always my favorite

          3. I’m working my way through Archer on Netflix now. When I’m caught up with that, Futurama is next on the list.

            1. Oh your priorities are so backwards.

      2. Hey Joe, I like to chop the heads off of people with an axe. I’m sure you find this morally wrong but I certainly hope you respect that not everyone has the same views as you and that you won’t impose your religious views on me.

        Thank you for your continued leadership.

      1. Congratulations, Hugh, you and your picture just made my skin crawl; she looks like she wants to will herself into never having existed in the first place in that picture. Uncle Joe is a special guy.

        Hence, why he should run. For the entertainment of us all.

        1. Still the best Biden grope photo. Everybody’s expression is hilarious.

          1. There is one with some bikers that is pretty good too.

          2. Guy 1: “Wh-why are you touching my leg?”

            Guy 2: “Yeah, why ARE you touching his leg?”

            Guy 3: “I wish someone would touch MY leg.”

          3. Speaking of Uncle Joe, that cop looks like Uncle Joe from Petticoat Junction…..

      2. Ha! My first thought was, man, Bill Clinton got old.
        Yes! Biden for President! Trump for VP! America will become great again!

      3. Is she one of those sexbots i have been hearing about or is her makeup really that bad?

    2. I’m starting to think a President Biden is just what this country needs.

      People accept he is a buffoon. Some of the worst political problems in the U.S. are rendered intractable in large part because a significant portion of the political class doesn’t want to admit that the Obama administration is incompetent or a bunch of buffoons but rather want to maintain the pretense that they are brilliant planners and strategists.

      With Biden, that obstacle goes by the wayside.

      Then again, I thought Obama would be an improvement over Bush II in terms of civil liberties, and I don’t think I’ll ever completely scrub that bit of egg off my face.

      1. I don’t think I’ll ever completely scrub that bit of egg off my face

        Have you tried going to confession?

        1. Even Jesus will not be able to forgive those who thought Obama would be a positive force for freedom.

      2. At this point, I just assume the next person will be worse, no matter what. Because they almost have to be, just to survive there.

        1. Biden has the advantage that he looks like your typical crazy old uncle. If he were 20 years younger people would not accept his vulgarity.

          1. And a Democrat.

      3. “…but rather want to maintain the pretense that they are brilliant planners and strategists. With Biden, that obstacle goes by the wayside.”

        Ha ha. Ha ha ha ha ha. ROTFL. Yes, sure. That’s the point where the Proggies will wake up and say, hey, maybe a Top down approach isn’t always the right answer. 😉

      4. I’ve said before that if Biden ever ran again, he’d be tough to beat. He can call on his decades of Congressional experience, his ability to broker deals across the aisle (it was Biden who brokered the sequestration compromise because Reid was being his usual stubborn self), and now his VP experience. He’s the one who forced Obama to publically come out in support of gay marriage.

        He’s an affable presence who has the ability to get along with just about anyone, with a sharper memory than people give him credit for–recall the commenter who revealed that the Secret Service people absolutely love the guy because he calls them by name and even remembers some of the names of their family members. Even people who don’t share his politics that meet him talk about what a chill guy he is. I don’t think even Republicans give that much of a damn about his gaffes or his gropenstein tendencies, because at this stage of his life and with the kind of personality he has, people tend to think, “Oh, that’s just goofy Uncle Joe, he’s harmless.”

        1. The only things holding him back, I think, are his age and his loyalty to the party. He knows damn well that DWS and the DNC were planning on making this “election” a coronation for Hillary, and I doubt he’s got the stomach to get in a fight with people that he’s worked and hobnobbed with for over 20 years just to put up with all the shit a President has to deal with for 4-8 years that he’s now seen and experienced first-hand, to say nothing of the rigors of the election season. Hillary’s not much younger than him and she’s barely holding it together; would he really want to risk some health-related issues on the campaign trail for his own self-aggrandizement? I just don’t see it.

          1. I agree. Uncle Joe would be a vast improvement over Hillary, but he’s to old, and, believe it or not, too. smart to want to run for president.

      5. Ok, I’ll bite. WHY would you expect a Chicago Machine Democrat to be better on Civil Liberties than Bush II? Most of the Bush II violations that the anti-Bush crowd were moaning about fell into two catagories a) government buttinskiism that, thanks to the War On Drugs(tm), were pretty routine. And which the Democrats only objected to because Bush had the gall to fight Algore’s fairly clumsy attempt to steal the election. And b) violations of the ‘civil liberties’ of persons who could reasonably be called enemy combatants. Generally speaking the Democrats LIKE the War On Drugs(tm).

        Much of the hoopla about “b)” was people who knew next to nothing about the Law of War, which we were actually following pretty well, or who didn’t want to admit that the Law of War applied.

        Nothing Bush was doing was anything Obama could afford to STOP doing, unless he wanted to take over The Iraq and Afghanistan situations and instantly lose control.

    3. Biden has been my favorite candidate of either party from the first. I would never vote for him, though.

    4. Biden, is a jackass!

    5. He is an inflexible horses ass!

      1. And Trump isn’t?

  2. What up, ENB, was the sexual rights thread not misogynistic enough for you?

    1. Oh goodness, I hadn’t waded into those yet…

    2. Just to be clear, do you mean the couple throwbacks using the word slut?

      1. No.

        1. I have honestly started to believe they don’t even see it.

          1. Oh, they see it. Quite clearly.

            1. I glanced through. All that stood out was the slut slurs, because it’s a bit like calling bankers “greedy” if you disagree with the state of financial regulation: unnecessary and entirely beside the point.

              Maybe I’m just the most misogynisty misogynist of them all.

              1. *Puts arm around spittoon*

                We can be misogynists together, because I don’t see it either.

          2. I have honestly started to believe they don’t even see it.

            If there were ever a beacon to summon chauvinist trolls…


          1. Wait, are there MRAs up ins? I refuse to go look for myself.

            1. Some people discussing marriage inequality. Dunno is that qualifies.

          2. First of all, Warty, no one called any of the ho’s dumb.

            1. Task his be smart. They get paid. Sluts give it away, they the ones not libertarian.

              1. Jesus this phone sucks*

                “hos, they be smart”

        3. geez nicole, all I see in that thread are guys talking about how much they love the pussy, and you somehow think that’s misogynist?

          1. Huh, sounds more sexist than misogynist.

            1. Sounds more hetronormative.

            2. Actually it sounds quite ailurophilic.

  3. Yet he doesn’t hesitate to force the tenets of his other religion (Progessivism) onto those of us who don’t believe as he does.

    1. This is exactly why I do not believe him. On how many other issues has he supported and imposed mandates on people who fundamentally disagreed with his moral ideology? Abortion is about the only issue where this philosophy applies for him.

      1. Is there a single politician anywhere that doesn’t have that problem? That’s pretty much the job: using government force to get people to do what you want.

        1. I think it is especially true for someone who has been a cheerleader for busybody policies like ACA.

          It is not that he has violated this supposed precept, but that it does not apply to any other part of his philosophy of government.

      2. No, you don’t get it. His ideology is that neither does something have to be illegal to be immoral, nor immoral to be illegal. That you can make laws regardless of morals. He doesn’t think he’s imposing a morality, just law, which is completely different.

        1. I mean, who seriously thinks it’s immoral for minors to have nude pictures of themselves? But people have no problem with making it illegal.

  4. Statements like “abortion is always wrong” could hurt Biden with women


    With all women?

    Also, does his declaration that he would not impose this particular belief on others not resonate? Do women not hear that part, or do they all think he’s lying when he says thus?

    1. With the women he’ll have to syphon from Clinton, who do seem likely to not care whether he wants to legally restrict abortion or not

      1. added an *in the party* after women to make clear I was talking about Democratic women

        1. You…changed the wording in an article based on the inane ramblings of an ankle-biter?

          I feel…powerful.



          1. So, do I get a by-line, or something? ;9

          2. You werebiting ENB’s ankles? Kinky.

            1. Tasted like pina colada. I’m not sure what to make of that.

              1. Also “werebiting” is now officially a thing.

          3. “ankle-biter”

            Rex Ryan, is that you?

            1. Kinda relevant: apparently “knee-biter” was substituted by an American editor who thought “complete asshole” was too harsh for American readers. #tmyk

      2. With the women he’ll have to syphon from Clinton

        Please rephrase that as “from Hilary.” Because, again, my mind went to Joe siphoning women from Bill and then it locked up.

        1. I don’t think that’s possible; the days when Bill was dripping with bitches are probably behind him.

          1. I dunno, whatever charisma he had never struck me as being based on his looks. Getting older would make him more distinguished, and I’m sure he can still turn the charm on. The ladies it works on might be a bit older than 20 years ago, but are still there.
            Plus, when you can make a million or more off a single speech, you can drip with certain class of women, ripe for siphoning.

            1. And anyway it’s not like Slick Willie was particular about where he’d put his cigar, standards-wise.

          2. No, he’s still got it going on, according to reports. Don’t forget his adventures on Epstein’s Sex Slave Island.

            1. Jesus, that sounds like a SugarFree novella.

              1. NO NO no!

                Don’t even suggest that!

                1. What? That ‘The Adventures of Slick Willie’ would be an excellent name for a slashfic series?

                  The Adventures of Slick Willie: The Rise of Willie
                  The Adventures of Slick Willie: Gentlemen Prefer Blondes, Willie Prefers Fours
                  The Adventures of Slick Willie: Escape from Epstein’s Sex Slave Island


                  1. I see him as a Flashman type character, except lazier and with less integrity.

                  2. slash? you mean Willie’s into m/m?

    2. They don’t hear it when Paul says the same thing so no I don’t think they hear it.

      In the minds of a certain subset of women speaking of abortion in anything but positive terms means you are anti choice and a tool of the patriarchy

    3. Also, does his declaration that he would not impose this particular belief on others not resonate?

      Aside from the fact that it’s a lie. The Kulture War has rendered everyone around here too dense for resonance to occur.

      Joe could say that he believes in income taxes personally and make it a policy to reduce them to his salary and then forfeit his salary to pay them and people (assuming they bought the lie) would wonder why he wasn’t taxing a woman equally or if he was really doing it so that the FedGov couldn’t enforce marriage license policy in Rowan County.

    4. It’s too much nuance. Most people don’t do good with nuance. All they hear is “Abortion is always wrong…”

  5. What about a view that isn’t born out of his faith?

    The whole abortion issue gets so muddied for many reasons, not least of which is that the pro-life side almost always framed as being one inherently rooted in religion.

    1. framed as being one inherently rooted in religion

      maybe not necessarily religion, but the question of right/wrong does seem to be rooted in belief.

      I can believe abortion is wrong. I can’t KNOW abortion is wrong.

      1. That same statement can be made about literally any value judgement.

        1. yes, because any value judgement is premised on the tenets of a belief system.

          there is no objective evaluation of values, only evaluations subject to a system of arbitrary morals/beliefs.

          1. There may be no objective evaluation of values but there certainly is of actions and morality deals solely with actions.

      2. I can believe theft is wrong, I cannot KNOW theft is wrong.

        I can believe suppressing speech is wrong, I cannot KNOW suppressing speech is wrong.

        I can believe punching you in the no see is wrong, I cannot KNOW punching you is wrong.

        Does that really work as a universal premise?

        1. …in political that believes the Rights of Man are self-evident?

        2. What do you mean by “work”? It is the case.

          1. As I wrote above, it denied that human rights are self-evident. It denied that there is anything 6th at one person can do to another that is inherently unjust.

            It does not “work” for anyone who is not utterly amoral.

            1. If human rights were actually self-evident, doesn’t it seem likely that people would agree on what they are?

              1. Look, Nicole, you stupid slut, first premises mean something that’s mathematically proven, not something that you just choose. I don’t expect your feminine pea-brain to understand math, so don’t feel bad. It’s science.

                1. Hey! You can’t just insult Nicole like that! No, you have to let the rest of us in on the insult if you’re going to do that! This is about sharing!

                  1. Nikki isn’t some trashy slut to be passed around and used as a semen-urinal like your mom, you idiot. She’s a delicate and classy lady who needs to be degraded one-on-one, with care and love. Moron.

                    1. Hey! No hogging!

                      …take that however you will.

                    2. Do you suppose Nikki sweats a lot? Of course she does.

                    3. And now I can’t stop thinking about your mom.

                      (wipes away tear)

                    4. Warty,

                      I could not find anything in or related to that article to indicate that it was a painfully over long and distasteful attempt to mimic something the Onion would send out. Did I give up too quickly?

              2. If rights are not self evident, then nothing can be unjust. No one can prevent someone else from imposing their will on you because no one can say the first person is wrong to do so. You cannot shout “rights” and have that trump all. You cannot impose on on the society that men are created equal, or have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

                If that is the case then their is no argument against majority rule in all things.

                1. You should read more, Mickey. Or…at all.

                  1. Impressive counter argument.

                    Crawl back into the slime pit you roused yourself from.

                2. I don’t see how you can formulate *any* moral code without some starting axioms. Some of those axioms will be “better” than others. in the sense that they are simpler, self-consistent, seem to be generally agreed upon, are easier to apply universally, etc., but some things have to be asserted.

                  1. I don’t see how you can formulate *any* moral code without some starting axioms.

                    You can’t.

                3. If rights are so self-evident, why are humans the only animals claiming to have them?

                  1. Because we are the only ones with the ability to claim them. I read column once, where the whole premise was that, in order to have rights, you must be able to assert them. Not sure if it was George Will, but I seem to remember it being so.

                4. Nothing “is” unjust. But I can believe some things are unjust, and I can point out that others’ professed beliefs require them to agree it is unjust or admit inconsistency.

                  1. Nothing “is” unjust.

                    A man raping an infant to cure his HIV sure seems to be unjust.

                    1. By whose standards?

                    2. “Self-evidence” aside, I believe that fundamental morals (axioms as it were) exist and that they can be argued for rationally.

                    3. And it’s very likely that you would find a large number of people that agree with you. But the fact that so many agree with you is the only thing that gives your morals any power. In the end it’s just value judgements all the way down. Religions have been fighting over that fact for a long, long time.

                    4. Are we discussing power or morality?

                      And yes, it is always a value judgement, except for nihilists.

                    5. Are we discussing power or morality?

                      Maybe you’ll come back to see this, maybe you won’t. But I’ll respond just in case.

                      Let’s say you and I agree that killing another person is morally wrong. However, digging deeper into the value judgement, you believe that killing another person in self-defense is not wrong while I believe that killing another person is ALWAYS wrong regardless of the circumstances. So we’ve started with an absolute, then added some value judgements to it.

                      Going from here, let’s say that the majority of people agree with you and setup a legal system with your value built in. If you kill another person in self-defense you’re free of guilt, assuming you can sufficiently prove your case.

                      Now let’s say that the majority of people agree with me and setup a legal system with my value built in. If you kill another person in self-defense you’re guilty and will be punished based on the laws.

                      Both sets of laws, yours and mine, can only be enforced by a group with the power to do so. If your group is in power, my moral values are irrelevant and vice versa. It’s all well and good to have a moral system, but it’s pretty much irrelevant unless you can enforce your moral system.

                      Make sense?

                    6. The argument from biology is the most persuasive one. We hate seeing children abused because billions of years of evolution have hardwired the instinct to protect one’s young, etc. But even that amounts to a slightly more complicated version of “murder is bad because it feels bad” or “murder is bad because god says so”. Pushing the arbitrary moral beginning back into the distant past still leaves an arbitrary beginning, it seems to me.

                    7. Unless you fit the concept to evolution, then many actions we have come to believe are ‘moral’ are simply survival mechanisms formed within a population.

                    8. I guess what I was saying Warty, is that as our very presence in the universe had an arbitrary beginning. So what? It still seems to me the only source for “moral” judgement is evolution.

                  2. Can you prevent them doing something you consider unjust to another person If they disgree it is unjust?

                    Can you punish them for the injustice?

                    1. Can you prevent them doing something you consider unjust to another person If they disgree it is unjust?

                      Can you punish them for the injustice?

                      If you’re more powerful than they are, you can.

                    2. We usually get this type of logic from Tony.

                    3. It’s not so much logic as it is reality. People with more power can force their views on others.

                      “Might makes right” is an argument that something is just *because* it can be forced on others. That’s not what we are saying here.

                      What we are saying is that moral codes all have to start from some sort of basic assumptions.

                    4. What are these self-evident rights, and why are they self-evident?

                    5. It is amazing how many people here seem to disagree with Jeffersonian principles.

                    6. It’s beautiful and poetic writing, but to many of Jefferson’s contemporaries it wasn’t at all self-evident that all people were created equal. To some, it was self-evident that people who got sick were sinners, that individual needs were subservient to those of the community, or that non-Europeans were intellectually inferior.

                      I’m not trying to be a strong moral relativist – as I said above, some moral systems lack self-consistency, universality, or are based on assumptions that are empirically incorrect. Libertarian morality appeals to me because. among other reasons, it is self-consistent, universally applicable, and comports with real-world observations. But it’s not the only moral system that checks those boxes.

                    7. And I do agree with a lot of Jefferson. All I’m saying is that he had to base his conclusions on certain axioms and assumptions and other such axioms and assumptions are possible. If you disagree please argue otherwise. I enjoy these types of conversations.

    2. Right – he puts abortion as a matter of faith only. What about science? He’s deliberately pushed it out of that realm.

      My son is a libertarian atheist who can give an excellent pro-life debate that has nothing to do with religion

      1. Does your sons argument include exceptions because if it does it’s not pro-life.

        1. The only exception I consider is life of the mother, because that’s a self defense argument. As far as rape and incest, why should the child die for the sins of the father? The mother’s emotions do not rise above the child’s life.

          I’m not certain that’s his position, but I believe so.

  6. Nowww he has no chance

    1. He is from the party that likes women, so I do not think this would hurt him if he did decide to run.

      1. But Biden LOVES the ladies

        1. (this was supposed to be a response to woody, I was momentarily disoriented by a mental image of Biden loving the ladies)

    2. Probably not. Saying you support every aspect of Progressivism is more important than actually living by them. Even though he always votes in their favor, he’s not saying the right things now and that’s bad.

  7. “I’m prepared to accept as a matter of faith” (the Catholic position) on abortion,” said the vice president, “but what I’m not prepared to do is to impose a rigid view?a precise view, rigid sounds pejorative?a precise view that is born out of my faith on other people who are equally God-?fearing, equally as committed to life, equally as committed to the sanctity of life. I’m prepared to accept that at the moment of conception there’s human life and being, but I’m not prepared to say that to other God?-fearing, non-?God?fearing people that have a different view.”

    I don’t know if it’s just me, but t sounds like the only stance he’s taking here is not wanting to offend anyone

    1. not wanting to offend anyone

      Isn’t that what most politicians do? But it won’t work because Progressives get offended by everything.

    2. I’m not saying that I wouldn’t like to respond to you, but then, people are apt to take things in so many different ways; not that I’m assuming you’d take me wrong, but somebody might, and to be clear, that would be no fault of their own, it’s just how things are when there are a lot of people who have a lot of different viewpoints, and who’s to say that one is more or less valid than the next, so what I’m saying is that you have to be careful with these things, because no matter how strongly you hold your belief, and no matter how absolutely right it is, and it probably usually is, you have to, you know, be cautious with things like that. Usually.

      1. Nice.

        My favorite part was the “but what I’m not prepared to do is to impose a rigid view?a precise view, rigid sounds pejorative” He’s qualifying his qualifiers, good lord.

    3. It’s a complicated and nuanced situation.

  8. So since abortion is always wrong he would let the women die from a medical emergency rather than get one or force her to carry her rapists baby. Nice guy.

    1. He specifically says he is not willing to impose his views on other people.

      1. Stop reading the fucking articles, Hugh.

        1. Nikki is right, articles in our heads based on headlines are always more interesting than what Reason writes!

        2. What is he, a faggot??? LOL LOOK AT ME READING I’M SO FANCY LA LA LA WORDS

          1. I thought Hugh’s race propagated via a cloud of spores.

            1. Look Epi, I was born here! I raised a cloud of children here! My ancestors came over on the sandwich! No one can make me leave.

              1. Hey Hugh, ever wonder what makes special sauce so special? Yo.

          2. Listen scro, if God wanted people to read, he would’ve made words pictures.

      2. Reading past the first half of the subhed is for LOSERS! You don’t want to be a LOSER, do you, Hugh?

      3. It’s his wrongheaded belief that matters, not his assertion that he would leave people alone. He’s telling the truth about the first matter, but lying about the other.

        1. So you’re playing the part of John today….

          *makes note of it*

          1. Where is John? I haven’t seen him around.

          2. Where is John? I haven’t seen him around.

            1. I WANNA KNOW WHERE JOHN IS!!

              1. It has been pointed out that John went nuts about gay marriage, and then disappeared right around the time Kim Davis went to jail. Make of that what you will.

                1. aahhhHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

                2. That’s awesome and hilarious and deeply disturbing.

                  1. So if/when he reappears, are we all supposed to ask him how he liked prison?

                3. Well, it’s a defense against being called a Hitnrunpublican, if nothing else.

                  1. Hey! You leave Hihn alone. He’s the original libertarian, and without him the rest of us wouldn’t know what the true libertarian position is!

  9. “Look, there are plenty of good, pious white people out there who don’t think it’s wrong to kill a [African American]. I disagree, but I’m not going to impose my views on those pious, godfearing white folks.

    “I mean, I appreciate all those churches which are out there waging anti-lynching campaigns, but they have to realize that the right to life is simply a matter of faith, a matter of religion. And we can’t stick religion into politics. So if good, godfearing white people think it’s a good thing to lynch some [African-Americans], the government shouldn’t step in and impose what is essentially a religious viewpoint on everyone else.”

    1. The situations are totally different, Notorious. Unborn persons can’t vote or donate to political campaigns, so they have no rights. Why can’t you just accept the reality of the situation?

      1. Well, that and African Americans’ continued existences don’t depend on someone else carrying them around. (yes I do realize that they were once fetuses too, but you know what I mean).

        1. You do realize that for Biden’s formulation to make any sense it has to apply to situations which are not Abortion related? Otherwise, it is just a rationalization.

          1. Oh, sure. I’m just completely cynical about politicians at this point, so I just react.


    1. If by Miss Jinn, you mean Barbara Eden, then I agree.




  11. I don’t think Biden’s position makes any sense. If you think abortion is “always wrong”, there has to be some reason you think so. If it’s just a clump of cells (and I tend to think it is well into most pregnancies), then there’s really no moral more moral implication to removing it than there is to removing a cyst. On the other hand, if you think it’s a person, then the argument that you’re imposing your religious views on others by forbidding it is like saying the abolitionists should have kept their religious views to themselves.

    1. Don’t apply logic here. The progs have done their best to stamp that out through the prevalence of the government school system.

      “Don’t ask yourself how it makes sense, ask how does it make me feel.”

  12. Question:

    Is there a difference between being a “tool of the patriarchy”, and being a “patriarchal tool”?

    1. Yes. You see the one is, er…and the other…heh, heh…

    2. A tool of the patriarchy advances the goals of the patriarchy, sometimes willingly but usually unknowingly.

      A patriarchal tool uses/creates tools of the patriarchy.

      1. So isn’t a patriarchil tool advancing the goals of the patriarchy, making xer a tool of the patriarchy?

        1. There’s gotta be a top tool somewhere. The Big Tool, so to speak.

          1. Nope, it’s tools all the way up.

    3. Do you have to sign up to be in the patriarchy or are you just born into it?

      Asking for a bro.

      1. If you have to ask, you can’t afford it.

      2. That is so cis-hetero-norm bullshit! I’m calling micro aggression! Go sit in your corner for ten minutes! Now!

    4. The first phrase seems like something that would only be uttered on a soapbox. “Repent, for thou art a tool of the patriarchy” The second sounds like an offhand insult “God, what a patriarchal tool”

  13. that’s why it’s PC for me *weeew weew!* and you!

    *weew weew*

    1. “…but first, a little weew weew!”

  14. He just realizes that he’s safe to say whatever he wants, because everyone knows that in then end, he’s going to tow the party lion. And in that case, why be just another preacher to the choir, when you can instead appear to extend an olive branch to your more religious wing, while also giving the impression that “well gosh, although I’d love to, I am just too principled to actually force my beliefs on people.

    It’s pretty much a win-win for him to say this — he’d say the same thing in vetoing, say, a bill de-funding PP, and the jezebel contingent would fully back him up in doing so: “that Joe, he’s such a stand-up guy that even though he was somehow saddled with these backward beliefs, he’s willing and able to courageously put them aside for the greater good. Kiss, kiss, Uncle Joe!

    1. when you tow the party lion, do you put a rope around it’s neck?

      1. Jesus dude, it’s a longer running joke than about Nikki’s the Worst! (only that’s not a joke, she really is The Worst)

        1. sorry, newbie!

    2. “party lion”…..osties.jpg

  15. “But Biden’s position on abortion?that it’s immoral but should still be legal?also hews closely to the view espoused by many millennials on abortion.”

    The “I want no children” genes are being selected out of the gene pool.

    Whatever the name of the generation after Millennials will probably severely limit legal abortion to within a few weeks of pregnancy.

      1. In 5 years the oldest of them will be 20

        1. The oldest of Gen Z is 20 now.

          I know this because my little sister and I almost have a generation between us. I’m an older Millenial and she’s an older member of Gen Z.

          1. I am Generation X. It sounds so fucking cool. So cool, in fact, that the Millennials stole it, until somebody came up with that cool name for them, at which time they said “Bra, that’s so sick! Millennials! Here, old people, have your stupid name back!”
            True story, bra.

          2. You can use what ever dates you want for Millennial…

            The one I was using was that the generation ends on Jan 1 2001

          3. Also pretty sure cavalier973 just game Gen Z its name

            “The Survivors”

  16. It’s kind of refreshing to hear a politician say that he has a strong opinion and he doesn’t want to impose it by force on everyone else. It’s too bad Biden won’t apply the same line of thinking to the War On Drugs.

    1. I would not trust Biden, farther than I could throw him!

      1. Can we run a Mythbusters experiment on that, please?

  17. Biden, is a piece of shit! And an Obama kiss ass! He wants to be Obama’s third term. And that is all the reason you need to vote against him.

  18. Too bad he doesn’t have the same attitude towards cannabis. Total Phony.

    1. Is Biden as much of a Total Phony as finger to the wind where Republican primary voters reside, Rand “Faux Libertarian” Paul? It’s too bad Paul doesn’t have the same freedom-based view on abortion, gay marriage, religion and now apparently, the military, as he does on weed. I guess he’s just a hypocritical pot head.

  19. So, does that mean that he IS willing to impose his personal views on all us NON-god-fearing people? Even his boss occasionally throws a bone to us atheists. Which Obama probably is, in my opinion.

    1. You DUMB FUCK. By NOT wanting to enact his personal religious views into law, Biden ISN’T imposing those views on, as you say, “NON-god fearing people, ” one of which I am. You must have problems with comprehension.

  20. I believe in religious freedom. So why does the USA have diplomatic relations with a country, Vatican City, that does not allow religious freedom?

    1. Do you have any notion of what you are talking about?

  21. Before the audio got cut off, I got to the point where Rico Suave (a) mentions the shenanigans of Harvard Sex Week (how to do a menage a trois, etc.) and (b) calls modern campuses neo-Victorian.

    Although of course there were menage a troises during the Victorian era, the universities and other institutions weren’t *promoting* such behavior, certainly not to students.

    Try this on for size: The colleges realize that the sexual climate of their institutions is hardly ideal, but politically-correct dogma, and fond memories of the college years, precludes them from encouraging the students to keep it zipped until marriage (repression! sexism! hereronormativity! blaming the victim!)

    So they channel their concerns into idiotic “rape culture” crap so as to give themselves the leverage to address the problem. Which is a retarded response, but hardly traceable to Victorianism.

    1. Wait, wrong thread.

    2. Yeah, you’re right, it’s not the fault of the Victorians. Blame greasy-haired Reagan and his “closeted” best buddy Edwin Meese. Ha. Ha. Ha. With a name like Vagina Lover, I should know!

  22. Killing someone is always wrong, but I don’t want to dictate someone else’s morals.

    Stealing is always wrong, but I don’t want to dictate someone else’s morals.

    Molesting children is wrong, but I don’t want to dictate someone else’s morals.

  23. It is quite unusual to hear this. I am sure there are many women, from the south, that could agree with his position. An abortion kills a fetus. Its heart stops beating. It is allowed to die. It is sad to most people with a beating heart.

    Making abortions illegal, again, would be a disaster. Considering the first amendment, I do not see any other way the subject could be handled. Condemning others, who believe differently, will never result in a peaceful solution. And, isn’t belief what religion is all about? There are so many different beliefs in our country. Approaching abortion as it was in the 50-s, would be like allowing Sharia law! It would be a law that is being enforced, because of people’s religious beliefs, that we have no right interfering with. You don’t like abortions? Don’t have one!

    The best bet is to make sure women can get birth control to assure the number of abortions keeps going down. It would be best if they were not used as an alternative form of birth control. But, no human, woman or man, is perfect. Mess-ups will happen. Sadly it is a mess-up that results in a dead fetus. That is always sad. So, in the end, it would be best to have the least number of abortions that occur in our country. Making them illegal would just make more trouble.

  24. “Abortion is always wrong,”

    You know what would have been a good follow-up question?


    Is it wrong because, like the Catholic Church teaches, it is murder? If so, what kind of half-assed response is it to say that you don’t want to force that view on others? Or is it wrong for some other mysterious reason?

    1. That’s the weirdest part about this. There’s no reason to be against abortion unless you legitimately believe it’s the killing of an innocent person. So if you think abortion is the killing of an innocent person, that clearly breaks the non-aggression pact. Don’t your morals then dictate you should, in fact, infuse that view into the law to save the killing of innocent people.

      Saying essentially, “While I personally wouldn’t commit murder, I can’t tell others not to,” is really a nonsensical thing.

      1. “There’s no reason to be against abortion unless you legitimately believe it’s the killing of an innocent person.”

        Plenty of people think it is wrong to kill living things, even non-human living things, without a good reason. Some think it is wrong even WITH a good reason.

  25. Hey, ASSHOLES, I just wish your hero and ugly, little weasel (see, I can hurl childish insults just as Trump The Hump and Faux News do!) Rand “Faux Libertarian” Paul supported Biden’s position on abortion. Paul, like so many of you who comment here, puts his finger to the wind, in typical politicians’ fashion, and picks and chooses where to apply libertarian philosophy. If it’s an issue such as abortion, gay marriage, religion in general or now apparently military action and spending, he disregards principle to placate the conservative Republican religious-right base. There’s very little difference, except in tone, between Paul and say, Pat Robertson, on these types of issues. You idiots should put aside your partisan GOP caps and applaud Biden, but because he’s a Democrat and not one of your Republican heroes, you ridicule him and ignore the specifics by saying things like, “Yeah, he’s right, but……..” Typical Hannity-like tactic. Every time I read these comment pages, I come away thinking, “Man, ‘libertarianism’ (and Reason magazine) has been hijacked by Faux News-loving trolls.” What happened to so-called independent thinking that doesn’t rely on talking points? Yeah, I’m a liberal, but I don’t claim to be “fair and balanced.” And, by the way, your negative responses to me will only prove just how OVERLY-SENSITIVE and INTOLERANT you are. You people are just as PC as you claim the left is; if you hear someone with an opposing view, you want her or him silenced.

    1. You’re under the mistaken impression that libertarianism mandates a pro-abortion position.

      In reality, a libertarian’s position on the issue depends on whether he thinks fetuses count as people. If they count as people, the libertarian position is clear: abortion, like murder, is wrong.

      Personally, I disagree with Paul’s position on abortion. But your belief that his position is un-libertarian is simply ignorant.

      1. You mean just as a “libertarian’s” view on say, gay marriage or now “illegal” drugs, is contingent upon whether she or he thinks homosexuality or heroin are “against God’s law” and greatly damaging to the individual, thus society? See, we can go back and forth on any issue like this. For example, I could also say there’s a libertarian argument for keeping social safety-net programs like SSD and SSI because it would be a “sin” for government not to help those can’t help themselves, just like lying hypocrite Rand Paul’s view that fetuses are helpless. In the manner of Trump The Hump, I say, DROP DEAD to you. See, we liberals can be just as childish with the insults as you people (to mimic Ross Perot) can.

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

  27. that it’s immoral but should still be legal?also hews closely to the view espoused by many millennials

    Of course, because they think law should have nothing to do with morality.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.