Rand Paul

Rand Paul: Answers Everything at Reddit, Another Bill to Federally Ban Abortion

The candidate on ISIS, pot, Bernie, Trump, hair, debt, .gifs, and duck-sized horses

|

Kentucky senator and Republican presidential candidate Rand Paul put many feet forward in a freewheeling Reddit "Ask Me Anything" last night. Some highlights from his answers, many of them cheeky in a reddit fashion:

ISIS?

First thing we should do is stop arming them. They ride around with a billion dollars worth of our humvees. We can stop intervening in civil wars and toppling dictators and making radical jihadists stronger.

Pot?

I would remove prohibition of cannabis from federal law and give authority back to the states to decide.

Bernie?

A debate with me and Bernie would be great. People would be well served by it. I've already publicly offered to debate Bernie right now. In the Dem debate Bernie seemed to be uncomfortable talking about the actual cost of his programs for tax payers. We need real solutions without bankrupting our country.

Debt?

I've written detailed 5 year budget plans that have spending cuts in every department. We have to reverse what's going on in congress. The left and the right make deals: the left gets more welfare spending and the right gets more military spending. It's going to take the leadership of a president who isn't afraid to cut spending across the board.

Differences between him and Trump:

I have actual plans and policy to solve our problems

I in now way shape or form intend to shut down the internet

I have way better hair

More on his hair:

It takes a lot of work. I don't let anyone touch a strand of it but me.

Rand Paul wants to release the "missing 28 pages" of the 9/11 Commission Report Joint Congressional Investigation into 9/11. He comes "from an intellectual tradition that values liberty. I love reading Hayek, Mises, and Rothbard. I started a reading program for my interns in the senate with books from these thinkers. We sit down and discuss them as a group each semester." Fave drink? Kentucky bourbon. Fave flick? Enemy of the State. He'd prefer to fight 100 duck-sized horses.

And he claims to really dig the often-used "It's Happening!" Paul .gif—especially the version also including him:

Paul also this week, and not for the first time, introduced a "Life at Conception Act" that would effectively federally ban abortion, an issue in which he differs with many libertarians (though it is not necessarily and obviously un-libertarian if you actually believe a fetus at any stage of development is a human life).

The bill:

—To implement equal protection for the right to life of each born and preborn human person, [the bill]…declares that the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to require the prosecution of any woman for the death of her unborn child, a prohibition on in vitro fertilization, or a prohibition on use of birth control or another means of preventing fertilization….

In this Act: 13 (1) HUMAN PERSON; HUMAN BEING.—The 14 terms "human person" and "human being" include each member of the species homo sapiens at all stages of life, including the moment of fertilization or cloning, or other moment at which an individual member of the human species comes into being…

In his 2011 book Liberty Defined, Ron Paul was against the federalization of abortion law, though also against abortion.

NEXT: San Francisco Politicians Don't Like the Deal They Made to Host the Super Bowl and Want to Blame the NFL

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. AND HE HAD TO RUIN IT WITH ABORTION.

    1. Well, you have to admit that it would be better to have a pro-abortion communist war monger and drug warrior who will be totally willing to rip the constitution to shreds than this anti-abortion nut. That’s why we need Hillary. You have to have your prioritites.

      1. It would be nice to have someone who was like Rand Paul but not going to totally turn off a huge chunk of potential voters with BS abortion grandstanding.

        1. Thinking honestly about it, that will probably not hurt him or help him. He’d be better off not saying anything other than ‘let the states decide’ like he does about weed.

          1. For instance. Remember when some woman decided to run for congress in TX with a one issue campaign based solely on being pro-abortion? She lost in a landslide. Actually it was more like an avalanche. It’s not a top issue to most voters.

            1. Do you mean the author of:

              Forgetting to Be Afraid: A Memoir
              An inspiring memoir by one of the country’s brightest new political stars and hero to women’s rights supporters everywhere ?

            2. I think you’re a little bit oversimplifying the issue. She ran a one-issue campaign, you’re right. In favor of abortion. In Texas. One fo the most conservative states in the union. That would be like saying that, because a guy lost running a pro-2nd Amendment campaign in Massachusetts lost, gun control isn’t a big issue for most voters.

            3. Actually, Wendy Davis was a state senator from Fort Worth, TX who got her ass handed to her when she ran for GOVERNOR. If she had run for Congress for Texas District 33 near Fort Worth (and won the primary, which she might have had a hard time doing), she would have won in a landslide.

          2. I dunno. I’ve seen a number of libertarianish ladies pan Rand for this very issue. So I’d say that hurts him. But… I dunno that his chances were ever very good.

            1. He really only has two options, pro or against. Either way he’s going to turn off half the voters. However since half the voters aren’t going to vote for him anyway I’d bet that running R pro choice will really just end up alienating 75% of voters. I doubt he cares too much about pulling the libertarian vote but I doubt pro choice would have an effect there either.

              If this board is any indication, libertarians are just as split on the issue as the rest of the U.S.

            2. I’ve seen a number of libertarianish ladies pan Rand for this very issue.

              Not a “huge chunk” of potential voters.

              1. Also, most pro-choice voters are Democrat. Rand isn’t even competing with their candidates.

              2. Well, since we know there are no libertarian women, that settles that.

            3. Possible. But, mostly not. Outside of our little bubble, there’s not a huge correlation of voters for whom being pro-choice is a litmus test and voters who’d otherwise vote for Rand. If 5% of voters who’d reject him over abortion would otherwise vote for him, I’d be surprised.

            4. “I dunno. I’ve seen a number of libertarianish ladies pan Rand for this very issue.”

              Both of them?

          3. The states have no power to decide such a thing, just as they had no power to claim a “state right” to slavery. The Constitution protects us from ALL levels of government regarding fundamental (unalienable) rights. Let the states decide is a bullshit excuse to violate fundamental rights. And states cannot possibly have powers which have never been delegated, which is a core founding principle,

            1. Actually, they do. Tenth amendment. You should read it. There is another amendment that covers slavery. None about abortion.

              1. Yeah, until the 13th, slaver absolutely was something that states had the power to decide. The Constitution protects against what it says it protects against.

                1. Yeah, until the 13th, slaver absolutely was something that states had the power to decide. The Constitution protects against what it says it protects against.

                  Yeah, and the Ninth Amendment protects us from government, at ll levels, defining its own powers. We fought a revolution for that protection.

                  BTW, slavery had to be repealed by an amendment because it was sanctioned in the core Constitution.

                  There’s no delegating of powers over abortion at any level of government, so apply your own stated principle.

              2. None about abortion.

                Correct. Which means no power has even been delegated. But even that’s a mind game. Abortion involves the competing fundamental rights of TWO individuals. Read the definition of unalienable, which tells you that the fetal child’s unalienable right to Life is precisely equal to the woman’s unalienable right to Liberty. I suspect Jefferson understood the words he used, as did the founders who ratified them.

                Also read the Ninth Amendment, which trumps the 10th. The 10th deals with unenumerated POWERS. The Ninth reserves unenumerated RIGHTS to the peoples. Rights are superior to
                powers. In a government of delegated powers, how can ANY level of government have powers NOT delegated by the people.

                Here’s the 9th. Many historians conclude that this amendment is how the Declarations “unalienable rights” were inserted into the Constitution, which seems reasonable when studying the discussion.

                The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

                Seems quite unambiguous to me. Any questions?

        2. im a conscientious objector to having a firm opinion about abortion, but i don’t think i would call trying to err on the side of not killing people “BS grandstanding”

          1. Eman,
            It’s not “BS grandstanding,” but most certainly a BS violation of our Constitution and the entire founding concept of natural/fundamental/unalienable rights.

        3. Fuck those “voters”.

          1. Your posts are as eloquent and insightful as ever I see.

            1. Likewise.

    2. I tend to agree with him on being pro-life, but as a strict Constitutionalist, I don’t see the federal authority to police crimes other than treason, piracy and counterfeiting.

      1. Something about due process before killing it?

        1. The due-process clauses only require due process if the target is being killed BY THE GOVERNMENT. In abortion, the fetus is killed by the womb-owner and her doctor, not by the government, so due process is not required.

          1. Womb-owner? You deny the woman’s unalienable rights and call her a womb-owner? (shudder)

            1. Who denies the woman’s unalienable rights? Not me.

              1. Hihn: Womb-owner? You deny the woman’s unalienable rights and call her a womb-owner? (shudder)

                Who denies the woman’s unalienable rights? Not me.

                Your words are are clearly visible.

                “the fetus is killed by the womb-owner and her doctor,:

                But I can dig your shame at having stated them.

          2. The due-process clauses only require due process if the target is being killed BY THE GOVERNMENT

            So if I kill you, I have no right of due process? You’ve confused the crime with the prosecution of it.
            It’s means the government — typically judicial system — cannot deny due process.
            What you describe is typically called a police state. Our own government is required to defend our rights, which is the primary purpose for its very existence.

      2. It’s a big stretch to rely on the piracy clause as a justification for a federal ban on gay marriage.

        1. Butt pirates. Duh.

    3. Fetuses have rights too.

      1. No they don’t. They have not been demonstrated to be human beings anymore than a dog is.

        1. Note: Keep Cyto away from preemie ward.

          1. For some reason, I read that as “Preemie Awards,” which I thought would have taken the whole beauty pageant thing a little too far.

          2. Note: Keep Cyto away from preemie ward.

            So sad. But both extremes in the abortion issue suffer an almost unbelievable level of bullshit. (LEVEL of bullshit, not AMOUNT of people who’ve been bamboozled)

            It would not matter, if those who are convinced by such manifestly stupid arguments kept to themselves. But they go out into the world, convinced they are defending some Sacred Truth, and it gets dicey. Birtherism one example.. Most common are those who swallow and forward conspiracy emails. For them an anonymous email has more credibility than the Holy Bible or our Constitution. Fact.

            See, we’re not just disagreeing with them, they’re also defending their judgment for having been suckered, and/or their Tribe which peddled it.

      2. No, inside your body, no one has any rights, except for those rights you choose to assign.

        1. I’m Lorena Bobbitt and I endorse this message.

          1. I thought you sought refuge in Russia like Snowden, and changed your name to Lorena Kotchyakokoff.

        2. No, inside your body, no one has any rights, except for those rights you choose to assign.

          I’ll ask again how you overrule the Supreme Court?
          I’ll remind you again, the woman’s control of her body allows her an unalienable right to expel a fetus at any time. A live birth is no denial of that right.

          For how long have you rejected the entire concept that human rights are not inherent or intrinsic … which is what “endowed by a Creator” . (God, nature, whatever)

          How many, other than you, believe unalienable rights are bestowed by …. physicians?

      3. Suicidy
        Fetuses have rights too.

        Precisely equal to the woman’s, which is what unalienable means.. So at no time, in no way. do states have any legitimate power over abortion, Technically, neither does the federal government, as clearly stated by the 9th Amendment.

        1. I love that it takes four hours for you to finally arrive at your point. Always gotta get your browbeatings and finger-waggings in first, huh Mike?

          1. Pompey|1.23.16 @ 8:30AM|#
            I love that it takes four hours for you to finally arrive at your point. Always gotta get your browbeatings and finger-waggings in first, huh Mike?

            No comments to lack of civility.
            Okay one. You’ve just done what you falsely accuse me of doing.

        2. And based on that argument I assume you also believe pretty much everything else the federal government does is illegitimate? If not why is abortion different than say what the FDA does?

          1. And based on that argument I assume you also believe pretty much everything else the federal government does is illegitimate?

            Yep.

            why is abortion different than say what the FDA does?

            Strawman fallacy. The FDA cannot violate fundamental, equal and unalienable rights. Abortion restrictions can.

            1. So when the FDA tells me I can’t consume a certain medicine thereby controlling what happens in my body they are not violating my fundamental rights? I thought we are supposed to have control over our own bodies. Why is medicine different?

              1. The short answer is a presumption, rightly or wrongly, that FDA approval is no different than banning Jiffy from putting cyanide in their peanut.butter. You can claim some sort of right to eat whatever you want, but that puts other lives at risk, (The presumption, not my argument)

                Similar to vaccination. Of all the people claiming an individual right to refuse vaccines … I have yet to hear anyone accept liability for other kids dying as a direct consequence of the refusal action. Are they like Welfare Queens?

                And overall FDA power has been litigated to the Supreme Court and upheld on the :”risk to others” principle, from what little I’ve read, Personally, we should litigate . the degree of testing they require, at a $250 million cost that no other country demands.

                And BTW, FDA general powers have been upheld by the Courts and are settled law. Abortion has been upheld, for good reason, but the “compromise” solution pisses off both sides..

                1. Who cares what the supreme court said? We are not discussing legal rulings we are discussing fundamental rights which can be at odds with SCOTUS decisions (See Dred Scott). Your position is that abortion is somehow a fundamental right presumably based on a right to control ones own body. Does that right cease to exist when the FDA is involved in your view? If so why?

                  You can’t claim there is a fundamental right to control your body over abortion but not medicine and remain logically consistent. Really it just sounds like you want people to have rights over their own body when you approve of what they are doing but not when you disagree with their decisions.

                  If it walks like a progressive and quacks like a progressive ….

                  1. Who cares what the supreme court said?

                    Your contempt for the constitution has already been obvious.

                    We are not discussing legal rulings we are discussing fundamental rights which can be at odds with SCOTUS decisions (See Dred Scott)

                    It took another ruling to overturn. Until then it was the law of the land.

                    . Your position is that abortion is somehow a fundamental right presumably based on a right to control ones own body.

                    I never said that .

                    If it walks like a progressive and quacks like a progressive

                    Here’s a link the the web archive of my published writing. Focus on taxes, healthcare and federalism. You have named yourself well..

                    http://libertyissues.com/archive.htm

                    1. You are mixing legalistic arguments with moral ones here.

                      You stated this earlier

                      “Doesn’t matter. There are TWO persons involved, and no Constitutional justification to deny either’s most fundamental rights”

                      That presumes abortion in your view is a fundamental right yes? Great! Are fundamental rights strictly a result of SCOTUS decisions? If so then you are at least logically consistent. On the other hand if you believe abortion would still be a fundamental right if the court changed their mind tomorrow you have some explaining to do.

                      So ….

                      Is abortion a fundamental right even if SCOTUS disagrees? If so why? Also based on your rational kindly explain why medicine is somehow different.

                    2. Btw you also said this

                      “The FDA cannot violate fundamental, equal and unalienable rights. Abortion restrictions can.”

                      So if you didn’t claim abortion is a fundamental right how exactly can abortion restrictions violate fundamental rights?

                      Quack quack go our proggie overlords.

                    3. You stated this earlier
                      “Doesn’t matter. There are TWO persons involved, and no Constitutional justification to deny either’s most fundamental rights”

                      Which you origjnally lied about.

                      That presumes abortion in your view is a fundamental right yes?

                      STILL no. The fundamental rights here are Life of the fetal child and Liberty of the woman, I understand why you refuse to deal with that.

                      Great! Are fundamental rights strictly a result of SCOTUS decisions?

                      “Endowed by a Creator”

                      If so

                      BUT IT’S NOT SO.

                      L On the other hand if you believe abortion would still be a fundamental right if the court changed their mind tomorrow you have some explaining to do.

                      But ! I neither said nor implied that abortion was a fundamental righ

                      Is abortion a fundamental right even if SCOTUS disagrees?

                      You keep repeating the bullshit about abortion being a fundamental right.

                      The fundamental right is called … ever hear of liberty?

                      If so why?

                      It’s not so.

                      Also based on your rational

                      THAT’S YOUR RATIONAL.

                      kindly explain why medicine is somehow different

                      False conclusion based on a phony premise.

                      When will you apologize for calling me a progressive?

                    4. Btw you also said this
                      “The FDA cannot violate fundamental, equal and unalienable rights. Abortion restrictions can.”

                      So if you didn’t claim abortion is a fundamental right how exactly can abortion restrictions violate fundamental rights?

                      But I don’t make that claim. Abortion restirctions MAY violate the woman’s right to Liberty.

                      Quack quack go our proggie overlords.

                      I’ve already ridiculed that claim, just ONE comment back. My website archive is still there. If you’d reviewed the content for Taxes, Healthcare and Federalism, as I suggested …

                      http://libertyissues.com/archive.htm

                      1) On what basis do you deny a woman’s unalienable right to Liberty …in defiance of our Constitution?
                      2) Are you done stalking me yet?

                    5. OK great now we are getting somewhere. Abortion is a fundamental right because of a woman’s liberty interest. Outstanding. Why does the same thing not apply to me taking any medicine I choose without a government permission slip? You seem fine with the FDA infringing on my liberty interests but not the liberty interests of a woman who wants an abortion. Again what is different?

                      As a side note you seem to believe I am another poster you are arguing with. IE quoting other people’s comments as mine. Not sure what that is about.

                      Responding to you btw is not stalking you. My question is rather simple and seems to have you frothing at the mouth. You seem fine with using the FDA to restrict what I consume but you are not fine with using the government to restrict abortions. All I am looking for is a cogent explanation describing one kind of government interference is OK and the other isn’t.

                      Posting inane comments in bold doesn’t get us to what should be a simple answer.

                    6. Side note:
                      If you believe the FDA has a legitimate right to infringe my liberty interests but not a woman’s then you are in fact a progressive and there will be no apology forthcoming my progressive friend.

                    7. If you believe

                      But I don’t, so the rest is useless.

                      On what authority do you deny a woman’s unalienable right to liberty

                    8. Abortion is a fundamental right because of a woman’s liberty interest.

                      You haven’t answered the question. On what authority do you deny a woman’s unalienable right to Liberty

                    9. I haven’t made any comment that says women should not be allowed to get abortions nor did I imply it. I just expected (and wasn’t disappointed) that you would be inclined to defend the FDA. Most progressives love the FDA telling people what to do with their body while defending abortion because its the woman’s body. I pegged you as a progressive and I wasn’t disappointed.

                      Per this comment
                      “The FDA cannot violate fundamental, equal and unalienable rights. Abortion restrictions can.”

                      I am sure the many people who die while waiting for the FDA to grace them with the ability to use the medicine they want will be happy to know that you have determined their rights weren’t violated.

                    10. I haven’t made any comment that says women should not be allowed to get abortions nor did I imply it.

                      (Iaughing)

                      I just expected (and wasn’t disappointed) that you would be inclined to defend the FDA.

                      THAT why you’re a stalker and aggressor.

                      Most progressives love the FDA telling people what to do with their body while defending abortion because its the woman’s body.

                      So?

                      I pegged you as a progressive and I wasn’t disappointed.

                      As your fifth aggression, you now say that only progressives defend a right to abortion, derived from a woman’s unalienable right to Liberty. THIS one is laughable because you say the Libertarian Party members are … Progressives.

                      You have now exhausted the patience I have graciously allowed you. My own fault since you’re so proud of being rude

                    11. I can’t help it you lack reading comprehension. I never said only progressives defend a right to abortion. I did say progressives both defend a right to abortion and support the FDA. I suspected you were a progressive and you are. You believe women have a liberty interest in abortion but liberty interests don’t exist when it comes to medicine.

                      You voting Bernie I assume?

        3. The definition of unalienable does not include equal. Unalienable rights are defined as rights that cannot be taken away.

          Having a right is different from being able to exercise that right. That is why the 5th amendment allows a person to be deprived of life, liberty or property after due process.

          If you believe a fetus is an unborn child then an unborn child has the unalienable right to life while the mother has the unalieable right to freedom. The conflict between those rights must be resolved.

          Since unalienable rights are not equal (no matter how many times you claim they are) a determination of if the right to life is greater than the right of liberty is greater.

          The argument that the right to life is greater than the right to liberty is very easy to make.

          Also can I suggest an Ativan and a nap?

          1. The online me
            Also can I suggest an Ativan and a nap

            (grin)

            The definition of unalienable does not include equal. Unalienable rights are defined as rights that cannot be taken away.

            You said that in public? NEITHER can be taken away,. except when ONE can, all in one comment.

            If neither can be taken away, why is that not equal? And why later say the exact opposite?

            That is why the 5th amendment allows a person to be deprived of life, liberty or property after due process.

            We call that an enumerated power. Where is abortion power enumerated? This deals with criminal and civil matters and ? life and liberty are equal here too!

            If you believe a fetus is an unborn child then an unborn child has the unalienable right to life while the mother has the unalieable right to freedom.

            Cute, but it’s called liberty.

            Since unalienable rights are not equal (no matter how many times you claim they are)

            YOU said neither can b e taken away. Now you say ONE can be taken away no matter, how many times you deny contradicting yourself.

            Also can I suggest an Ativan and a nap

            Sure, and my grin is now even larger.

            1. You defined unalienable incorrectly saying it meant equality- that is why i gave you the correct definition of it as something that cannot be taken away. Clearly the rights can be taken away despite the definition (prison,death penalty etc.)

              Obviously the right to life is not equal to the right to liberty though they are both referred to as “unalienable”. Is my right to liberty so unencumbered that I can kill someone if they impede my liberty (excepting self-defense)? Of course not- meaning that the two rights are not equal.

              Yes “unalienable” rights are weighed against each other and a judgement can be rendered as to which is more important. This is why the American government exists. Jefferson said that we had to resort to government to secure our rights. Adams stated that government is necessary to prevent other citizen’s from infringing on the rights of other citizens. Read John Adam discussing the tyranny of the majority if you don’t understand.

              Clearly the founding fathers established government to protect the rights of citizens knowing that it would limit the liberty of other citizens. Obviously they didn’t find them equal.

              The 14th amendment would be where you would find the enumerated powers that guarantees equal protection of the laws. If one believes that a fetus is a person then it is within the enumerated powers of the federal government to protect the life of that person as certainly as it has the rights to protect the life of any of it’s citizens.

              1. online me
                On what authority do you deny the woman’s unalienable right to Liberty … while also saying that same right cannot be taken away? And how can two exact opposites be true?

            2. So if you support my right to liberty as truly unalienable and not able to be restricted let me know. I need some money and to get laid so I can come over to your house- kill you, take your money and screw any females in your house without repercussions. If you believe that my unalienable right to liberty is able to be limited by law because it would infringe your right to life and your family members right not to be raped you are starting to see the point.

              1. So if you support my right to liberty as truly unalienable and not able to be restricted let me know.

                Never even implied that, and have no idea how you can assume I did.
                Sorry, but it all collapses here.

                I need some money and to get laid so I can come over to your house- kill you, take your money and screw any females in your house without repercussions. If you believe that my unalienable right to liberty is able to be limited by law because it would infringe your right to life and your family members right not to be raped you are starting to see the point.

                Now you say the right to liberty includes rape, theft and murder. How so?
                None of your analogies has included a conflict between two equal rights Not one.
                No offense, but an unalienable right to fuck my daughter should suggest that you may be missing something.

                If you believe

                I do not believe that, and have never said or implied that I did.

                Simple question: on what authority do you deny the woman’s unalienable right to Liberty?
                If you have no answer, then your theory is invalid by definition. In both logic and science, the final test is whether it works in reality.

    4. Who ruined what with an abortion?

      1. Hitler’s mother in an alternative universe?

    5. Ruin it? The whole point of this Republican false flag plant is to make the Libertarian Party look like delusional anti-choice fanatical bigots. I just found this over at Libertarian Examiner:

      The liberal Mother Jones calls it a “fact” that Senators Rand Paul and Mike Lee are “true libertarians”

      The earth’s population is increasing exponentially, so OF COURSE nationalsocialists are switching from “racial” to “environmental” purity as a pretext for totalitarianism. But do “leftist” econazis or “right-wing” environmentalists ever mention the population explosion? The entire female half of humanity needs to be harnessed up after sex in case an opportunity arises to force them to reproduce against their will. These are the wake monsters who banned contraceptives and forbad health inspections of working girls near G.I. deployments. These infiltrating impostors want to ban the morning-after pill.

  2. if you actually believe a fetus at any stage of development is a human life person

    FTFY

    Does anyone with even a basic knowledge of human reproduction doubt that there is ANY stage in human development where the “tissue” is either not alive or not human? I realize that some fantastic mental gymnastics are involved here but….

    So, everyone doesn’t just “believe” it, they “know” it. The debate is if it is a Jew person.

    1. Apparently you’ve never been around any scientists and researchers at liberal universities.

      1. We should all be so lucky…

      2. True facts: The fetus is actually dead tissue with horse DNA until the third trimester.

        1. Until it pops out and the magical baby fairy sprinkles it with magical baby dust and it gets a piece of paper with it’s name on it, it’s some tissue or a parasite or something.

          And that’s science and the science is settled, DENIER!

          1. I thought that the fetus was slathered in personhood sauce when it passed through the birth canal? At least we can all agree that it is magic.

            1. I can agree with you utterly and still frown on a federal prohibition. I also believe some people need killing, but the government is not to be trusted with such authority. Why would I change my mind, just because we’re discussion abortion rather than the death penalty?

              Prohibitions don’t suddenly start working because the underlying narrative agrees with mine.

              1. Prohibitions don’t suddenly start working because the underlying narrative agrees with mine.

                Of course they do. That’s the whole point of having an underlying narrative.

              2. Why would I change my mind, just because we’re discussion abortion rather than the death penalty?

                Because those killed in abortion are unquestionably innocent, and those convicted of death at least have some veneer of earning what they have reaped? Sure, the death penalty might kill an innocent. Abortion unquestionably does.

                How do you describe the to attempt to compare people who are accused of and convicted of capital crimes with the unborn? The fact that Tookie Williams or Mumia have fucking earned death has nothing to do with women murdering their children for convenience.

                1. The fact that Tookie Williams or Mumia have fucking earned death has nothing to do with women murdering their children for convenience.

                  Well. There are many things to unpack in that sentence. Here are a two:
                  1. Your position is that the government killing people who are this point no danger to anybody is OK.
                  2. Fetuses, or newborn babies for that matter, are not “children”. They are not fully formed. You may believe, as Eddy does, of a soul that is granted at inception by God. I do not. A baby starts as part of the mother’s body, without any self awareness. That self awareness, that personhood, grows as the mind grows. It is potential. I don’t really want to get into the abortion thing, good people on both sides. But whatever your views, it is not honest to call abortions the murder of children.

                  1. You can get to fetus= human pretty simply, nobody has invoked “souls” as much as you would like. People have rights, People are human, fetus’ are human, fetus’ have a right to live.

                    Now you could say only humans with self awareness have a right to live, so the mentally disabled, and babies can still be killed but then you’re kind off off in your own world with that. So, abortion equals murder is honest.

                    1. Look, I knew better than to enter into this discussion in the first place. But “murder” is killing a person. No society ever, including the ancient Israelites, has ever said that infanticide is equal to murder, because its not.
                      I know its icky, and killing babies and stuff. But think about that poor 15 year old you are forcing into a life of poverty.

                    2. Or, if she resists, regrettable but justifiable death by trooper-induced suicide.

                    3. And, actually, let me change my answer:
                      Do you know why animals don’t have right but people do? It’s because people understand rights, can ask for them, can demand them.
                      A poodle doesn’t have rights because it doesn’t know what they are. Likewise, a fetus, a newborn, a vegetable in a hospital don’t have rights, because they cant demand them, they don’t know what they are, and they can’t use them.

                  2. Denver J: You have walked into a flawed assumption and a logical fallacy.

                    A baby is never a part of the mother’s body. This is an objective truth. The egg is formerly a part of her body, as the sperm was a part of the father’s body. Something different than either is formed at conception. It is utterly dependent on the mother’s body and fully contained within it, but it is no more a part of her body than are the parasitic spirochetes living within a syphilitic streetwalker.

                    Proclaiming “life begins at some point well after conception as the mind grows toward self-awareness” as an a priori truth is dishonest. It is an unprovable conjecture which is at the center of the abortion debate. Everything about the abortion debate hinges on this question of personhood – which is fundamentally unanswerable. Hence the impasse.

                    1. “Live begins at erection.” Go ahead, look it up.

                2. That’s what you get for assuming the comparison was to the babies.

                  And what punishment would your benevolent state impose upon women? Go ahead and spell it out.

          2. This is still more plausible than the notion that an embryo is a person, and only somewhat less plausible than the notion that a fetus is. Even newborns are really not people, not that we should necessarily let people kill them.

            1. How about Objectivists heads kept alive in nutrient fluid?

            2. But if newborns aren’t people, it really shouldn’t be any issue. Right?

          3. Unless you’re Kermit Gosnell, in which case even that’s no guarantee.

    2. IT doesn’t matter what a fetus is; what matters is where it is. Being a person does not entitle it to be located inside another person’s body when it is not welcome there. The non-aggression principle does not protect trespassers.

      1. You’re a fucking retard.

        You can’t trespass if you can’t contro your movements.

        The fetus is there because the mother’s and father’s actions put it there.

        1. No, they didn’t “put” it there; they CREATED it there. That’s very different. When you PUT someone there, you TAKE something from him–the freedom he was enjoying by being elsewhere. This is what obligates you to restore what you have taken, by letting him out again. In contrast, conceiving a fetus does not take anything from it (before conception it has nothing to take, not even a self) and therefore incurs no obligation to give it more time inside your body than you choose to give.

          1. Intelligent (sic) Mr Toad,
            You’re so very proud of yourself for realizing that fundamental human rights are endowed by … Physicians. Whereas, those without your logic and genius, are still stuck in the crazy notion that human rights are endowed by a Creator … also described as a God, being innate or inherent. and several lesser synonyms.

            But (sigh) we should get on with rewriting the Constitution, re-hearing an estimated 35% of Supreme Court rulings since our founding, and rewriting — rough estimate — 45,893,036 books on law, philosophy, history and others.

            The Vicar of Christ has been replaced by the Vicar of Groucho Marx. Hallelujah!

    3. Does anyone with even a basic knowledge of human reproduction doubt that there is ANY stage in human development where the “tissue” is either not alive or not human?

      A distinction without a difference. A basic knowledge of individual rights realizes that the woman and fetal child each have precisely equal and unalienable rights. Which is what unalienable means.

      Abortion is an example of conflicting rights, as many of us learned in high school. No rights can be absolute because fundamental rights can be in conflict with each other. Who has not heard the most common examples?
      1) There is no fee speech right to yell fire in a crowded theater.
      2) Your right to swing your fist ends a the tip of my nose, meaning the nose tip is the boundary between two bundles of individual rights, a boundary which MUST best defend BOTH competing rights, which only the Judiciary is empowered to determine.

      I realize that some fantastic mental gymnastics are involved here but….

      True on both extremes of the abortion issue. One denies the woman’s unalienable rights. The other denies the fetal child’s unalienable rights. Neither has any basis to do so. Geez, this is a simple dictionary definition.

      The debate is if it is a … person.

      Doesn’t matter. There are TWO persons involved, and no Constitutional justification to deny either’s most fundamental rights, especially for the sake of “convenience.”

    4. Yes, thank you. I’m willing to accept that reasonable people disagree on abortion. But a lot of pro-life people seem to think that the fact that a fetus is genetically human and alive is some kind of slam dunk argument against abortion. As if that never occurred to anyone else before.
      The question is what makes a living entity morally a person. And if it is human, how do its rights balance against those of the mother.

      1. he fact that a fetus is genetically human and alive is some kind of slam dunk argument against abortion. As if that never occurred to anyone else before.

        Occurred to and dismissed as irrelevant, It’s even worse to see equal, unalienable and fundamental rights rejected on a libertarian board … in the United State, where we have this thing called a Constitution!

        The fetus rights and the woman’s rights are precisely equal, by the definition of unalienable, that NEITHER can be taken away It’s called conflicting or competing rights, which apparently is no longer be taught in high school.
        Even fundamental rights can not be absolute, because they can compete with each other,
        In THIS country, competing rights require a boundary to separate each one — like your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose, The nose-tip is the boundary.
        ONLY the courts can draw that boundary, because only a legislature can violate it, and the boundary MUST be drawn in a way that best defends BOTH individuals.

        Indeed, when the Roe v Wade standard was changed, it was TOWARD the fetus because viability was earlier in 1992, PLUS Roe did not include incubators but now does, Under the rule of best protect BOTH rights. Too bad partisan bullshit confused everything, but what’s new?

    5. Cytotoxic?

  3. Paul also this week, and not for the first time, introduced a “Life at Conception Act” that would effectively federally ban abortion

    What do you expect from a SoCon?

      1. Rand is no rabid feminist.

      2. Can there ever be too much focus on porn?

    1. How is it SoCon to value the life of a baby? I guess you’re a prog that places no value on life.

      1. How is it SoCon to value the life of a baby?

        Because it’s “socially liberal” to think everyone is obligated to approve of your choice to kill your baby, a right enshrined in the Constitution after all. Abortion is a basic human right, as sacred as voting, and it should be totally free just like all other forms of birth control.

      2. How is it SoCon to value the life of a baby? I guess you’re a prog that places no value on life.

        An extreme socon places no value on unalienable rights. So spare us the guilt trips.

    2. Or false flag mole? These parasitical gusanos actually got his daddy’s face into one of the cheapo teevee versions of Atlas Slugged! That alone easily cost the LP a couple of million votes. How many national socialist antichoice conservatives are going to not vote Republican if one of their clones infiltrates the LP? Zero. We tried that and lost worse than when we had honest, anatomically-correct Libertarians running. Conservative ideology hasn’t changed since Mein Kampf.

  4. Correction: Being against abortion is not unlibertarian if you actually believe that all living human individuals have rights. If you think certain classes of human individuals do not have rights, then perhaps it is not libertarian.

    1. But they’re not human individuals yet (or at least haven’t been demonstrated to be).

      1. Not humans yet? Okay, what are they?

        1. Why, whatever Cytotoxic declares! Now, bow to his superior intellect!

    2. Being against abortion is not unlibertarian if you actually believe that all living human individuals have rights. If you think certain classes of human individuals do not have rights, then perhaps it is not libertarian

      Then you’re no libertarian since you deny unalienable rights to a “certain class” of human called pregnant women. On what authority?

  5. Now see this I could vote for. Why can’t he sound like this at debates?

    1. He’s just now switching back into libertarian gear, since SoCon gear left him spinning his tires in the ditch.

      1. So, you’re obsessed with having the freedom to murder babies then?

        1. It’s not murder if they’re not people.

          1. The Abortion Argument Pony will again demonstrate its one trick.

          2. It’s not murder even if they are people. Killing another person is not murder if that other person is located inside your body.

            1. Intelligent Mr Toad
              Killing another person is not murder if that other person is located inside your body.

              Indefensible. It’s not necessarily murder because the woman and fetal child have precisely equal and unalienable rights. To kill a fetus capable of independent life is barbaric and anti-liberty.

              To determine murder means first defining a boundary between two equal persons. The well-known analogy is that the right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose. The nose tip is a boundary that MUST best protect the rights of EACH individual. The analogy is simple. Other conflicting rights, like abortion, can be more complex, but the same principle. Only the judiciary can determine a boundary that best protects the rights of BOTH individuals.

              Here, the current boundary is fetal viability ? capable of living outside the womb, including mechanical means. From the other side, the woman ALWAYS has a right to expel, but there can be NO separate right to kill a viable fetus. Deliver it, which violates NO rights.. We can debate if viability is a proper boundary, but there’s no denying a boundary must be drawn, since each individual has rights equal to the other — non-debatable, the definition of unalienable. Jefferson was quite literate, as were all the founders.

              1. I’d like to take this argument up, preferably when Mr Hihn is being raped (therefore no longer an individual) and anxious for someone to intervene on behalf of his right to own his own body.

                1. I’d like to take this argument up,

                  I wish you’d been even semi-rational

                  preferably when Mr Hihn is being raped (therefore no longer an individual) and anxious for someone to intervene on behalf of his right to own his own body.

                  There is no unalienable right to rape me, and where did you get such an idea?

              2. RE: “To kill a fetus capable of independent life is barbaric and anti-liberty.” No, not while it is located inside your body.

                RE: “Here, the current boundary is fetal viability ? capable of living outside the womb, including mechanical means. ” No, the boundary is the one defined by the woman’s skin. It doesn’t matter whether the fetus is capable of living outside the womb. So long as it remains inside her body, the womb-owner is entitled to have it killed, and would be so entitled even if it were fully conscious, sitting up, and writing award-winning poetry in utero.

                RE: “From the other side, the woman ALWAYS has a right to expel, but there can be NO separate right to kill a viable fetus. Deliver it, which violates NO rights.” That would be true if it could be delivered without harming the womb-owner or subjecting her to major medical/surgical trauma. It can’t, so it’s not.

                1. “Here, the current boundary is fetal viability ? capable of living outside the womb, including mechanical means. “
                  No, the boundary is the one defined by the woman’s skin.

                  While you were off he planet, the Supreme Court issued a ruling which defined the “current boundary” I’m really not interested in how you think you overrule the Supreme Court

                  http://bitly.com/1KxeM6q

                  That link conducts the search for you. Select your choice of sources, but 169,000 entries all say you’re wrong.

                  Anything else?

                  1. RE: “I’m really not interested in how you think you overrule the Supreme Court” All libertarians think their libertarian ideas should overrule the Supreme Court.

                    1. All libertarians think their libertarian ideas should overrule the Supreme Court.

                      (laughing) Other than you, how many claim to have done so?

                2. Regarding your second point (the boundary is the one defined by the woman’s skin): Based on what you are saying, if somebody, without your permission, took you (or anyone) and somehow got them inside a woman’s skin – you are saying the woman can now legally kill you? This is a serious question – I haven’t heard your argument before so am curious.

    2. What? With his 30 seconds of time?

  6. Comrades. It is a well known fact that libertarians have widely varying opinions on this subject and that no possible good can come from going down this road again.

    Someone got a good thread hijack idea?

    1. I think Utilitarians, especially the ones who eat deep dish ‘pizza’ while tapping out their comments in an Emacs window should just admit that they are cryptocommies already.

      1. Fuck your Emacs and fuck vi while I’m at it.

        1. fuck vi

          SOMEONE HOLD ME BACK BEFORE I KILL HIM!!!!!!!!

          1. guu / gu[motion]

          2. Justifiable homicide.

          3. No way. He deserves to die.

          4. Oooooo, I do love stepping on the vi ant hill!

            1. We all heard him! He wants to be staked out on an ant hill!

          5. Hold you back? I’ll give you a goddamn (dull, rusty) hatchet!

          6. Why would I hold you back? :1,$ del that motherfucker.

          7. TECO.

            The original YAFIYGI editor.

      1. He just immediately fell over. I can’t imagine the damage without the cup.

        1. This happened to our goalie when I was a kid. He dropped like he’d been shot and then started barfing when he caught his breath.

          This is why most guys go home if they forget their cup. Not worth the risk.

    2. Now he just needs to demonstrate his conservative chops – make Rubio and Cruz look like filthy liberals and he’ll win it for sure. And oh tell us that Trump ‘buys and sells politicians’ to make him look like a waffler.

      1. National Review was looking for a conservative. They must have forgotten about Rand Paul.

          1. “NEEDS MOAR WAR”

            /NR Editors

          2. Thanks for reminding us what a peurile retard you are, as if your handle didn’t do that.

            1. Ah, a NR reader. Short Canadian warmonger and all.

              Tell us more, Red ‘Plug. How can we send more of our citizens to die in shitty lands?

              Let me know how 8th grade goes, too.

            2. How is my handle “peurile” [sic]?

              You cannot be this stupid. You just can’t.

    3. Someone got a good thread hijack idea?

      Apparently Woodhouse is still alive and will be back in Archer season 7.

      Super Troopers 2 is filming.

      And then there’s the old stand-bys: “Weed!”… “Mexican ass sex!” Uhh, “Deep dish pizza!” “Circumcision!” Uhm, what else… Oh yeah:

      “You know who else hijacked threads?”

        1. Dang. Archer must me a more intense show than I thought.

      1. Bo Knows Pedantry

        What the hell ever happened to that guy?

        1. I think law school has him working too hard.

          it was Tulpa.

          1. I never really smelled Tulpa in Bo’s posts.

            It was both funny and sad to read his dissertations. Sorta like watching people try to use vi.

    4. Someone got a good thread hijack idea?

      People who don’t circumcise their male offspring are monsters.

      1. My parents are not monsters. You take that back, shithead.

        1. Easy there, anteater.

          1. THAT INTACT FLAP OF SKIN MADE ME WHO I AM, DON’T YOU TAKE THAT AWAY FROM ME!

          1. You know who else cut stuff off of human genitalia and felt all smug about it?

            1. Better yet, you know who else wasn’t snipped?

                  1. Take that back, my mustache is much better than that Austrian hack’s nobody stache.

                    1. Yes, that is exactly me, except for those glasses. Those glasses are tacky.

                1. Fuck you, Red ‘Plug

                2. Whatcha talking about, cytotoxic? You are snipped all the way up to your neck.

  7. Rand:

    I would like to make college tuition tax deductible and get the government out the business of running the program so market competition can work:

    What say you?

    1. Bad idea. Any time you make something tax deductible, the govt gets to control that industry by declaring what properties make the service/product deductible.

      Want true freedom? Make the tax code silent on it!

      1. Even better – how about making the tax code mulch?

        1. I believe Rand had some sort of tool for that.

          1. A scalpel? Far too fussy and labor intensive. He needs something motorized and more indiscriminate… oooh, I see where you are going. Never mind, carry on.

            1. Sorry, dude, but I am going to have to report your death threat to teh proper athoriti.

              1. By proper authorities, you mean the dreaded Preet-713?

                1. Well, you did threaten to murder the entire planet. Subpoenas all around!

                  1. Well, you did threaten to murder the entire planet.

                    I did that? I was probably drunk.

                2. Damn. Now that’s a chipper!

                  1. See username

                    1. You remembered! Feels… love, or something.

            2. Hole saw.

      2. Like campaign contributions before Fuehrer Nixon?

    2. Make mortgage interest tax deductible so people own their homes and are invested in their communities? Bad idea: caused a huge bubble, creates 30 year mortages and their evil offspring – CDOs etc, impossible to value, caused financial crisis. Let’s stop pretending we’re smart enough to create the perfect tax caliphate.

      1. But…but homeownership is the American Dream!

  8. I’d vote for him, if I voted, simply for not answering the drink question with ‘milk’.

    1. Right up until the abortion bit, I was suspicious of why Paul was sounding too good to be true. Obviously, the Anti-Christ in disguise and us fools were totally falling for it.

      But then he went off in Crazy Land, and all was right with the world. Just another politician.

  9. As a pro-life libertarian who is ultra respectful of pro-choice libertarians, I appreciate the reasonable, non-inflammatory disclaimer on abortion. A difference of opinion between two reasonable groups, that’s all, and hopefully this is a nice, peaceful comments section.

    1. You’re drunk aren’t you?

      1. No, definitely stoned.

        1. Whatever he’s smoking, he ain’t sharing. That’s problematic.

      2. The new ones are so cute. Just wait until the silly fella runs across the 600 comment shitstorm that occurs here every three months or so.

        1. 600?! You rounding down?!

          *swigs whisky and balls up fists*

          1. *Burns Swissy alive with a Molotov Cocktail. Giggles uncontrollably and Skips Towards Gomorrah*

    2. hopefully this is a nice, peaceful comments section.

      BWAAAHAHAHAHAHA!!!11!!111!!!!!!!1 *inhales sharply* BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA!!!!!1!!!!1111!!!!!!!!!

      *wipes tears away from eyes* Oh man, that was the funniest thing I’ve read in a long, long time. Thanks, I needed a good laugh.

    3. hopefully this is a nice, peaceful comments section

      I see you don’t hang out here much.

    4. Fuck that, I came here to see you people rip each others’ throats out over this shit.

      *Tosses knife to Eddie and Hihn in an arena*

      TWO MEN ENTER, ONE MAN LEAVES! TWO MEN ENTER, ONE MAN LEAVES!

      1. TAKING ALL BETS. TAKING ALL BETS.

      2. *pushes Eddie aside*

        I can take this motherfucker. NOW I am threatening you, old man!

        1. 200 quatloos on ANYONE knifing Hihn!

    5. Just don’t get me started on Lincoln.

      1. Yeah, more of a Mercury guy, myself.

        1. I prefer Neptune.

      2. Lincoln was the only thing that held this country together when it was ripping itself apart. He was a master statesman, and he cared enough about the plight of slaves to actually do something about it. He was easily the best president. How can you disagree with that?

        *runs from room after tossing grenade*

        1. *hits deck, clutches bottle of whisky*

    6. I consider myself a pro-choice libertarian. It should be my choice who lives, and who dies.

    7. Hey, birth forcers are pro choice. You choose to turn your child over to them for foot-binding and lobotomy-by-indoctrination and they let you live.

  10. Here is what Sen. Paul said yesterday when introducing his bill.

    “”As thousands of Americans prepare to participate in the annual March for Life, it is time for Congress to recognize the right to life is guaranteed to all Americans in the Declaration of Independence, and it is the constitutional duty of all members of Congress to ensure this belief is upheld,” Sen. Paul said. “The Life at Conception Act legislatively declares what most Americans believe and what science has long known – that human life begins at the moment of conception, and therefore, is entitled to legal protection from that point forward. Only when America chooses, remembers, and restores her respect for life will we rediscover our moral bearings and truly find our way.””

    1. In Committee it’ll be amended to the “Life begins at Erection Act” and Junior will blame the Dems for ruining his bill.

  11. This is what the March for Life looks like when attendance has been cut in half by a major snowstorm.

    1. Egad. That’s the most regrettable bunch of abortions I’ve ever seen.

  12. (though it is not necessarily and obviously un-libertarian if you actually believe a fetus at any stage of development is a human life).

    Whoa…

    1. But if concede that a particular entity is a human being while denying that it’s a person with human rights, you’re off in Godwin territory.

      1. If “human being” just means some genetically distinct thing with Homo sapiens DNA, not really. It’s possible to be a person without having human genes and it’s possible for a distinct living entity to have human genes and not be a person. At least that’s how I would say it. Whichever words you choose to use, I think there is a meaningful distinction there.

        1. Dr. Moreau, is that you?

    2. (though it is not necessarily and obviously un-libertarian if you actually believe a fetus wart or tumor at any stage of development is a human life living human tissue).

      On the other hand, individuals–even pregnant ones–have rights, including the right to vote.

  13. I used to be skeptical of bills like Paul’s because I’m so accustomed to dubious interpretations of the 14th Amendment. So I thought that an antiabortion reading of the amendment would be “activist.”

    I’ve changed my mind.

    Look, for example, at the Roe decision.

    “[Lawyers for Texas] and certain amici argue that the fetus is a “person” within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, [Roe’s lawyers’] case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the [Fourteenth] Amendment.”

    The Supreme Court itself admitted in its Roe decision that if a fetus were a person it would be constitutionally protected.

    So they proclaimed the fetus an unperson and proceeded from there.

    But it would be scientifically illiterate to say that a fetus isn’t a human being, and it would be entering Godwin territory to say that it’s a human being but not a person.

    So the prolife end goal should be to recognize that “person” means every living human being.

    That’s not going to happen immediately, but one thing’s for sure – it never *will* happen unless people like Senator Paul keep the issue before the public.

    Over time, I hope, more and more people will see through the pro-abortion rhetoric and realize the real situation.

    1. But it would be scientifically illiterate to say that a fetus isn’t a human being, and it would be entering Godwin territory to say that it’s a human being but not a person.

      It isn’t a Godwin to point out that the Nazis declared obviously living humans “non-persons” as a rationalization for murdering them. It is also not a Godwin to point out how the “pro-choice” crowd uses the exact same arguments to rationalize the murder of the unborn.

      1. Yes, that was what I was trying to say – yes, defining living human beings as unpersons is evil whether or not you have a paintbrush moustache. The principle is the same.

        1. And that is why there is so much disagreement on this subject. I have stood up for your side before, explaining how your beliefs are fully inline with libertarianism, and morality in general.
          But let me defend the other side a minute.
          First, calling people who disagree with you “evil” is… well, not nice.
          Second, you believe that God gives babies souls, and that’s what makes them persons. The other side (myself included), believes that a person is created by many smaller processes learning, and neurons making connections, and the whole evolving of a gestalt.
          There are trade offs in life. Is it better to protect the rights of a potential human, thus depriving a fully formed person of her rights? And is prohibition the answer to anything?

          1. Murder is prohibited, is that prohibition bad? All prohibition is bad? It’s bad that the first amendment prohibits laws restricting speech because prohibition is bad. That’s some brilliant sophistry. Also, why do you keep bringing up souls? Are you incapable of understanding and responding to the arguments put forth?

            1. Yes, yes. It’s all terribly upsetting that people cannot be forced into your utopia, and – unlike every other utopian in human history – you are the one person who got it right and we should all do as pleases you accordingly.

              It isn’t the wonderful utopian promises which cause the problems. It’s what you plan to do to anyone who doesn’t agree with your utopian ideals. Murderers should be punished. Oh, simply everyone agrees with this. So simple. So true. Murderers should be punished. Perfect.

              And then the reins of power are handed over, and you wind up with the state murdering innocent people because they meant well and getting things correct without abusing power is haaaaard. But we can’t stop, oh no. If we stop killing murderers because we’re also killing the innocent, then only the murderers will win!

              Hark at the sophistry now.

              1. Rationalizing evil, nothing less.

            2. Fine, explain to me the morality of forcing a 15 year old to live the rest of her life in abject poverty, to give up all her dreams, her hopes and goals, because she made a “mistake”.

              1. As soon as you show me where I advocated this, then I’ll be happy to justify it.

                As a rule, there’s a waiting list of people who want to adopt babies.

                And if for any reason the mother can’t place the baby for adoption, there’s generally a “Safe Haven” law by which she can leave the baby at a fire station, police station, etc. with no questions asked. Adopting a Safe Haven law would give the mother a window of time to renounce parental responsibilities, and avoid the enslavement scenario you posit.

              2. Fine, explain to me the morality of forcing a 15 year old to live the rest of her life in abject poverty, to give up all her dreams, her hopes and goals, because she made a “mistake”.

                If the effect on the mother is the only moral question, wouldn’t that apply to infanticide as well? You also seem to be pretending that a mother must either raise or “terminate” (since you like euphemisms so much) a child. There is no reason a pregnancy would cause a woman to “give up all her dreams, hopes and goals” and is stupid hyperbole.

                All your posts have been nothing but the rationalization of evil. Yes, I embrace calling people who murder the unborn “evil” because it is the proper description.

              3. Ha. I thought you were talking about the baby/fetus. Maybe that clump of cells will make it to 15, but I doubt it.

            3. “First, calling people who disagree with you “evil” is… well, not nice.”

              Technically I said that defining human persons as unpersons is evil.

              As to my fellow citizens who regrettably hold wrong views on abortion, my goal is not to call them names but to present my side and show them how I view abortion.

              Just as they would want to show me their side and how “compulsory child-bearing” is evil slavery.

              1. We got a strawman down! Shots fired, shots fired!

                “Evil.” Priceless. You know, we recognize that progs only start yelling about eeeeevil to avoid that they can’t argue the point rationally. But of course you would never be so disingenuous. And just to prove it, I’m bookmarking that comment and will never let you forget it.

                Ever.

                Have fun with this, Marshall, because I know I damned well will.

              2. Technically I said that defining human persons as unpersons is evil.

                Well, that’s a bit circular. The whole question is what constitutes a person with all the attendant rights. You always just skip over that part. If it’s just down to religious belief for you, fine. But in that case you are arguing based on entirely different premises from a lot of people. All you do is assume you’ve already won the actual argument. Of course it’s obvious if you do that.

                1. But don’t forget the familiar choicer talking point that religions are all over the map as to the personhood and rights of the unborn.

                  Also, if you wish to use guilt by association, don’t forget that there are religious precepts covering just about everything – eg, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not bear false witness against your neighbor.

                  That doesn’t mean you can rob someone or send them to prison on false charges because “what do you think I am, some superstitious God-botherer who pays attention to what some desert tribesmen believed, like, thousands of years ago?”

              3. Nobody disagrees with superstitious fanatics. We disagree with the brainwashers who programmed the pitiful wretches, and we jail men who twist and bind the feet of girl children to cripple them permanently.

        2. Observe how eloquently the totalitarian avoids using the term “individual,” which is what “persons” in the 14th Amendment refers to.

      2. But it is begging the question.

    2. “it would be scientifically illiterate to say that a fetus isn’t a human being”

      I can’t wait to see Eddie’s evidence that a fetus is indeed human.

      I love it when SoCons play scientist. Like little kids pretending to karate.

      1. Or short Canadian warmongers pretending to have a point, right Plug?

        PEACENAZIS!!!!1!

      2. The human DNA is a giveaway. I mean I know DNA is voodoo bible thumper shit, but there is that. There’s also the fact that all offspring are created from adults of the same species. Two humans don’t spawn rabbits, two cats don’t spawn a dog. So pretty good chance the fetus is human.

        1. I don’t think he’s learned about DNA in school yet.

        2. Why do people think this is a great argument? It’s not a scientific question at all. It’s a moral question. Science tells us nothing about morality or the moral status of any living being. Science is amoral.

          Reasonable people disagree on this. It’s not because some people are being dishonest or ignoring the evidence.

          1. Except it wasn’t an argument about the fetus’ personhood. It was in response to Cytotoxic’s retarded assertion that the fetus isn’t human.

            At least that’s how I read it.

    3. So what part of “All persons born…” do conservative national socialists not understand? The Tea Party thinks the 14th Amendment says “All ova fertilized…”
      Surely they can muster a 2/3 majority to make it so, even as the international socialists rewrite the Second Amendment to read police instead of Free and People.
      These two fossil remnants of totalitarian socialism are terrifying voters with delusions that would require a constitutional amendments, why? To keep us from thinking about repealing the force amendment, the Marxist income tax, that came hand-in-hand with Prohibition.

  14. By the by, every time I see that “It’s happening” meme with Ron Paul, I think of this.

    1. Goddamnit, Spanish Language version?

      Shorter, regular version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWa0dZMHYeE

      1. If that was the Spanish version, I’m so fluent that it sounded like English.

        1. Ah, I get it now. You’re a funny guy.

  15. This is like the biggest news of the week, and I haven’t seen shit on Reason about it.

    Oscars make changes to boost diversity amid #OscarsSoWhite backlash

    I didn’t read the details, but I think it included making Spike Lee a voting member, with voting power 2x normal white members.

    It also included digitally changing every movie prior to 1950 with a courtroom scene to have a black judge.

  16. When did Rubio start dotting the “i” in Rubio with a mini map of the United States? It’s just creepy.

    1. Oh, and here it is. He will protect atheists rights by making sure you can say “God”.

    2. ALASKA AND HAWAII ARE ON THEIR OWN!!!!

  17. “First thing we should do is stop arming them. They ride around with a billion dollars worth of our humvees”

    Did we ship them to “ISIS c/o Whoever in Syria and Iraq”?

    No, wait.

    We sent them to the Iraqi Army, and they were captured.

    Also, a HMMWV is not a weapon, it’s a truck. Their weapons seem to be overwhelmingly Russian-made, and what little US-made stuff they have is … also captured.

    Way to provide a thoughtful answer that shows you’re serious, Rand.

    “Lulz, stop arming them!”

    1. Fuck off, Tulpa

      1. But….he’s right.

        1. So it’s just ducky for us to supply ISIS with trucks, too? And the weapons that we sent over for all those wars you love?

          Tell us more about how we can kill some brown people for you, Red ‘Plug.

    2. You tell that Paul guy! He’s clearly not serious like you.

      Thanks for clearing that up.

    1. The dude with the Yoda sign? That’s crass and tacky and stupid.

      1. You can’t hit it out of the park every time.

        1. Of course, it’s “*35* of the Most Interesting Signs at the March for Life,” and of course there’s plenty more.

  18. The overnight thread is gonna be on abortion? Bastards.

    1. I suppose you’d have terminated it by now.

      1. * borrows Swiss’s narrow gaze*

        1. *approves DenverJ’s use of narrowed gaze*

          1. *respectfully returns Swiis’s narrow gaze*

      2. I think it’s viable.

  19. The Flu has passed. No more vomiting for me.

    Tonight:

    Corned beef
    crispy hash browns
    pearl onions
    Sculipin
    An early bedtime

    1. Congrats. Being sick is no fun. I don’t catch the flue, just get colds sometimes. Prodigious amounts of whiskey may help.

      1. MLK day + wicked cold = 1 week off of work for me. Just now catching up on my vodka intake. Oh and now that I have taste buds again I can actually cook something for dinner.

  20. “While the Washington Post reported it was a “small” crowd, photos of the [March for Life] reveal a sizable rally ? especially considering weather and transportation challenges in the nation’s capital.”

    1. (scroll down for the best crowd photos)

    2. That crowd is whiter than a Bernie Sanders rally. In D.C.!

      1. So the black people in those photos were literally invisible?

        1. Don’t forget Alveda King, her uncle was some kind of black civil rights leader or something.

          And there were the nonwhite hispanics in the crowd.

        2. Don’t forget Alveda King, her uncle was some kind of black civil rights leader or something.

          And there were the nonwhite hispanics in the crowd.

          1. Even the NY Times video has some nonwhite people in it.

              1. ERROR: NESTED COMMENT LIMIT EXCEEDED

    1. Eddie, are you trying to imply that our betters in the Fourth Estate have an agenda or bias? I’ll have you know that journalists, as opposed to mere bloggers, or commentators on blogs, have been to Journalism School, where they have absorbed professional ethics, and that they are unbiased reporters of the facts, and deserving of our respect.

      1. I met a journalist once. I was unimpressed.

        1. I was a journalist once, and I was unimpressive.

          1. Hey, Warren, I thought I recognized you

            1. Yeah, I was probably the most apathetic reporter to ever have a press pass.

              I hated covering stuff and listening to peoples’ stories. And those are the two biggest parts of the job.

              1. Yup, that was you.

                1. There are only two tings I remember fondly from those days.

                  All the free movie tickets and albums that would come my way. Most of the movie stuff came with stills from the movies that I should have kept, they might be worth something now.

                  And the old-school (for now) computers with the command-line interface for which we needed a list of commands taped to the wall and the monitor with those cool green letters that would lag behind the typing speed and would suddenly appear all in a rush. Loved that.

                  1. Also the fact that Hs were optional.

    2. March for Life? Are they protesting the death penalty?

      1. They want more people to play the boardgame.

      2. Only for Robert Dear, the Colorado baby-saver…

    1. Ah, pandas.

    2. You can always count on the NY Times.

      1. I got a letter to the editor printed in the Times, so that right there shows their commitment to excellency… (cough cough)

    3. I guess you could say hundreds, though our positional notation system makes it grammatically incorrect.

      1. More awkward that incorrect, I’d say.

      2. Technically, Bill Gates is a hundredaire.

  21. He’d prefer to fight 100 duck-sized horses.

    This is the President we need in a post-cold war era of endlessly assymetrical warfare.

    1. I’d rather fight and kill a horse-sized duck.

      Why?

      Because horse a l’orange doesn’t sound very appetizing.

      1. It’d be a great mane course.

        1. WOW that’s bad. Did you think about that, our just write it on the hoof?

          1. Just horsin’ around.

            1. Nay, nay, you must’ve done it on porpoise.

                1. Just started BJH, so can’t watch that clip.

                  1. “In this world, you can either do things the easy way or the right way. You take a boat from here to New York, you gonna go around the horn like a gentleman or cut through the Panama Canal like some kind of Democrat? Um, the canal? You go around the horn the way God intended!”

      2. Horse can be pretty good.

  22. Whether the fetus is a person or not is a red herring.

    If another person’s life depended on them being enclosed inside of my body, it would still be my sole prerogative to give or withdraw that support. The other person’s age, side, helplessness or innocence is irrelevant, except to the extent that it may make me sympathetic to them.

    -jcr

    1. But you were directly responsible for that person being there.

      1. Maybe. So?

        1. Clearly *you* were not responsible for a pregnancy.

      2. Yes, but I was also directly responsible for them existing at all. Creating them did not harm them or take anything from them or make them worse off than before, so it incurs no obligation to give them more time inside my body than I wish to give.

  23. Hypocrite; How can anyone claim wanting limited government while thrusting legislature into the most private matters of peoples life’s. This is practically a violation of religious freedom in as much as who “believes” when a pregnant woman instates another person.

    Even if that marker could be determined by science it has already been done. Roe v Wade instated that anything before ‘fetal viability’ is not life; which means if all the medical advances in the world can’t create a person out of it – the “person” just isn’t there (recorded at 21-weeks). The judgement after that point till birth is left for state legislature to decide. The law is most correct and best suited EXACTLY as it is.

    1. The decision whether to lynch an African-American is a personal matter between the lyncher and his own conscience.

      How can anyone purporting to support a limited government possibly want to have the state intrude itself into such a personal decision?

      It doesn’t matter what personal religious opinions you may have about the so-called dignity of the human person and thou shalt not kill, and so on, Chief Justice Taney has authoritatively declared that a black person has no rights which a white person is required to respect.

      The law is most correct and best suited EXACTLY as it is.

      /sarc

      1. Lynching a black person is not a good metaphor for abortion, because the black person is not located inside the body of the person who lynches him.

        1. OK, but now we’re not discussing “eww, only a religious nut could value human life!”, we’re discussing whether it’s OK to deliberately kill someone dependent on you.

          1. The Klansman could look up Ayn Rand, in a rectangular thing that looks a lot like a Wholly Bauble, only for grownups.

        2. That would be wild, though.

    2. Yet we should let the government declare who is an unperson and killable. Better yet, only a socon would think of applying an objective standard of human to human rights, it’s much better that unpersons are defined by a subjective standard decided by politicians. What’s that standard, whether the mother wants them? Brain function? Magic vagina trips? Arbitrary trimesters? Yup, no issues with declaring who is a person based on arbitrary criteria subject to political whims, never been a problem in history.

    3. Any decision based on science rather than philosophy can and will change, Roe v Wade was decided before so many medical advancements we have today; one can only imagine the medical advancements coming up. What if they devise a way to keep an embryo alive and develop it into a viable human from 20 weeks? 15? We may live to see a day that an egg can be kept alive through artificial means from conception.

      It is only through a philosophical decision that we can create a law that will be best suited for eras to come, which is why documents like the Bill of Rights are so long-lived compared to the 18th Amendment.

  24. What America needs is Vagina Police. Besides. I need a job.

    There is an easy way to stop abortion. Convince women not to have them.

    1. Pubic safety professionals!

    2. “There is an easy way to stop abortion. Convince women not to have them.”

      Exactly

      1. That would have been a good way to stop lynching, too. Persuade the Grand Wizards not to kill any black people.

        1. You think it would have stopped if they didn’t? Maybe not everybody, but enough people. It’s not like the KKK was operating within the law, at its worst.

        2. A good way to stop police brutality is to convince cops not to act that way.

          Amazing how sophistry can be confused with wisdom.

          1. Well. Whose body is it?

    3. Seems like the harder course is to convince women to spare ANYBODY long enough to get born.

    4. If by “convince” you mean brainwash them from infancy with threats of eternal torture by Minions of God, that’s what worked for The Antichoice. Binding little girls feet from birth also works just as well… keeps them from becoming uppity and independent, and from outrunning any men inclined to beat some sense into their empty haids.
      Never forget: Republican Conservatives are absolutely in favor of the initiation of deadly force against potheads, ragheads, wetbacks, vapers, cigarette peddlers and infants when classed as collateral damage from carpet-bombing non-Christians.

  25. My awesome weekend with the baby is on hiatus.
    All flights to New York cancelled until further notice.

    1. TSA agents with idle hands. Live web cam feed link anyone?

      1. Two by two, gloves of blue.

          1. If someone tries to kill you, you have the right to defend yourself including using lethal force of your own.

              1. Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I receive payment.

          2. Er…. No, Your Blueness?

  26. I would stilll vote for him.

  27. Shooting rampage in Saskatchewan; four dead:

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/…..-1.3416143

    1. Unpossible. Guns are illegal in Canuckistan.

      1. They missed one!

        Maybe they get to have a “national conversation” about guns now, too.

        1. How odd. Canooks don’t even have a Second Amendment the commies want repealed. Was this another religious fanatic running amok?

    2. I think its terrible the way they shoot those Sasquatches.

      1. STEVE SMITH EXTEND SYMPATHY TO FALLEN BROTHERS.

    3. That’s very sad. Is it normal for Canadian news (or their Canadian police sources, perhaps) to avoid saying anything about the people who perpetrate such shocking crimes (once their identities are known)? If it was American news, I’d say the lack of details in the article suggest that the killer was un-PC in some respect, but I’m not familiar enough with standard CBC practice.

      1. Man, what the fuck? Sounds like it was just a matter of time.

      2. Not sure. Part of it is that Canadian media isn’t as sensationalistic as its American counterpart. There probably some PC crap going on but again, dunno about their practices.

        As an aside, one things is clear, they’re bending over backwards protecting Trudeau.

        1. Well, they’ve got their work cut out for them, sounds like.

      3. “” If it was American news, I’d say the lack of details in the article suggest that the killer was un-PC in some respect,”

        Saskatchewan has been covering-up their Bloods vs. Crips related-news for like, ever.

        1. Yeah, I was being vague mainly because I have no idea what un-PC would even mean in Saskatchewan. There’s always something though. If it wasn’t a protected class, then it was probably government dumbfuckery (“Eh, we put the psychopathic kid behind bars for a year. He’s probably learned his lesson. Back to school!”)

          1. “I have no idea what un-PC would even mean in Saskatchewan. “

            Chasing moose on your snowmobile and whacking them with hockey sticks

    4. “We have no idea what happened and how it happened and why it happened,” Kevin Janvier, acting mayor of La Loche, said Friday afternoon. “It’s something we should never hear of happening and it’s happened today.”

      Well said, Kevin. I hope you get to be a real mayor someday.

      1. /face palm.

        Right now, Canada is one big face palm led by the PM.

      2. I read reports saying his only daughter (a teacher) was one of the fatalities…

        If he knew that at the time (and I can’t see them not telling the mayor about the situation), I can imagine he probably wasn’t the best public speaker.

        1. Oh. 8-( My sympathy, Kevin.

  28. No abortion, other than union influence-peddling:

    “S.F. bus firm sidelined after threat of Super Bowl picketing”
    […]
    “When the Teamsters began trying to organize drivers, Bauer’s hastily created a company union without proper input from employees and agreed to a contract, according to a complaint issued by the National Labor Relations Board.
    Then, Bauer’s disbanded the in-house union and agreed to hold an election to determine if the drivers wanted to join the Teamsters. The Teamsters lost, but the labor board believes Bauer’s may have illegally influenced the vote. A hearing is scheduled in February.
    Hoping to gain leverage, the Teamsters lobbied elected officials and the Super Bowl Host Committee, which has worked with organized labor while planning events to exclude Bauer’s. They also sent letters to Recology, the city’s garbage collector, and several union hotels, informing them of the dispute with Bauer’s and threatening picket lines.”
    http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/…..778283.php

    Heckler’s veto and a city government beholden to unions. Pathetic.

    1. “Nice Super Bowl you’ve got there…”

  29. If you can’t drive in the snow, why are you driving in the snow?

    1. Democrats?

        1. No, Yankees are the people who can drive in the snow.

      1. There have already been 800 car accidents in Virginia. The fuck?

        1. I’m in south Virginia and there is a lot of ice. There’s some freshly wrecked cars at my hotel. Just more people I shouldn’t have to share an insurance pool with.

        2. Their Lexus has OnStar. Pssh. It’s like you don’t know technology has fixed everything already.

          *zooms*

          *finds out that four-wheel drive does not mean four-wheel-stop*

          *wrecks*

          1. Just spent the last two hours doing donuts in parking lots in Nashville. It’s a ghost town today except for us invaders from the North.

            1. Bread and bottled water disappeared quick here. Eggs and milk were in abundance. I was just happy the beer cooler wasn’t reduced to caffeine-free 4loko, hard lemonade, cider and root beer.

              1. I was just happy the beer cooler wasn’t reduced to caffeine-free 4loko, hard lemonade, cider and root beer.

                All prepping should include a contingency alcohol plan.

                1. My three staples are vodka, Mt Dew, and cigarettes. All in plentiful supply today.

        3. Still a balmy 39 One Mile Up; gonna be almost 60 here tomorrow.
          BwaaHaahaaaaaahaahahahahahaahhahaha!!!!

          1. Bet y’all wish you had built New York City in Denver, now.

            1. The port would have been tricky.

  30. You can tell that the New York Times is going to give fair and unbiased coverage of a complex issue when it opens up an article like this:

    “Some Evangelicals Struggle With Black Lives Matter Movement

    “For some Christians, support for the Black Lives Matter movement is a no-brainer. After all, Jesus opposed violence, opposed the taking of life and opposed racial distinctions. As the apostle Paul taught in his letter to the Galatians, there is neither slave nor free, for “you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

    “Many Christian groups have become active in Black Lives Matter…

    “But those denominations tend to be liberal in their thinking. The path is trickier for conservative evangelical groups. They would all agree that black lives, like other lives, matter. But evangelicals, especially those who support Republican candidates, are uncomfortable with the movement because of its embrace of liberal politics, associated with Democrats….

    “Even had Ms. Higgins never ventured into the dangerous terrain of abortion politics, her speech probably would not have pleased many evangelicals, who consider Black Lives Matter to be a liberal movement.”

    1. I think the term is “concern trolling.”

    1. Indeed. These studies never say how the “zero” point is determined.

    2. When I buy shoes, I always have to look for the wide sizes. It’s embarrassing.

    3. Well, thanks. I’m feeling pretty cocky now.

      1. Do you have hole in pocket like Confucius say?

  31. State tries to delay Clinton email release

    “State overlooked some necessary consultations at a time when the Clinton email team’s efforts were focused on processing records that had already gone through interagency consultation in order to meet the monthly interim goals,” the department said in Friday’s court filing. “Thus, this oversight was not detected until the push to meet the final deadline.”

    “So you fucked up, possibly on purpose, and are trying to baffle the Court with bullshit. State is found in Contempt.”

    *** pounds gavel ***

    1. “So you fucked up, possibly on purpose, and are trying to baffle the Court with bullshit. State is found in Contempt.”

      I think you’re too kind. I read that as:
      “We were trying to hide all of the nasty stuff, but we were in a rush and now we want more time to hide more shit”
      Oh, and she’s just MARVY:
      “PGA Tour TV Commercial, ‘Clinton Foundation'”
      http://www.ispot.tv/ad/AtMK/pg…..foundation
      Featuring Bubba on voice-over, a cameo by the ugly kid, and (I haven’t listened) prolly some slimy description of Hillary.
      It’s only coincidental it started running today; has nothing to do with her poll numbers or smelly reputation! Not at all!

    2. The State Department on Friday sought to delay its final release of emails from Hillary Clinton’s personal server, blaming a massive snowstorm hitting Washington as well as an internal “oversight.”

      Yeah, that snowstorm wiped out a whole fucking business day. Here’s your one-day extension, motherfuckers.

  32. Ahhhh. So those 7 or so calls from 1-800 numbers I didn’t answer… Those were Jet Blue telling me what I should have already known.

    Whoops.

      1. Is Super Fly possible?

      2. I’m going to drink cocktails by the pool in the desert tomorrow regardless. Probably. And then I’m going to send my baby down treacherous waterslides.

        The rest of my family can come or not come. Whatever.

        1. *mulls over, politely applauds, resumes drinking whisky and muttering about slave drivers in Zurich*

          1. I didn’t see the slave drivers there. I saw AMAZING bar bills if you bought imported booze (and is there any other sort?), and pretty ‘British’ food, if you get my point.

            1. I’ll eat shitty food if it’s on a balcony in Kleine Scheidegg.

              1. Had to search that, and we didn’t get there. But the funicular up to Pilatus was wonderful, including the “KRUPP” brand names on the drive assemblies; Kruppstahl.
                Wonderful view, british food.

                1. I was only actually there for an afternoon waiting for a train, but fond memories. I was actually staying in Wengen that week.

                  If you’re ever interesting in taking cog train through a tunnel to the top of the Alps, that’s the place.

          2. This was all carefully planned. I used to be super dad, but now I have too many kids to keep track. This was my chance to get back in the groove.

            I even picked up my air compressor tonight from Jesse so I could blow up the bouncy house so we could sleep in it all weekend.

            This storm is fucking up my universe, even in sunny So Cal.

            1. “…I used to be super dad, but now I have too many kids to keep track…”

              Exel isn’t that hard to use; you can sum by column or rank.

              1. There is no function or macro that can track my time.

          3. isn’t it like, 6 a.m. there?

            1. They have a long reach. He’s in Chicago.

              1. ERRR….

                He’s in Chicago sort of like I’m in LA. Enough to reap the benefits but escape the stench of school district.

                1. Not too far from me then. The weather blows.

                  (I’m working with some folks in Switzerland so i was about to be very impressed with the 7 am whiskey.)

            2. isn’t it like, 6 a.m. there?

              Yeah.

          4. *carefully takes narrow gaze out of passed out Swiss’s hand so he doesn’t break it*

  33. If life begins at conception (Jewish law holds differently) then we will need something like 500,000 murder investigations a year to handle spontaneous abortions.

    That is going to be expensive.

    Assuming a 1% wrongful conviction rate that would mean 5,000 wrongful murder convictions a year.

    1. Every human being’s life ends in their death.

      Wow, that’s a *lot* of investigations.

    2. Who thinks a miscarriages is murder?

      1. He’s saying that since you don’t know, every miscarriage would have to be investigated to see. Much like every old person who dies somewhat unexpectedly (i.e. from a heart attack at age 55, instead of after years battling terminal cancer in a hospice) goes to the ME for examination, to rule out foul play.

        1. And yes, I called someone who is only 55 an old person. Suck it, geezers!

        2. The causes of miscarriages are usually unable to be determined. It’s not as easy as finding out whether your grandfather died of natural causes.

          His scenario would never happen. Most pro lifers don’t want women who get abortions to sit on death row. They want planned parenthood to not exist.

          1. I think the comparison of abortion to murder makes it seem callous though, to *just* call for PP not to exist. If it really is murder, then why would the perpetrator not be treated the same as any other murderer? Which leads to the investigations and death-row scenario.

            1. Because of the difficulty in finding out the cause of death, like I said

              1. Having a difficult-to-determine cause of death shouldn’t rule out a murder investigation, if it is indeed murder. It just means you should put more resources into it.

                I mean, in any other scenario, can you really imagine some homicide detective saying, “Well we’re having a hard time figuring out how these people are dying, so fuck it, we just won’t try.”?

                1. Well, in a situation where no one but the murderer knew the person existed… Maybe in later term pregnancies they would be more likely to do investigations.

                2. This. Assuming a state bureaucrat will see the awesome power at his disposal, but not abuse it because that would be harsh and unfair and counterproductive, is just a bit naif to be believed.

                  People need to think this through. The same government that gives us the TSA, NSA, EPA, Fast and Furious and a life sentence for the Dread Pirate Roberts – now give them the power to enforce yet another prohibition.

                  Still think this is a good plan for liberty? If it saves the life of one child?

                  (Addressing the universe in general.)

                  1. The “This” was @Gojira.

            2. Sweet, so there still won’t be penalty for abortions, so long as you do it in the black market. That will certainly be a better world.

              1. “Necessity is the plea for every infringement on human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”

      2. How do we know it’s a miscarriage?

        How convenient.

        1. Dammit I fell on that rusty coathanger when I tripped going down the 6 flights of stairs. It was a coincidence!

            1. And a Swiss MD?

          1. Why does it have to be rusty?

            1. I don’t know, but I blame the war on women

              1. I like it. Let’s go with that!

                1. It’s the Dubebrocracy, from over at Sinfest.net

          2. There are plenty of non-coat hanger ways to induce an abortion.

      3. A Virgin Pregnancy by Immaculate Conception miscarriage is classed as Early Rapture in Freehold, Iowa.

    3. If life begins at conception (Jewish law holds differently) then we will need something like 500,000 murder investigations a year to handle spontaneous abortions.

      That is going to be expensive.

      Think of all the jobs it will create. Unionized, government jobs.

      Expect this to be a Democrat plank very, very soon.

      1. Morticians and Morgue Assistants Local 501.

      2. They’ll make up the losses with volume.

      3. Look, this isn’t Obamacare or a gay-marriage bill – sensible prolifers won’t say “just pass it and find out what it does later.” If there’s a worry that, say, the authorities will abuse their power under the guise of investigating abortion, then there could be statutory safeguards to supplement the relevant constitutional protections. Eg, by requiring certain suspicious circumstances before an investigation is triggered, etc.

        Just like the Paul bill makes clear that it doesn’t forbid regular birth control.

        As these issues are raised, whether genuinely or through exaggeration, the sensible supporters of such bills will reply, “oh, yes, let’s put in a clause to avoid the result you’re warning about.”

        But bottom line, I don’t think that’s the point of these objections.

        1. See, what we do is get rid of the kulaks and wreckers, and put in the right Top Men. This time, it’ll work.

        2. Yeah, come on. I double checked to make sure it wasn’t a sock puppet real close handle.
          Reread that, buddy, and take out “abortion” and put in “terrorism” or some other thing that you usually have a pretty clear head about.

          1. “take out abortion and put in terrorism”

            OK, I want terrorism to be illegal.

            And to extend the analogy, you would legalize it for fear that, if it *were* illegal, the police would abuse the constitution in the name of fighting terrorism.

            1. I presume you would want to legalize slavery, so that the government wouldn’t be able to commit civil liberties abuses in the name of fighting sex trafficking (as alleged in Reason).

              And I suppose you would like to legalize school shootings, so that the government wouldn’t be tempted to violate civil liberties in the name of stopping school shootings.

              We may as well make it legal to kill cops, since “officer safety” is the rationale for many police abuses.

              /sarc

              1. “Sure, the government can do nothing but expensively make a problem orders of magnitude worse, but you have to allow it because ROADZ!”

                Keep trying, Eddie. Keep trying.

                1. Should slavery be legal?

                  Cop-killing?

                  School shootings?

                  Abortion?

                  1. By “keep trying”, I actually meant “keep thinking”, not that you should merely repeat yourself and consider that a clever riposte.

                    1. Then perhaps I missed the nuances of your argument about the differences between abortion and (say) slavery or school shootings.

                      Why should one be legal while the others are illegal?

                      Or do you wish to legalize them all?

                    2. Women should be getting the death penalty for murder.

                    3. And Robert Dear, the Colorado murderer, should be canonized by the Landover Baptist Church, I’m sure…

                    4. Those are anarchists, the infiltrator stumbled into the wrong magazine…

                  2. I firmly believe abortion is murder. We need to put all women of child bearing age under surveillance to prevent it. Only women have the motive, the means, and the opportunity. They must be watched.

                    Crime prevention. 1 million murders a year will require some serious resources.

                    Women if convicted should get 10 to life.

                    ====================

                    Of course what pro-lifers want is that abortion be considered misdemeanor murder and the woman goes free. Hardly a serious problem.

                    1. “I firmly believe abortion is murder. We need to put all women of child bearing age under surveillance to prevent it.”

                      So you looked at the records from back when abortion was a crime in this country, and you discovered that it was a Handmaid’s Tale regime with constant monitoring of fertile women?

                      If you want to look at what would happen if abortion were again made a crime, one might think that you’d look at what happened the last time when abortion was illegal.

                    2. Observe the appeal to superstitious belief as opposed to demonstrable fact.

                    3. Compare the entries on “pro-life” at http://aynrandlexicon.com/
                      Ayn Rand designed the NAP these Landover Baptists want to twist against individual rights.

                  3. Note to foreign readers: The above are supposed to be clever rhetorical questions, not the confessions of of a mind addled by superstitious terror.

                    1. By this time, I think you and I are the only ones reading this.

                      Soon it will be just you.

        3. Bottom line: the infiltrator does not think.

    4. Retarded, people die all the time without murder investigations.

      1. I’m sure that makes Steven Avery feel so much better.

      2. Murder investigations, no. But unexpected deaths usually are looked at by a medical examiner to rule out foul play.

    5. This is Bo level retarded, holy shit that straw man won’t even burn.

    6. “Life begins at erection” according to the Landover Baptist-sponsored Paul Act.
      Maybe we could toss a sop by declaring we’ll agree to ban immaculate-conception abortions by True Virgins? just as soon as the 14th Amendment is repealed and Roe v. Wade overturned and individual redefined to exclude pregnant?
      Socialists tossed prohibitionists such sops by agreeing to endorse all prohibition laws that were justified, fair, agreeable, non-violent, temperate, chaste, warm, fuzzy, loveable, well-written, perspicacious, unhysterical and reasonable for about six decades.

  34. Talking to a businessman (salaryman) the other day. He tells me his daughter doesn’t want to bathe with him anymore, but he makes her do it anyways. I asked him when she started objecting to the co bathing and he said she first started grumbling in Jr high school. The bitching has intensified now that she’s in high school.

      1. The whole family bathes in the same bath water anyways, so he’d be bathing with her in a manner regardless.

        1. One of those things is not like the other.

          1. See? Life begins at erection! Vote for Ram Johnson for Congress.

        1. Ew… I mean, hey!

    1. Nothing good will come of this.

      1. Nothing good but awesomeness will come of this.

      2. If anybody is coming at any point then I believe the daughter may have a valid objection

  35. Wait, so this really is an abortion thread?

    God Damn it.

    1. Not really – the abortion bits are easy to skip over.

        1. PP sold them off. *rimshot*

          1. I’m drinking here!

        2. Hillary’s commercial, dammit!

    2. You’re an abortion.

      Go home, I’m drunk.

  36. though it is not necessarily and obviously un-libertarian if you actually believe a fetus at any stage of development is a human life

    You can believe life begins at conception and still be consistently libertarian in supporting the eviction of another occupying human life in your body, using the force necessary to successfully remove it. In fact I don’t see any other way to be consistent. That just means you now have another human who is trespassing the mother’s body. If you want to treat the fetus as a separate life, then if it does not have permission from the mother or host body–and given that it didn’t exist before conception, it could not have gotten it ahead of time–it is therefore acting parasitically and the person would have a right to remove it.

    It’s not about life or not. It’s about property rights.

    1. hmmmm…. do you then have a right to throw a guest out of your house into the freezing cold, knowing that he will die?

      1. Does he have life insurance?

      2. There’s a fundamental right to trespass?

    2. Okay, except the baby was invited by the mother. So the analogy is more like I’ve invited you to ride on my plane, but before I land I’ve decided to kick you off cuz fuck you it’s my plan! My property! Actually, we don’t even need to do that since by your logic I can just shoot you in the head when you’re on my property, even when I invited you.

      1. Social Contractor
        Okay, except the baby was invited by the mother.

        (yawn) Do you know what “unalienable” means? How does the woman forfeit a Liberty which cannot be forfeited? Try again.

        So the analogy is more like I’ve invited you to ride on my plane, but before I land I’ve decided to kick you off cuz fuck you it’s my plan!

        Analogy sucks. Two people equal two sets of unalienable rights. When that happens, and we learned this in high school, BOTH rights must be defended equally. There is no legitimate power to dismiss the woman’s right to Liberty, OR the fetal child’s unalienable right to :Life, which seems difficult for many to grasp on both sides of the abortion issue.

        Actually, we don’t even need to do that since by your logic I can just shoot you in the head when you’re on my property, even when I invited you.

        Logic? Where’s yours? I’m constantly amazed at how easily anyone get suckered by such a blatant fallacy …while also displaying an irrational (or dishonest) judgment on what logic means. Was that your best shot?

        1. How does the woman forfeit a Liberty which cannot be forfeited?

          Question-begging. Nobody has the liberty to kill another human being except in self-defense. The question being begged is whether the fetus is another human being.

          The “property rights” justification for abortion rights founders, in most cases (pregnancies not resulting from rape) on the way the fetus is, effectively, an invitee. The plane analogy actually does a decent job of illustrating this.

          People can flop around all they want with property rights, self-ownership, etc., but you cannot escape the basic question: is the fetus a human being? How you answer this determines the outcome of the question, regardless of the rest of your analysis.

          And, when a fetus becomes a human being is fundamentally unprovable, either way. Hence, the endless circling and thrashing and shouting.

          Pfeh.

          1. Question-begging.

            Unalienable rights is QUESTION BEGGING. Who tells Jeffersdon and the founders?

            Nobody has the liberty to kill another human being except in self-defense.

            Does not apply here, as explained in the comment you supposedly read.

            The question being begged is whether the fetus is another human being.

            Already rebutted.

            The “property rights” justification for abortion rights

            I’ve never seen one. It does sound wacky … and irrelevant.

            The plane analogy actually does a decent job of illustrating this.

            Already addressed

            People can flop around all they want with property rights, self-ownership

            If you can only repeat soundbites on things that are 1000% irrelevant, and refuse a dialog ….

        2. Individuals are what have rights. Look at Jefferson: “All men”… (including women) not every bump on someone else’s body.

    3. Aren’t property rights individual rights? And aren’t individual rights precisely what communists and conservatives want to eliminate? In fact, the whole concept of rights requires an antecedent standard of value. For conservatives it is the God you are sacrificed to please, to socialists it is the omnipotent State duty requires you to die for, and to the nonsuperstitious it is the pursuit of a happy, flourishing life with no conservative or collectivist socialists pointing guns in our faces and shouting out orders.

  37. Log a preference for a tiny littles right.
    Perhaps w/ a necessitated compromise of 8 weeks. 4 to notice. 4 to decide.
    There’s some development considerations in/with that time, too.
    Shouldn’t be federal…. except that the allowance was/is federal, so…. wtf.
    Numbers drastically reduced and “choice” still given. Gechur polarization w/ foster grant.

    1. Who are you and what have you done with AC?

      1. Sobered him up to little effect, apparently.

      2. It’s AC, but he wrote it in code. You have to read it backwards.

    2. Is this Robert Dear posting? They have internet in Colorado jails?

  38. (.. not necessarily and obviously un-libertarian if you actually believe a fetus at any stage of development is a human life).

    Bullshit. And lame. What if I actually believe America was founded as a theocracty?
    It’s always sad when libertarians are anti-liberty. Our founders called them “unalienable,” which means — look it up — precisely equal. At least constitutionally, the fetal child’s unalienable right to Life is precisely equal to the mother’s unalienable right to Liberty. No FUNDAMENTAL rights are absolute, because they can conflict with each other. Like no free speech right to yell fire in a crowded theater. Or your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose. Do they no longer teach this in high school?

    Elsewhere. Rand says it should be a state issue … except when it’s not, Same as his dad on marriage equality, Like the southern racists they emulate, “states rights” is a lame excuse to escape court rulings they disagree with. Both Pauls says these matters should be decided at the state level .. while also supporting an “intrusive federal government” over state power.

    Nowhere are states granted or delegated any power to ignore anyone’s right to liberty, even doubled down in the 9th Amendment. OF COURSE a fetus has individual rights at conception. So did the woman,

    Do we believe Jefferson, the founders and the REAL Constitution? And on what basis?
    But Doherty performed his role as propaganda Minister to the Cult.

  39. It’s going to take the leadership of a president who isn’t afraid to cut spending across the board.

    And “not afraid” of shitting on the Constitution even worse than Obama does.

    Sorry, Napoleon, but American Presidents are not Emperors, and what a disgusting comment on a libertarian website.

    1. Or it could be shorthand for pressing Congress to cut spending.

      Or it could be alluding to the President’s power to veto budget bills.

      1. Vetoes can be overridden. And cuts that large are virtually guaranteed.to be overridden.
        I’ve never understood why fiscal conservatives go ape-shit because somebody “wants to” cut spending in half or whatever .. which requires no more than a half-day with the federal budget and a $10 calculator. It’s about as useless as me saying U “want to” have sex with Miss America.

        If that politician REALLY wanted to cut spending, they’d figure out how to ACHIEVE the biggest spending cuts possible at that time. Do they wan to cut spending or attract campaign donors?

        Campaign donors are easy to get. You can raise a lot by saying you “want to”” cut spending a lot and “want to” propose a bullshit tax plan. Even Ayn Rand knew better.

        1. I was under the impression that Rand Paul, as Senator, proposed budget cuts with a specificity which his opponents’ plans lacked.

          Also that Sen. Paul is willing to put military spending on the chopping black alongside domestic spending.

          Someone who “wants to” cut spending will be in the best position to do it if they have the power to vote for or against spending bills, or to veto or sign them.

          Which doesn’t mean they have a Napoleonic power to do whatever they want.

          1. I was under the impression that Rand Paul, as Senator, proposed budget cuts with a specificity which his opponents’ plans lacked.

            Non-responsive and irrelevant.

            Also that Sen. Paul is willing to put military spending on the chopping black alongside domestic spending.

            So?

            Someone who “wants to” cut spending will be in the best position to do it if they have the power to vote for or against spending bills, or to veto or sign them.

            Non-responsive and irrelevant.

            Which doesn’t mean they have a Napoleonic power to do whatever they want.

            Only a Napoleon could enact.it.
            I note you totally ignore proposing a budget that can be PASSED.

            Even Reagan, with a huge mandate that Rand could never get close to, got screwed by his own party in Congress, I assume you’re to young to know, but that’s when he began talking about a line item veto … against his own party!

            Hell Rand’s tax plan just shows he’s clueless about our taxes … just like his dad which is scary.

            1. OK, then, I guess I don’t understand your point.

              Oh, except that you don’t like Napoleon. That part I get.

    2. Doesn’t the President send his budget proposal to Congress for approval? If that’s the case, then the President could cut spending across the board, it’s just up to congress to actually implement them.

  40. I’m curious; how would the development of an artificial gestation system affect the debate?

    1. For the better, I hope.

      After all, if the concern is for the mother to be able to end the pregnancy at any time she wants, that concern would be addressed by simply having her allow the transfer of the baby from her womb to an artificial womb.

      It sounds more than a little Brave New Worldish, but if the alternative would be abortion, then bring on the artificial wombs.

      I can’t see how the choicers could justify abortion if the mother’s concerns could be addressed without killing the child.

      1. Honestly, if I were inventing such a thing, my primary reasons would be:

        1) To allow safe gestation for miscarriage-prone parents.
        2) Emergency transfer for at-risk pregnancies, or in case of disease or accident.
        3) Allow single men to have children (currently impossible without severe risk to livelihood, if even that).
        4) Eliminate the scam-factory that is surrogacy.

        I’m not so ignorant as to not realize that use #5 – allowing “pre-adoption” of children, wouldn’t be THE primary controversy surrounding such a technology. It reminds me of the “transoption” concept from an old book called “Solomon’s Knife”.

        I don’t think it has to be Brave New World, as long as you remember that there’re individuals in those units, the denial of which was the book’s central point.

        1. Interestingly, that writer, Aldous Huxley, used the work “terrorism” to describe what authoritarian and totalitarian governments do to their own subjects. This can be heard in Huxley’s own voice in a Berkeley talk titled “The Ultimate Revolution–a Blueprint to Enslave the Masses” all over the web. Brave New World was written when Herbert Hoover enforced Teetotalitarian fanaticism in These States with Germanic zeal.

      2. If the mother doesn’t want the child – who exactly will raise it?

        1. In practice, there’s more people wanting to adopt than there are American women wanting to put their kids up for adoption.

          And if a child was saved from abortion only to die for lack of an adoptive parent, we would know it because it would be all over the mainstream media. Indicating to me that it didn’t happen.

          But if we actually had a tragic situation where a kid survives being dismembered in the womb only to die when nobody adopts him, then I’m not sure how that helps your case.

          If you save someone from drowning in the river and a few days later he’s run over by a bus, that doesn’t mean you should never have saved him from drowning, just that life is tragic and good deeds don’t always last as long as we’d like.

          1. In practice, there’s more people wanting to adopt than there are American women wanting to put their kids up for adoption.

            Except for black kids.

            1. It’s true that there’s more demand for white, latino and asian babies than for black ones.

              Which is why in many jurisdictions, the fees to adopt a black baby are much less.

              Adoption fees tend to be fairly inflated, and could probably be reduced across the board, but until then, lowering the fees for adopting black babies are a concrete way of saying that Black Lives Matter.

              And you haven’t addressed my question – do you have evidence of a child saved from abortion who then died of neglect because nobody would care for him (or her)?

              And if you would find an example of this, would you be comfortable saying he should have been killed off in the womb because he would have died anyway?

      3. Yes. Rand Paul and Mike Lee will fund Lebensborn Bottles? to populate Jesus Jugend? indoctrinees for the New Reich. That will eliminate uppity female meddling in the spread of Positive Christianity?

    2. I’m curious; how would the development of an artificial gestation system affect the debate?

      It’s been there for 23 years – constitutionally, needing only the science..

      When the Court replaced Roe v Wade in 1992 (Planned Parenthood v Casey) they changed the boundary from trimesters to viability. Roe intended viability, but it had shortened several weeks by 1992. So Casey states viability including mechanical assistance (currently an incubator) The new standard automatically moves forward to match further advances both physical and mechanical.

  41. I remember when Libertarians for Life was a thing. We all agreed that every human had inalienable rights. But instead of debating when a person becomes endowed with those rights, the first comment I read is an all caps drive by mentioning that he had “ruin[ed] it” by being pro-life. When did pro-life libertarians become second-class libertarians?

    1. Many Libertarians probably don’t want to get shit-smeared on by Prog-tards as being anti-women. Because that’s what happens whenever one endorses any kind of pro-life position. And nobody will ever be able to argue the general public out of that thought-terminating cliche.

      1. That depends on which part of the public we’re talking about.

      2. I’m against abortion.

        It is none of the government’s business

        1. MSimon
          I’m against abortion.
          It is none of the government’s business

          A fine libertarian position. You oppose abortion, but don’t want government to impose your position by force. I’ll never forget my delight that Reagan was the same, in his case a VERY devout and public Christian,

      3. Many Libertarians probably don’t want to get shit-smeared on by Prog-tards as being anti-women.

        It would be anti-woman if the Con-tards did it in way that entirely denied the woman’s unalienable and EQUAL rights.

        Sadly, both the Lib-tards and the Con-tards shit-smear their opposition, because they BOTH deny unalienable rights. One denies the fetal child. The other denies the woman. And they shit-smear because neither has a constitutional leg to stand on.

    2. When did pro-life libertarians become second-class libertarians?

      They always were if they wanted to impose a standard with the force of law. I knew and worked with several LFLers (other issues) And the Party reversed its platform removing it as a contentious issue.

      At the time, the libertarian platform supported late-term abortion right until delivery. I spent two conventions on the Platform committee trying to add that a life birth be required if the fetus was viable. Common sense and equal rights. You had to be in the room to hear all the hatred and vitriol … equating me with a rapist on woman’s rights.

      Today, the Party says it should not be a government matter. Unlike Ron Paul, they avoid the issue of what we do in the meantime. This avoids the silly position (paraphrased) , “government should not be involved, but until that happens, the full force of government should be used to deny the woman her equal and unalienable rights.” , Yeah, right.

    3. “When did pro-life libertarians become second-class libertarians?”

      They’re not second class.

      You won’t have a hard time persuading average libertarians that elective abortion is morally wrong. You just tend to lose them in saying that the government should get involved. Seeing the difference between moral obligations and legal obligations is pretty fundamental to libertarianism, and to get libertarians to support using the government to enforce moral obligations, you need to get them to see past that hurdle.

      Cheating on your spouse is also unethical. So is standing up grand ma for Thanksgiving after you said you were coming. How many libertarians think the government needs to start throwing people in jail for cheating on their spouses or standing up their grandmothers? That’s the hurdle you need to clear to get average libertarians to agree to use the government to enforce a pregnant woman’s moral obligation to carry a fetus to term (even against her will) as if it were legal a obligation.

      1. You won’t have a hard time persuading average libertarians that elective abortion is morally wrong

        Umm, you’ll be attacked and rejected … as I was when I tried amending the LP platform away from late-term abortion toward requiring a live birth if viable and ban the abortionist from the room.

        Which libertarians do you mean?.
        Nolan libertarians are 59% of the voters (Cato/Zogby survey), are fiscally conservative and socially liberal (but only for 46 years!), and 91% of them reject the libertarian label. (same survey)
        Movement libertarians are less than 6%,

        How many people who define themselves as social liberal are pro-life to the level of banning abortion with government force?

        1. Whether the platform should be amended and whether the abortion is morally wrong are two separate questions, too.

          Again, convincing libertarians that something is morally wrong doesn’t even get you half way to getting them on board with using the government to enforce morality.

          The anarchists are even harder to convince, but small state libertarians want to see that someone’s rights are being violated–not just that something is morally wrong.

          Like I said, you won’t have much trouble convincing libertarians that elective abortion is wrong, . . .

          1. Whether the platform should be amended and whether the abortion is morally wrong are two separate questions, too.

            Not toward disproving your claim, and you’e mis-stated what I said.

            Again, convincing libertarians that something is morally wrong doesn’t even get you half way to getting them on board with using the government to enforce morality.

            “Again” assumes you’d said that before.

            The anarchists are even harder to convince,

            Of what?

            but small state libertarians want to see that someone’s rights are being violated–not just that something is morally wrong.

            Duh. Of course. You may be confusing me with somebody else.

            Like I said, you won’t have much trouble convincing libertarians that elective abortion is wrong,

            I already knew that. The problem is everything you said after that. What’s the largest number of liberuans you’ve been in a room with? An estimate will do.

    4. When did pro-life libertarians become second-class libertarians?

      I see more pro-life libertarians here questioning the libertarian-ness of pro-legal-abortion libertarians here than the other way round.

      1. Hardly relevant. The Paulista Cult hangs around here promoting their strange view of libertarianism, about which they know virtually nothing/.

        If we look to the Libertarian Party Platform which is measurable, until very recently the platform was pro-choice absolutist, meaning late-term abortions up to the birth. I spent two conventions on the Platform Committee trying to loosen that up a lot. Very ugly.

    5. Ayn Rand wrote the non-aggression principle in defense of individual (including women, even if pregnant) rights in 1947, when Germany’s Christian Conservative ringleaders were still being tried and hanged for genocide in Nurenberg. The Libertarian Party was formed in defense of individual rights and against Nixon’s Moral Majority, not as a back door for infiltration by more national socialists. IN the sixties and seventies WE infiltrated Young Americans for Freedom and the zealots cut the chapters adrift or renamed them Young Conservatives for Birth-Forcing. Equivocation to enslave women to raise brainless pinheads for Jesus is no part of rational ideology. Observe also that brainwashable protofetuses are the ONLY bits of human tissue conservatives aren’t eager to napalm.

  42. Jewish law on abortion (roughly):

    Up to 40 days after conception abortion is permitted.
    After that and until 1/2 the head or 1/2 the body (breech birth) exits the mother abortion is only permitted for the health of the mother. And that includes mental health.

    American law approximately corresponds to that.

    1. The difference between you and I is that you want us to live in a theocracy while I want us to live under laws based on science.

      1. So science has a rule for determining when an acorn is a tree?

        1. Sure – when it acquires “a permanently woody main stem or trunk.”

    2. As written by legislators for a superstitious majority baffled by the exponential nature of population growth and ignorant to the point of believing in virgin births from visiting angels, yes. They deny individuality to women the way the Dred Scott decision denied it to slaves (except in the sense that a brand on the flank or tattoo on the forearm is individual).

  43. Don’t you think this guy would be the greatest President we’ve had in well over a century. I sure do. Rand Paul for President!

    1. Reagan was, but there’s lots of lies about that, He and Goldwater were defending gays in the 1970s. His tax cuts converted the worst recession since the 20’s into the strongest of only two postwar booms (JFK was the other) His own party joined Democrats to kill massive spending cuts proposed by the Grace Commission.

      His New Federalism came close to passing. New because it targeted accountability. With welfare programs at 3-4 levels of government, NOBODY is accountable The first step, which even the NY Times thought would pass, shifted all of Medicaid to federal, with all welfare and food stamps to the state. Small Individual programs would be block-granted to states. It failed when they couldn’t agree how to fairly re-allocate revenues.

      He was very public about his religious faith, but LEADERS of the Moral Majority hated him for ignoring their agenda (no abortion ban, pro gay), and even tried to sabotage his re-election. That’s one reason leaders like Milton Friedman said the three of them (Milton, Goldwater and Reagan were libertarian.) In a Reason interview, Reagan said libertarianism is the core of conservatism, which it is.

      Rand is an extreme soclal conservative, totally out of touch with a large majority of Americans. Like his dad, he’s never had a serious policy proposal, mostly anti-gummint sound bites to raise more money. And all the campaign blunders

      1. “His own party joined Democrats to kill massive spending cuts proposed by the Grace Commission.”
        I knew a guy who worked in Reagan’s admin. He said David Stockman had identified 25% cut in military spending without adversely affecting military strength but it was politically impossible to implement.

        1. It seems that a good portion of the MIC is nothing more than make work programs. Senators are not going to allow their constituents building weapons no longer necessary to be thrown out of work. And if other Senators want those Senators votes on their home issues they’re not going to push it

        2. “His own party joined Democrats to kill massive spending cuts proposed by the Grace Commission.” I knew a guy who worked in Reagan’s admin. He said David Stockman had identified 25% cut in military spending without adversely affecting military strength but it was politically impossible to implement.

          Not as difficult as today ideologically because the Cold War was still perceived as a threat which added an element to the hawks ,,, MUCH more hysteria than today’s Muslim menace..

      2. Reagan also amped up Drug Prohibition.

        1. Reagan also amped up Drug Prohibition.

          My only major complaint, At the time, other than libertarians, there was virtually no opposition to the drug war even on the left. And Not a focus issue for the Moral Majority. That’s why I stick to his aggressive pro-gay stance and REALLY remember when Falwell and Robertson tried to sabotage their followers against him., They stuck with Reagan, an important lesson about the religious right that needs repeating now,

          Don’t take this too precisely, but support for drug legalization was about as strong then as opposing gays in the military (gay marriage was not even close to becoming an issues. I knew three gay couples at the time and never heard them mention marriage, but I’m sure they knew they could.

    2. Of Germany? Why not? Or how about somewhere abortion and the Libertarian Party are banned and all politicians are religious zealots, like Venzuela or Brazil?

  44. Blizzard suggestion: Anyone with HBO GO can stream The Godfather. It’s the version where it’s edited chronologically, and includes all the deleted scenes. It was shown once on AMC (with commercials), and was released once on VHS tape. Running time is approx 7 hours or so. It’s great

    1. I watched both extant episodes of The Colony (new USA thriller with the dude from Lost). It’s really good so far.

  45. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.richi8.com

    1. Say “wha-“?

  46. “The petition founder says the refugees are not ‘rapists’ and Ms Watson should prove that by showing up without a bodyguard.”

    What flaming fuckery is this? Do it yourself if it’s such a good idea, cunts.

    1. I think that’s kind of the point. Not advocating it, just found it funny.

      1. Sorry for the threading fail. I’m punishing myself by drinking more coffee. That’ll learn me.

        1. No worries. As someone who hates coffee, that’s a fair punishment.

          1. No worries. As someone who hates coffee, that’s a fair punishment.

            I’m looking for extra punishment. High grade Colombian will do.

            1. I just ground up some Tim Hortons medium roast mixed with some Peets Major Dickenson dark roast. Pretty nice blend.

              1. I’ve just never understood the appeal of a drink that tastes like muddy water (be it Colombian or Canadian). My dog has tried to explain it to me, but Border Collies are notoriously poor teachers.

                Coffee at least makes some beers interesting.

    2. He was being facetious.

      Ms Watson, who is a UN Women Goodwill Ambassador . . . tweeted that refugees are “welcome”.

      There’s the rub.

      Some people who don’t necessarily want Syrian refugees streaming into the UK because they think the refugees are a little rapey might argue that a) being a UN Women Goodwill Ambassador and b) welcoming rapey refugees might not be entirely compatible.

      I’m sure Ms. Watson thought that accepting this position would be great for her career. She’d say some nice things about how women should learn to read, and then maybe someone would cast her in a movie about women are just as important as men. And who knows? Maybe the queen will even make her a Dame for being so civilized!

      I’m sure she doesn’t spend a lot of time around people who don’t necessarily think refugees should be welcome either. She probably doesn’t know any Tories–or at least anyone who will admit to it in polite company. She probably thought this would be free of controversy. What civilized person in decent society could be against welcoming refugees? Isn’t opposing the welcoming of refugees in public supposed to be against the law?

  47. Oh, Jeebus. Here in a nutshell is a great illustration of what is wrong with American politics.

    Rand Paul lays out a solid half-dozen, at least, positions (not including his hair).

    95% of the discussion focuses on abortion.

    Somehow, abortion causes everyone to lose their minds. Its like the word is a neuro-linguistic programming hack, or something.

    1. Abortion is serious. Abortion is murder..

      According to the majority of pro-lifers it is misdemeanor murder. Because they want the initiator of the crime to go free.

      I hardly ever hear calls for the death penalty for women who commit abortion. Or even a life sentence for premeditated murder.

      Well. Misdemeanor murder is a very serious crime. Thus the heat.

      1. Abortion is serious. Abortion is murder..

        Only if one denies the concept of equal and unalienable rights.

    2. No, this is what’s right with American politics. We can discuss this issue without being accused of ‘hate speech’ or ‘libel’. Try doing that in just about any other country on the planet other than Norway.

      1. Norway? I thought they were one of the worst for this sort of thing?

    3. And what’s funny about that is, as president that would be the issue he would have the least amount of control over. The only control he might have would be if he had an abortion litmus test on SC nominees. I’ve never heard a republican candidate suggest a litmus test. Such test are fairly rare. Hillary and Bernie on Citizens United are the only ones I recall in recent memory.

      1. “I’ve never heard a republican candidate suggest a litmus test.”

        I don’t know about candidates, but stuff like
        this has been in the Republican platform for years: “We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life.

        Of course, they could be lying, but they *did* suggest it.

        1. I just know that in the past republican candidates for president have ruled out a litmus test. If course they’re polititians so they could be lying as well. I personally would not vote for or against a presidential candidate based on their stance on abortion unless perhaps they had some really fucked up reason for it.

    4. Read up on how National Socialist politicians went on and on about woman’s Duty to pump out pups for The Political State in “Nazi Ideology Before 1933.” Google “Hitler’s religious beliefs” for a compendium of treacly appeals to superstition. I remember when this magazine was so named because of rationality as opposed to mysticism, and freedom as opposed to conservatives sending men with guns to force women to reproduce.

      Only prohibitionist fanatics are obsessed with abortion, and with any luck, they will take the Grand Old Prohibitionist party out the way they did the original Prohibition Party (morphing into Tea Totalitarians)

      1. The Nazis made abortion legal for slavs and Jews.

        That’s because, like you, they denied that every living human being was a person with dignity and rights.

        1. And I like the way you prove how totally not-obsessed with abortion you are.

          1. Readers, observe the appeal to the hobgoblin of little minds–rather than the acknowledgment of individuality and the rights thereto inherent.

          2. And I like the way you prove how totally not-obsessed with abortion you are

            I owe you a beer for that one. If you’re ever in Boise, Idaho …..

        2. That’s because, like you, they denied that every living human being was a person with dignity and rights

          Sadly, there are those who do it anyhow, with EITHER the woman’s or the fetal child’s rights.

  48. “Only when America chooses, remembers, and restores her respect for life will we rediscover our moral bearings and truly find our way.” I have a hard time imagining him actually saying that with a straight face.

    Sen. Rand Paul Introduces “Life at Conception Act” –
    http://townhall.com/tipsheet/c…..t-n2108015

  49. Rand Paul reveals himself the entering wedge of a National Socialist theocracy. Of course they “do not want” their law to send men with guns to force women to reproduce, but every law is an offer to send men with guns to coerce people. I would bet there is Nurenberg records testimony to the effect that Germany’s National Socialists “did not want” to exterminate all persons Jewish. The dishonest cant about 21st Amendment weed and pretending to want to cut taxes are smokescreens for a fanatical cult of brainwashers that sees every fetus as the brainwashable makings of another Robert Dear or Jimmy Swaggart waving on the telescreens a Bible that says: “Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.” (Psalm 137:9)

    1. But …. cut to the quick … What do you REALLY think?

      1. Yes, “think” is the active verb for libertarians. “Believe” is the active verb for superstitious national socialists. There’s the difference on this entire debate on whether women can own bodies or be individuals–just like in Dred Scott v. Sandford. Only now the case is closed, the 14th Amendment says “All persons born” and still the terror of devils with pitchforks causes hominids to light their burning crosses… It is the return of the Klanbake, only transferred from the Dems through the GOP to the LP.

  50. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ??????? http://www.workpost30.com

  51. Yahoo CEO, Marissa Meyer has gone som far as to Support the practice “Work at home” that I have been doing since last year. In this year till now I have earned 66k dollars with my pc, despite the fact that I am a college student. Even newbies can make 39 an hour easily and the average goes up with time. Why not try this.

    Clik This Link inYour Browser…….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.Jobstribune.com

  52. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..

    Click This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.workpost30.com

  53. The answer to the abortion question in two points:
    1. Some percentage of fertilized embryos fail to implant, yet no one dies.Some other greater percentage of implanted embryos spontaneously abort; again no one has died. Therefore abortion of embryos is not homicide, because embryos lack identity and self awareness.
    2. Homicide is a crime enforced by the states. If embryonic abortion were homicide (and it is not ,see above) then it would be up to the states to enforce it, and specifically not the national government.

    I truly wish Rand was not so dogmatic on this. I think it costs him more than he gets politically.

  54. my classmate’s mother-in-law makes $78 hourly on the computer . She has been out of work for 6 months but last month her check was $17581 just working on the computer for a few hours. view website

    ???????========[] http://www.Jobstribune.com

  55. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..

    Clik This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.Workpost30.Com

  56. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..

    Clik This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.Jobstribune.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.