Abortion

What I Saw at the 2017 #MarchForLife

Tens of thousands marched through Washington, D.C., today. As usual, media outlets paid the protest minimal attention.

|

Unlike with last weekend's festivities, there do not appear to be any aerial photographs of the 2017 March for Life online. Nor are any mainstream media outlets reporting crowd number estimates, best I can tell.

So it's very hard to say how many anti-abortion demonstrators came out in the nation's capital today. I can say that from my perch atop a building overlooking Constitution Avenue, it looked like a hell of a lot. It took more than two hours for the crowd to pass me on foot as they traveled from the Washington Monument across town to the Supreme Court steps. The guy next to me on the roof shot a time-lapse video of the whole thing, if you'd like to see the mass of people for yourself:

But what stood out more than the size were the demographic characteristics of the crowd: It was overwhelmingly young people. Sure, there were Baby Boomers, and nuns, and priests, and parents with very small children. But for every one person outside the high school/college student demographic, there seemed to be five or ten inside of it. They came to Washington by the busload to speak, listen, march, and pray.

Over 58 million abortions have been performed in the U.S. since Roe v. Wade, according to National Right to Life. The 44th anniversary of the decision, which legalized abortion nationwide, was last Sunday.

Evidence suggests libertarians are more likely to be pro-choice than pro-life. But as I've written, there's nothing logically inconsistent about thinking people of all ages and stages should be protected from aggression.

Below is a taste of what I saw at the march.

Stephanie Slade
Stephanie Slade
Stephanie Slade
Stephanie Slade
Stephanie Slade
Stephanie Slade
Stephanie Slade
Stephanie Slade
Stephanie Slade
Stephanie Slade

NEXT: Why Millennials Could Become the School Choice Generation

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. I think it’s great this march received some coverage from Reason, and while there are many commenters who are pro-life, I please ask that Reason does it’s best in the future to not accede to Eddie’s desires.

    Thank you.

    1. Come on, I didn’t think they’d *really* cover it! I would have held off on the snark.

        1. It’s a slippery slope to abortion, Kim Davis, and jokes that aren’t jokes.

          1. I seem to recall a lot of Kim Davis coverage in Reason without my prompting.

            1. The centrefold and calendar shoot were your fault, though.

              1. I have not consumed nearly enough alcohol for that comment to not reach my conscious brain you miserable sonuvabitch.

    2. It’s not “pro-life” anymore, it’s “anti-abortion”. Get with the progrom.

      1. Actually, it’s anti-rights. Wherever reasonable thought got a stride ahead of klavern superstition, a female human being is an individual and therefore has individual rights even if pregnant. The National Socialist idea is a Sophie’s Choice between being a free individual or a coerced milch cow (the exact term used when Darr? was herding frauleins into Hitlerjugend camps). The State, chooses, and Sophie obeys.

  2. A fetus is not a person.

    1. That’s why it’s bestiality, not rape, as I told the judge.

      1. You raped a fetus?

        1. No, he bestialitied a fetus. Try to keep up.

          1. My mistake.

      2. The unusually gentle quality of the coitus was also a major factor in the distinction.

    2. Why? I mean, I agree with you, but I don’t think I can prove it.

      1. Roe v Wade

        “…the word ‘person,’ as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn.”

        1. *headsmack*

          I think it is a mistake to use the rationale of the SC to define concepts that are defined very differently in the minds of the general public. A huge mistake.

          1. “Hey a government body of decision makers said so!”

            /not libertarian

            1. Whether something is libertarian and whether we live under a government are two different things.

              1. objective truth and the law are often two different things also.

                1. Who said I was discussing objective truth?

                  1. yes it was wrong for anyone to presume you were concerned with stating the truth with your words.

                    1. Well, this subthread certainly went nowhere fast.

                    2. You give two options yourself. Guess which one is correct.

          2. The public is often mistaken as to the law.

            1. And?

              The law is an ass.

          3. Suthen, this is the same guy who tried to argue that “silence” was evidence of something.

            1. Silence is violence. I heard that somewhere.

          4. Government (SCOTUS, etc.) definitions arise from the general culture, mores, traditions, etc., not vice versa as much as some would prefer that.

            1. Government definitions come straight out of a bureaucrat’s ass.

          5. I don’t see the “general public” defining personhood any different, or the Catholic church for that matter.

            I mean, you can make a reasonable argument that a fetus is “human life”, but what personality does a fetus have?

        2. Tautology

          1. I tried researching that term, and before I new it I came right back to the beginning.

        3. “…the word ‘person,’ as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn.”Doesn’t have to. The entire natural law concept on unalienable rights holds that the woman’s unalienable right to Liberty is precisely equal to the fetal child’s unalienable right to Liberty.

          Thus, if the fetus has full rights at conception then ….. wait for it …. so did the woman and nothing changes regarding abortion.

          And for those who proclaim that Natural Rights are God-Given Rights … well … they defy the Will of God, in the Name of God! Are their any other God-Given Rights which can be suspended? Which ones, for how long and on what authority?

          1. Typo correction:

            “The woman’s unalienable right to Liberty is precisely equal to the fetal child’s unalienable right to LIFE.”

            Dem’s da facts. Learned dem in high school,
            .

            1. Beg to differ… A right to Life and a right to Liberty CANNOT be “precisely equal” for the simple reason that if Liberty is taken away it can be restored later. The same is not true of Life.

              1. Beg to differ..

                Check a dictionary and get back to me.

            2. You haven’t established that a fetus has rights.

              1. Why does the mother have rights then?

              2. You haven’t established that a fetus has rights.

                I’m an atheist, and I disavow the wacky notions that Ice Trey has been spewing across the page.

                BOTH extremes in the abortion issues are abusive fascists, each trying to have it all their way, by force of law. One extreme denies the unalienable rights of the fetal child. The other denies the unalienable rights of the woman.

                Also as an atheist, I’d find it amusing — if not so tragic — that so many seek to deny the Will of God … in the Name of God. They follow the anti-Christ.

                1. Every woman has the unalienable right to choose to get pregnant and create a new life, then the unalienable right to terminate that life against it’s will if her initial choice proves inconvenient. Right?

          2. That’s just it….no Amendment can tell you or any of us when a person is a person…

        4. Appeal to authority…nice.

          I think abortion supporters are doing their side a terrible disservice to their position by using their increasingly noxious talking points to try and defeat the arguments of those who oppose abortion. Just last week, I read some fool explaining how the fetus is a parasite, which is a fairly new approach that’s destined to drive people away. Then there’s the pregnancy is servitude ditty. And you, declaring with no proof beyond a SCOTUS citation, that a fetus isn’t a person. None of these strengthen arguments in favor of a federal right of women to have abortions guaranteed and heavily subsidized by taxpayers. In fact, they weaken it–especially the parasite and servitude type ones–because they are abominations of language and reason.

          1. “Just last week, I read some fool explaining how the fetus is a parasite”

            Oh God, no! Somebody lit the cytotoxic signal.

          2. The parasite concept is taught in medicine even though there are major inconsistencies that emerge with a few second’s worth of thought. That maternal physiology causes miscarriage in most cases where the mother’s life is threatened or if the fetus is severely malformed is a biggie.

            1. Also, absent the emotions stirred by sympathy for humans, if one looks at the definition of parasite vs. symbiote, a fetus does behave as a parasite. It doesn’t generate/produce much of benefit to the host and consumes far, far more than it returns.

              One could argue that the fetus exchanges some fluids with the host, but so does a mosquito. And there are plenty of other parasites that can cause euphoric reactions in the host, so one cannot argue that a baby’s ability to trigger positive emotions in the mother is the baby’s symbiotic trade.

              1. And if you think along the lines of The Selfish Gene, it’s really the baby’s genes using the mother to thrive and replicate.

              2. The benefit is the reproduction of the host species. That’s a pretty significant benefit.

          3. Appeal to authority…nice.

            Bullshit … nice

            I think abortion supporters

            More bullshit? We (some of us) support “equal rights under the law.” Why can’t you?

            …. increasingly noxious talking points to try and defeat the arguments of those who oppose abortion.

            Your insufferable arrogance was crushed over 200 years ago, the Declaration of Independence, stressing that just governments are formed to defend unalienable rights. Life, Liberty the Pursuit of Happiness … and all the others.

            Later enshrined in the Ninth Amendment, which forbids ANY level of government to “deny or disparage” any fundamental rights. Can you give a list of which rights government is forbidden to deny or disparage?

            And you, declaring with no proof beyond a SCOTUS citation, that a fetus isn’t a person.

            MORE bullshit? What they said — twice — is that BECAUSE both individuals have equal rights, there is a conflict of rights — you’ll learn the principle in high school — the conflict MUST be resolved in a way than BEST protects BOTH rights.

            abortions guaranteed and heavily subsidized by taxpayers

            Now you’ve gone psychopathic.

            because they are abominations of language and reason.

            (LOL)
            Check the meaning of “unalienable” … and list those rights for us.
            Anything else?

          4. I think abortion supporters are doing their side a terrible disservice to their position

            I don’t “support” abortion; in fact, I consider it sinful and wrong.

            The question is whether the US government has a right to punish women or doctors for performing abortions, and that’s a very different question. I think it’s quite clear that the US government does not have that right.

            A secondary question is whether a libertarian society would have the right to punish women for abortions. Again, I think such punishment would be inconsistent with libertarian principles.

      2. Schofield, of course you can’t prove it, because you are going to have to start with some assumptions that are based on different values for different people. Values do not have truth value.

        1. Personhood requires individuality. Individuality requires independence. A fetus is 100% dependent on the mother therefore not a person.

          1. So, a paraplegic who is ?100 percent dependent on their caregiver can be killed?

            1. So is a newborn baby and anyone can take care of them but you only have one mother.

              1. Think about this. If a fetus has rights do we charge a mother who accidently falls down the stairs with manslaughter? Maybe murder? What if she smokes or doesn’t eat healthy? Child abuse?

                1. Chemically harming your child in the womb is pretty evil actually, it is clearly different that accidentally falling down the stairs. Involuntary manslaughter (which I assume you were referring to) still requires some form of mens rea beyond a mere accident, so it is not the same as true accident of falling down the stairs.

                  I don’t know where you are going with the child abuse question, of course abusing your child is a crime (the argument merely rests on what constitutes abuse).

                2. I will leave this right here

                  http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016…..arges.html

                  1. 24 weeks is straight up murder. There has to be some limit.

                    1. 24 weeks is straight up murder.

                      Yup. My wife is at 25 weeks right now. The “straight up murder” line is waaaaay in the rearview mirror. Even at the 20 week anatomy scan, she was clearly a small human curled up in a ball, kicking, moving, and squirming. I first felt her kick around 17 weeks, and my wife felt it around 15 or 16.

                      My opinion is that implantation is a good “compromise” (allow for “emergency contraceptives”, but not much after). However, my experience with my wife’s pregnancy makes drawing a line after 20 weeks seem flat out barbaric.

                    2. My opinion is that implantation is a good “compromise”

                      WITH WHAT???

                      How dare you deny the woman’s precisely equal and unalienable right to Liberty?
                      How can your “compromise” violate the 9thj Amendment, which denies ALL levels of government ANY power to deny or disparage fundamental rights?

                      Learn what “unalienable” means. Jefferson knew. Our founders knew. Several centuries of Natural Law knew. If unalienable rights are indeed God-Given, how can Christians defy the Will of God … in the Name of God?

                    3. Even at the 20 week anatomy scan, she was clearly a small human curled up in a ball, kicking, moving, and squirming

                      Looking human isn’t the same as personhood. After her accident, Terry Schiavo still looked like a human but was not a person anymore.

                    4. That sounds reasonable. However, the mother can still evict, as long as the fetus stays alive.

                    5. So long as the care for their creation (absent rape where they did not by definition participate in the creation).

                    6. So long as the care for their creation (absent rape where they did not by definition participate in the creation).

                      Tell us how having sex means we lose our unalienable rights?

                      “Unalienable means cannot be taken away for any reason … unless you have sex.”

                      What about the woman’s rights … since HER conception? OOOPS.

                    7. If it is a human being at the moment of conception, then there can be no exceptions. It either is or it isn’t. That’s the argument that makes me the maddest when I hear it. You cannot kill a person for the acts, however abhorrent, of another.

                      Personally, I have trouble saying a small clump of cells has the same rights as an independent human being. But I also can’t see any essential difference between a baby 5 minutes before birth and 5 minutes after. So location, in and of itself doesn’t work as a definition either.

                      Viability is another common test proposed. But viability is also a matter of technology. At some point we will be able to grow a human being without being in a uterus at all. So that doesn’t work.

                      Where I’ve uneasily made my peace is when the brain starts to function, with the same kind of brain waves that the lack of are used to define the end of human life. That’s somewhere between 20 and 22 weeks. It is both an objective standard and consistent with law regarding the boundaries of protected human life at the other end.

                    8. 24 weeks is straight up murder.

                      Bullshit. Laughable bullshit,

                      There has to be some limit.

                      Ummm, there’s been a limit for over a half-century now. Viability.

                      What’s your solution, considering the woman and fetus have precisely equal rights to be defended. THAT has been a “limit” for over 200 years.

                    9. 20 weeks is 50/50 chance of survival outside of the uterus thanks to advances in neonatal care. The water is far murkier than your assertions convey.

                    10. Everyone ultimately has a 0% chance to survive.

                    11. 24 weeks is straight up murder.

                      Bullshit. Laughable bullshit,

                      There has to be some limit.

                      Ummm, there’s been a limit for over a half-century now. Viability.

                      What’s your solution, considering the woman and fetus have precisely equal rights to be defended. THAT has been a “limit” for over 200 years.

                    12. As technology advances “viability” is counted earlier and earlier in pregnancy. This does not really make sense that the cutoff point to be considered to have a right to life is dependent on external technologies.

                3. At what point, in your view, does the child become independent? When the umbilical cord is cut?

                  So if a full term baby is still attached, the mother can still “abort” it, because it’s part of her body… ? I once had a pro-choice woman answer in the affirmative to this question, but most humans would not.

                  I don’t like it, because I feel that abortion serves a valuable societal need, but ultimately logic seems to me grant personhood and rights at “viability” which due to technology will ultimately mean conception.

                  1. At what point, in your view, does the child become independent? When the umbilical cord is cut?

                    Conception works … but also for the woman!!!!!
                    What about HER rights?

                    1. She has the right to avoid putting herself in a position to get pregnant to begin with and waived that right. (Yes, there are exceptions in a minority of cases like rape and incest, so don’t waste your time.)

                4. And yet, every state has “fetal homicide” laws.

                  http://www.ncsl.org/research/h…..-laws.aspx

                  1. Enforcement of those fetal homicide laws is apparently in flux.

                    “Patel was arrested after she sought treatment at a local hospital for profuse bleeding after delivering a 1?-pound boy in a bathroom and putting his body in a trash bin at a Super Target near her family’s restaurant, according to court records. The records show she bought abortion-inducing drugs from an online pharmacy in Hong Kong.”
                    http://tinyurl.com/jv8ab22

                    From a related, earlier article: “A pathologist for the prosecution also testified that the baby’s lungs passed a “floating test” ? the science of which has been contested ? indicating that the baby had drawn breath.”
                    http://tinyurl.com/hr3hcc5

                    How’s that not murder?

                  2. And yet, every state has “fetal homicide” laws.

                    Nonsense. Read a link before copy/pasting it.

                    1. Nonsense. Read a link before copy/pasting it.

                      You’re making the mistake of thinking that simply because they don’t have them “on the books” it means they don’t have them. If I go up to a woman and hit a woman in the stomach in those states that have blanks, wii I not be arrested and charged for something felony-related? Of course not, and I’d like to think you understand that.

                5. do we charge a mother who accidently falls down the stairs with manslaughter?

                  Did she fall down the stairs to intentionally kill the fetus?
                  What’s the penalty for accidental death?

                  1. That’s what manslaughter is.

                6. Ice Trey
                  Think about this.

                  I thought about it. I’m still laughing
                  Did she fall down the stairs to intentionally kill the fetus?
                  What’s the penalty for accidental death?
                  Now YOU think.

          2. Individuality requires independence

            Bullshit.

            1. Independent

              Free from outside control

              How do you characterize being in the womb?

              1. Friday night

              2. Independent
                Free from outside control
                How do you characterize being in the womb?

                “Individuality” is the fuckup.
                Are subjects of a dictatorship REALLY less than human? How can their rights be denied … if they have no rights to be defended? Are rights innate to mankind (natural law), or bestowed by the state?

                Pro-life extremists are just as wacky and brainwashed as pro-choice extremists. Each tries to have it all THEIR way … but there are two equally sovereign individual involved.

                Extreme pro-choicers deny the sovereignty of the fetal child. Extreme pro-lifers deny the sovereignty of the woman. Two total statists at war with … the word unalienable.

          3. How do we decide which conjoined twin gets to kill the other one? fight to the death?

            1. How do we decide which conjoined twin gets to kill the other one? fight to the death?

              If you think tiny babies are gonna kill each other … you must swallow all the wackiest pro-life “arguments”

              1. It’s a moral question flamey. Wait till they are adults and tell me how one’s rights as an adult conjoined twin does or does not allow them to kill the other one at any time.

                And as a matter of fact I’m pretty much a nihilist who thinks that when principles clash in a debate like this there can be no resolution.

                However I find the abortion debate interesting as it’s one of few arguments where people try to make principled arguments on both sides.

                I also find you to be kind of a dick. Were you bullied a lot as a child?

                1. If you think tiny babies are gonna kill each other … you must swallow all the wackiest pro-life “arguments”

                  It’s a moral question flamey.

                  (laughing)

                  Wait till they are adults

                  You just destroyed yourself!!! Pay attention.
                  YOU assumed one MUST kill the other. There may be a conflict as infants, which I ridiculed. But if they make it adulthood … there’s OBVIOUSLY no conflict … and I ridcule you again!!!

                  and tell me how one’s rights as an adult conjoined twin does or does not allow them to kill the other one at any time.

                  They don’t, Skippy.

                  However I find the abortion debate interesting as it’s one of few arguments where people try to make principled arguments on both sides.

                  Now you’re shallow enough to think there’s only two sides?????
                  The arguments on both sides have NO principles, because they BOTH deny that the fetus and woman have precisely equal rights … now learn what “unalienable” means.

                  I also find you to be kind of a dick. Were you bullied a lot as a child?

                  I’m still bullied now. Self-righteous assholes slither out of the cracks everywhere.
                  So my snippiness here is a response to your childish aggression, as a bellowing blowhard.
                  Anything else?

                  1. YOU assumed one MUST kill the other. There may be a conflict as infants, which I ridiculed. But if they make it adulthood … there’s OBVIOUSLY no conflict … and I ridcule you again!!!

                    If you think that destroys something about the argument then you probably missed the point. If neither twin is “viable” without the other, why does morality require each to share his organs to support the other when a pregnant woman does not have that requirement? Hell the fetus only needs temporary support, and this temporary need is usually a directly result of reckless behavior on the part of the mother. Or can the twin kill the other? You never said.

                    I’m still bullied now. Self-righteous assholes slither out of the cracks everywhere.
                    So my snippiness here is a response to your childish aggression, as a bellowing blowhard.
                    Anything else?

                    Did they call you “Mikey Hiney”?

            2. If they will both die without separation, they pick the one they think most likely to survive … that’s a normal medical triage decision. Probably the one decision doctors hate to make the most, yet make it they must if either is to survive.

              1. That sidesteps the moral question. Assume they will both live without separation.

                1. Even better, assume that if you wait nine months, you’ll be able to separate them without any adverse effect on either.

          4. Well, it’s not a squirrel.

        2. Schofield, of course you can’t prove it, because you are going to have to start with some assumptions that are based on different values for different people.

          That makes no sense at all;

          1. That this makes no sense to you explains so much.

            1. Why do you respond to the Hihn? He’s like the Michael Scott of Reason, and he has the time to post 50 responses to every one of yours.

      3. My take is that a fetus is a person if and when it becomes “brain alive” for the first time, and not before. This by symmetry to someone becoming permanently brain-dead – they can be removed from life support and (given the appropriate legal permissions) chopped up for spare parts.

        Or as I put it when I’m feeling snarky: “Abortion stops a beating heart – but so do heart transplants.”

        1. My take is that a fetus is a person if and when it becomes “brain alive” for the first time, and not before.

          Fine but totally irrelevant. What applies to the fetus applied to the woman and their rights are precisely equal.

          1. Old MacMichael Hihn had an Animal Farm

            EIEIO.

            And on that Animal Farm the rights of the mother to Liberty and the rights of the child to Life were exactly equal.

            EIEIO.

            But the rights of the mother

            Were more equal than the other…

            Here abort, there abort, everywhere abort-bort!

            Old MacMichael Hihn had an Animal Farm

            EIEIO!

            1. Michael, you keep on with your “precisely equal” premise. I think Vaelyn decisively relegated the idea to the dumpster by aptly noting that liberty can be restored while life can not. The 2 can not be equal, regardless of what your high school health teacher claimed.

              1. In fact, isn’t that exactly the argument used against the death penalty? If after years/decades of being jailed and new evidence comes out showing the person is innocent, he can be released. If you execute someone and later find out he was innocent, you can’t bring him back to life.

                1. Elite Elite, how does that have even the slightest relevance here, when we’re talking about a conflict between the equal and unalienable rights of two separate individuals?

                  Not to detract from the argument against a death penalty.

              2. (LOL)

                dan’o en barrel
                Michael, you keep on with your “precisely equal” premise.

                It’s not mine.
                It’s Jefferson’s. the Founders and the Law of the Land. When you get to high school …..

                I think Vaelyn decisively relegated the idea to the dumpster by aptly noting that liberty can be restored while life can not.

                You place tribal loyalty above elementary logic???

                The 2 can not be equal, regardless of what your high school health teacher claimed.

                (snicker) It was my history teacher, Snippy One.
                Learn what unalienable rights means … to adults. Then go read the ninth amendment.

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

                Tell me what those rights are. The ones that NO level of government may deny and disparage.
                I’ll wait. (lol)

                1. Sorry for the delay, shit to do.

                  “You place tribal loyalty above elementary logic???”
                  -Appears to be classic projection. Death and denial of agency are both really bad, but not equally so due to the permanence of death.

                  “(snicker) It was my history teacher, Snippy One.”
                  -I regretted adding that bit about your health teacher as soon as I submitted it. Nobody likes a sassy, petty pedant

                  “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
                  -Relies on the supposition that the unborn aren’t entitled to the same rights. That’s the fulcrum of the entire debate, and which side of it a person falls on predicts their views on abortion with near infallibility.

                  Personally, I’m in the undecided camp regarding abortion. Pragmatically speaking the overturning of Roe/Wade would certainly be a shitstorm. As a matter of morality I hear not but opinions built tenuously out of frail logic in the debate from both sides, made weaker by dishonest accusations of the opposition.

            2. What applies to the fetus applied to the woman and their rights are precisely equal.

              Old MacMichael Hihn had an Animal Farm
              EIEIO.
              And on that Animal Farm the rights of the mother to Liberty and the rights of the child to Life were exactly equal.

              Check the meaning of unalienable, chump.
              EIEIO (snicker)

          2. “What applies to the fetus applied to the woman and their rights are precisely equal.”

            Did you even read his comment? If you predicate rights on being currently conscious or “brain-alive” then their rights, before it becomes conscious, are not “equal.” Because the fetus has no rights. This is pure logic, the only potential point of debate is whether rights are predicated on current ‘brain-life.’

            1. contrarian
              “What applies to the fetus applied to the woman and their rights are precisely equal.”

              Did you even read his comment?

              Did YOU?

              If you predicate rights on being currently conscious or “brain-alive” then their rights, before it becomes conscious, are not “equal.”

              Umm,
              1) Brain alive is NOT conscious.
              2) If the fetus has rights when it became brain alive then …. wait for it ….. SO DID THE WOMAN.
              Which makes them equal!!! Are you aware that the woman was a fetus?

              Because the fetus has no rights.

              I NEVER SAID IT DID! The argument is useless.

              This is pure logic, the only potential point of debate is whether rights are predicated on current ‘brain-life.’

              AND IF IT IS … then it applies “equally” to the woman.

              Ummmm. tell us when she LOST her rights Because all unalienable rights are precisely equal.
              Do you know what unalienable means????

              .

          3. No, it is relevant. After the fetus becomes brain-alive, the pro-choice side has to make the case that an abortion would be justifible homicide rather than murder, and before the fetus becomes brain-alive, the pro-life side has to make the case that an abortion would be murder despite it not even being a homicide.

        2. Imagine you have someone who is “brain dead”. However, you know this person will recover in 9 months and will no longer be brain dead. Do you still have a moral right to terminate that life? Of course, the response will be that someone who is brain dead can’t recover. (We know for a fact that a diagnosis of brain death is not 100% reliable. People have recovered from it.) If this is true, though, that would mean a fetus is NOT “brain dead”, but something else and “brain dead” is an incorrect, possibly dishonest, way of describing the situation.

          1. It depends on how they’re measuring “brain dead.” Too often it’s just the state of the patient, persistent coma, never seen one like this recover, vegetative state, etc. without actual brain scans being run and getting a flat line. In fact, doing a Google search I only came up with one case of people recovering after being declared brain dead where brain scans were used at all, and that one explicitly mentioned that there weren’t “enough” done to properly declare him dead.

    3. what if it organizes itself into a corporation?

      1. Then yes. That would prove sentience.

        1. Sapience is what makes us human.

    4. And, in your opinion, at what exactly point of development, a human become a person? Does two days old premature baby is a person? If yes, what the difference between a premature baby who was born on week 24 and a 24 weeks old fetus? If not, would you allow to ‘abort’ 2 days olds, 2 month olds, 2 years old babies? Some ‘babies’ cannot survive on their own until after high school. Should we start ‘aborting’ everyone who don’t work and exists purely on welfare benefits?

      1. You know who else wanted to retro-actively abort the useless and the infirm?

        (The answer is early 20th century progressives.)

    5. Yesterday’s Executive Order changed the 14th Amendment. It now reads: “All ova fertilized…

  3. Sheesh, now Wapo is trying to shut down private persons recording time-lapse video of public events. Sad!

    I’m not surprised there were a lot of Millennials. The Always Sunny episode will always be relevant.

    1. Sheesh, now Wapo is trying to shut down private persons recording time-lapse video of public events. Sad!

      (laughing) How did they?

  4. I think Stephanie Slade’s article was articulate and very much implied her viewpoint (and the viewpoints of other individuals).

    1. Agreed. Although I lean pro-life based on the principle of all human life being sacred, regardless of far along it happens to have physically progressed or where it resides, I must admit that I believe the sheer amount of governmental oversight and possible criminal inquries required to investigate what may be arbitrarily deemed a ‘suspicious miscarriage’ by overzealous hospital staff would lead to an unacceptable infringement upon our rights.

      Maybe I’m being a touch hyperbolic with that scenario but who knows. To be honest, it’s a subject which I feel a great deal of conflict over and have yet to make peace with my stance in the matter. That’s why I never comment on abortion threads.

      Either way, I appreciate the fact Reason gives Ms. Slade an occasional opportunity to gives us a libertarian perspective that isn’t regarded by some as overtly Cosmo.

      Cheers, Steph. Hope you stick around for awhile.

      1. You are not being hyperbolic, that is not a possibility, it is a certainty. That is how it was before and how it is now in a zillion countries where abortion is illegal.

        1. It is an absolutely certain that the state will abuse the power and harass innocent people. That said, the state already abuses the power to prosecute murderers and rapists to harass innocent people and yet, to the extent we should have a state at all, murder and rape should be illegal.

          I do not think the reluctant pro-choice argument is immoral though. The state is utterly incapable of enforcing even legitimate crimes in moral manor. The inherent evil of the state is why I think the abortion issue should ultimately be solved by a change in culture (to accept the person-hood of unborn humans) and technology (artificial wombs, removing any property rights rather person-hood based arguments).

          1. ultimately be solved by a change in culture (to accept the person-hood of unborn humans) and technology (artificial wombs, removing any property rights rather person-hood based arguments).

            Bing bing bing! Perfect artificial wombs would seem to dramatically weaken almost all good pro-abortion arguments.

            1. It doesn’t completely solve it though without the cultural change. I’m currently reading the Darkship Thieves series (a very libertarian series and the first book won a Prometheus award), and the hypothetical future society in the book procreates exclusively through artificial wombs so that the women can continue to work. It’s not delved into too deeply but the parents (rather than just the mother) clearly retain property rights, including termination, until some unelaborated point in development. I don’t think it is a logically inconsistent position even though I disagree.

              1. It doesn’t completely solve it though without the cultural change

                It’s already enshrined as the Law of the Land. By SCOTUS. Really, Check “Planned Parenthood v Casey” which supplanted Roe v Wade a quarter century ago,

            2. Bing bing bing! Perfect artificial wombs would seem to dramatically weaken almost all good pro-abortion arguments

              Which is precisely the current constitutional standard, as established by SCOTUS performing its constitutional obligation.

      2. I am exactly where you are, Trigger.

      3. Having a child pushed me toward the pro life side. When my now wife got pregnant, it was not what I was looking for at all all the time. 5 years later, best thing that ever happened to me.

      4. Sounds like the perfect is the enemy of the good here. Can’t have a justice system composed of humans without having human error.

      5. TH, you expressed exactly how I feel. Well done.

        And count me in as one who is glad Reason covered it.

        Screw the rest of the media; someone should abort it.

      6. Brava ms. Slade, well said trigger!

      7. I feel the exact same way on this. I think reasonable people from all sides on the debate could come up with a solution that 85%+ could agree on: “Restricted from conception? No. Allowed day before birth? No. So, somewhere in between then, yes. 20 weeks? 24? We all good on 24? Great, take the rest of the day off.”

        Even with a good compromise, I’m afraid of the application of government power required to enforce it.

        Although I don’t like what it does to our culture, I can really appreciate the good that accrues to the gene pool from allowing abortion.

    2. I think Stephanie Slade’s article was articulate and very much implied her viewpoint (and the viewpoints of other individuals).

      Except for the nonsense that a logical case can be made for violating the entire concept of equal and unalienable rights …. rather bizarre on a libertarian website.

      1. How can those rights be equal? If you take away Liberty, you can restore it later; whereas if you take away Life, not only is it impossible to restore it, you have taken away Liberty as well…along with all other rights the individual had.

        1. Vaelyn|1.28.17 @ 9:22AM|#
          How can those rights be equal?

          Because they’re unalienable. See a dictionary.

          If you take away Liberty, you can restore it later; whereas if you take away Life, not only is it impossible to restore it, you have taken away Liberty as well…along with all other rights the individual had.

          Sorry, they’re equal constitutionally … and in this context. It’s only an issues when two fundamental rights are in conflict — which can ONLY be resolved by the judiciary.

          No fundamental rights can be absolute, WHEN they conflict with each other. This is fairly common and taught in high school. The two best known examples (in the vernacular)
          1) There is no free speech right to yell fire in a crowded theater.
          2) Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose. In that example, the tip of my nose is the boundary between two equal but conflicting rights, which only the judiciary may define. And they must do so in a way that BEST defends BOTH rights equally.

          That, or you say Jefferson was not literate. nor were the Founders. Do you?

          1. Mankind has known how to abort or induce miscarriages long before it was technically feasible to do it surgically or with modern day drugs. It was a lot riskier than it is now, but it was being done long before this nation was founded. Yet there weren’t any laws against it. It was quite a while later that it became formally illegal.

            1. There are no laws against abortion in Canada today. More women than men immigrate there every year. What the GOP wants, judging by Sharia Law results, is in Ione, California. Next to a large prison that town is 70% male. How about a reason article on the prosecution of a physician that overturned all religious laws banning abortion in godless (but fun and attractive) Canada?

          2. Merriam-Webster definition of unalienable/inalienable: “Incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred” Nothing about being “equal.” Nothing in the Constitution about being “equal” either. In fact, Mr. Jefferson’s Declaration lists some of those unalienable rights: Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness, in that order. It could easily be argued that order represents a hierarchical enumeration, with Life paramount. (Since the others are subsumed in it. As I noted above, if you take away Life you take all other rights as well.)

            Is the Pursuit of Happiness then equal as well? If my happiness requires you to surrender your life or property, are our rights then “precisely equal?”

        2. The denial of Life is the ultimate denial of Liberty.

    3. The thing Stephanie overlooks is that definitions aren’t logical. Logic is a set of rules of inference, and GIGO still applies. If a woman is defined as not an individual at times, then she at times lacks individual rights. Stupid assumptions yield dumb derivations.
      But observe the foaming hysteria of the bigots the GOP had to pander to to keep electricity legal just now. They correctly blame the LP for Roe v. Wade. Back when the LP had guts (and was kept off the teevee by all three networks) The electoral vote for John Hospers and Tonie Nathan came in as the Republican court was mulling over Roe v Wade. The Court decided against political suicide, exactly as in the recent Gay Marriage case, in order to stop a large bloc of voters from voting Libertarian. No effort or expense has since 1973 been spared to infiltrate us with mindless programmable mystics. Eternal vigilance is in order.

  5. As usual, media outlets paid the protest minimal attention

    I’m sure they’ll show a photo from space that demonstrates “clearly there was no one there”

    1. Don’t they usually just wait a few hours after the main event and take their shot then?

      1. Whatever works, really. So many methods.

    2. “This fetus bites back”?

  6. Nice to see all the George Michael fans.

  7. I’m just glad there’s no pics of the pro-life extremists with the knitted aborted-fetus hats.

    1. This made me laugh.

    2. Actually, that would be very cool. I can see the design incorporating a coat-hanger, somehow.

      BTW, I don’t think you can really hang a coat from a coat-hanger, they’re much to flimsy. Shouldn’t we call them “shirt-hangers”?

  8. Thank you Stephanie, good article.

    It would be very informative if someone would take the time to put together an audio montage comparing the rhetoric of the speakers at the March for Life and the Trump protesters. Mike Pence vs. Ashley Judd for example.

    The difference between the MFL speakers – talk of liberty, inalienable rights, the sacredness of life – and the angry, ugly rhetoric of the protesters is very stark.

    Also, I notice no broken windows, bloody scalps, burning cars, or even trash on the ground in these photos.

    1. Sure, sure, she skipped a photo of the deep dish pizza.

      1. By coincidence this very evening I made a thin crust pizza with so many toppings on it that it could be mistaken for deep dish. This might explain my pro-life but sometimes abortion is necessary position.

  9. Them pictures be whiter than Bernie Sanders event!
    Seriously, thanks for the article. But I was surprised to see CBC noticing it happened, even if 75% of the article is how abortion isn’t a big deal! and it’s on decline anyway and TRUUUUUUUMP!!!

    1. Martin Luther King’s niece is a prominent prolife advocate. I’m not sure if she was at the march, but the criticized the so-called women’s march:

      “Who’s going to represent those little baby girls who’ve been aborted?”

      1. I’m sure, but look at Slade’s photos! It’s like canada up in that shit!

        1. If you’re black, associating with the March for Life is like flipping off the Democratic Party, which for some weird reason is considered to be an act of Betrayal of Your People. So it takes a good deal of boldness. But I still saw black demonstrators when I went to earlier Marches.

          1. The company I work for hired a black electrician a month and a half ago. I have been training him since then. We haven’t discussed politics at all until today. We didn’t talk much, but he did say, “taxation is theft” I already like him more.

            1. Whispers in his ear ” you complete me”

          2. “Betrayal of Your People”

            It’s truly repugnant that so many so-called “anti-racists” have this attitude that non-whites belong to the Democrat Party and cannot vote based on their own individually formed opinions.

            I’m glad I’ve never met one of these shitheels in real life, because if one of them told me that I’m “betraying” “my people” by not voting blue, I’d probably lose my shit and end up in jail. I don’t fucking belong to any political party or racial group. I’m an individual human being with the ability to think rationally (until I pass the 12-beer mark).

            1. The Democratic and God’s Own party are looter collectivist gangs. Since electricity replaced chattel slavery the Dems have gone over to communism to bring it back. The Republicans started out as commies (see Uncle Tom’s Cabin, The Red Republican) but the impetus of foaming mystical fanaticism carried them first into the National Socialist camp (after Bert Hoover lost), then into anti-communism. Republican anti-communism is not economic at all. They hate commies because commies don’t love Jesus. The Libertarian party, which operates leveraged spoiler votes to change the laws, does not need to compromise with ku-klux and other mystical looter coalitions. As the party of principle we quietly force the repeal of bad laws. Their tears and blood drawn are delicious, and I could watch commies and nationalsocialists fight all day–and place bets on the side.

          3. There’s a special place in Progressive Hell for members of “oppressed” groups who don’t fall in line and vote like they’re supposed to. Cases in point: the “progressive” left’s treatment of Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas, Milo Yiannopoulis, etc. Hell, they’re even comfortable calling them “uncle Toms” and “clowns in blackface”.

            Racist as fuck.

            1. Move over, Uncle Sam! It’s time for Uncle Tom to drive!
              ~Kmele 2020

        2. Not enough Asians.

        3. Canada had abortion laws back in the Dark Ages, but repealed them all. Canada never did have much of a Ku-klux klan, though, nor a Landover Baptist Church.

  10. Thank you, Reason, for sending out your prolife caucus to cover this.

    More Stephanie Slade, please.

    1. Congrats, Fuse.

      Especially interesting:
      But for every one person outside the high school/college student demographic, there seemed to be five or ten inside of it. They came to Washington by the busload to speak, listen, march, and pray.

      And this is legit as well:
      Evidence suggests libertarians are more likely to be pro-choice than pro-life. But as I’ve written, there’s nothing logically inconsistent about thinking people of all ages and stages should be protected from aggression.

      Even though it lights the Hihn signal.

      1. Should have bolded aggression.

      2. Stefanie is gonna make the list! Yay!

        All I ask is she gets ahead of John Titor.

        1. Hey friendo, that would bump me down to #10!?!

          1. Not if you kill Titor.

            Let’s get all No More Heroes in here!

            1. Bitch, I got a time machine and multiverse theory is true. Bring it on.

              1. Since I’m not on the list, I see myself more as Sylvia Krystel in this analogy…

                1. Wow, did you ever just date yourself. I haven’t heard that name in…uh…I cant remember.

                  1. For those who missed the best gaming satire of 2006-2012, wiki link and if I weren’t on iPad I would provide the opening video (look it up).

                2. I’m going to guess you don’t have the tits for it. Hopefully.

                  1. Maybe in volume, but how do you compete with that?

        2. It won’t be until mid-day Sunday that this thread is desecrated by MH.

        3. *Looks up from counting gold (((teeth)))*

          I’m sorry, what?

      3. Even though it lights the Hihn signal.

        What can be more authoritarian than lying about unalienable rights?
        Do dictionary definitions “light the Hihn signal?”
        Or are you just totally ignorant of America’s founding principles? And Natural Law.

        If so, pay attention. All unalienable rights are precisely equal to each other. By definition,
        That means Life, Liberty and all the others. And the Ninth Amendment explicitly forbids ANY level of government from denying or disparaging those rights.

        So Hihn’s question to you is …. can you list those rights which government is explicitly denied any power to deny or disparage? We all wait anxiously for your profound wisdom.

        1. I was referring to the fact that the word aggression was involved.

          I was right for the wrong reasons, apparently.

          1. I was referring to the fact that the word aggression was involved.

            But it’s not, for the reasons I stated.

            I was right for the wrong reasons, apparently.

            You’re totally wrong. Are you Donald Trump? It’s not aggression. Sorry, I can’t dumb it down any more than this:

            https://reason.com/blog/2017/01…..nt_6715127

        2. Because you recite a bunch of premises and go on to make an illogical conclusion therefrom?

          1. He can’t seem to help it.

    2. More Stephanie Slade, please.

      This.

    3. Less Steph YAF, and less Lyndon la Rouche!

  11. Reason giving EQUAL TIME?!?! WTF?!? Is this some new editorial initiative or something? Stephanie, you won’t be invited to the BEST cocktail parties with articles like this!!!

    1. Define ‘best’.

      1. Robby gets so drunk he reveals The Secrets of the Hair.

          1. I never get invited to those parties 🙁

          2. Yeah, that’s about the least interesting thing I could imagine following the words “Robby gets so drunk he…”

            1. …puts on a MAGA hat and starts working on his car engine?

              1. Perhaps less likely but not exactly the direction I was going.

            2. he puts on his goat ropers and has congress with….. oh nevermind.

              1. Now you’re just being disgusting. But warmer.

                1. Last time somebody wanted to watch Robby masturbate a grizzly bear. Is this what you wanted to hear, Rhywun?

                  1. Dear God no. Sometimes I forget where I am.

          3. I think it’s rather obvious that it involves orphan blood.

        1. I was thinking the best ones are the ones you don’t have to carry around a five gallon bucket of sanitary wipes so you can disinfect your hands after every handshake.

          1. I’m counting how many responses to Monty Crisco MAY be totally ignorant of the entire founding principle of equal, unalienable and/or God-Given Rights … to match Stephanie’s rejection of them.

            It’s very simple. Unalienable rights cannot be denied or taken away …. for any reason.
            That means BOTH extremes of the abortion issue have been totally brainwashed on the entire founding principle … many eagerly as they look for “facts” to support their authoritarian preference.
            Tribal morality.

  12. Mark me down as a grouch, but I’d kind of like to know if they picked up after themselves, vandalized any monuments, broke and windows, torched any cars, or punched anyone.

    Anyone know?

    1. I think there’s a clue here:

      “As usual, media outlets paid the protest minimal attention”

      1. “As usual, media outlets paid the protest minimal attention”

        A shameful lie. Reject the manipulation of Brietbart, Fox and their ilk. Google the annual march. TRY not to be as eagerly manipulated as the progtards. No vast progressive conspiracies. (gasp)

    2. They did pick up after themselves, but they also tortured and murdered the homeless.

      1. The surviving homeless were subjected to Christian rock, which is even worse.

        1. Pantera rocks! (Not really)

    3. Mark me down as a grouch, but I’d kind of like to know if they picked up after themselves, vandalized any monuments, broke and windows, torched any cars, or punched anyone.

      That’s chicken feed compared to the moral atrocity they were demanding in their march, To forcibly impose their own values on all Americans, in express violation of equal, unalienable and/or God-given rights.

      Which is the greater atrocity?

      1. The actual issue is what defines a human being that makes him different and worthy of legal protection? Is it genetics? Is it potential? Is it location? Is it size? Is it … ?

        You can argue the question with or without religious reference, even though religious belief is what motivates most (but not all) of those opposed to abortion.

  13. It’s insane how the regular media ignores this march every year.

    ABC deleted Trump’s March for Life reference from the online transcript of his recent interview, which was hilarious.

    ABC:So could you hear the womens march from your office? They say there were millions at this event.

    Trump: Nope. You guys gonna cover the March for Life next week? They have millions and you guys never cover it. Why is that??

    ABC: LET’S NOT TALK ABOUT CROWD SIZES AND WHATNOT. SHEESH.

    Great reporting Ms. Slade.

    1. It’s one the front page of Google News.

      1. Don’t interrupt anyone so totally eager to be brainwashed. Like Google news — an aggregator — posted THE NEW YORK TIMES REPORT. (GASP)

        The Times detailed coverage, including a dozen graphics — like beaded cross in one — and THREE video clips (lol) … makes monkeys out of the so easily brainwashed conspiracy freaks.

        It”s like those bullshit emails that say “confirmed by snopes” (a lie) because bobbleheads nod and swallow anything. Eagerly!

  14. What a bunch of busybodies. My body, my choice– church ladies.

    1. Hey did you ever figure out that energy actually includes entropy and that NPT isn’t the only ensemble anyone ever uses?

      1. Hey. when you get to high school you’ll learn about our founding principles … including equal, unalienable and/or God-given rights,

        Can ANYTHING be more authoritarian than rejecting unalienable rights?
        You’ll also learn, if you try hard, that the 9th Amendment forbids ALL levels of government from denying or disparaging fundamental human rights.

        Just out of my curiosity, can you list for us what those rights are, which government cannot deny or disparage?
        Be specific?

        1. Despite the fact that you are delusional enough to have hijacked a physics-oriented comment to start talking about unalienable rights, I’m going to take a stab at this.

          A) Do we give the state the authority to attempt to prevent murder with force? Yes, because murder is aggression intended to take another’s unalienable rights.

          B) Do pro-life people legitimately believe that a human life begins at conception? Yes, because (taking the non-religious argument) there isn’t another non-arbitrary place to “draw the line” between a clump of cells and a human being.

          Given A and B, could one reasonably reach the conclusion that the state could have the legitimate authority to stop abortion? Yes, unless you don’t understand very basic logic.

          Hihn, abortion can very legitimately be viewed as a trespass against the rights of an unborn human being. That’s not to say there can’t be disagreement about that in libertarian circles, and there is a ton. But it’s usually an extremely nuanced debate, where both sides truly do understand the other. There is absolutely no reason to go 100% ape-shit about this. It’s a libertarian stalemate, predicated entirely upon where you want to draw the line for the beginning of human life.

          1. Hihn, abortion can very legitimately be viewed as a trespass against the rights of an unborn human being.

            The problem is that Hihn does two things which make his arguments suck. 1) He says that life and liberty are co-equal rights, which they aren’t. 2) He completely ignores that (sans rape) the woman tacity consented to her pregnancy whereas the baby didn’t.

            Until and unless he addresses those two issues, he’s nothing but a chattering noisebox.

            1. ANOTHER goober!

              Hihn, abortion can very legitimately be viewed as a trespass against the rights of an unborn human being.

              The problem is that Hihn does two things which make his arguments suck.

              (snicker)

              1) He says that life and liberty are co-equal rights, which they aren’t.

              He supports that with the definition of unalienable … so you’ve just been exposed as another self-righteous bullshitter.

              buh-bye, loser. Your quarrel is with Thomas Jefferson, the Founders and the 9th Amendment. (yawn)

              My tone and boldface are in response to aggression … by a dipshit who INTENTIONALLY ignored “certain unalienable rights … Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” ….. AND ALL THE OTHERS!

              (flush)

              1. He supports that with the definition of unalienable

                Except that unalienable means that they cannot be encumbered or taken away, not that they can’t be preempted by an even more basic right. That is, unless you think that my liberty to shoot my gun in any direction I please is somehow co-equal with your right not to be shot by me.

              2. Hypothetical: Jim-Bob is a Reason commenter. He believes that the best way to pursue happiness is to enslave Michael Hihn in his diamond mine.

                Do you support his pursuit of happiness or would you prefer the government take away his unalienable rights, Michael?

          2. This is pathetic even for Passsword:pode$ta!

            Despite the fact that you are delusional enough to have hijacked a physics-oriented comment to start talking about unalienable rights,

            What a fucking phony you are!

            Your “physics” comment was in response to a statement on pro-choice … so I just dragged you back to the issue you had avoided so cowardly.

            Here’s the exchange with your bullshit.

            What a bunch of busybodies. My body, my choice– church ladies.

            Hey did you ever figure out that energy actually includes entropy and that NPT isn’t the only ensemble anyone ever uses?

            You’ve just been outed as a fraud and a liar … and rather blatant at that.

            So I will ignore your latest babbling. You want a response? Be an adult.

            (My tone and boldface is response to thuggish aggression)

            1. Disagreeing with you is not aggression.

        2. Ask Hihn to define “a right” in the most general terms. This is the way math and physics operate. Never yet have I met an econazi who knew the definition of energy or a birth-forcer who knew the definition of a right. My ethics teacher successfully convinced me that actual real individuals are what have rights, and that for any individual, a right is a moral claim to freedom of action. Got that? (See Moral Rights and Political Freedom)
          Hihn makes the same mistake as replying… um… three, eleven, nine? to “what is an odd number.” He won’t offer to write them all down, I’ll wager.

  15. Regardless of your position on abortion, it’s pretty much undeniable that these posters are less 100%-pure-insane than their pro-choice Wymyns’ March counterparts.

        1. I’ve got $20 on Hermes.

      1. Halp, James Cameron!

    1. He opens with total bullshit

      Regardless of your position on abortion,

      And finishes with 100% biased bullshit.

      it’s pretty much undeniable

      I deny it AND call you out.

      that these posters are less 100%-pure-insane than their pro-choice Wymyns’ March counterparts.

      (laughing) Using “Wymins'” adds to the wackiness!

      Back in reality, the pro-lifers were marching to impose their values by force, in blatant violation of the 9th Amendment … and of the entire concept of equal, unalienable and/or God-given rights.

      What can possibly be more authoritarian than shitting all over unalienable rights?
      But you’re not hysterically biased!!!

      1. Murdering children isn’t a God-given right. Jesus was very clear on His view of child-abusers.

        Child-murder is a U.S. Gubmint-granted right.

        1. Murdering children isn’t a God-given right. Jesus was very clear on His view of child-abusers.

          Well, chump,I said “and/or” God-Given …. where unalienable is what you’re afraid to deal with.

          Child-murder is a U.S. Gubmint-granted right.

          One more time for the morally afflicted, It;s not murder to defend a woman’s EQUAL AND UNALIENABLE rights.

          What IS it with you people???

          My tone and boldface is response to aggression by an intentional liar.

        2. Jesus wrote this when? Where?

      2. Does Hihnny-the-pooh actually think he’s changing anyone’s mind with his nonsensical ramblings?

        1. Why does The Elite Thug DEFEND the OPPRESSION of homosexuals … as promoted by Ron Paul?
          The first such denial of constitutional protection since …. SLAVERY?

          “I supported the Defense of Marriage Act, … I have also cosponsored the Marriage Protection Act, which would remove challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act from the jurisdiction of the federal courts”

          Pure. unadulterated fascism. In his own words.
          http://www.rawstory.com/2011/0…..riage-act/

          How many others have KNOWINGLY and INTENTIONALLY supported this blatant abuse of government force on this very page?

      3. I deny it AND call you out.

        *Tilts hat down, twirls six-shooter, holsters six-shooter, cracks knuckles*

        Your argument here is as follows: I am biased because I think grammatically reasonable, coherent signage is less insane than the opposite. This is based on the fact that you have no idea how the pro-life/pro-choice debate operates when it’s not on TV or a family of strawmen duking it out in your thick-yet-rotting skull.

        You believe that women wearing full vagina outfits, demanding free (taxpayer-sponsored) birth control are legit. You think that because YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND THE UNALIENABLE RIGHTS IN THE FIRST AMENDMENT!!1!1 Namely, religion. If a person religiously believes that birth control is sinful, forcing them to be party to that sin is a huge act of aggression. Face it Hihn, you’re a rights-aggressing fascist with no idea what our unalienable rights are.

        Also, Ron Paul is a million times better at being a libertarian than you are.

        1. Password:pode$ta …. champion BULLY of the week!!!!

          YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND THE UNALIENABLE RIGHTS IN THE FIRST AMENDMENT!

          BWAAAAAA HAAAAA HAAAAA
          THERE IS NO SUCH THING IN THE 1st AMENDMENT, CHUMP

          CONGRESS SHALL; MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF, OR ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, OR OF THE PRESS, OR THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO PEACEABLY ASSEMBLE, AND TO PETITION THE GOVERNMENT FOR A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES.

          UNALIENABLE RIGHTS ARE IN A DIFFERENT DOCUMENT (gasp) CALLED ….. THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE!!!!

          UNALIENABLE RIGHTS — BY DEFINITION — MAY NOT BE TAKEN AWAY OR DENIED
          IF TWO OR MORE RIGHT ARE UNALIENABLE, THE ARE CO-EQUAL
          THERE ARE MANY MORE THAN TWO.

          THE NINTH AMENDMENT FORBIDS ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT TO DENY OR DISPARAGE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

          THE ENUMERATION IN THE CONSTITUTION, OF CERTAIN RIGHTS, SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO DENY OR DISPARAGE OTHERS RETAINED BY THE PEOPLE.

          SIMPLE QUESTION, BULLY ?.. TELL US WHICH RIGHTS THAT GOVERNMENT MAY NEVER DENY OR DISPARAGE.

          (What are they ALL such extreme bullies. It’s inherent to their compulsion to initiate government force against innocent people ? forcing everyone to conform to THEIR values ,,, in blatant contempt of individual liberties)

          (Posted in defense of aggression by a drooling bully and thug)

        2. If a person religiously believes that birth control is sinful, forcing them to be party to that sin is a huge act of aggression.

          If course, Sparkly! But a different topic entirely.
          Your confusion combines with your appalling ignorance to create …. a joke.

        3. Password:pode$ta:
          Also, Ron Paul is a million times better at being a libertarian than you are

          (vomit)
          Why do you stand with Ron Paul, Orval Faubus and the KKK?
          1) Judicial Review?,
          2) balance of power?
          3) separation of powers?
          4) equal and unalienable rights?
          5) 9th Amendment?
          6) 14th Amendment?
          7) THREE co-equal branches of government?

          What can you cite for your conviction that states can have powers which have never been delegated?
          Why are you people so TOTALLY ignorant of America’s founding principles? And proud of your ignorance?

          BULLIES LAUNCHING REPEATED AGGRESSION …. CASTING THE FIST STONE … AS CHRIST WEEPS IN SILENT SHAME.

      4. Just as the North fought to impose their values by force in the South in the Civil War.

        1. Another from Ron Paul’s cult.
          Publicly opposes the founding concept that just governments are formed to defend individual liberties.

          DarrenM|1.28.17 @ 6:35PM|#
          Just as the North fought to impose their values by force in the South in the Civil War.

          Why?
          Because the sole purpose of government is to impose a religious theocracy by force.
          Ron Paul says so

  16. “thinking people of all ages and stages should be protected from aggression.”

    By whom, there’s the rub.

    1. STEVE SMITH, duh. He hates aggression by others.

    2. Protected from aggression by whom
      or
      Protected by whom from aggression

      ?

      1. It’s trueman; he spouts one inanity or the other in the hopes that someone will mistake it for some profundity.
        He’s an idiot.

        1. “He’s an idiot.”

          I’ve never hidden the fact. I also know some of the tricks writers play with the passive voice. ie “The cake was eaten.”

          1. mtrueman|1.27.17 @ 10:48PM|#
            “I’ve never hidden the fact. I also know some of the tricks writers play with the passive voice. ie “The cake was eaten.”

            Well, look there! The idiot admits to being an idiot and proves it once again!
            Folks, he’ll be here as often as he can sneak back in an hope no one notices!

      2. Opens up a whole can of worms, doesn’t it. Best just leave this by whom stuff out of it. It makes a fine platitude as it stands.

        1. mtrueman|1.27.17 @ 10:45PM|#
          “Opens up a whole can of worms, doesn’t it.”

          No, it seems to suggest you should offer more lame bullshit.
          No one here is fooled by your pretensions. Fuck off, and troll for hits on your pathetic blog elsewhere.

          1. There’s nothing pretentious about my comments here.

    1. RIP – he was Richard Rich in Man For All Seasons.

      1. He was great, but at the time I kept thinking about Richie Rich.

        1. Richie Rich and Caspar the Friendly Ghost are the same person. Think about it.

          And they should fornicate.

          1. Casper.

      1. My thoughts exactly. After last year, I’m used to these people dropping like flies. This one is really bothering me, though.

        1. He aged the way I wish I could have. That black and white pic of him is excellent. He just rolled with years and adjusted his fashion accordingly. Yes, Madonna, I’m looking at you. I look like a terminally ill 27 year old rather than the 47 year old I am. Time to throw out the flannel hoodie I suppose.

          1. I’m in my mid-40s and still get carded…in the U.S. anyway. Buncha babies.

            1. Honey, don’t flatter yourself. Some of them are trained to card anyone that looks under retirement age now. Thank a lawyer and/or government official south of you.

              1. It’s really dependent though, I’ve recently turned 30 and haven’t been carded in ages outside of liquor stores (who always card everyone here), even though the law says I should be carded. I think regrowing my beard has been a big part of that though, gotta cover the baby face.

                1. I’m in my late 40s and still get carded at some big chains like Rite Aid, but I don’t think I’ve ever been carded at a liquor store, ever. (NY liquor stores are not run by the government FWIW.)

                  1. Part of it certainly corporate culture. 95% of the time I shop at not only the biggest chain in the state but the biggest individual liquor store in Houston. That said I don’t remember ever not being carded in a liquor store. I think the POS system they use requires input of an age. Grocery store POS systems commonly do the same thing but he employees are much more likely to just click through it.

              2. In all seriousness, my wife and I can easily pass as being in our late 20s or 30s.

                No one believes us when we tell our age – and my wife is older than me!

                1. Scratch that 20s part – 30s.

                  1. I looked like a teenager until I was about 30. Then I got a real job and realized I was probably just undernourished the whole time. Then I went gray around 35 and that was the end of that.

                    1. Well, I am very thin.

                  2. Rufus aged before our eyes.

          2. I’m shocked to learn he was only 77. It seemed like he was in his 70s for the past 20 years or more.

            But he had a great voice.

            1. It seemed like he was in his 70s for the past 20 years or more.

              he was a very very very heavy drinker for a long time.

              1. *eyes bottle of whisky*

                So I could look like John Hurt, or I could look like Donald Trump and Penn Jillette…

                1. 7 bottles of wine a day. sometimes “what you drink” (and how) is the key-factor in the decrepitude. plenty of heavy drinkers don’t start to disintegrate in their 40s. you have to put some special effort into it.

    2. I will always remember him as the proto-monkey-man in Altered States

      oh, JOHN Hurt. My bad. I will always remember him for his greatest performances, both of which feature the word, “bleargh”

      1. LOL. Great movie, though.

      2. He was a great trumpet player, too.

    3. John Hurt is my Doctor tbh

  17. If you try to kick a person off your airplane in mid flight for refusing to make a gay wedding cake, you are responsible for the damage his corpse does to the border wall.

    1. Welp, now we know what was in the box.

        1. Layne Staley’s skull? How much did that cost?

          1. Less than it cost him. The needle marks in the orbital sockets tell a cute forensic tale.

  18. OT, for anyone worrying about Trump’s latest Imperial Edict, from BBC

    The text of the order was released several hours after it was signed. Among the measures are:

    Suspension of the US Refugee Admissions Programme for 120 days
    A ban on refugees from Syria until “significant changes” are made
    A 90-day suspension on arrivals from Iraq, Syria, and countries designated “areas of concern”
    To prioritise future refugee applications on the basis of religious-based persecution – but only if the person is part of a minority religion in their home country
    A cap of 50,000 refugees in 2017 – less than half of Mr Obama’s upper limit

    However, a mention of creating “safe zones” within Syria, seen in an earlier draft, was removed from the final order.

    1. I’m relieved at that last part.

      1. I heard that evil Trump is going to outlaw abortions for Syrian refugees

        1. I recall mentioning to Mike Godwin about Hitler’s encouragement of abortion among “inferior” races.

          That was when he ventured into the comments once. Funny, I haven’t seen him around lately.

            1. You know who else we haven’t seen around lately?

    2. To prioritise future refugee applications on the basis of religious-based persecution – but only if the person is part of a minority religion in their home country

      This is good. 95% of the “refugees” that Obama admitted from Syria and Iraq were Sunni Muslims. Less than 5% were Yazidi and Christian, although these two groups have been the hardest hit.

      1. I will never stop pointing out that PM Zoolander found the idea of priority for Christians and Jazidis disgusting, and abolished the program when he got to power.

  19. I was just watching the news. Apparently, Donald Trump was elected president at some point. Does anyone else know this?

    It’s somewhat surprising, I must say.

    1. He was not elected, he was installed by Russian tanks.

      Sentient T-34/85s who look like anime chicks for some reason, specifically.

      1. I really don’t want to know why you seem to know so much about animes involving schoolgirls and Soviet era combat vehicles.

          1. Oh, I knew what you were talking about. Anime, visual novels, whatever.

            I’m just saying…it’s suspicious.

    2. What? Dude, you’re crazy. He’s just some weird reality TV star; who the hell would vote for him?

      1. Bush would ever give up power and allow elections anyway.

    3. Naw that was just a joke from The Simpsons.

    4. HE’S NOT LEGITIMATE AND HE’S NOT THEIR PRESIDENT!

  20. The religious indoctrination of children is a serious problem where I live. It’s almost child abuse to trick a child into believing this insanity. Religions are the original alternative facts. Beware of this shit.

    1. You know what else is like child abuse? Killing them.

      1. I was trying to post that, word for word, but when I try to post something the page goes to some weird ad page then reloads to a blank page.
        The blank page won’t load anything, just keeps reloading a blank page. I have to open a new window and start all over. My comments appear about one in ten times. It is very frustrating.

    2. This is a totally new, original thought, and certainly not something I was taught since I was 5. Thank you, random new poster who is totally not a sock!

      Smrt fa?izmu, sloboda narodu!

      1. Where random poster lives is empirical evidence that there is no god.

        1. Meh, they made a great car back in the eighties

      2. Ah yes, the days when “Serbo-Croatian” was a thing.

    3. We’ve gone from Nietzsche to this people. This is why New Atheism sucks.

      1. Anything that ends with “theism” sucks.

        1. “ism”

          FTFY

    4. The religious indoctrination of children is a serious problem where I live.

      Those damned religous children getting up early on Sundays, abstaining from sex in high school, and wearing those stupid WWJD bracelets! Get off my lawn you Invisible Sky Daddy believers!!!

      1. What Would (Denver) J Do

          1. Damn straight. A vape loaded with shatter- nicotine is the Debil (unless it’s in a cigar)

            1. I don’t know how you do concentrate. More power to ya.
              I just got home from the store. Mix and match 2 quarters, get the early bird price for the half.

              1. Just do less. Upside: you don’t smell like a skunk.

            2. I read that as loaded with Shattner, for some unexplainable reason.

              1. Dude, whatever floats your boat.

      2. I have it on good authority that all the religious guys are pussies and all the chicks hot, sex-starved vixens. What’s the problem?

    5. The bible and church are the reasons I’m not religious.

      There are non religious arguments on both sides of abortion.

      1. No doubt it is a difficult issue. I’ve thought about it a lot, going back and forth between the two sides. In the end, I think Walter Block’s evictionism makes the most sense, if applied after legal personhood is established. When legal personhood begins is the thorny issue, of course. Somewhere in the second trimester is my guess. I also think this is what most reasonable people would conclude.

        1. At least as far as where the law should be, that sounds about right. Its no easy thing. it all hinges on personhood, and i suppose how strict we interpret the NAP

          1. I don’t think you can look at “legal” personhood, though. It was once legal to own slaves, too. In some cultures, it was legal to sacrifice virgins to volcanoes or whatever else was to hand, which was a real waste of virgins, but what can you do?

        2. I’m pro legal abortion, but the assumption that prolife is automagically unlibertarian is horse shit.

          1. Why have I never seen THAT word before?

            1. What, “horse”? It’s a 4 legged mammal.

            2. That’s a good word.

              1. It’s not mine. I stole “automagically” from a tv ad about some music app a few years ago.

                1. I’ve only ever seen “atuomagically” in Erfworld, so…

                  1. You read Erfworld while waiting on the next OotS, then?

        3. First, I doubt there are many people at all who are “pro abortion”. The few women I know who have had one did not get pregnant so they could do so, so we need to put that meme aside.

          “When legal personhood begins is the thorny issue, of course.”
          IFAIK, this is the only issue which needs resolution. I tend to agree with you, but there are plenty who are willing to define it ‘way earlier.

          1. Actually, there are “pro abortion” people. They tend to be racist, although not always, and the idea is that it decreases crime and spares innocents from being forced to live in appalling circumstances.

            1. DenverJ|1.27.17 @ 10:27PM|#
              “Actually, there are “pro abortion” people.”

              I’ll bet four or five.

              1. Meh, there seem to be a few of the Lena Dunham types who want to celebrate their abortions. It is, however, a small but vocal minority. Similar to the anti-abortion people who spend their free time protesting outside abortion clinics.

                Abortion is a complicated issue that doesn’t lend itself well to black and white moralizing for most people’s principles.

                I’m guessing the majority of the people at the march for life would be sympathetic to a rape victim who took RU-486. And most of the people at the women’s march last week probably would have some moral unease at aborting a fetus at 8 months.

          2. Yep. “Reduce harmful procedures” seems like the only way forward.

          3. I certainly wouldn’t describe these men and women a pro-abortion.

        4. Outside of rape, the evictionism argument completely ignores the mother’s decision to engage in a procreative act. Beyond that, I’m not convinced that trespass should be capital crime. I don’t even see how a fetus is a trespasser though when they are put where they are without their consent.

          1. I think that’s where the pro-choice argument and especially the evictionist argument is weakest. Their analysis starts in medias res. I don’t think I have seen an evictionist argument that fully addresses the problem that the mother tacitly consented* to the “trespass” and that the fetus didn’t consent to it.

            *Minus rape

          2. What?? There is no contract created during the sex act. That line of argument carries no water from any kind of legal perspective. As for the trespass, that is what evictionism claims, that you can evict but not kill.

            1. Sex is procreative act no matter how many preventatives we use. You inherently consent to the possibility of pregnancy. The fetus certainly doesn’t consent to its existence, hence the responsibility of those who did consent (the parents) to care for the child or arrange for someone else to. If they can transfer to an artificial womb that is fine but they would still be financially responsible until they transfer that responsibility.

              I’m not positive that all evictionists are pro-life under currently available technology either.

              1. I’M 1000% SURE!

            2. So, if there is no “contract”, there is no agreement. Hence, the sex act is rape.

            3. So, if there is no “contract”, there is no agreement. Hence, the sex act is rape.

          3. “the mother’s decision to engage in a procreative act.”

            This, along with the fact that a fetus becomes a human being at some hard-to-discern point, has made me somewhat less pro-abortion rights. I’m still reluctantly in favor of it since a government prohibition brings severe problems with it.

          4. Well, according to the Left, women are too emotional and ignorant to be able to control their own choice to engage in a behavior that has a high likelihood of resulting in pregnancy, so they can’t really be held accountable for their own decisions. Also, men are really just animals who prey on unsuspecting women with the sole intention to impregnate them against their will.

  21. My hometown made The Onion. I miss Chicken Waffles.

    1. Haven’t seen Waffles in a bit. Wonder where he is. Also, don’t call him chicken

      1. Isn’t Waffles also Vampire?

        1. Who knows. I can’t keep track

        2. Did he get bitten by Hihn? I thought Hihn didn’t have any teeth anymore. I suppose they make vampire dentures.

  22. OT: So, Reason — I’ve been working everyday since 12/28/16, 12-15 hours a day (I work in IT), and have another long weekend of work coming up.

    I go out of my room and my proggy roommate (who has a very cushy 8-5 job where he spends have his time posting leftist crap on facebook and watching the daily show), started complaining about how “stressful” his job was today, and grunting and groaning randomly.

    I really don’t know what to say to that, so I turned around and walked right back to my room.

    1. Don’t live with a proggy roommate. Life is too short.

    2. Hang in there – it’ll get better. It might take a couple decades.

    3. However much of a douche your roommate is, if 12-15 hour days is a standard rather than a limited crunch time thing, you should get another job. Life is too short for that.

      1. usually it’s not that bad, but dec/jan is the worst time of the year by far. getting lots of comp time at least

        the joke is I am out maybe once a month to LA or San Diego to go to the theme parks, visit family, see a Giants game in San Diego, etc, because if I’m not physically out of the bay area I will end up working.

        So I have SD and Vegas coming up at the end of next month, the SD / Giants for my B-Day in April, San Diego / LA in May, July, August, Reno in June.

        So yeah it’s either 7 days a week 12+ hrs a day, or 4/5 day weekend to get out of Dodge. Nothing in-between

        1. I feel you, as a lawyer I sometimes have absolutely brutal months and other times where I work a normal work week. I’d almost prefer the crunch time being at a predictable time a year. I definitely choose to work at a small firm rather than big law though because working those hours all the time is not worth the marginal increase in salary. No point in making money if you don’t have time to spend it.

          1. well said, agree completely. I’m at a smaller company in IT so when it’s crunch time, that’s pretty much all you’re doing. A few years ago I didn’t have a single day off in 5 1/2 months, but I do have a flexible schedule now and can take a lot of time off during lulls.

            I got my first Disneyland pass because I have family down there, and went 17 days in a year (8 trips). I need it to keep sane, lol.

            Crunch time is nice though, I think I do better work under pressure than when it’s slow.

            1. Crunch time is nice though, I think I do better work under pressure than when it’s slow.

              Yes, as long as it isn’t all consuming. It sounds like your employer does a good job of giving you leeway to make up for the rough parts. Crunch time makes the day go a lot faster than when you’re twiddling your thumbs.

            2. Of course, but when crunch time is all the time its not crunch time anymore. Crunch time is when its even worse!

          2. How many freaking lawyers are there on Reason? Also, fuck the bar exam. I haven’t wanted to kill myself this much in a very long time.

            1. The bar exam sucked, but when I realized how high the passage rate is and that the number of retards in the room was higher than the failure rate it didn’t seem so bad. Absent moving between states (and dependent on reciprocity) you only have to take it once!

            2. “first thing we do is kill all the lawyers” -Bill S.

    4. Push him up against the wall, get up in his face, and hiss “motherfucker, if I have to listen to one more whiny little pussy bitch about anything, I’m going to gut that person like a fish.”
      It’ll be fun, I promise.

      1. I mean, at least DenverJ gets laid after listening to whining.

        1. Unless i get annoyed enough to tell her what i think of her stupid stupidity.

          1. Don’t be stupid, DenverJ.

        1. That show had great acting but was a bit much.

    5. Just think about how all the saved retirement money you’ll have to enjoy life while he’ll still be an idiot whinebag. That should make you feel a little better.

    6. Get another job. I really hope you are paid well for that.

  23. These people just obviously don’t understand the magic of having a pregnancy aborted and never having to deal with the consequences.

    1. I wish I were a woman so I could get pregnent and have an abortion. It’s not fair. Those bitches need to check their privilege.

  24. It’s like the only two political choices in the US are (1) make everybody pay for free abortions for anybody who wants them at any time, and (2) throw women and doctors in jail for performing any abortions.

    How about we just keep government out of the abortion issue altogether? Most people consider abortion sinful, but not everything that is sinful needs to be criminalized.

    1. If abortion is murder (or abortion after a certain level of development is murder) this is not an acceptable compromise. Payment with confiscated tax money for abortion is a non-sequitur, that is completely unacceptable to any libertarian.

  25. Leftie bling lovers pissed at bling which ain’t lefty:

    “Melania Trump is eating jewels on Vanity Fair Mexico’s cover, and people are furious
    …]
    “First lady Melania Trump is on the cover of Vanity Fair’s Mexican edition, and many Mexicans are both baffled and furious, given the current strain between President Donald Trump and Mexico.”
    http://www.sfgate.com/technolo…..889483.php

    WIH that image would have anything to do with Trump’s closed-borders stance is a mystery to me. Maybe an abortion is involved.

    1. an “insult to our country,”

      Is there some shared national trauma about eating diamonds that completely escapes us gringos? Because I read the article and it doesn’t make a lick of sense.

        1. Nope. No click on your blind links.
          I got your number.

          1. During his time living in New York City, he is credited with bringing in the first shipments of chicle, the base of chewing gum. He failed to profit from this, since his plan was to use the chicle to replace rubber in carriage tires, which was tried without success.

            Thomas Adams, the American assigned to aid Santa Anna while he was in the U.S., experimented with chicle in an attempt to use it as a substitute for rubber. He bought one ton of the substance from Santa Anna, but his experiments proved unsuccessful. Instead, Adams helped to found the chewing gum industry with a product that he called “chiclets”.

            The Trickster God is the one true god.

            1. I’m sorry he didn’t make a bundle on his efforts, but he seems a bit ‘flexible’:

              “His political positions changed frequently in his lifetime; “his opportunistic politics made him a Liberal, Conservative, and uncrowned king.”[9] He was overthrown for the last time by the liberal Revolution of Ayutla in 1854 and lived most of his later years in exile.”

              1. He was flexible in the way all tyrants are: whatever will keep them in power. He even failed repeatedly at that though.

              2. It seems like losing almost half of Mexico’s territory at the time to the US, including Texas, Nevada, and California would be a bigger black mark against his legacy.

                And now I’ve got The Yellow Rose of Texas stuck in my head. Even though the story that Santa Anna lost Texas because he was more concerned about getting busy with a woman, who in the parlance of the time would have been described as a ‘High Yellow’, is somewhat apocryphal.

    2. I must mention that the Chron is ‘fish in a barrel’.
      Can’t remember the name of the former NYT writer who blew the whistle on the top-down, narrative-directed editing direction, but from acquaintances who do and did write for the Chron, that’s pretty much what goes on there.
      Judging by the paper and e-version, it seems the quota is something like 4-5 Trump-bashings per day. Some are really lame (‘What Trump’s Name Means in Chinese”), others less so but misleading anyhow, as in when K. Pender (one of the few who refuses to write in lefty language) still got stuck with a headline regarding how the Dow rise ‘didn’t help the poor’ when writing about the dramatic rise since the election.
      I do not know her, but I’m sorry she has to tolerate that shit.

  26. I just now became aware of this. BBC: Makes our media look fair, balanced and intellectually honest.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMocu3CTcEQ

    1. Anybody who watched the Brexit coverage live as it happened would be disabused of that notion. They were freaking the fuck out, it was easily the most enjoyable night of news coverage I watched in 2016. When Sunderland came in for Brexit and Newcastle (Labor hotbeds and therefore what conventional wisdom assumed were Remain hotbeds) barely came in as Remain rather than a blowout you could see quite plainly the physical change in their demeanor. It is doubly evil as it is tax payer funded.

      1. “…it was easily the most enjoyable night of news coverage I watched in 2016…”

        Better than the slow realization by the lefty US press that the hag was gonna be the President Reject?
        Dunno, that was hard to beat; I kept expecting some state I’d missed was gonna go hag-wunnerful, and it never happened.

        1. Yeah it was definitely better, because no matter how fun our election was we still were stuck with Trump at the end of it.

          1. Ya know, that was my take at the time, but given the +/- ratio since then he (and/or his staff) have done a pretty good job.
            I despise his protectionism, but I’m not sure the cancelation of the Pac agreement was harmful; I opposed that since that miserable fucking liar Obo hid what was in it, and I trusted him to screw me every chance he got.
            Man, I’m happy he’s gone!

          2. I loved seeing the NY Times(?) “likely winner” meter needle move slowly away from “almost certainly Hillary” over the course of the evening.

    2. Prefacing every question with a laundry list of virtue signals is going to be the new normal at press conferences. Fucking hacks.

    3. OMFG. I thought his response was remarkably restrained.

      1. Restrained in the face of a “strafing run”. In fact, that is where I got my handle from. Lefties dump a pile of highly debatable statements on the table and then wrap up it up with an unanswerable question.

        1. Lefties dump a pile of highly debatable statements on the table and then wrap up it up with an unanswerable question.

          exactly. its become so shallow and transparent that they’re completely disinterested in the content of any answer = they just want to shit up the entire environment, and make the conversation about “DO YOU KNOW HOW MUCH WE WANT EVERYONE TO HATE YOU? HOW DOES THAT MAKE YOU FEEL = GIVE US SOME JUICY QUOTES TO MISCONSTRUE”, as though that’s “holding government accountable” or “helping expose crucial information”, or anything that might be considered within the public interest.

          1. They’re always saying “Let’s unpack that answer” yet it never crosses their mind to “unpack” the bs question. It’s Tower of Babel heights of incoherence.

            1. They’re always saying “Let’s unpack that answer”

              iow, ‘let’s translate it into what we want it to mean’

              the most common (and tiresome) form of argument i hear from millenials on the intertubes is the

              “So what you’re saying is [INSERT GIGANTIC FLIMSY STRAW MAN], right?”

              Which, for ‘twitter fights’ is fine and all; its when ‘Prestige-Media Journalist-Professionals’ do it in “interviews” that it gets completely fucking ridiculous.

          2. The TPP was DOA, whether Clinton or Trump became president.

            1. I dunno. I think Hillary would have approved it despite what she campaigned on. She’s not going to turn her back on that sort of graft.

          3. The thing that bugged me was in the first press conference, the WH press corps asked the new guy, “Do you promise you won’t ever lie to us?”

            That’s not really a question for a presidential briefing, that’s a question a woman who just went through a bad break up asks the guy she met at the bar 15 minutes before closing time. If you had asked the last guy that same question, you might not be in this mess.

        2. “So, when did you stop beating your wife?”

    4. “Did you feel the president undressing you with his eyes, and how nauseous did you become in his presence?”

  27. What’s the difference between a pile of dead babies and a red corvette?

    1. She made a raspberry pur?e. I think I love her.

    2. dead babies are a woman’s RIGHT

    3. I don’t have a red corvette in my garage.

      1. Are you the protagonist or antagonist in a Sugarfree short story?

  28. How many dead babies does it take to paint a barn?

    1. Probably a few thousand, because you have to build the barn first.

  29. What’s worse than 100 dead babies in 100 trash cans?

    1. It’s supposed to be “in a trash can”, not 100 trash cans.

      1. If you’re going to do dead baby jokes, at least get them right. You’re like Biff Tannen with your delivery of your lame jokes.

        1. Arguing over dead baby jokes…why aren’t there any libertarian women again?

  30. “Strike abortion down and it will become more powerful than you can imagine”— OB-Gyn Kenobi.

  31. What’s the difference between a pile of dead babies and a pile of leaves?

    1. 7th grade just flashed before my eyes.

    2. It’s no fun to cut up a pile of leaves with a chainsaw.

      1. I thought that it was harder to move a pile of leaves with a pitchfork.

  32. Why do strangers keep spraying me with Fabreeze?

    1. I shudder to think what flavors of Febreze they have in Japan.

      1. I shudder to think what flavors of Febreze they have in Japan.


        “Crab Fandango”
        “Autumn Fermented Soy”
        “Mollusk//Volcano Bouquet”
        “Over-Anxious Student”

      2. +1 Cuttlefish

  33. Suthenboy made a good point above in the thread,

    when you have any leftist protest, listen to their speeches. They are angry, mean, ugly, bitter people. List to Ashley Judd’s speech.

    then compare that to a right or libertarian gathering – life, liberty, freedom. Peacefulness.

    Just look at the pictures people use to describe the event. The Women’s march had freaks dressed up as Vaginas, or people screaming, or whatever. Here it is groups of people….. smiling, upbeat, positive. Says a lot

    1. Indeed it does. Leftists (especially leftist women) are miserable bastards. They go insane over anything they don’t like, and do anything to grab attention. We all saw our Facebook feed after the election. Does anyone recall anything remotely like that from their right leaning friends when we got our first affirmative action president eight years ago?

      1. My Facebook feed still looks like that. Hence my vastly reduced time there. And eight years ago, even in the most extreme right-wing sources I saw at the time, there was not the level of apocalyptic rhetoric that I see now, not just on Facebook, but in “mainstream” news sources. This is because Trump is a challenge to the left like no other. He’s shifted the Overton Window and contradicts the pseudo-religious leftist dogma that history moves only in their direction.

    2. Of course. Conservatives and real libertarians believe that most people and modern western society are basically decent, as long as we have the rule of law in place and some people willing to defend it. Yes, there are very real problems, but most of them aren’t totally intractable if we’re willing to work together to at least some extent.

      The socialist, leftist disciples of Marx, Alinsky, Cloward, and Piven believe that they alone are great and superior beings, and everyone outside of their group completely sucks (“deplorable”, as it were). They believe they and they alone are fit to rule over all, and they will never be happy until they think they have finally achieved permanent dominance over society. They know this can’t happen until they have torn down all existing societal structure from within and rebuilt it in their own image. And the best way to do is to divide people until we’re all at each others’ throats. That’s why all their messaging is now based on rage, divisiveness, and hatred.

  34. Fantastic work-from-home opportunity for everyone.Work for three to eightt hrs a day and start getting paid in the range of 5,260-12,830 dollars a month. Weekly payments.54u
    Find out more HERE
    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.moneytime10.com

    1. Home abortions?

  35. But as I’ve written, there’s nothing logically inconsistent about thinking people of all ages and stages should be protected from aggression.

    Writing about nonsense does NOT make it logical. As you aggress against the woman. The woman’s unalienable right to Liberty is precisely equal to the fetal child’s unalienable right to Life … per the very definition of unalienable. Look it up.

    While the Pro-Life followers have legitimate aims, they are actually tools of a political; agenda … and government is not for imposing ANY one set of values by government force.

    The most obvious example is late-term abortions which could have been banned the day after Roe v Wade (which no longer applies). Simply require a live birth of a viable fetus. But then they could not incite hysteria. How many babies have died … for the pro-life political agenda?

    BOTH extremes try to impose their own view by force of law. But we learned in high school about conflicting rights. ONLY the judiciary can resolve such conflicts — remember checks and balances? But they are obliged to draw a border that BEST respects BOTH rights. US History 101.

    How can libertarians DEFY equal rights? Ronald Reagan was strongly pro-life. but attacked for not supporting abortion bans by force. The GOP’s libertarian wing was more libertarian than today’s libertarian movement!. Is that why Cato reports the libertarian brand is rejected by 91% of libertarians?

    1. You have posted a listed of the top 10 most fascist libertarians on this forum. Everybody is waiting with baited breath the next 15 fasicists lists you name.

      1. You just lied. But if the goober INSISTS. Here’s the post from a totally different page.

        Fascists: John, CrustyJuggler, Tonio, John Titor, jubistar, Citizen x, Francisco D’Anconia, ace-m82, Swiss Servator, MarkLastName, bacom-magic nd all my many stalkers

        Here AGAIN is why Ron Paul is a liberty hustler. Listen to his pathetic bullshit here.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vH0kHoWdK3M#t=138

        Listen as he opposes marriage equality because it would expand government benefits!! He trashes the 14th Amendment, and the entire concept of equal rights.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vH0kHoWdK3M#t=138

        Do his puppets REALLY think he opposes expanding the welfare state! Or do they need an excuse for bigotry?

        “I supported the Defense of Marriage Act, … I have also cosponsored the Marriage Protection Act, which would remove challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act from the jurisdiction of the federal courts”

        FUCKING SHAMEFUL.. THE FIRST DENIAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION SINCE SLAVERY,

        He also says “rogue judges” overturned DOMA, using the same argument as Orval Faubus, who used his state militia to impose segregation on 9 black kids. He lies about the 10th Amendment, REJECTS the 9th amendment and balance of power, thus leaving us DEFENSELESS from government.

        STATES HAVE POWERS WHICH HAVE NEVER BEEN DELEGATED? (omg)

        Now the PC thugs will gang up on me, like a pack of wild dogs, NEVER challenging a single fact.

        (Tone and boldface in self defense of aggression)

        1. GODDAMIT, I THOUGHT YOU ADDED ME!

        2. I am DEEPLY shocked and offended that I did not make the top-ten-fascists list! Admittedly I am not a super-active poster, but still…

          Here, lemme make it up to y’all, and try and PROVE that I am a right-wing fascist, here is my favorite Biblical Wisdom again…

          God COMMANDS us to kill EVERYONE!

          Our that them thar VALUES of society outta come from that them thar HOLY BIBLE, and if ya read it right, it actually says that God wants us to KILL EVERYBODY!!! Follow me through now: No one is righteous, NONE (Romans 3:10). Therefore, ALL must have done at least one thing bad, since they’d be righteous, had they never done anything bad. Well, maybe they haven’t actually DONE evil, maybe they THOUGHT something bad (Matt. 5:28, thoughts can be sins). In any case, they must’ve broken SOME commandment, in thinking or acting, or else they’d be righteous. James 2:10 tells us that if we’ve broken ANY commandment, we broke them ALL. Now we can’t weasel out of this by saying that the New Testament has replaced the Old Testament, because Christ said that he’s come to fulfill the old law, not to destroy it (Matt. 5:17). So we MUST conclude that all are guilty of everything.

          1. And the Old Testament lists many capital offenses! There’s working on Sunday. There’s also making sacrifices to, or worshipping, the wrong God (Exodus 22:20, Deut. 17:2-5), or even showing contempt for the Lord’s priests or judges (Deut. 17:12). All are guilty of everything, including the capital offenses. OK, so now we’re finally there… God’s Word COMMANDS us such that we’ve got to kill EVERYBODY!!!

            (I am still looking for that special exception clause for me & my friends & family? I am sure I will find it soon!)

            1. And oh by the way, the above CLEARLY mandates unborn-baby-killing along with killing EVERYONE, so what’s left to fight about? Abortion, schmubortion!!!!

            2. And the Old Testament lists many capital offenses!

              Like immediately killing ALL the infidels …. even one’s own brother, spouse, child or friend. Far more barbaric than anything in the Quran, where killing infidels is only if they attack the temple …. and they may not be pursued, which would no longer be self-defense.

              As we all know, the entire western concept of self-defense comes from Mohamed. Christ preached total submission to aggression.

              Oh, we mist also immediately kill every woman who was not a virgin on her wedding night!
              Somehow, the “literal Bible” Christians ignore all the inconvenient parts.

              1. You mean they don’t take them out of context.

        3. Ron Paul is awesome, Hihn, and you are a loony.

          1. The cult followers deny actual PROOF!!!!!

            on Paul is awesome, Hihn, and you are a loony.

            (snicker)
            Here AGAIN is why Ron Paul is a con man. Listen as he opposes marriage equality because it would expand government benefits!! He trashes the 14th Amendment, and the entire concept of equal rights.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vH0kHoWdK3M#t=138

            He also lies about his support of DOMA. shamefully, as PROVEN in the next link.

            http://www.rawstory.com/2011/0…..riage-act/

            “I supported the Defense of Marriage Act, … I have also cosponsored the Marriage Protection Act, which would remove challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act from the jurisdiction of the federal courts”

            FUCKING SHAMEFUL.. THE FIRST DENIAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION SINCE SLAVERY,

            He also says “rogue judges” overturned DOMA, using the same argument as Orval Faubus, who used his state militia to impose segregation on 9 black kids. He lies about the 10th Amendment, REJECTS the 9th amendment and balance of power, thus leaving us DEFENSELESS from government.

            STATES HAVE POWERS WHICH HAVE NEVER BEEN DELEGATED!!!! (OMG)

            As the PC thugs gang up on me like a pack of wild dogs, NEVER challenging a single fact.
            Bobbleheads.

            (Tone and boldface in self defense of aggression)

        4. Ron Paul does have his problems and blind spots. I’ll give you that.

        5. Ahhh!! I’m on the list! Nice! So proud of myself.

          Enjoy some beats you old fucker you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsHld-iArOc

          TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP!

          1. BEHOLD THE PROUD FASCISTS.

            All down the page. PROOF that Ron Paul is a fascist …. in his own words.
            One more time for his Gestapo

            Ron Paul he opposes marriage equality because it would expand government benefits!! He trashes the 14th Amendment, and the entire concept of equal rights. Does his cult oppose benefits …. or equal rights, as bigots

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vH0kHoWdK3M#t=138

            He also lies about his support of DOMA. shamefully, as PROVEN in the next link.

            http://www.rawstory.com/2011/0…..riage-act/

            “I supported the Defense of Marriage Act, … I have also cosponsored the Marriage Protection Act, which would remove challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act from the jurisdiction of the federal courts”

            FUCKING SHAMEFUL.. THE FIRST DENIAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION SINCE SLAVERY,

            He also says “rogue judges” overturned DOMA, using the same argument as Orval Faubus, who used his state militia to impose segregation on 9 black kids. He lies about the 10th Amendment, REJECTS the 9th amendment and balance of power, thus leaving us DEFENSELESS from government.

            What do they do?
            1) Defend DOCUMENTED fascism
            2) Line up and attack me for EXPOSING it. Like Hitler’s brownshirts.

            Count the aggression, attacks and personal insults,
            Obviously tribal goobers. Are they also fascists? (smirk)

            I’ll get attacked for this, because Reason encourages it.

    2. “BOTH extremes try to impose their own view by force of law. But we learned in high school about conflicting rights. ONLY the judiciary can resolve such conflicts — remember checks and balances? But they are obliged to draw a border that BEST respects BOTH rights. US History 101.”

      Yes, indeed, remember how the judiciary resolved the conflict between freedom and slavery in the Dred Scott decision in 1857?

      1. And who can forget Wickard v. Filburn and the way it resolved the conflicting claims for all time!

        1. ANOTHER ONE!!!

          And who can forget Wickard v. Filburn and the way it resolved the conflicting claims for all time!

          (yawn)
          https://reason.com/blog/2017/01…..nt_6715142

          How does that change the Constitution?
          How dare you use that to promote a dictatorship.

      2. “BOTH extremes try to impose their own view by force of law. But we learned in high school about conflicting rights. ONLY the judiciary can resolve such conflicts — remember checks and balances? But they are obliged to draw a border that BEST respects BOTH rights. US History 101.”

        Yes, indeed, remember how the judiciary resolved the conflict between freedom and slavery in the Dred Scott decision in 1857?

        They changed. But Ron Paul STILL does it. And YOU dismiss unalienable rights!!
        How does that change the Constitution?
        How does that absolve pro-life extremists for demanding FAR worse. — with 20 X the victims?
        Do you also believe Congress lost its power by not being perfect? The President? Or only when it’s con-veeeeeen-yent to your tribe?
        The Constitution is null and void because it recognized slavery? REALLY?

        Liberty has been evolving for hundreds of years, and will continue doing so. God-willing, despite your contempt for the Constitution, equal, unalienable and/or God-given rights

        Are you aware you said that in public?

        1. Dear God, what is with Hihnny-the-pooh and his Ron Paul obsession? Almost every post he makes is some kind of attack on Paul.

          1. Ron Paul is everything Hihn wishes he could be.

            So, envy.

            1. Behold the bulklly !!!

              cavalier973
              Ron Paul is everything Hihn wishes he could be.So, envy.

              (snicker)
              Here AGAIN is why Ron Paul is a con man. Listen as he opposes marriage equality because it would expand government benefits!! He trashes the 14th Amendment, and the entire concept of equal rights.

              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vH0kHoWdK3M#t=138

              He also lies about his support of DOMA. shamefully, as PROVEN in the next link.

              http://www.rawstory.com/2011/0…..riage-act/

              “I supported the Defense of Marriage Act, … I have also cosponsored the Marriage Protection Act, which would remove challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act from the jurisdiction of the federal courts”

              FUCKING SHAMEFUL.. THE FIRST DENIAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION SINCE SLAVERY,

              He also says “rogue judges” overturned DOMA, using the same argument as Orval Faubus, who used his state militia to impose segregation on 9 black kids. He lies about the 10th Amendment, REJECTS the 9th amendment and balance of power, thus leaving us DEFENSELESS from government.

              STATES HAVE POWERS WHICH HAVE NEVER BEEN DELEGATED!!!! (OMG)

              As the PC thugs gang up on me like a pack of wild dogs, NEVER challenging a single fact.

              (Tone and boldface in self defense of aggression)

              1. So…did I make this list of yours?

                1. You likely did. I’m surprised he has the room to let so many people live rent-free in his head.


          2. The Elite Elite
            Dear God, what is with Hihnny-the-pooh and his Ron Paul obsession? Almost every post he makes is some kind of attack on Paul.

            That was DEFENSE OF AGGRESSION … like this to you.
            Why is “Hihnny-the-pooh:” so typical of your childish ilk?

            MORE AGGRESSION – MORE DEFENSE

            Listen as Ron Paul opposes marriage equality because it would expand government benefits!! He trashes the 14th Amendment, and the entire concept of equal rights.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vH0kHoWdK3M#t=138

            He also lies about his support of DOMA. shamefully, as PROVEN here

            http://www.rawstory.com/2011/0…..riage-act/

            “I supported the Defense of Marriage Act, … I have also cosponsored the Marriage Protection Act, which would remove challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act from the jurisdiction of the federal courts”

            FUCKING SHAMEFUL.. THE FIRST DENIAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION SINCE SLAVERY,

            STATES HAVE POWERS WHICH HAVE NEVER BEEN DELEGATED!!!! (OMG)

            As the PC thugs gang up on me like a pack of wild dogs, NEVER challenging a single fact.

            (Tone and boldface in self defense of aggression)

            1. Calls people liars and goobers, yet he’s the one being aggressed. Just curious, am I one of your “many stalkers?”

              1. The Elite Elite
                Hihnny-the-pooh
                Hihnny-the-pooh
                Hihnny-the-pooh
                Just curious, am I one of your “many stalkers?”

                (snicker)

                1. Alright, made the list! Wasn’t sure I would, given I don’t post a whole lot.

                  1. Wasn’t sure I would, given I don’t post a whole lot.

                    It’s based on your thuggery, not quantity,

                    Why is the Paulista Cult so obsessed with being vicious?
                    It’s akin to their fascism.
                    And bigotry.

                    1. “It’s based on your thuggery, not quantity”

                      As always with leftists, the projection is strong with this one.

                      “Why is the Paulista Cult so obsessed with being vicious”

                      Paulista cult? I don’t recall ever posting massive love for the man. I think you’re confusing me with someone else, buddy.

                    2. Now DUMBFUCK says I;m a leftist!!!!!
                      Because ONLY a leftist would dare to speak against Ron Paul.

                      As always with leftists, the projection is strong with this one.

                      (laughing at the jackass)
                      The online archive of my published writing. See any of the major topics on taxes and healthcare Or any of the single pieces.

                      http://libertyissues.com/archive.htm

                      THAT is how big a psycho the Elite Elite is.

                      BUT HE’LL KEEP ATTACKING AND DEFENDING FASCISM.

        2. Liberty has been evolving for hundreds of years, and will continue doing so.

          God-willing, despite your contempt for the Constitution, equal, unalienable and/or God-given rights

          Yes, because liberty (the consistent application of human rights) is evolving, but is also God-given. That certainly isn’t a self-contradiction in any way, shape or form.

          You’re a charlatan, Hihn, a performance artist with no substance. I regret unmuting the handful of your posts that intrigued me on this article because each and every one has been substance-free emoting. I would say that you’re another progressive having a meltdown after the Trumpening, but you’ve been a superficial charlatan from the day you first posted here.

          1. MORE childish name-calling

            Liberty has been evolving for hundreds of years, and will continue doing so. God-willing, despite your contempt for the Constitution, equal, unalienable and/or God-given rights

            Yes, because liberty (the consistent application of human rights) is evolving, but is also God-given. That certainly isn’t a self-contradiction in any way, shape or form.

            Self- contradiction?? Who said so?

            Here’s the childish name-calling:

            You’re a charlatan, Hihn, a performance artist with no substance. I regret unmuting the handful of your posts that intrigued me on this article because each and every one has been substance-free emoting. I would say that you’re another progressive having a meltdown after the Trumpening, but you’ve been a superficial charlatan from the day you first posted here.

            NO CHALLENGE ON THE SUBSTANCE

            They changed. But Ron Paul STILL does it. And YOU dismiss unalienable rights!!
            How does that change the Constitution?
            How does that absolve pro-life extremists for demanding FAR worse. — with 20 X the victims?
            Do you also believe Congress lost its power by not being perfect? The President? Or only when it’s con-veeeeeen-yent to your tribe?
            The Constitution is null and void because it recognized slavery? REALLY?

            ChickeNshit BULLY. (LOL)

            1. Self- contradiction?? Who said so?

              Me. How can Liberty be God-given and evolving? Either you’re a relativist (liberty evolves) or you’re an absolutist (liberty is God-given). Which is it?

              Is Liberty a moving target? No, of course not. Liberty is a static concept that can be applied to new situations, but new applications don’t make Liberty into an evolving concept.

              Here’s the childish name-calling:

              ANOTHER goober!

              you’ve just been exposed as another self-righteous bullshitter

              buh-bye, loser

              by a dipshit

              You’re a hypocrite, a bully, and an absolute blessing to the pro-life movement. I love when you shit up the abortion threads because I know that the pro-choicers are embarrassed by you, the pro-lifers aren’t scared of you, and the people who are undecided want nothing to do with you or your half-cocked opinions. Heck, the only reason I respond to you is because I want to make the next round of your insane “fascist” list.

              It’s too bad you can’t interact with the rest of us like a normal, well-adjusted adult. Perhaps you do have some good points to make. Perhaps you have an unique perspective to provide. Unfortunately, you’re all bluster, aggression, non-sequitur, and incoherent rage. The pro-choice Don Quixote tilting at imaginary windmills once again. Hopefully this time nobody will notice that he forgot his horse at home.

              1. Self- contradiction?? Who said so?

                Me.

                Make a BIGGER ass of yourself!

                How can Liberty be God-given and evolving?

                You’re THAT FUCKING stupid??? It takes governments to be formed who protect it.

                You state, publicly, that liberty — what SOME call God-given rights. HAS NOT ADVANCED IN THE PAST 3,0000 YEARS!!!!!

                Here’s your sign ….. (smirk)

                You’re all bluster, aggression, non-sequitur, and incoherent rage

                ONE MORE TIME. PSYCHO

                Here’s the childish name-calling:

                You’re a charlatan, Hihn, a performance artist with no substance. I regret unmuting the handful of your posts that intrigued me on this article because each and every one has been substance-free emoting. I would say that you’re another progressive having a meltdown after the Trumpening, but you’ve been a superficial charlatan from the day you first posted here.

                That’s aggression, chump.

                And America made NO advance in individual liberty????? BWAAAA HAAAA HAAAAA

                My tone and boldface in response to aggression … by a total retard who says there has been NO advance in individual liberty for 3000 years …… OR …..
                fuckwad believes rights were bestowed by God RECENTLY.

                Fucking bullies don’t decide how their victims defend themselves, but aggressors b aggressors……

                As Christ weeps in silent shame at His goobers.

    3. I want to know why I didn’t make the list Mike.

      1. Wish granted

        Suthenboy|1.28.17 @ 7:37AM|#
        I want to know why I didn’t make the list Mike.

        I hereby add Suthenboy to the list of fascists — at his request.

        Why are they facsists?

        Because they PROUDLY defend he OPPRESSION of homosexuals … as promoted by Ron Paul. The first such denial of constitutional protection since …. SLAVERY!

        “I supported the Defense of Marriage Act, … I have also cosponsored the Marriage Protection Act, which would remove challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act from the jurisdiction of the federal courts”

        Pure. unadulterated fascism. In his own words.
        http://www.rawstory.com/2011/0…..riage-act/

        How many others have KNOWINGLY and INTENTIONALLY supported this blatant abuse of government force on this very page? Fascists. And brownshirts.

        1. How did Ron Paul get into this?

  36. Jeez, and I though Agile Cyborg was hard to read and try to make sense of.

    1. I like this one: “How many babies have died … for the pro-life political agenda?”

      That’s the kind of daring, outside-the-box thinking that is usually associated with the weird guy sitting next to you on the bus and sharing his worldview with you.

      1. Goober-Fusionist PROVES ME RIGHT!

        The most obvious example is late-term abortions which could have been banned the day after Roe v Wade (which no longer applies). Simply require a live birth of a viable fetus. But then they could not incite hysteria. How many babies have died … for the pro-life political agenda?

        That’s the kind of daring, outside-the-box thinking that is usually associated with the weird guy sitting next to you on the bus and sharing his worldview with you.

        He just DEFENDED allowing babies to die ,…. when it could have been EASILY stopped … constitutionally … one day after Roe v Wade.

        The pro-life political agenda trumps babies lives … and Fusionist defends it., (vomit)

        I had to correct his fucking lie on what I said. His shameful bullshit is proven here. Compare that with his lie here.
        https://reason.com/blog/2017/01…..nt_6715104

        (posted in defense of aggression by a lying sack of shit bully)

        1. The guys next to me on the bus didn’t use bolding and all-caps.

          But it’s a similar vibe.

          1. That’s not quite fair – the guy next to me on the bus were actually, in their own way, trying to persuade me to their point of view, albeit by way of long earnest monologues about Obvious Truths Which They Must Share With Me.

          2. The guys next to me on the bus didn’t use bolding and all-caps.

            Did he join you in defending the killing of babies?
            I only use boldface so everyone can see how morally barbaric you are ….in defense of your serial aggression, baby killer.

            1. Where it began, I can’t begin to knowing
              But then I know it’s growing strong
              Was in the spring
              Then spring became the summer
              Who’d have believed you’d come along
              Hands, touching hands
              Reaching oouuut, touching meeee, touching youuuuuu
              Sweet Michael Hihn(bah,bah,bah!!!)
              Good times never seemed so good
              I’d be inclined
              To believe they never would
              Oh no, no

              1. Why does Trigger Hippie defend the preventable killing of millions of babies?
                Well, hippies are progtards.

                1. So we both defend the preventable killing of millions of babies?

                  Because, in case you forgot, I essentially agreed with your position up thread. In fact, you even commented on the subthread. I know at some point here you decided that pro-lifers are in fact the baby killers but I made the ‘reluctant pro-choice’ argument, as Apatheist put it. Largely based on the state needing to expand and overstep its constitutional limits to enforce the law.

                  So unless you became a pro-life advocate during your weekend-long psychotic break, sure, one could argue that. Otherwise it’s just the mad ravings of an extremely thin-skinned lunatic.

                  Lighten up, Francis.

                  1. One more time for the lying sack

                    know at some point here you decided that pro-lifers are in fact the baby killers

                    I backed it up, chump. In boldface. Here it is for the morally retarded

                    >The most obvious example is late-term abortions which could have been banned the day after Roe v Wade (which no longer applies). Simply require a live birth of a viable fetus. But then they could not incite hysteria. How many babies have died … for the pro-life political agenda?

                    I’ll dumb it down got you.

                    1) Requiring live birth of a viable fetus (with typical exeptions) would end all late-term abortions.

                    2) Totally within Roe V Wade and the subsequent Casey.

                    3) It was never done, and never even attempted.

                    4) How may millions of babies have died needlessly, since Roe V Wade?

                    5) Why do you lie, bitch and attack ?. to defend the shameful failure to stop those deaths?

                    So unless you became a pro-life advocate during your weekend-long psychotic break,

                    HEY DUMBFUCK, I was more pro-life than you and the entire pro-life leadership by asking the question!

                    WHY DO YOU DEFEND THE NEGLIGENT DEATHS OF MILLIONS OF BABIES? TO SUIT A POLITICAL AGENDA?

                    HOW DARE YOU ATTACK ME FOR SPEAKING UP FOR THOSE DEATHS AND YOUR SHAMEFUL COVERUP?

                    This atheist is more pro-life than your lying ass. PROVEN. Twice

                    ATTACK ME AGAIN FOR DEFENDING THE BABIES YOU SHIT ON???
                    (vomit)

  37. Pictures only? Does that mean Ms. Slade couldn’t get anyone from Reason TV to go with her? Or that Reason TV didn’t want to have to edit together a bunch of cringeworthy quotes that embarrass the pro-life crowd like it has to do for the progressive get-togethers or Trump rallies?

    1. Does that mean Ms. Slade couldn’t get anyone from Reason TV to go with her?

      It’s all a plot. Are you Donald Trump???

  38. I go to bed early and look what do you stooooopid mammals get into!!!!

    1. I figured Hihn to arrive much later than he did.

      1. Why does juris imprudent DEFEND the constitutional OPPRESSION of homosexuals … as promoted by Ron Paul? The first such denial of constitutional protection since …. SLAVERY?

        “I supported the Defense of Marriage Act, … I have also cosponsored the Marriage Protection Act, which would remove challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act from the jurisdiction of the federal courts”

        Pure. unadulterated fascism. In his own words.
        http://www.rawstory.com/2011/0…..riage-act/

        How many others have KNOWINGLY and INTENTIONALLY supported this blatant abuse of government force on this very page?

  39. Always been a tricky issue, specifically the notion of when one acquires their rights and why. I am in favor of abortion rights, but I acknowledge it is a difficult issue and understand those opposed to it.

    I simply don’t shed the same tears as I do from a first trimester fetus as I would for an infant.

    I just wish that those opposed to abortion would not have abortions, and perhaps persuade others of their position, but not use the law. It is similar to gay marriage and homosexuality on some levels…if you religion forbids it, don’t be gay or get married, let others do as they wish.

    1. It would be fine stance if abortion didn’t involve murdering a human being.

      1. It would be fine stance if abortion didn’t involve murdering a human being.

        It doesn’t … even if you add another hundred ignorant trollings.

        What kind of person denies the words “unalienable rights?”
        And what that has meant. For centuries,
        Perhaps when he takes US History. If he can pass it!

        1. You keep saying inalienable rights but you refuse to acknowledge that you liberty does not enable you to initiate force upon another person. You also didn’t address the counterpoint to the parasite-host argument that the child has no agency in the matter and the adults are the ones with moral agency in creating the situation.

          Put shortly: Should you be able to kill an accidental tresspasser to because they have trespassed on you?

          It’s not as simple as you make it seem because there are no other scenarios where you can chose to create another person so there needs to be special consideration.

          I don’t find appealing to the SCOTUS as the correct answer as they are fallible humans and there are countless precedents that can be pointed out as flatly wrong.

  40. But what stood out more than the size were the demographic characteristics of the crowd: It was overwhelmingly young people.

    Because it was during the work week and they don’t have jobs.

    1. Anyone else think Saturday is part of the workweek? (smirk)

  41. The pro-choice side in the US is on the losing side of history. Not only does the US have the most liberal abortion laws in the world (Roe v. Wade allows for abortion up until quickening, regardless of state law), but due to ultrasound technology, a hundred years from now people will view Roe v. Wade as a relic of barbarism.

    Unless, of course, you believe that having the same abortion laws as China, North Korea, Cuba, and Vietnam (but not any other Western nation where abortion is usually restricted up to twelve weeks) makes you on the ‘right side of history’.

    1. I disagree. I look forward to a future where longevity causes us to look at offspring as an undue nuisance and expense, and permits abortion up to college-age

    2. Indeed. I’ve always believed that abortion will be viewed several generations from now, the same way people view slavery today. “How did anyone think that was a perfectly acceptable thing?”

      1. “How did anyone think that was a perfectly acceptable thing?”

        So ….
        you look forward to trashing our founding documents and principles, pissing on the concept of equal, unalienable and-or God given rights …. giving life sentences to anyone who says the earth revolves around the sun … restoring the (un)Holy Inquisition … and burning people at the stake …. which continued until our Founding..

        Have you no shame at all, no decency, no humanity?
        Our Revolution and founding is offensive to you?
        Must be in Ron Paul’s cult of bigots, haters and statists.

        1. I don’t think he said that at all.

    3. Hey, Sparky. We’re the country who acknowledges unalienable rights.
      Why does that enrage you and your fellow statists?

      No more Inquistions — and other moral atrocities

      “The United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion”.
      Treaty of Tripoli, negotiated by Washington, unanimously ratified by the United States Senate, signed by Adams.
      What the Founders REALLY believed. But the goobers have been suckered to believe that’s a bad translation!
      So they really, REALLY believe that Washington negotiated a treaty, the Senate ratified and Adams singed …. a treaty written in Arabic!!!!
      But they’re not eager to be manipulated. Uh-huh

  42. Somewhat OT:

    Take a look at the feminist movement today, and you’ll see women parading naked or in vagina costumes and wearing “pussy hats”. Their grievances are typically imaginary; the worst thing they can ever think of is the possibility that they might have to pay for their own abortions. The whole spectacle makes women look like vulgar, juvenile whiners.

    The men’s rights movement, on the other hand, would be ridiculed out of existence if they used these tactics (and they’re already mercilessly mocked today for speaking out about the various legal mechanisms that explicitly favor women). How much of an uproar would we hear of men paraded around naked (at a non-gay parade) and wore penis costumes or penis glans hats? They would probably be put on the sex offender list.

    1. Their grievances are typically imaginary; the worst thing they can ever think of is the possibility that they might have to pay for their own abortion

      So … your preacher has conned you into believing

      1) overturning Roe v Wade means PAYING FOR ABORTIONS!!!!!
      2) they don’t ALREADY pay for their own abortions!!!

      And you said that IN PUBLIC?

    2. would we hear of men paraded around naked (at a non-gay parade) and wore penis costumes or penis glans hats?

      When has the President of the United States bragged of grabbing YOUR penis?
      How many vaginas have YOU grabbed this week?
      Is you mother proud that you glorify vagina-grabbing?

      1. Is it wrong that I find Hihnny-the-pooh’s ramblings absolutely hilarious? I feel like I should feel bad, laughing at the mentally ill.

        1. I’m laughing because you copy my words. However ….

          Why does The Elite Thug DEFEND the OPPRESSION of homosexuals … as promoted by Ron Paul?
          The first such denial of constitutional protection since …. SLAVERY?

          “I supported the Defense of Marriage Act, … I have also cosponsored the Marriage Protection Act, which would remove challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act from the jurisdiction of the federal courts”

          Pure. unadulterated fascism. In his own words.
          http://www.rawstory.com/2011/0…..riage-act/

          How many others have KNOWINGLY and INTENTIONALLY supported this blatant abuse of government force on this very page?

          While talking like a 12-year-old

          Hihnny-the-pooh’s

          Was his tongue out? (lol)

          1. Why do you keep bringing up Ron Paul? When did I ever say I agreed with him on anything? Does the fact that EVERYONE here makes fun of you get you to stop and reevaluate yourself in even the slightest way? Do you even stop and wonder why I’ve been calling you Hihnny-the-pooh? Or are you truely so delusional that the idea YOU could ever be wrong doesn’t even register?

    3. Somewhat OT:
      Take a look at the feminist movement today, and you’ll see women parading naked

      Don’t confuse your masturbation fantasies with reality. You can still troll. Just don’t be so wacky.

      1. BULLY!

  43. Facebook gives you a great opportunity to earn 98652$ at your home.If you are some intelligent you makemany more Dollars.I am also earning many more, my relatives wondered to see how i settle my Life in few days thank GOD to you for this…You can also make cash i never tell alie you should check this I am sure you shocked to see this amazing offer…I’m Loving it!!!!
    ????????> http://www.moneytime10.com

  44. Yep. This is the harvest from George Waffen Bush Executive Order #1 ordering subsidies, handouts and government jobs for faith based community fanatics. In the 1980s children were brainwashed into reporting their parents for victimless peaceful pursuits–as in Orwell’s 1984.

  45. Just had to corpse-hihn this thread.

    A fetus is not a person.

    Really?

    Two women, both two weeks pregnant. One wants to have a baby, the other doesn’t and is going to get an abortion.

    One is considered a baby–a person, by everyone. The other is a ‘clump of cells’

    Something terrible happens–both women are stabbed to death.

    Autopsy reveals their pregnancies.

    The murderer is charged with 4, not 3 or 2 murders.

    Because the default position of the government is that a fetus IS a person, with rights–including the right to life.

  46. I wonder how many of those girls are against contraception too? Are these young girls saving it for marriage to a man who can support their dozen kids? Few millenials will make enough money for even two kids, since they have to support the Baby Boomers. Those who want to have sex will have to use male and female contraception. (Someone tell those teenage virgins taking it in the butt still can get you pregnant.) A very sad and deluded group of young people.

    Thank heavens most libertarians want to keep the govt out of the issue and are defacto pro-choice. Check out LIBERTARIAN views at http://pro-choicelibertarians.net

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.