Abortion

Tomi Lahren, Pro-Choice Conservative, Not 'Incoherent' on Abortion

"I'm for limited government, so stay out of my guns, and you can stay out of my body as well," said Lahren on The View last week.

|

The View

Conservative starlet Tomi Lahren is facing a heap of backlash from her usual supporters after an appearance on ABC's The View in which she defended the decriminalized status of abortion. Lahren, who hosts a popular show (Tomi) for Glenn Beck network The Blaze and is a frequent guest on Fox News programs, said that as someone who "loves the Constitution" and believes in limited government she can't support the government "decid[ing] what women do with their bodies."

"I'm pro-choice," Lahren admitted, calling it hypocritical to profess support for small government yet want to ban abortion. "I'm for limited government, so stay out of my guns, and you can stay out of my body as well."

Contra Lahren's critics, this is a perfectly coherent position, and one that was once perfectly respectable within the mainstream conservative movement. There's only tension between believing abortion should be legal—which is all being "pro-choice" means—and the Constitution's prescription of "life, liberty, and property" protection for all if you believe that personhood begins at conception. But one needn't believe this, nor even be a Christian at all, in order to champion conservative political philosophy.

And even if one does believe that abortion is an immoral practice, it doesn't necessarily follow that one must wish it banned completely. There are plenty of pro-life Americans who believe a blanket ban on abortion is not the best way to end the practice, given how black markets work. They instead strive to end abortion through changing hearts and minds, advocating better pregnancy-prevention methods, working to expand adoption options, and things like that. Again, this might seem horrific to people who believe that aborting an eight-week old fetus is the exact same as murdering a 2- or 20- or 80-year-old, but that's a matter of moral or religious perspective. Many others who believe abortion is wrong are simultaneously able to hold that it's not the same degree of wrong as ending a life outside the womb, or that the competing rights of pregnant women make abortion morally justifiable in some circumstances.

These are all positions that can convey coherent internal logic and political/moral belief systems. You may think folks like Lahren—who says she is personally against abortion, even though simultaneously pro-choice—are wrong, and that abortion is always the gravest of transgressions or never so, but it's erroneous and unfair to brush aside their beliefs as simple stupidity, hypocrisy, opportunism, or cowardice. It's exactly this kind of reflexive dismissal of differing beliefs and moral gray areas that keeps us locked in the stupidest kind of culture war over abortion, one that manifests in it being the most important litmus test for acceptance into political movements on the right and left and results in a host of high-profile, symbolic battles that all lead back to the same status quo.

Anyway, a lot of conservatives have been calling for Lahren's head since her View appearance, insisting it's an embarrassment and an outrage that such a pro-choice harpy could be a public face of Republicanism. As with Milo Yiannopoulos—who said all sorts of horrible things about women, Muslims, transgender people, etc., but was only ousted from polite conservatism after joking about pedophilic priests—it's telling (if predictable) that tepidly pro-choice views are the dealbreaker for the right with Lahren, while things like calling Black Lives Matter activists "the new KKK," referring to the Middle East as a "sandbox" that needs to be bombed, and defending the shooting of unarmed black men by cops never really rustled Republican jimmies.

Advertisement

NEXT: Does Neil Gorsuch Side With Clarence Thomas or Antonin Scalia on the 14th Amendment, The Slaughter-House Cases, and the Privileges or Immunities Clause?

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 don’t think she was being incoherent. The problem is she accused pro-life conservatives of being hypocrites. That is just not true. If you start with the assumption that life begins at conception and an unborn child is a full human being entitled to full human rights, saying abortion should be illegal is no more being pro big government than saying any other murder should be legal. If Lauren doesn’t share this assumption, that is her right and not an unreasonable position. She should not, however, accuse those who do believe this of being hypocrites who want to regulate women’s health care as if murdering someone is just another medical procedure.

    1. John is right. Saying the government should stop what you feel is MURDER isn’t hypocritical when you support limited government. Government has few, legitimate uses that all can agree with and preventing murder would fit.

      1. That is perhaps the dumbest thing I have read this year. Certainly in a long time. Whether something is “murder” or not is a question first of all of what you consider to be a human life. And being a complete moral apparently, you no doubt understand that that is a question that defies easy or obvious answers.

        I mean Jesus Christ, where do you people come from?

        1. It’s a conspiracy against you personally, John.

        2. Agreeing with John is the dumbest thing John has read all year. Intriguing.

          Well, we can now say that John doesn’t read what he writes. Not a shocker, really.

          1. Yes, You are an idiot who doesn’t understand the question much less are able to give an intelligent answer to it. You don’t think or speak. You emote. A fetus is in many ways more fully human than someone like you. it at least might someday be a fully functioning human being. You in contrast, seem to have never made it past the animal stage.

            1. You are an idiot…You don’t think or speak….A fetus is in many ways more fully human…You have never made it past the animal stage…

              You’re like a third-rate Don Rickles, John. I’m surprised you haven’t called someone a hockey puck.

            2. Is John a parody? Serious question.

              Was unaware that saying “Government has few, legitimate uses that all can agree with and preventing murder would fit.” qualifies as “You don’t think or speak. You emote.”, but Sparkles here apparently knows best.

              I can see why people find you to be a moronic asshole.

              1. Look, we’ve got a Government Almighty which feels entititled to make our charity choices for us, and micro-manages us a million ways to Sunday? And ***SOME*** so-called Libertarians can just NOT let go of their hard-ons about abortion!!!! Can we just PLEASE let this one SLIDE (on the side of liberty for adults), and solve the bigger issues first?!?!?
                I think the near-perfect analogy is this? Yes, techinically, killing a fartilized human egg smell is “killing a human life”? Maybe ditto for killing eggs and sperms!
                Well, technically, you pilfering a god-damned ACORN off of my property, is theft, just like cutting down a mature oak, in the middle of the night, for thousands, even tens of thousands, of dollar’s worth of oak wood! Yes, these kinds of thefts are very real, for owners of mature hardwood trees!
                Are we going to punish the theft of an acorn, the same as the theft of a mature tree? And punish the murder of a born baby or adult, the same as snuffing an unwanted blastocyst? WHERE has sanity gone!?!?!

          2. This is why you never, under any circumstances, agree with John.

    2. Yep. It’s a matter of premises.

    3. Abortion isn’t murder, its eviction. Tragically, the evictee dies.

      1. Arranged by the person who brought the evictee in under circumstances where she could not leave.

        1. Ever heard of rape?

          1. Neither rape nor incest justifies an exception to banning abortions if you believe that life begins at conception. That would be killing one person for the crime of another. Whenever I hear someone in the anti-abortion crowd make those exceptions, I know they’re not arguing from a true personal moral belief that they’ve actually thought out.

      2. That is idiotic. I mean almost as stupid as the statements above. The mother created the situation where the child is living inside of her. She, therefore, has the responsibility to carry the pregnancy through. Your point would make sense if children were parasites who latched onto unsuspecting people. Since they are human being created by the actions of the host, your point is completely absurd.

        1. “Since they are human being created by the actions of the host, your point is completely absurd.”
          Must be immaculate conception if she did it all by herself.

        2. “The mother created the situation where the child is living inside of her.”
          As I’ve previously remarked on these pages, a much-not-discussed aspect of this is the whole “empowerment of the sexes” thing. Some women get abused by scummy men and false promises? Some say the woman made the choice when she chose to sleep with some dude… Or when she was raped? How about that one? Or, she was flat-out LIED to? “Love ya, Babe, Love-ya-Love-ya, LOVE ya. NOW can I get in yer pants?”

          Dude get in her pants… Gets her pregnant. As soon as she is pregnant, the abuse begins! And THEN she finds out that he has 5 other girlfriends! Abortion is “veto power” against scumbucket men, is what it is. I for one do not want to take the side of scumbucket men, against women, in this case, when it means that that many more genes and social influences of scumbucket men will be passed on, against the wishes of women who “learned better”, but too late… And yes, some women practice “entrapment” on the other side, as well; the abuse is a 2-way street?

          1. Anyway, w/regards to the sexes abusing each other, I have “been to the mountain top” to see the Guru in the cave, and have learned MUCH wisdom, which I will now pass on to you? Hooray!

            Q: What is the difference between a woman who just can NOT find a man who treats her well, and so, she is constantly shuttling between abusive men? And a man who abuses women, by, for example yanking on the gazongas too hard?

            A: The first is a “jerks juggler”, and the second is a “jugs jerker”!

            Can you say,
            “Jerks-jugglers juggle jugs-jerking jerks”?

      3. Well, being torn limb from limb during the eviction will do that to you.

      4. If I were to evict a person from my property under circumstances which caused that person to die, I would be tried for murder.

        I don’t happen to think a fetus is human. But I don’t delude myself into thinking that I can prove that, and I have doubts that anyone else can. I think that, in general, abortion should be legal. I also think that there is something skeevey going on with the way that upper middle class white Progressive women want to be sure that lower middle class and lower class brown women have access to abortion. I think that the best that can be said for the Progressive Left’s response to the Kermit Gosnell case is that they behaved in a way that made it look an awful lot like they thought it was more important to make sure that black babies got aborted than that the black women survived the experience. And the “evicted’ argument is a monumental tactical blunder. One does not evict a parasitic growth. One excises it. One evicts a human being. And if the fetus is human, the ‘evicting’ it is murder.

        Please, drop the ‘evicting’ argument.

    4. “If you start with the assumption that life begins at conception and an unborn child is a full human being entitled to full human rights…”

      Hmmm. So what you’re saying is that (among other things):

      – those who shoot up abortion clinics and murder the doctors are actually heroes, and should be pardoned once this law passes.
      – pregnant mothers who fail to get proper prenatal care are child abusers. And obviously should be charged as such.
      – pregnant sex is actually a threesome involving an underage, unconsenting participant. And thus any adult participating in said act should be charged as a pedophile.
      – ALL miscarriages should be investigated as potential homicides

      1. I see you’ve already been born. Are you pro your life?

    5. How do you justify exceptions for rape and incest? If you don’t make an exception for rape, are you willing to raise a child if your wife is raped by an Islamic terrorist, for example?

      1. Why should a brother and sister in their 30’s who make a baby be allowed to get an abortion but no one else?

      2. its called adoption dumbass.

      3. Adoption works.

    6. Exactly jon. I am completely against abortion because i see it as murdering/manslaughter of a human being.

      Also there is no reason for it. I am adopted and so are many of my family. There is plenty of reasons to not kill the unborn human.

      I do understand in the case of mother or child survives. I am fine with letting the parent choice their life over their child. I don’t have a problem with that but i will still call that person a selfish miserable human being for choosing their life over their child. But that is my right to look at them as a shitty human being but i think its fair for them to choose their life over their child. I personally wouldn’t but i understand human nature with wanting to survive.

    7. Exactly. This is a straw man. No one said she was incoherent on abortion. (She is a big flip-flopper.) But a big “take a jump in the lake” for calling me a hypocrite.

      The government preventing murder does not contradict small government conservativism/libertarianism.

      Now it is simply a matter of whether you believe it is or isn’t murder. The “it’s just a clump of cells.” is obviously false. We are all “just a clump of cells.” I can just hear Charles Manson: “Sharon Tate was just a clump of cells.”

      Next, the slippery slope dispenses with pretty much all the other fluff. All people would push for the murder charge if someone stabbed you 39 week pregnant sister, injuring her but killing the baby. Then 38 weeks, then 37 weeks…

  2. “it’s telling (if predictable) that tepidly pro-choice views are the dealbreaker for the right with Lahren, while things like calling Black Lives Matter activists “the new KKK,” referring to the Middle East as a “sandbox” that needs to be bombed, and defending the shooting of unarmed black men by cops never really rustled Republican jimmies.”

    I read that laughably terrible piece you linked. Where, exactly, did she defend shooting unarmed black men by cops?

    Otherwise, what PRECISELY is wrong? The BLM movement is inherently racist. The Middle East is a cat litter pan with only one country of any benefit.

    1. I read that piece too. The author called Lahren a “racist” because she sides with the police in shootings involving black victims, but it seems obvious to me that she also have would have sided with the police in a shooting involving a white victim. So she’s a racist for treating black people exactly the same way she would treat white people?

      Meanwhile all the victims ever mentioned in the discussion about police shootings are black because BLM are the ones who always start the conversation and BLM only cares about the victims of police shootings if they are black.

      So treating white people and black people differently is not racist, but treating white people and black people the same is racist.

  3. It says a lot about the people who suddenly think Tomi is so bright, even though just a few days ago they would have called her a ‘dingbat’ (rightly so).

    For some people, abortion is all that matters. Looking forward to the libertarian case for government funding Planned Parenthood

    1. Welfare-loving fake libertarian asshats like Nick Gillespie and Elizabeth Nolan Brown are already on the job.

      1. A permanent military is welfare.

        1. Thanks for the red herring.

    2. There is no Libertarian case for government funding Planned Parenthood or any other organization.

  4. “…and being a feminist just means you believe in equality”

    1. Maybe at the beginning of the 20th century it meant that, but even then it was also shorthand for banning alcohol. “Feminism” has pretty much always been a movement purporting to promote one thing, but is pretty much always co-opted into promoting another. Back then it was co-opted by hardline SoCons, nowadays it’s a front for Marxism.

    2. Maybe it is, but the question becomes equality of opportunity or result?

      1. Not even equality of opportunity, but equality under the law, which is all a government can provide.

  5. I notice she’s already been born.

    1. Yeah, well, that’s just, like, your opinion, man.

  6. it’s telling (if predictable) that tepidly pro-choice views are the dealbreaker for the right with Lahren

    Why shouldn’t it be?

    Just what do you think it tells?

    It would be rather surprising that people who think abortion is murder would *not* consider over half a million murdered babies a year a deal breaker.

    Contra Lahren’s critics you, this is a perfectly coherent position

    1. Is this any more hypocritical than someone being pro-life being a deal breaker for being a progressive? Of course not.

      I love the last part where she equates conservative publications defending Milo’s right to speak and mocking his opponents with supporting Milo’s positions. So now defending someone’s speech is defending what they are saying? How un-libertarian of you.

      1. What’s the point of defending his speech except inciting and baiting in Trump’s America?

      2. So now defending someone’s speech is defending what they are saying?

        It might seem that way if you suddenly stop defending it because it got too icky.

        1. Defending someone’s speech and then not allowing them to speak at your event are two different things. No?

          Also, you’re right that CPAC inviting Milo to speak at first was a tacit endorsement of his opinions. They insisted they were just defending his right to speak

    2. The same people who accuse pro life people of not really believing what they say because they are not out blowing up abortion clinics turn around and accuse them of being extremists for viewing support for abortion as a deal breaker for a politician. But its the pro life people who are the hypocrites.

      1. I’d agree, but agreeing with John is stupid. By default.

        1. You are incapable of agreeing with anyone. Agreeing requires thought and you only are capable of emoting.

          1. …says the guy emoting badly…

            You’re aware that ALL you have is emotion, and it’s really lame, terrible emotion. I oppose abortion, but if I knew your mom (hell, EVERYBODY knew your mom, let’s be honest), I’d have said “Yeah, it’s a sin, but that turd in your oven is a bigger one”

    3. I’ll note that using public accomodation law to force private businesses to do things that the writers think are neat ISN’T a dealbreaker for the “libertarians” who write here.

      1. Because ENB is about as ‘libertarian’ as Harry Reid. The facade that she is anything other than just a Vox writer needs to end

        1. “Just another Vox writer?” I’m not going to say that ENB is as libertarian as Bob Barr, but her writing and opinions show a closer appreciation for freedom than anything I have read on Vox (not that I am a frequent visitor to that site).

          1. Bob Barr is a pretty low bar, no?

            Maybe Vox was too strong

            1. Is anyone truly libertarian enough for a whineytarian?

              1. I don’t know, are they? You seem to whine a lot about other commentators, so I’m asking

      2. It’s a “dealbreaker” to this Libertarian. An individual does not lose their rights simply because they are making an economic transaction as an action that they base their income off of. For good or bad, however one may think about the actions of another, that person’s right to make those decision based on their own desires and beliefs is the same as anyone else’s. No more and no less.

  7. Tomi Lahren

    I’ll be in my bunk.

    1. Honey, you can do better.

  8. [Sheds a tear for Eddie]

    1. Why?

  9. and defending the shooting of unarmed black men by cops never really rustled Republican jimmies.

    Why should it? Such shootings should be evaluated on a case by case basis, as opposed to implying that unarmed+black= innocent victim in all circumstances. If people of ENB’s persuasion could be made to understand the differential crimes rates between racial groups, I wouldn’t say they’d abandon their lucrative race baiting trade, but maybe they’d be less transparently disingenuous about it.

    1. Someday, maybe we’ll all join hands and be white nationalists together.

      1. Everyone is already aware that you’re on Team Retard. No need to belabor the point.

    2. is there some large group defending such shootings? This just smacks of a gigantic over-reach in the name of false equivalence.

    3. “Unarmed” should equal “innocent victim” in the vast majority of cases for police shootings. Very few police shootings of unarmed suspects involve credible claims that the person who was shot was trying to physically rush the officer at the time of the shooting. Instead, most seem to involve alleged “furtive movements,” “sudden waistband grabbing,” etc., except that when the victim is revealed to have no weapons at all, it raises the question of exactly why the victim would have been grabbing at their waistband in the first place, which in turn calls into question the truthfulness of the person who shot them (and thus has every motive to lie about the victim’s conduct), etc….

      1. “why would they be grabbing at their waistband ” ?

        Duh. They have to hold their saggy pants up.

        Erebody knows that.

        1. he had an itch on his butt or grotch? my ass and balls itch a lot…sensitive skin.

  10. If abortion is murder?as Lahren has apparently said?then it is not the libertarian view that it should be legal. I don’t know many libertarians, even those who might be described as “extreme,” that would say murder should not be outlawed. This is why Lahren is incoherent. She may not actually believe that abortion is murder and merely overstated her position as one is likely to do when being a viral media blowhard, but we can only judge her by her public statements.

    If one merely feels that abortion is a moral transgression that is not actually murder, then it is surely coherent to be against the practice but also against its prohibition. Many (most?) are against smoking, and are perhaps even in favor of some restrictions on the use and sale of tobacco, but fleetingly few favor banning it. It’s obvious that, if abortion isn’t murder, then the specter of forced childbirth is a sufficiently serious invasion of the government on personal liberty that a libertarian shouldn’t favor a ban on abortion even if they feel it is morally repugnant, the result of bad decisionmaking, etc.

    1. Forced childbirth would only imply forced intercourse and forced impregnation.

      There is a perfectly valid argument that a child is a living organism, thus human, almost immediately so it has rights.
      It did not have the right to help the mother and father prevent its inception.

      Only the mother and father had the right to prevent inception and thus had the individual responsibility to not create a living human if they did not want to be responsible for it.

      And I say this with a staunch record of not giving a shit about abortion. We need less parasitic wastes of space on earth and for that reason, I don’t really care since most people getting abortions are the parasites.

      That thing is alive however, and has every right that the mother has. Since the mother is not being killed by the abortion, that baby has a stronger argument.

      1. What rights does a fetus have? I think it has a right to life, but does it have a right to use a woman’s womb?

        1. Of course not. This is the argument for which fetus slavers have no answer.

          1. Hey, good points all. Abortion will never find common ground in libertarian circles because some think the mother has ultimate rights to her body. Some think a fetus is a living human and has rights to life.

            I think the baby is alive and has rights to life and that the mother has a responsibility to not conceive if she does not want the responsibility of raising a child.

            It is fair to have an opinion on both but I fall in the camp of only one human is losing life here which appears to be a bigger more sacred right then protecting a woman’s right to make her body decisions or whatever it needs to be called.
            Is that not a fair rationality for one side of the argument?

            1. That’s where I fall too — barring some exceptions, including that I could tolerate abortion if done soon after the earliest date that a woman could learn that she was pregnant.

              1. Or if two ugly people procreate.

                1. What if Hitler knocked up Lady Hitler? Would abortion be okay then?

            2. Abortion will never find common ground in libertarian circles because some think the mother has ultimate rights to her body. Some think a fetus is a living human and has rights to life.

              And some are like me & think it’s OK to kill something that doesn’t mind being killed, as long as nobody owns it who does.

              1. Definitely an interesting way to approach it.

        2. I think the baby has the right to use the mother’s womb because, were it not for the mother’s decision, that baby would not be alive and thus need her sustenance to survive. Once a human is alive, who gets to dictate their rights to life and why?
          Its the mom’s responsibility for her decision in my view.

          1. Exactly

          2. Ever heard of rape? Broken condom? The Pill failing?

            1. Ever hear of taking responsibility for your actions?

              1. The women is responsible for her rape? A little old fashioned.

          3. Inconsistent. Not all pregnancies are the result of the mother making a choice. Yet if life begins at conception then, you can’t kill the (now) baby for the sins of one of the parents.

            You can’t have it both ways.

      2. If I have a baby that has already been born, nobody makes me keep it. I have to make a reasonable effort to not let it die?leaving it in the dumpster is unacceptable?but government programs (and in a more limited state, private community programs) exist to take in unwanted children. In many locales, I can drop off the infant at the front door and then be relieved of all responsibility.

        But if there is a clump of cells inside me that can grow into a child after 6 or 7 more months in my body, a process that will indubitably harm me in minor ways and could realistically permanently maim or kill me if I’m unlucky, the tadpole-baby’s interests trump mine. I am obligated to lend my body and perhaps my own life to it over the better part of a year. This is an attractive aspect of the viability standard: If I insist on not having the fetus at that point, I can have it removed from me right away and leave it to its own devices.

        There are even more easily-defensed cases that are kinks in today’s system as well. If I find out after, say, 28 weeks that my fetus is technically alive but suffers from a condition that will causes its death almost immediately upon birth if not sooner…am I really required to act as its life support system? Do I again have to imperil my health in carrying a mortally harmed, but not dead, being inside me? Why would it be okay for me to give birth to it in this case, cutting off its only chance at life? Should the state really be deciding these things?

    2. If it weren’t murder, then why would it be wrong?

      I think the more pragmatic approach is that it is murder, but the state lacks the tools to prevent it.

      Thought experiment. If abortion is murder. And if a totalitarian government could prevent it, would that be an argument in favor of totalitarian government?

      1. I think the more pragmatic approach is that it is murder, but the state lacks the tools to prevent it.

        Bingo.

      2. I think that’s a fair and pragmatic way to approach it without forsaking the idea that it’s murder.

        As for why it would be wrong if it weren’t murder, there could be many reasons. Why do some say pre-marital sex is wrong? Why do some say body modification (e.g., tattoos, piercings) is wrong? Not easily defended reasons from a utilitarian point of view, but for cultural and/or moral reasons.

  11. Is someone that bullies doctors and a patients a ‘conservative’? Is someone that has to see whats kind of sex is going on in a private bedroom between two consenting adults a conservative? Is someone that monitors your internet to make sure you don’t visit a porn site a conservative? Is someone that forces you to submit to a DNA test to get a job or insurance a conservative? Is someone that wants to lift your child’s skirt to see what equipment is there before letting them into a restroom a conservative? I guess it depends on your definition of ‘conservative’.

    1. Is someone that bullies doctors and a patients a ‘conservative’?

      That would depend on the doctors and the patients now wouldn’t it? How do you feel about female genital mutilation? Are the people who object to female children being subjected to that bullying doctors and patients? Sure looks to me like they are. But, in that case, perhaps the bully has a point, you know?

      Is someone that has to see whats kind of sex is going on in a private bedroom between two consenting adults a conservative?

      Depends on how you define conservative. Regardless, what the hell does that have to do with abortion?

      Is someone that monitors your internet to make sure you don’t visit a porn site a conservative?

      Not necessarily. Both liberals and conservatives equally object to porn, though often for different reasons.

      Is someone that forces you to submit to a DNA test to get a job or insurance a conservative?

      No one forces you to do shit. If you don’t want to do that, don’t take the job or buy the insurance.

    2. Is someone that bullies doctors and a patients a ‘conservative’?

      Yes. Yes he is.

      1. Not always – the ones forcing doctors to ask if you have guns in your house certainly aren’t!

  12. Well gee, if someone thinks a fetus is a full life with full rights, I’m not surprised that they’re upset with her for defending what they see as murder.

    I defended her stance on DailyWire when I heard about it, pointing out (before her tweet to this effect) that she may not even be for abortion personally. I don’t think she’s that great at explaining her philosophy, but pro-life libertarians would agree with her that there are risks to strictly enforcing bans on all abortions.

    What I won’t defend is her calling people who advocate for limited government and feel that abortion is murder hypocrites. That’s completely asinine — if there’s but one thing that government should be allowed to do, it’s to stop and/or punish people who unlawfully deprive others of their basic rights.

    1. if there’s but one thing that government should be allowed to do, it’s to stop

      The government can’t stop murder. If they could, it wouldn’t exist.

      and/or punish people who unlawfully deprive others of their basic rights.

      What, would you say, is appropriate punishment?

      1. I’m talking about individual instances, not the concept of any one crime — and yes, sometimes would-be-murderers are caught and stopped before they can carry out their plans.

        An appropriate punishment? If the reason for performing it wasn’t to protect the mother’s life, I’d say you should treat it as any other murder. How do they charge someone who attacks a pregnant woman who wanted to keep her kid and ends up killing the child (but not the mother) in the process? I’d say that’s probably an apt model for now.

  13. I’m personally fine with her opinion on abortion, but as a right-wing media darling, I’ve a feeling Tomi just jumped the shark.

    1. She had to have known that. My guess is that she figured that she had hit her ceiling as a right-wing media darling and that to do any better she would have to become a right wing concern troll for the left wing media. This is just her auditioning for the part.

      1. Appareny her contract with Blaze is up. She may be trying to find greener pastures.

  14. “If you start with the assumption that life begins at conception…”

    The sperm in a male human’s body is human and it is alive.
    The eggs in a female human’s body are human and they are alive.
    Human life begins BEFORE conception.

    1. I hope you are sarc trolling for a response.

      1. Or it’s that state senator with the joke bill about restricting vasectomies.

      2. You’re right.
        Male human sperm is not human and it is dead.
        Female human eggs are not human and they are dead.
        Humans do not exist.

        1. I guess now we know that ernieyeball weeps after every wet dream.

          1. Had a vasectomy years ago. Those are tears of joy!

    2. Before conception th here are not a complete human indivdual. They are parts of two other individuals.

      Why is this concept so difficult to grasp?

      1. A zygote is a complete human being? And here I thought a human being required a head.

        1. It is a complete individual human organism in an early stage of development. You either know this and are being disingenuous or you are scientifically ignorant.

          1. The first part of your sentence contradicts the second part of your sentence. You cannot be complete and also be in an early part of your development.

        2. Can you believe that Hillary Clinton and Sarah Jessica Parker are considered to be complete human beings?

          1. Sarah Jessica Parker is half centaur.

            1. SJP is 100% matriculated sloth

              1. Matriculated Sloth was my nickname in college.

                1. This one I believe.

            2. She knows Ferris. Good enough for me.

        3. “A zygote is a complete human being?”

          Who said that?

          1. Clearly it is Hillary and sarah Jessica that consider themselves to be human and not zygotes

    3. An innocent American child in Yemen is human and alive. Didn’t stop our government from killing them for our convenience.

  15. I guess I am now officially old.
    I remember a time when a medical procedure was a medical procedure, and discussed between a doctor and a patient. In the case of a procedure that was going to result in a child not being born, that was an involved and difficult discussion.
    Then it became a political discussion. And the medical implications went out the window.
    I wonder who would be in favor of allowing patients to elect any other surgical procedure with the same risks. Can anyone choose to have an uninjured arm or leg amputated? Can someone insist on a right to choose to have an appendix removed when it is healthy?
    Why is there air?
    Who is John Galt?

  16. I remember in the 1970s, most evangelicals were not anti-abortion; they believed it was a personal issue, and the government shouldn’t have any say in it; sort of close to Tommy’s position. What really gets me, however, are people who are “pro-life” and full throated supporters of the death penalty. I am almost viscerally anti-Catholic, however I admire how they (some of them) protest outside a Planned Parenthood clinic, and can be found protesting outside a prison at midnight right as they execute a heinous murderer.

    1. Would you consider someone who is against the death penalty, but in favor of abortion a hypocrite? Your admitted anti-Catholicism is pretty ridiculous, by the way

      1. No, I actually wouldn’t consider someone who is against the death penalty but in favor of abortions a hypocrite – unless they also claimed they were “pro-life”. With respect to being anti-Catholic, I guess that comes from being raised a Lutheran.

    2. Not only in favor of the death penalty, but very forgiving of non-judicial murder as well.

  17. ‘FAKE NEWS’ ? Donald Trump is Sick of Media’s Russia Narrative

    “The real story that Congress, the FBI and all others should be looking into is the leaking of Classified information,” he tweeted. “Must find leaker now!”

    The truth is getting out, and it must be stopped!
    WARNING: Breitbart link!
    https://tinyurl.com/l6uz9j8

  18. Really don’t know much about her and probably don’t care enough to find out. However….

    WOULD

    1. She can say whatever the hell she wants.

      Its as though she got that job for her looks and not her intelligence.

  19. No one should care if she’s pro-choice, but it’s adorable that she thinks the issue is intellectual, and not that conservative’s only use for her is that she’s cute and gives the other side hell. The moment she stops giving your average conservative an erection, she doesn’t have a show.

  20. Now for the only really important question in all this: would?

  21. Abortion: One of many issues where the Right and the Left are completely incapable of subtle and complex thinking.

  22. I get it. She’s a libertarian, but there’s no money or enhanced profile in that, so she went to work for a significant conservative media outlet until it suited her to go solo — in the way that endears her to liberals. I don’t disagree with anything substantive she says, that I know of, but she’s self-serving and a fair-weather friend. Be wary of celebrating her.

  23. If only we laid eggs rather than gestating internally. Alas. Since we don’t, you cannot control a free woman by claiming the fetus inside her has more rights than she does.

    God should’ve thought of this. Eggs next time!

  24. Why would opposing the unauthorized killing of people be a progressive stance anyway? Aren’t they the ones going on and on about sustainability?

  25. She’s an ignorant person who cannot engage in a philosophical discussion. She is also a Trumptard so there’s an extreme amount of cognitive dissonance going on in her brain. In this instance, she may just have Broken Clock Syndrome on the Abortion issue. My hunch would also be that she may have had her one herself at some point (no judgment there, that’s her right).

  26. Most people who are pro-life are pro-life until the child is born, and then they are anti-welfare. We cannot afford more children born into poverty, neglect, abuse or drug addiction, particularly when the same pro-lifers want to cut government funding for Medicaid, SCHIPS, CPS/DCS departments and other services that support the most vulnerable. An argument can be made that some children might genuinely be better off aborted than dying of neglect or abuse.

    Besides the said moral impact of abortion on both sides, which I GENUINELY acknowledge – I am not arguing against the moral dilemma of abortion as it is valid, but I’m also arguing FOR the moral dilemma of pro-life and the impact of those unwanted pregnancies on the quality of life of said fetuses/children, there is an economic dilemma of abortion as well that cannot be ignored.

    1. We cannot afford

      Then don’t pay for it, collectivist.

      there is an economic dilemma of abortion as well that cannot be ignored

      Yes, in that there is a big waiting list of couples waiting to adopt “unwanted” babies. I am currently on one, so don’t you dare deny it!

      You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

  27. The more important argument should be why we haven’t forced the medical/pharmaceutical/device industries to develop much more effective temporary sterilization options. We need to find a way to provide a 100% reversible vasectomy or tubal, longer lasting IUD’s and other birth control options that are not user-dependent and prone to failure and misuse. 50% of pregnancies are unplanned, which includes many pregnancies that occur despite prevention efforts. That is a staggering number that should really stop us in our tracks.

    Debating abortion gets us nowhere, when we need to be focusing our efforts on prevention. Otherwise we are spinning our wheels and putting lives at risk. There has been no impetus to put a major effort into revolutionizing the birth control industry, and fighting over abortion keeps us focused on the wrong thing – we need to solve the problem, not fight about it.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.