Roy Moore

Abortion Is the Get-out-of-Jail-Free Card of Republican Politics

Conservative apologia for Roy Moore and hostility toward his opponent are anchored on an issue individual senators are highly unlikely to impact.

|

Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Nebraska), the telegenic bestselling author and near-Millennial darling of the Trump-averse conservative crowd, is no fan of accused sexual-abuser-of-minors Roy Moore. "This is a bad decision and very sad day," Sasse tweeted Wednesday, in response to news that the Republican National Committee had reversed itself and decided to send money to Moore's troubled Senate campaign. "I believe the women–and RNC previously did too. What's changed? Or is the party just indifferent?" Later that day, Sasse threatened: "If the political committee that I'm a part of (the [National Republican Senate Committee]) decides to contribute here, I will no longer be a donor to or fund-raiser for it."

Yet after the similarly-sentimented Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Arizona) tweeted this…

…Sasse shot back: "This donation is a bad idea. It's possible to be against BOTH partial birth abortion AND child molestation. Happily, most Americans are."

Does Democratic Senate challenger Doug Jones really support "partial birth abortion"? No, he does not. The basis of that claim is the following exchange Jones had with Chuck Todd in September on Meet the Press Daily:

"So you wouldn't be in favor of legislation that said, ban abortion after 20 weeks or something like that?" Todd asked.

"I'm not in favor of anything that is going to infringe on a woman's right and her freedom to choose. That's just the position that I've had for many years. It's a position I continue to have[.]"

In the hands of pro-Moore super PACs, this boundless answer to a limited question was translated into "Jones supports abortion in even the most extreme circumstances, including gruesome late-term and partial-birth abortions that are banned in countries across the world." In an attempt to quell the controversy, Jones gave an interview with AL.com clarifying his position. Relevant portions:

[Jones] said he supports Alabama's abortion laws as they are, saying that people are "fairly comfortable" with the current law. […]

["]the law for decades has been that late-term procedures are generally restricted except in the case of medical necessity. That's what I support. I don't see any changes in that.["] […]

Jones said his position would be to leave abortion laws unchanged.

"I think people are fairly comfortable with where the law has been for decades and that is that a woman has that right to choose because it is intensely personal and I don't think me or Roy Moore or the state of Alabama or the United States government should take that right away," Jones said.

Supporting current law means opposing partial-birth abortion, since intact dilation and extraction (the medical term for the procedure) has been illegal in the United States since the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act was enacted in 2003. Still, anti-abortion activists know a morally unfit extremist when they see one. "No reasonable person," Alexandra Desanctis concluded in National Review three weeks after the clarification interview, "could consider Jones anything other than a zealot in this area."

In 2016, my colleague Elizabeth Nolan Brown wrote a piece titled, "Late-Term Abortions Are Rare and 'Partial Birth Abortions' Illegal. Why Do They Keep Dominating the Reproductive-Rights Debate?," and I think we have at least one possible answer to the question: because framing the issue in the most graphically awful terms makes for a galvanizing politics. But as Republicans prepare to line up behind a lawless jurist and culture-war troll who collectively demonizes entire populations while obviously lying about his reported habit of trawling shopping malls and high schools for love interest in his 30s, it's worth pondering whether some pro-life activists have single-issued themselves into a dark corner, and whether two-party polarization is herding us toward all kinds of similar moral compromises.

Over at The Federalist, in a much-derided piece titled "Why Alabamians Should Vote For Roy Moore," Ouachita Baptist University associate professor of philosophy and self-proclaimed "superhero against the dark forces of political correctness" Tully Borland recently argued (while avoiding any reference to Jones's follow-up interview) that the candidate's abortion policy made him a "moral monster." Excerpt:

Jones has gone on record that not only does he support abortion, but he supports unrestricted abortion, even opposing a ban on abortion after 20 weeks. This is morally equivalent to supporting infanticide. So either Jones knows exactly what he's doing in supporting killing babies in utero but doesn't care, in which case he's a moral monster, or his moral compass is in such need of calibration that one should never trust his judgment in moral matters. Politics, of course, is inextricably bound with such matters.

In my mind, Jones' position is so extreme that a vote for him is a vote for the greater of two evils by a wide margin. It's hard to imagine much worse than the mass murder of innocents. […]

Why are no Republicans or Democrats calling for Jones to step aside if not for the fact that they are really not that serious about the immorality of supporting infanticide in the womb? If Moore should step aside, so should Jones.

But such horror-inflation isn't even required when all abortion is murder:

I don't doubt the convictions of people who believe this, but I also shudder at the moral compromises it all but demands. What Republican misdeed can't be justified when stacked against mass murder?

Then there's the more pragmatic or transactional view, espoused recently by Pat Buchanan, that the "Alabama Senate race could determine whether Roe v. Wade is overturned. The lives of millions of unborn may be at stake." The math on that may be peculiar—it seems implausible that one vote out of 100 is going to tip the scales on a vote for a Supreme Court justice, let alone that said Supreme Court justice is going to show a willingness to overturn a 45-year-old precedent that, however curiously reasoned, reflects the basic political/cultural settlement of the body politic. But Buchanan's argument has been persuasive. "If Republican Roy Moore survives allegations of sexual misconduct (several involving minors) and beats Democrat Doug Jones in Alabama's Senate election Dec. 12," Ramapo College Associate Professor Stacie Taranto recently concluded in the Washington Post, "evangelical single-issue abortion voters will likely deliver the victory."

To which the pro-life National Review writer David French has an apposite reality-check:

Many Americans believe that reversing Roe would ban abortion. This is wrong. The Court could vote to overturn Roe, and abortion would still be legal across the length and breadth of the United States. After all, overturning Roe would return the abortion question to the political process, where different states would enact different laws. For example, only four states have passed post-Roe statutes indicating that they'd ban abortion if Roe is overturned. (A number of other states have pre-Roe abortion bans, but several are in blue states that would immediately protect abortion rights in the event of an adverse SCOTUS ruling.)

Thus, the fight for life transcends Roe. Decisive cultural change can diminish abortion dramatically even if Roe remains intact….Given this reality, "child-abusing senators against Roe" strikes me as perhaps the worst possible message to a culture in desperate need of persuasion.

Furthering that concern, Gracy Olmstead argued provocatively this week in The American Conservative that "Electing Roy Moore Will Be the Doom of the Pro-Life Movement." Excerpt:

From a political perspective, as Georgi Boorman recently pointed out, voting for loathsome politicians will distance swing voters from the GOP—and, more importantly, from the pro-life cause most often associated with it.

"Independent voters hate hypocrisy a lot more than they hate abortion," Boorman writes….Roy Moore may win Alabama, but his unpopularity (as well as the widespread disapproval of Donald Trump) could result in a momentous swing to the left in future months and years, thus erasing any possibility of congressional victory for the pro-life cause. […]

How can pro-lifers say they care more about women and their welfare when they vote for child molesters and sexual harassers? […]

What happens when the faces of the pro-life movement are hypocritical congressmen, sexual harassers, and men who brag about grabbing women's bodies without permission? […]

The politicization of the religious right has led to a dangerous cultural blindness, in which Christian conservatives often ignore societal and even moral warning signs in order to make tiny political gains. Many seem completely oblivious to the long-term ramifications of their actions. Unless and until pro-lifers realize their battle is first and foremost a cultural one, they will turn the entire nation against their cause —and likely lead to its doom, for at least the next few generations.

Reason on Roy Moore here.

NEXT: Final Vision Fails to Shed New Light on a Famous Family Murder Case

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. This is a great time to ask a burning question. Have any of your seen this Disney’s Zootopia Pro-Life comicbook? Because this shit is AMAZING.

    1. The one where Chief Bogo knocks up Judy Hopps and they decide to raise the baby as a proud male “gayby?”

      Yeah I saw that. It was awesome.

      1. Nah, it probably says something about online fandoms that I can’t tell if you made that up. Still, the one I’m talking about has Nick and Judy fighting over whether Judy should get an abortion. It has a Rabbit Christ in it.

        1. Wait you’re serious?

          1. YES. IT’S AMAZING. It’s a fan-comic and it’s fucking awesome. People are making so many jokes out of it. It’s insanely melodramatic. And unusually well drawn, which just adds to the weirdness of it all.

          1. This is the best thing to happen to me in a long time.

            1. Jesus, that’s a low bar. Now i kind of want to buy you a sandwich and tell you everything is going to be alright.

              1. I got internet access when I was 8 or so. And so I’ve spent about 20 years of my life really, really deep into the internet and all the miraculous bullshit it entails.

                So stuff like this is my lifeblood. When South Park did a whole episode about gay shipping I could barely withhold my joy.

            2. Is this something that has personally happened to you? Did you have to go through something like this in the past?

                  1. BUCS was able to save himself by grabbing onto his mom’s long pubes and using them to crawl back inside. This is the origin story of his fetish.

                    1. Why do you people keep trying to turn me into an incest guy?

                    2. It’s not incest if you’re doing it for self-preservation. Or if bored, but I think that rule only applies in Arkansas.

                    3. Why is “fetish” singular?

                    4. He meant, “origin story of this fetish.”

      2. They gave him a traditional African name: OJ.

    2. A fox knocking up a rabbit? That truly is a miracle.

      1. This comic is proof that God exists and he wants us to be happy.

    3. All I found was this article.

      As the world burns, so does our innocence.

      1. Our question: Who would want to see these things in their Zootopia comics?

        Anyone who ain’t a god damned PUSSY

    4. I’ve been working for this company online for 2 years, now i get paid 95usd/per hour and the best thing is cause i am not that tech-savy AGi ,It’s been an amazing experience working with them and i wanted to share this with you, .

      Visit following page for more information>> http://www.startonlinejob.com

  2. Oh boy.

    1. You saw it too?

  3. I wonder how people would react in a Blue area if the it was a child-molester going up against a very emphatic war hawk. Pushing for WW3 and such.

    Though, my guess is probably less I might think, as no one actually cares about going to war.

    1. “…going up against a very emphatic war hawk””

      You mean like Hillary?

    2. Wait- Democrats are against war? Is this 2006?

      1. Supposedly. Though I expressed a lot of doubt there in my second paragraph.

    3. I wonder how people would react in a Blue area if the it was a child-molester going up against a very emphatic war hawk.

      That would be a tough one and depends on who the child molester is: Lena Dunham might have a chance-otherwise, with few exceptions, the War Party votes for war hawks.

  4. I mean couldn’t the same be said about the pro-abortion side even more so? Murkowski and Collins are pro-choice Republicans- can you name a pro-life Democratic Senator?

    1. There is a pro-life D Congressman: Daniel Lipinski.

      1. “pro-life Democratic Senator?”

        If we’re going to do House than there are a lot more pro-choice Republicans too

        1. 6 dems in the house in the pro life caucus. And there are 3 – Senators who score less then 100% percent with Planned parenthood (which doesn’t make them pro-life either).

          http://thehill.com/homenews/ca…..-the-scene

      1. By which I meant. Yes, there are some. Maybe no in the senate though.

        1. “Yes, there are some”

          You’re article says two, so a couple

    2. There are plenty of people that hold their nose and vote for various Team Blue creatures because being Pro-Abortion is their number one issue, and likewise, they wouldn’t support a Pro-Life candidate even if they felt the person was more qualified/ethical/in line with other policy positions.

      1. Yep-this is how the dems have been able to get out the vagina voters in Virginia in the past two governor’s races anyway.

    3. At the moment, though, the Democratic Party isn’t big enough to have room for a lot of dissent. They seem to have been whittled down to far-left Progressives with very specific requirements regarding What You Believe, and cynical capitalists who prefer a state-directed but privately-held economy, and who desperately pay lip service to the far-left Progressives because they need the support.

      The Republicans are the big tent right now. That tent necessarily doesn’t have any very specific content anymore. You can be pro-life, pro-choice, pro-free-trade, anti-free-trade, religious, atheist, protectionist, internationalist, etc. Just not Democrat.

      This is why I think either the Democratic Party will change fundamentally over the next several years, or it will just die out and the Republican Party will fracture.

      1. “The Republicans are the big tent right now.”

        Which makes me think that in order to win Congress you have to include dissidents from the party line, which might explain why even when Democrats had commanding majorities they couldn’t push through the public option. So, this is a reassuring fact.

        At the same time, Democrats seem intent on not following Rahm’s strategy of choosing the candidate best to win the district and have become unbelievably orthodox in candidate selection. So, unless they change, I think they’ll remain a regional party.

        1. Democrats seem intent on not following Rahm’s strategy of choosing the candidate best to win the district and have become unbelievably orthodox in candidate selection. So, unless they change, I think they’ll remain a regional party.

          I think you’re right.

  5. Conservative apologia for Roy Moore, and hostility toward his opponent, is anchored on an issue individual senators are highly unlikely to impact

    It’s not a matter of impact, it’s a morality test. Abortion, drugs, gays… Hostility towards those things shows that a Conservative has high moral character. More violence they want to inflict, the more moral they are.

    1. Additionally, total support for every military action on the planet and total defense of all police actions show high moral character among conservatives.

  6. My head hurts now.

  7. I get why anti-abortion / pro-life people are so motivated, because they literally believe abortion is murder. To them it’s a matter of life and death

    I don’t understand why the pro-abortion people are so motivated. Like it’s the end of the world if you can’t terminate your pregnancy. To them it’s a convenience issue.

    1. For pro-abortion people it is, like everything else, about power. Freedom is power. Freedom to abort is freedom to kill someone they don’t want. Freedom for gays means power over bakers. Freedom to go to the doctor means power over the people who have to pay for it.

      Everything for the left is about power and control. That is why they are openly hostile to any liberty. Because liberty means not asking permission or obeying orders. The concept is abhorrent to the left.

    2. Because it is a pretty big affect on ones entire life. Even if you give it up for adoption it is a huge effect carrying and giving birth to a child. Women’s bodies change significantly from the event.

      And to them this is a fundamental disruption of their entire life for no reason whatsoever. If you don’t believe it’s murder I can easily see how this is a pretty big deal.

    3. Giving birth is somewhat more than an “inconvenience.”

      What poisons all discussion of this issue is partisan politics by which you must choose between one ridiculous extreme and another – either you grant full rights to a single-celled fertilized egg, or you say that the only difference between murder and not-murder is having the umbilical cord cut.

      Partisans will always tell you that moving a micron away from either of these positions is a Slippery Slope that leads only to accepting the most extremely opposite position.

      Most people, I believe, agree that abortion should be legal pre-viability, illegal post-viability. But resolving the issue is actively counter to the interests of both major parties, who very much need to keep this going as a wedge issue so that the public can keep saying “x is obviously a criminal, but at least agrees with me on abortion!”

      1. There are only two possible opinions available on any given topic. It is known. If this were not so, our political system would look fucking ridiculous.

        1. Tertium non datur, motherfucker.

          1. Tolle quod tibi dedi, boni et duri.

        2. “If it’s not a battle between Good and Evil, then it’s really just a bunch of desperate little people hitting each other. So it must be a battle between Good and Evil. I’ll get my armor.”

        3. The difficulty comes from it both being a very arbitrary delineation, we could choose 2 months, conception, that the sperm itself is sacred, we could even take the Singer approach and say ~2 years old or so. It is relatively arbitrary point to choose when the baby is alive. But the moral consequence of that decision is pretty significant.

          It’s one reason I’m pretty sympathetic to both sides of this. This is a very hard argument, it’s one reason I largely avoid it.

          1. This. If pressed for an opinion i’ll sometimes joke that maybe a compromise would be to view abortion as self-defense.

            1. I think I fall on the grounds that one can choose what to do with one’s property. If you can shoot a trespasser on your property, even if this is murder you have the right to kill this person to remove them from your property.

              That being said, that’s not a hard stance I have. Just the best rationale I can come up with. Really it just pushes the question off to when does one have the right to kill a trespasser.

              1. Sometimes the best vocation is equivocation.

                1. That way, all vocations are equal.

              2. In Roman society, your right to live was always contingent on your parents’ agreeing that you continue to have a right to live. If Dad decides he doesn’t like the way you turned out, Dad is within his rights to undo his handiwork, so to speak.

                Adoption was also handled by means of leaving an unwanted infant out on the street to either get picked up or die of exposure.

                Not saying I advocate these things, just pointing out the broad spectrum of possible beliefs.

              3. A sort of uterine castle doctrine? That gives me a fun idea to tell my wife about later.

      2. Ben Shapiro puts it the best: if it’s a life, you can’t do anything, and if it’s not, you can do anything you want with it.

      3. It’s actually a fair argument that if you’re willing to move an inch away from “at birth” on the pro-choice side, you really on the slippery slope to banning the practice. And I’m saying that as a pro-life person. I think if we can start getting you to give up a little, it’s just a matter of time till you give up completely.

    4. Many pro-choice people see shades of gray on abortion. They just don’t trust Repubs to legislate with flexibility for shades of gray for example:

      – Fetuses that will die outside the body
      – Fetuses with no brain outside of a brain stem
      – Pregnancies which will risk the life of the mother (although it won’t for certain kill them)
      – Birth control like IUDs which some pro-lifers define as abortion
      – Pregnancies that will ruin your health or cause you to become infertil
      – Pregnancy when you have had a previous bout with intense post-partum depression
      – Pregnancies in the first trimester when your family can absolutely not afford another child. At that point the fetus has the brainwave function of a sea-slug.

      The pro-lifers will not make all these exceptions, so the pro-choices don’t trust them on any legislation restricting abortion at all.

  8. The Pro-Moore zealots are just using abortion as a rationalization, a convenient argument to justify voting for him. After all they are the same ones who voted for Trump, and he isn’t exactly a hardcore zealot on the issue himself. Ann Coulter famously said that Trump could perform abortions in the White House as long as the wall got built.

    There are some people who sincerely care about abortion. But the people who are loudest about using the abortion issue to justify supporting Roy Moore are rationalizing hypocrites.

    1. “zealots are just using abortion as a rationalization, a convenient argument to justify voting for him”

      Yes and it happens on both sides of the abortion debate.

  9. Roy Moore watch:

    ROY MOORE: LAST TIME AMERICA WAS ‘GREAT’ WAS DURING ‘SLAVERY’

    At a campaign event earlier this year, an audience member asked Moore for his opinion on when the last time America was “great.” Moore responded: “I think it was great at the time when families were united?even though we had slavery?they cared for one another?Our families were strong, our country had a direction.” The individual who asked the question was among the few African-Americans in attendance at the rally, according to the Los Angeles Times. In stating this, Moore seemingly implied he’d be able to overlook the enslavement of other human beings as long as families are “united,” an interesting perspective from a man accused of repeatedly preying on young girls.

    1. I keep saying it, the molestation shit unfortunately overshadows how bad his actual politics are.

      I can squint and see what he’s saying, but ideas like “our country had a direction.” are antithetic to my belief system anyway. This dream of everyone uniting together for one cause is a statist dream that exists on both sides in different mutations.

      1. I can squint and see what he’s saying

        What he’s saying: as recently as 2004, Roy Moore was fighting the removal of segregation laws from the Alabama state constitution:

        Roy Moore Led Charge Against Removing Segregation From Alabama Constitution

        1. Sure. What he’s getting at there is that even if certain things were bad, ie slavery, that family and country was united together and that was what was most important.

          Beyond the significant lowballing of the atrocities of slavery though I also take issue with the part that he is emphasizing. That country was united in a direction, and that is inherently good. A lot of people take this stance. Everyone will call out Moore for the slavery statement, so I’m calling him out on the part I disagree with that I expect less to say anything about.

          1. The fight to protect purely symbolic segregation laws suggests to me that there’s no “even if”. He doesn’t actually think slavery was bad.

          2. This is one of the things that annoys me about conservatives: the worship of family. Yes, family is important. But also, in terms of right violations, most have historically happened within families, mostly against women.

      2. We all know the tired bullshit he’s saying here, what’s bizarre is that he’s going all the way back to the days of slavery to complain about the kids these days. I mean, he couldn’t say that families and values were strong after the Civil War? He can’t think up any idea of a national “direction” in the past 150 years?

        1. Asking moms if you could “date” their under-aged daughters was so much easier when you could have them whipped for saying no.

        2. We all know the tired bullshit he’s saying here, what’s bizarre is that he’s going all the way back to the days of slavery to complain about the kids these days.

          Yes. And people will call him out on the slavery thing, and ignore the underlying idea of the tired bullshit. Which is we need to unite. This is same bullshit that gets people teary eyed about WW2, and acting like the tremendous loss of human life, productivity, and morality was ultimately okay because we were UNITED.

  10. I have no idea who this will piss off.

    According to the school’s newspaper, The Brown Daily Herald, the Graduate School will “change its application for the upcoming admissions cycle to allow students to self-identify as a student of color.”

    1. “Adam Wheeler, who lives in New Orleans, says he plans to identify as Filipino and change his name to Ja Du. He has also has undergone hormone treatments to transition into becoming a woman”

      1. Nice, Filipino chicks are pretty hot. So I’m sure this will work out for hir.

    2. “I’m trans-racial, you dick!”

  11. Really new Moore article and no mention of :

    https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/282845/

    So woman who claims that Roy Moore assaulted her after signer her yearbook now admits that she added ‘Notes’ (the time and place below the signature) but swears the rest of it is real. Also you aren’t allowed to look at it anymore.

    1. She may have added the nose and the hat, but he’s a witch!

  12. “it seems implausible that one vote out of 100 is going to tip the scales on a vote for a Supreme Court justice”

    It can tip the scales in a nomination battle…DeVos was nominated for Secretary of Education, to be sure, not Supreme Court, but she was only confirmed by Pence’s tie-breaking vote.

  13. Does anyone believe that if the Dem leadership needs Jones’ vote on a Supreme Court nomination or an abortion bill, Jones will courageously dissent? That seems highly unlikely. If they have the votes without Jones they might give him a dispensation to vote with the Republicans, but not if his vote actually matters.

    1. Ask Manchin, Tester, and McCaskill. I have no idea how these Senators are expected to win re-election

  14. Rspe and incest are exceedingly rare circumstances regarding abortion, why do they dominate the rhetoric of the pro-abortion side?

    If the Left was so mode ate about abortion, why is the post 20 week restriction anathema to them, even though it is standard in most of the world?

    I remember some feminist activist saying women should get out their kneepads to service Bill Clinton for fighting for abortion rights back in the day.

    The Court taking abortion out of the normal po litical realm has distorted US politics all out of proportion.

    1. Rspe! Find out what it means to me!

    2. I don’t know what kind of device you’re commenting from, but it’s distorted your comments all out of proportion.

    3. There is a symmetry between the pro-abortion arguments on the left and the pro-gun arguments on the right.

      Both sides tend to defend their most extreme positions to the hilt out of fear that even small amounts of accommodations to the other side will lead down the slippery slope to the complete abrogation of their rights. Because they KNOW that that is what the other tribe wants as their end goal.

  15. I’m continually surprised by Republicans making the claim, sometimes not out of sheer political deception, that the left supports abortion up to the moment the child is born. I saw it come up in the presidential and vice presidential debates. I don’t know how or why some Republicans really think that Democrats want to legalize the abortion of viable children, but it shows you how little some of us understand each other that some people would find that accusation credible.

    At any rate, I find it curious that the life begins at conception crowd is so focused on the timing of the abortion when I thought the whole point was that it’s murder even if you take Plan B the next day to expel the fertilized egg. The timing question only matters if your feeling about abortion depends on how close the fetus is to a viable human outside the uterus.

    1. Because it is at least controversial to the Democrats that a child that survives an attempted abortion should be saved?

    2. I would love to reach out to the abortion moderates and say “why don’t you introduce a bill regulating abortion instead of waiting for the prolifers to craft a bill reflecting your concerns”?

      If these moderates want to curb the excesses of abortion without making early-term abortions criminal, why don’t they draft legislation to that effect? Why do they hide under their desks until one side or the other brings up a proposal and forces them to take a position?

      (I’m referring to “moderate” legislators, not regular citizens)

      1. To the best of my knowledge, even the most mild, watered-down abortion bills have been introduced by the prolife side in lieu of stronger bills they don’t think will pass. So these bills get denounced as part of a sinister prolife agenda.

        If the avowed moderates would introduce some bills reflecting their views, and make a sincere attempt to get those bills passed, we might have a better idea of their actual viewpoint on abortion.

        Why can’t a moderate introduce a late-term abortion ban? Or a ban on racially-motivated abortions? Or a bill to cut off tax funding to abortionists? etc.

      2. For the same reason you will not see moderate pro-gun legislators introducing even modest restrictions on gun rights. Because the moment they do, they will be denounced by their own tribe as traitors to the cause, and lose the next election.

        1. Again, I’m not in favor of comparing 2d Amendment rights with abortion “rights.”

          The same Constitution which mentions the right to bear arms also mentions the right to life, not the right to end an innocent life.

          1. The rights are of course not comparable. But how each respective tribe regards them has a weird symmetry.

          2. The woman has a right to life too ya know. Anyway the SC in Roe ruled that a fetus is not a person and has no rights.

            1. The Supreme Court said a lot of things. Are you ready to defend them all?

              (Remember Suzette Kelo?)

            2. You know, that is not what Roe v Wade said at all. It was a punt from the SCOTUS. They tried desperately to avoid the subject of whether a “fetus” is a person, and instead said that the states could ban the practice as long as a “fetus” was “viable”.

              1. Yes it was. The court held that a fetus is not a person for the purposes of the 14th amendment.

    3. Surely this is in jest…

      The Democrat candidate for POTUS last year was openly in favor of abortion up to the moment of birth.

      And Jones who Moore is running against has openly stated that he’s in favor of the same.

      1. I’m trying to play along with the idea that there are these moderate Democrats out there who don’t deserve to be tarred with the “abortion at all times” brush.

        OK, then, the best response to such allegedly unfair accusations is to bring forward “moderate” restrictions on abortion and try to get them passed.

        As it happens, I’m skeptical of the claims of Jones et. al. to be abortion moderates, but let them prove me wrong…let them sponsor some anti-late-term-abortion legislation and sincerely try to get it passed.

        1. Wait, are you running the MG58 handle too? Because that’s who I was responding to…

          1. Oops, I thought you were replying to me, and I was wondering why you were calling me a joker.

    4. I’m continually surprised by Republicans making the claim, sometimes not out of sheer political deception, that the left supports abortion up to the moment the child is born.

      Perhaps fighting every single regulation on it tends to lead to that assumption.

  16. hypocritical congressmen, sexual harassers, and men who brag about grabbing women’s bodies without permission? […]

    The dark cloud of the War Against Women is forever hovering over Republicans but usually manages to land on Progressives and Democrats.

    The Sexual-Abuse and Harassment Scandals Blowing Up on Broadway and The Theatre World Beyond

    Quotes:
    In the audience of the Anspacher Theater of New York City’s Public Theater, people?the majority of them women?who work within the city’s theatrical industries gathered Monday afternoon to discuss sexual abuse, harassment, and assault on and off Broadway, and sometimes far from Broadway, at a “town hall” event.

    1. We used to call it “A woman’s lot in life”.

  17. August Ames, 2020: I’m with her.

    1. I’d probably vote for Zombie Pornstar 2020… but is she old enough legally be elected?

      1. Well Obama is not a natural born Citizen….

  18. The debate over Moore, to my mind, is whether to hold one’s nose and vote for him or whether to vote for one of the write-in candidates (one of whom is the Libertarian nominee).

    Anyone who goes to the length of actually voting for the Democrat, as a protest against Moore, is nuts, or else they’re more opposed to third parties than they are to Democrats.

    1. Jeff Flake can’t even bring himself to support the Libertarian Party nominee when he deems the R candidate unacceptable…no, he goes straight to the Democrat…maybe the people who call Flake a squishy RINO rather than a principled libertarian are right…

      1. I swear he was a pretty good congressman. It really seems like he’s just going for attention now. Which is sad.

        1. He was solid in the House. He became mini-McCain in the Senate.

  19. If late term abortions are ok for medical necessity why aren’t they always ok? Abortion is either murder or it’s not, there is no maybe.

    1. Answer from a pro-life person: Not all forms of homicide are completely without merit. And that’s what you’re missing here. From the pro-life perspective, all forms of abortion are homicide. There are times when homicide is permissible.

      I’m willing to tolerate infanticide in the case of saving someone’s life, just like I’m willing to tolerate other forms of homicide in order to save someone’s life. It’s never a GOOD choice. But it may be a tolerable one.

      1. Did they ever consider…. not considering abortion to be homicide? Wouldn’t that make life easier for everyone?

        It hasn’t been homicide for almost all of human history, just as a miscarriage hasn’t ever been considered the same as an infant dying in its crib. So it’s a position they could credibly choose to take and end all this consternation.

        1. Sure, I considered it, and rejected it. Comparing a miscarriage seems petty and illogical. A miscarriage should be less distressing than losing an infant, which is probably less distressing than losing a toddler, and an older child, because with a miscarriage you’ve not had time for emotional investment to lose.

          The basics of the argument come from this: Is it alive? Which from biology, we can answer with a resounding yes. The second question would be “is it unique / distinct / separate from the mother? Which again, science is quite clear on: yes. Finally we ask “does removing it kill it?” Obviously yes. So abortion is by definition homicide. The only question from there is whether it is a justifiable form of homicide.

          Justifiable homicide takes into consideration the circumstances and motives. I can see zero justification for the premeditated killing of an unborn child outside of when the mother’s life is in danger.

          1. It’s not an unborn child. It’s a zygote when it’s just a few cells. It’s a fetus until it has the brain function of something more than a sea-slug or a tadpole.

            Sheesh. An acorn is not a tree unless you are a religionist.

        2. As to the historicity of abortion, in pretty much all of Christendom they were acceptable until the “quickening” or until the mother could feel movements, because there was no way to tell it was alive before that. Science changed humanity’s knowledge of the situation, so it is only just and right that we update our view in response.

      2. I think the pro-life perspective is abortion is murder. I’ve never heard one call it homocide.

        1. Murder is an unjustified premeditated homicide.

          I tried to walk tony through the basics just above this.

          1. I’m saying your view is not the majority position. Most pro-lifers believe abortion is unjustified premeditated homicide.

  20. You can feel how upset Welch is that the rubes and yokels in Alabama might just elect someone who shares their views on Christianity, Islam, abortion, etc.

    GET OUT THE VOTE FOR JONES REASON! YOU CAN DO IT!!

    1. Why would a libertarian endorse someone who wants the US to be a theocracy?

      1. Oh, I don’t think Reason should support Moore. Or Jones. Neither is libertarian. But it’s fun to watch them shit their pants over Moore.

    2. “I’m a liberal.”
      -Matt “Welchie Boy” Welch

  21. “I’m not in favor of anything that is going to infringe on a woman’s right and her freedom to choose. That’s just the position that I’ve had for many years. It’s a position I continue to have[.]”

    In the hands of pro-Moore super PACs, this boundless answer to a limited question was translated into “Jones supports abortion in even the most extreme circumstances, including gruesome late-term and partial-birth abortions that are banned in countries across the world.”

    I don’t see a lot of word-twisting there.

  22. He professed no desire for any restrictions. You think that not supporting one candidate requires you to donate to their opponent?

    No such thing as both being quite bad?

  23. Sadly, many Religious conservatives want to impose their views on others. With the abortion issue, they want to make abortion illegal. Overturning Roe v Wade, just returns abortion to the states. So in some states abortion would become illegal and in other states it might become more permissive.

    No woman, regardless of religious or political persuasion, would endure 20 weeks of pregnancy and then get an abortion without there being a serious reason. Almost every woman that has a late term abortion is devastated, but serious health issues for either the mother or the child or often the child would not survive after birth and would suffer and because that women chooses abortion over still birth or giving the child a very short and painful life. Most people that are against abortion claim that they support exemptions for the medical reasons. Well, most abortions for medical reasons happen in the second and third trimester. Most elective abortion happen in the first trimester.

    There are other more important issues that affect people’s lives. Maybe we should overturn Roe V Wade just to stop arguing about it. Then women and Texas will do what they are already doing. The rich travel long distances for abortions. The poor go to Mexican open markets and buy a mix of drugs and give themselves a “do it yourself” abortion. That will be the reality of half of America.

  24. Sadly, many Religious conservatives want to impose their views on others. With the abortion issue, they want to make abortion illegal. Overturning Roe v Wade, just returns abortion to the states. So in some states abortion would become illegal and in other states it might become more permissive.

    No woman, regardless of religious or political persuasion, would endure 20 weeks of pregnancy and then get an abortion without there being a serious reason. Almost every woman that has a late term abortion is devastated, but serious health issues for either the mother or the child or often the child would not survive after birth and would suffer and because that women chooses abortion over still birth or giving the child a very short and painful life. Most people that are against abortion claim that they support exemptions for the medical reasons. Well, most abortions for medical reasons happen in the second and third trimester. Most elective abortion happen in the first trimester.

    There are other more important issues that affect people’s lives. Maybe we should overturn Roe V Wade just to stop arguing about it. Then women and Texas will do what they are already doing. The rich travel long distances for abortions. The poor go to Mexican open markets and buy a mix of drugs and give themselves a “do it yourself” abortion. That will be the reality of half of America.

    1. “Sadly, many Religious conservatives want to impose their views on others.”

      Along with pretty much everyone else who isn’t an anarchist.

      Do you think people at cake businesses should be forced to serve gay weddings and not discriminate?

      Do you think people should be forced to pay taxes to support for roads, police, etc?

      Do you think people should be forced to provide various conditions to their employees at a job?

      These are all views being forced on others.

  25. “Late-Term Abortions Are Rare and ‘Partial Birth Abortions’ Illegal. Why Do They Keep Dominating the Reproductive-Rights Debate?”

    Kermit Gosnell

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.