'Abortion Is Murder' Isn't a Winning Argument for Pro-Life Conservatives

It is both philosophically and strategically wrong.


With the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, for the first time in 45 years, the pro-life lobby has a shot at overturning Roe v.

Pro Choice

Wade, the admittedly flawed Supreme Court ruling that acknowledged that women have a constitutional right to make reproductive choices. However, at the same time, it seems, public support for banning abortion has dipped post-Trump, perhaps due to his harsh talk.

Until now, the pro-life lobby has been very careful not to demonize mother who have abortions. However, now they might be tempted to whip up flailing support by doubling down on their argument that "abortion is murder" and women who opt to have abortions are murderers.

But that would be a big mistake both philosophically and strategically, I note in my column at The Week. Mothers are best placed to balancing and maximizing their own and their child's wellbeing because they are the only ones who have a direct and vital interest on both sides here. "There is no other situation in life where this is the case," I note. "The state can regulate murder because in every murder, even one in self-defense, the perpetrator has an interest only in himself, not the person killed. So someone needs to ensure that the victim's interests are adequately represented. That is not the case with abortion."

Go here to read the piece.

NEXT: Ruth Bader Ginsburg Thinks She Has 'At Least 5 More Years' Before Retirement

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. “The state can regulate murder because in every murder, even one in self-defense, the perpetrator has an interest only in himself, not the person killed.

    There’s a problem with this sentence. A really, really big problem. At least by common interpretation.

    1. OOH, let me guess!
      The Chevron Defense?

      Some bureaucrat interpreting murder regs?

    2. Ah, no, by common interpretation, “him” encompasses females, too.

      1. How lexicosexoheterocisgenderonormative of you. You are Literally Hitler

        1. Literarily Hitler too.

    3. There are quite a few honestly. Shikha should just go try and write for HuffPo with this kind of baloney.

  2. It’s foolish to believe that outlawing abortion through judicial fiat is even a possibility. Only an ignoramus would think that is possible.

    Why not admit what your real fear is here: that abortion restrictions would be allowed within twenty weeks of pregnancy. You don’t want to admit it, because you know that’s inevitable and that the public broadly supports that.

    1. It was legalized through judicial fiat. So, this judicial fiat thing only works in one direction?

      But I agree, the real fear here isn’t an outright ban, it’s restrictions of the sort that would likely be popular, something closer to European regulation of abortion than Roe permits.

      1. If Roe were overturned then the decision would return to state legislators. It would not outlaw abortion. And I fail to see what in the constitution would explicitly forbid abortions from occurring.

        All polls have consistently shown that 80% of the population do not want abortions to be legal beyond twenty weeks. That’s why abortion radicals, need to obscure the issue as a “legal” or “illegal” choice.

        New ultrasound technologies are only going to make people more supportive of restrictions, too. Pro-choice extremists have become modern day Luddites on this front.

        1. What is so magical about 20 weeks? Also, are you ok with abortion before the 20 week period?

          1. 20 weeks is within the realm of viability. I think there is a natural right to abortion, but because it is a conflicted natural right that restrictions are appropriate. I can’t think of another natural right that directly impact another person by exercising said right. That’s what makes abortion a different animal. But, I also think that a blanket outlaw of the practice also violates natural rights.

            1. I can’t think of another natural right that directly impact another person by exercising said right.

              Most property rights directly impact the rights of other people. But that is a discussion for another time.

              The question I have for you is this. Let us say abortion is outlawed after 20 weeks, and a woman wants to get rid of a fetus. Who pays for the care of the fetus in the incubator?

              1. How would the answer be any different than if she wanted to get rid of a newborn baby?

                Same issue exists. Same result exists.

                Do the innocent not deserve protections?

              2. Obviously that would fall to the taxpayer, which would also be true for a good number of abortions in this country which are still funded by taxpayers either directly or indirectly.

                I understand the contention that you are making here. And it is correct, but the opposing view is also correct. The issue is more complicated than “legal” or “illegal”. I’m not sympathetic to the “outlaw all abortion” contention or the “allow all abortions” contention.

                1. Thanks, I agree with that. However, you never answered my question. Are you ok with abortion before 20 weeks being legal?

                  1. Oh sorry. I thought I was clear on that point. Yes, prior to twenty weeks or before viability (which is an ever changing metric) the practice needs to be allowed.

              3. Or a mother wants to euthanize her Down Syndrome child. Who pays for the baby in a foster home/institution?

                1. In all these cases the mother and father should share paying support.

                  The law we need is paternal identity at birth. To protect the baby’s interests.

            2. You have the right to self defense up to the point of killing someone so that seems to have an effect on others.

        2. The abortion radicals are the right-wing kooks who support personhood amendments because they believe fairy tales are true, are misogynistic jerks, and are gullible yahoos.

          1. Your contention is not supported by reality.

            1. When he contends something that is supported by reality, call a press conference to announce it to the world.

          2. Does Rev. stand for revolutionary, or revolting?

            1. It stands for Revoked, as in freedom revoked when you have been committed to a mental institution. The Rev will be ok when the nurse gives him his next shot.

              1. Don’t let me interrupt this meeting of Self-Proclaimed Libertarians For Government Womb Management.

                Carry on, clingers. So far as your betters permit, of course.

                1. Rev, what is special about birth determining personhood? A day before or after the ‘fetus’ is just as helpless.

                  1. There isn’t anything, of course. After birth, the mother is still the only person who has a direct and vital interest on both sides, so the state has no business interfering with her decision to have a doctor end the life of the fetus in the fourth trimester, or even the fourth decade.

                2. Rev how is your anime watching going?

    2. Uh, “Judicial Fiat” says that it can’t be outlawed. We are talking about removing the fiat. And plenty of Activist types have no problem with Gay Marriage being legalized thru Judicial Fiat (since it lost every. single. vote)

    3. Anybody who thinks overturning Roe v Wade makes abortion illegal is a fucking moron. It was already legal in several states at the time. It simply puts the choice back to the states.

      Which Libertarians seem to hate.

      1. I tend to think that a blanket outlaw of abortion does violate a natural right, but restrictions are more than appropriate since it is a conflicted natural right. Pro-choice extremists oppose any and all restrictions, which is what this is really about.

        1. This should be a spirited meeting of Libertarians For Government Womb Management And State Micromanagement Of Abortion Clinics . . .

          1. Oh Rev, does your nurse know your meds are wearing off and you are back on the internet again?

          2. Arthur L. Hicklib apparently doesn’t realize that most pro-choicers support Government Womb Management And State Micromanagement Of Abortion Clinics, and his support of abortion up to and including the point that the baby is going down the birth canal is in the minority.

          3. Rev will chair the meeting of the terminally virgin 50 year old incels.

            What important matters are on the agenda? I suggest favorite animes, learning how to make your offhand go to sleep, best Craft Mac and Cheese recipes, and best Mountain Dew holding glasses.

  3. I like how Shecky quotes noted philosopher expert Shecky.

  4. I’m waiting for technology to get to the point where artificial wombs work. Then anyone who wants to force birth can pay for transplant to an artificial womb and then pay for the gestation and then pay for the resulting person after 40 weeks to be brought up or adopted (given the permission of the women carrying the zygote of course.)

    1. We can’t do that, they may take an illegal immigrant’s job and that we just can’t allow.

    2. So, if I oppose you killing your wife, I have to buy her a house? I’m none too happy about the
      Burmese murdering Rohinga. Am I required to move them into my guest room?

    3. Personal responsibility requires the mother and father to support the kid.

  5. “Mothers are best placed to balancing and maximizing their own and their child’s wellbeing because they are the only ones who have a direct and vital interest on both sides here.”

    The existence of infanticide suggests that you can’t actually rely on that being true.

    1. Infanticide is really what’s at stake here. Pro-choice radicals want keep abortion legal through nine months of pregnancy (regardless of state law, abortions are legal through all nine months due to the “mental health” exception enshrined by the courts), which is basically infanticide.

    2. Dalmia having shallow thinking on an issue is shocking to me.

      1. But she’s diversifying! Perhaps she ran out of stupid sh*t to write about immigration.

    3. “Mothers are best placed to balancing and maximizing their own and their child’s wellbeing because they are the only ones who have a direct and vital interest on both sides here.”

      In my limited experience, young women favor abortion because they value their careers.

      Older women later decide that children are more valuable.

      So, the women I know seem to be arguing that young women are not in fact best placed to make these decisions.

      1. Shika’s contention that only the mothers have a “direct and vital interest” here is contradicted by the existence of family law courts that impose child support on the spouse or significant other if the baby is born.

        Women don’t need men (or other women, if they are lesbians) to raise a child, up to the point that the support checks stop flowing.

        1. Great point!

          How does the father of a fetus have zero say in the babies survival but must pay child support as a parent of that child?

    4. The existence of infanticide suggests that you can’t actually rely on that being true.

      Not to mention the existence of fathers.

      1. You mean the sperm and dollar donors?

    5. “I’m killing you for your own well-being.”

      What an awful argument. Even sad for Dalmia, and the bar is pretty low there.

  6. “And slavery was OK because Africans really aren’t people — not like us you know…”

    Dalmia is a wrong on this as she is on immigration.

    1. The Abolitionist Lobby better be careful not to demonize slaveholders.

      Plantation Owners are the only ones with both the Plantation AND the Slaves interests in mind

      1. HA!

        All those slaves out there just a singing and dancing — just loving dem some slavery!

    2. Your analogy of abortion being like slavery is all wrong!!!

      HERE is a FAR better analogy:

      Abortion is like this:
      You’re drunk off of your bleeding ass, driving down the road and shit, minding your own business and shit. Maybe you shouldn’t have dropped that acid, either, but the cops haven’t caught you, and, innocent till proven guilty, right? So you keep on driving? Your drunken ass is bleeding and shit, by the way, ’cause you’ve got some wicked hemorrhoids, and shit!

      Then some space aliens swoop in on your car, and abduct you, and shit. They start anally probing you. For some strange reason, the little green men have a conscience attack, they start worrying about fucking up your health, and shit, what with your giant bleeding hemorrhoids. So they cease and desist, yank their probes out of your ass, and probe your nose instead, and shit. They don’t even bother to clean the bloody shit off of the probes, and shit!
      But then a mucus vampire circles around you and swoops in like a vulture!

      1. See, a mucus vampire, well, they’ve got some sort of magical nose for this kind of thing, and somehow he catches on to what’s going down, and he wants to suck your mucus, and shit. So he shows up, to get in on the action.
        But when the mucus vampire sees all your blood and shit mixed up with your mucus and shit, he gets all disgusted and shit. The blood, he can handle? Some of his best friends are blood vampires. He’s a tolerant and broad-minded vampire, and shit, you know. But REAL shit, in his mucus??! Now THAT is TOO MUCH shit, and shit!
        So he says, “Dudes, getting blood and shit into your mucus and shit, that’s like getting chocolate into your peanut butter and jelly and shit! That’s like getting your stupid and your evil all mixed up into your philosophy! This is some seriously fucked up bloody-snot shit! I’m outta here!” And the mucus vampire is SOOO sickened, he barfs all over you! Then he wraps his cloak around him like Batman folding up his bat-wings around himself, turns into a bat-shit crazy bat, and shit, and flies away, all disgusted.
        The little green men, being kinda autistic, take everything literally. They are also HORNY little green men, already excited by anally and nasally probing you, and, upon hearing the mucus vampire talking about “?seriously fucked up bloody-snot shit?”, get all carried away, and shoot their little-green-men jism all over your bloody-snot shit!

        1. Now if we sit back and think about this, your shit bacteria get all fucked up, ’cause they were expecting a decent burial in your toilet, and they don’t get one. Your nasal bacteria and viruses were expecting to LIVE, or, at least, a traditional, honorable drying-out session in your booger rag, and they don’t get that, either. Your little green men sperm cells get REALLY screwed over, ’cause they were expecting at least SOME long odds (but a real fighting chance) at some little green woman’s egg cell. Your red blood cells don’t matter, ’cause they have no cell nucleus, let alone a nervous system, or any kind of independent life. Your white blood cells? Well, yes, they have a nucleus, and their own genes. But they’re WHITE, dammit! You cracker muthafuckers!!! WHITE means you’re a RACIST, and WHO CARES about the rights of racist honkeys?!?!
          Ergo, we must conclude, this whole thing is an abortion all around! Since abortions are, by definition, abortions, they need to be outlawed!

          1. SugarFree? Is that you?

          2. This sounds like a film starring Adriana Checik. Not googling the spelling at this time.

        2. Is this why we have the Report Spam feature here? Because I would rather learn how to make thousands of dollars per week in my spare time

          1. Go read his website if you really want a ride.

          2. If only there was a way to clone your mom several hundred times.

  7. “her body her choice”

    What’s so stupid about this is the narrow, simple view of a woman’s absolute right to do anything related to ONE specific organ. Anything else she wants to do with regard to any other part of the body is heavily regulated and even outlawed.

    I’d like to see Roe V. Wade taken to it’s natural conclusion, which is that we all have absolute, inalienable sovereign rights over our own person. Congress shall make no law that infringes on that right. Yes, your sovereign rights are so absolute you can murder what some consider to be a viable person if you feel like, but it also means the government can’t murder you for selling weed.

    1. Perhaps murder you for selling, but certainly not for using. That would make sense.

      1. no because if a law preventing you from selling me weed is infringing on my right to do whatever i choose with regard to my own body. This is all assuming we have judges who respect the words in the amendments they rule on, and obviously we do not. This is all a fantasy because this will never happen.

        1. Just as laws that prevent you from selling me a gun violate the 2nd amendment.

      2. Prostitution? Isn’t sex for hire illegal? And I am willing to bet that most of those who support abortions the most fervently also are supportive of making prostitution illegal.

    2. Hmmm. Excellent point. I’d like to see RvW used to challenge the constitutionality of bans on prostitution.

      1. Eewwww, look what is emanating from that penumbra

    3. this will never happen of course but it is the right thing to do.

      1. Roe has always rested on tenuous legal logic. I wouldn’t tie other objectives to that ruling

        1. “Tenuous” being a technical legal term for “pulled out of Blackmun’s ass”.

    4. Yes, this is a great point.

      Want to donate a kidney to your sick neighbor … no can do! You can donate the kidney, but unless it is immediate family a government set up monopoly will decide who gets it.

      Want to have your gall bladder out, it is illegal for anyone to do it unless licensed by the state, and it is performed in a state licensed facility that meets all of the state regulations, and you use only medical insurance licensed by the state. And it will only be done if your state licensed physician agrees that it is the right thing to do.

      It is completely WRONG to regulate abortion in any way! No waiting periods are acceptable, no regulation of the facilities are to be allowed, and none of this “right thing to do” crap … if the divined, holy, mother of the baby in the uterus wants it, it must be done immediately.

      Excuse me for pointing out the obvious, but the SC pulled this crap right out of their ass and it is WAY overdue to be lmade consistent. Personnally, I prefer getting the government out of all of our heathcare. But there is no way the constitution protects ONLY a woman’s uterus, while leaving the rest of her open to regulation.

  8. So this is not something that falls under free range parenting?

  9. Shikha is saying others should moderate their language and position for their own political good.

    Let that sink in for a bit.

    1. Let that sink in for a bit.

      So much for the call to get people to stop using this dumb phrase.

      1. The last time Longtorso said this was when he was giving advice to his friend on how to apply makeup to his waifu pillow.

  10. So the accidental death of fetuses/babies in pregnant mother’s bellies require additional charges for defendants but intentionally killing a fetus/baby is not to be discussed anymore?

    1. It does suggest an appalling lack of self awareness.

      1. Wrong comment response. See Longtorso’s 1:17 pm comment.

        1. Fits both. There are Aborto freaks on both sides.

    2. If a man kicks his pregnant girlfriend in the gut, and as a result terminates her pregnancy, he will likely be charged with murder.

      But having a doctor terminate the pregnancy on purpose is a sacred right that no one may question.

      Principles shminciples, intentions are what matter.

      1. I don’t see this as a huge dichotomy, frankly.

        I see the pregnant woman as a landlord. She has the right to evict the fetus, in the least destructive way possible. For a 2 month fetus, that’s going to be fatal. For an 8.5 month fetus, well, I think it’s reasonable to demand that the landlord use a non-lethal means of eviction.

        But just because the woman has the right to evict the fetus, doesn’t mean anyone else has the right to forcibly evict the fetus.

        1. So you’re saying you should be able to fatally evict someone?

          1. I’m saying that I should be allowed to evict someone even if they will die if I do.

            See also: kicking someone who hasn’t paid their rent in 6 months out into winter Alaska.

            1. The “prospective human” has not entered into any contract. Indeed, it had no say in being conceived. Its life was created by the choice (99% of the time) of the “prospective mother” who now seeks to end that life because she does not wish to deal with the consequences of her choice.

              Now, I’m not against abortion abstractly (not a life value absolutist), but i do object to denial of the reality of the situation.

              Woman is irresponsible, and pro-choice advocates for her right to end the life she has created to avoid responsibility.

              If you’re pro-choice, don’t come whining to me about poor migrants or starving children in Africa later. Develop a consistent system for how you value life and stick to it.

              1. The “prospective human” has not entered into any contract
                And I’m not a signatory to any state or federal laws, but I’m still bound to them, including the ones that were signed before I was conceived.

                Some contracts you sign onto. Some you are conceived into.

                If you think that’s immoral, you can either (A) accept that we don’t live in a moral universe, or (B) blame the immoral creator that created it.

                1. (C) not accept the benefits of the contract and depart the contract jurisdiction.

                  In this case the USA.

                  1. @loveconstitution1789
                    Except that by the time a person is aware enough of their situation to take advantage of renouncing their citizenship and moving to another nation, they’ll already have been subject to the nation’s laws for years and years and years.

                    And even then, while you can renounce citizenship from one nation and try to seek citizenship in another, you’ll still be bound by international treaties and laws that you never agreed to.

                    Put simply, being only bound by that which you have personally agreed to is not an option in the modern world.

                    1. Form your own country then.

                      You just have a bunch of excuses.

                      Go off planet and start your own anarchyland. Sarcasmic will join you for sure.

                      He does not like constitutional democratic republics that try to respect as many individual rights as possible, while sometimes being overun by socialists who create a bunch of laws that later need to be rolled back.

            2. So if you’re in a very remote area of Alaska in the dead of winter, and kick your tenant out with no way to get to safety, that is justified?

              What if his inability to pay rent was not his choice? Maybe he slipped and fell and was wallowing in his own shit and eating canned food on the kitchen floor for the last 6 months.

              I’m mostly ambivalent about abortion, because it is going to happen anyway. You want to stop it? Change hearts and minds.

              That said, there is zero logical or moral justification for it. None. People twist themselves in a bunch trying to justify it. Why? I don’t know. Seems quite fucking weird to me. Like, “Hey, I’m going to spend a lot of my time justifying destroying unborn babies with a vacuum powered woodchipper.”

              1. I’m more or less pro-abortion.
                Don’t think it’s right, and I do think it’s homicide, but I don’t have much of a dog in the fight.
                Imaginary people aren’t a priority for me.
                My point is simply that it’s not at all like a lease, as a lessee has signed an agreement stipulating the conditions of residence and agreeing to certain obligations, while a fetus has done no such thing.
                In fact, it’s the pregnant woman who wants to abort her baby that is failing to live up to her natural obligations, agreed to when she chose to have unprotected sex.

        2. That’s not how leases work

          1. Good point.

      2. The principle is that fetuses do not deserve human rights or they do.

        Obviously the parents of the dead fetus from the kicking have a claim for injury. Murder not so much.

      3. If a man kicks his pregnant girlfriend in the gut, and as a result terminates her pregnancy, he will likely be charged with murder.

        Depends on the state. There’s quite a few where this is the case, but in others there are usually “unlawful termination of pregnancy” laws to cover this.

        1. “Unlawful termination of pregnancy” is a good term for civil or criminal conduct.

          Its not murder though, unless abortion is murder.

  11. Also nice how Dalmia uses compromise by pro lifers to attack pro lifers.

    “If they really thought it was murder, theyd support punishing women” is just another reason why people wont conpromise.

    If you will use a compromise to attack, which she is doing…then a conpromise is irrational.

    1. This is Shitma talking (or writing), you can’t really expect it to make sense you know.

      Shitma is just another one of the progressive writers Reason has recruited to reform all us libertarians into good little prog…, I mean libertarians!

      Kinda like the Koch brothers threatening to support Democrats …. because the true cause of libertarians everywhere is best served by supporting socialists.

      1. I guess suppression of freedom is OK as long as they get cheap domestic help.

        1. The Kochs have deep enough pockets to do just fine in socialism…

      2. That argument did carry the day in certain centrally located European countries around the 1920s and 30s, because classical liberalism was thought to be a lost cause.

  12. In any other case of an otherwise healthy human, is the argument that their death maximalizes their well being not looked at askance?

    That is kind of the definition of an unjust taking of life.

    1. Look at it this way, you are saving the baby from growing up and making a bunch of racist sexist homophobic tweets as a teenager

  13. Here’s how you stop abortion: Not through legislation or judicial fiat, but by peacefully persuading people not to get abortions. You’ll never stop it entirely, but if everyone concerned got behind the idea of peaceful persuasion, then abortions CAN be reduced. Which is a good thing.

    Also, sex before/outside of marriage is absolutely going to happen, so getting behind birth control is not only sensible, but greatly reduced the desire for abortion in the first place. Technically most protestant denomications are all hunky dory with birth control. They just don’t act like it. It doesn’t need to be tax funded, but neither should it be opposed.

    If you are opposed to abortion for Judeo-Christian religious reasons, be aware that there are no Commandments that start with “Thou shalt legislate…”.

    1. Good to know. I guess murder, theft, and perjury are all legal now

    2. But what reason would persuade people not to have abortions, if they’re not murders? Seriously, what else could be wrong about doing it?

      Your god is against it? You have an obligation to populate the planet or country? That was going to be a really good baby?

      1. Survival of the fittest.
        If the baby is strong enough, it’ll bitch slap that doc right outta there – like Tebow did

    3. be aware that there are no Commandments that start with “Thou shalt legislate…”.

      Uh, the whole point of the Commandments was to establish a theocratic form of governance, and if you think “legislation” didn’t exist in the ancient Hebrew world, you may want to read Leviticus.

    4. Except that much like Roe v. Wade can trace it’s roots back to Griswold v. Connecticut, the “pro-life movement” traces it’s roots to the “anti-birth-control” folks.

  14. I hope wingnuts continue to push the ‘abortion is murder’ line, and gun absolutism, mostly because I expect those arguments will hasten the collapse of the Republican-conservative electoral coalition under the weight of its bigotry, superstition, and backwardness. The anti-abortion kooks and gun nuts will take the entire right-wing platform under with them.

    Carry on, clingers.

    1. I’ll bet if you can find someone to wheel you down to the common area, they’ll have some tapioca pudding or ice cream cups

      1. You know, it is actually pretty impressive how much typing the Rev. does. I figure someone like him is having to type with his nose, after all, you can’t use your hands with a strait jacket on.

        I do wish they would up his meds though. Somewhere in there are actual thoughts trying to get out.

        1. You guys just don’t get it. “Kirkland” is just a parody account. There isn’t really anyone so pathetic that they’d intentionally spend their own free time hanging out with people they hate, just on the infinitesimal chance that they’d get to insult someone and have that person actually take it seriously.

          1. There isn’t really anyone so pathetic that they’d intentionally spend their own free time hanging out with people they hate

            Tony and Hihn would like a word with you.

            1. “Hihn” isn’t real. It’s just a robot, built for the dual purposes of goat sodomy and shitposting.

              I don’t think Tony hates us. He disagrees with us, sure, and even gets quite angry at times. But he doesn’t hate us. If Kirkland were real, to get that sort of vitriol, that would require hate. And that would just be far too sad.

          2. There isn’t really anyone so pathetic that they’d intentionally spend their own free time hanging out with people they hate,

            I keep waiting for genuine libertarians to show up, and figure they might be inclined to do so if someone interrupts the Stormfront-fest that has developed around here.

            1. Why don’t you try to make a libertarian argument then? Who are you trying to impress?

      2. Or better still, Dr Jack’s No More Pain Machine.

        1. Who doesn’t know at least one Rev… the middling intellect and hollow character, the rage and fury at everyone, the overwrought cliches and adjectives? The writing style is even a worn out cliche… A few possibilities, but I will go with the most obvious: The Rev’s daddy had money, so the little Rev thought he was better than everyone else, then daddy’s money got the little Rev into decent schools, so the little Rev thought he was smarter than everyone else, then daddy’s money got the little Rev a job at a good firm, so now the Rev thinks he better and smarter than everyone else. There is no shame in that, but I’m not impressed.

          1. No, Arty’s already admitted to being a hick. Hicklibs are marked by their inherent self-loathing and over-wrought, desperate signaling that they’re not as stupid as the same people they grew up with, in hopes that bourgeois liberals won’t look down on them.

            There’s a reason Arty writes the same boilerplate shitlibbery, as he doesn’t have the creativity of someone born into a well-read, stable family, and thus over-compensates for his perceived shortcomings by projecting them on to his political opponents.

    2. AIDS has really deteriorated your mental faculties, hasn’t it?

  15. ” ‘Abortion is Murder’ isn’t a winning argument for pro-life conservatives”

    “Opposition to Open Borders is Racism” isn’t a winning argument for pro-immigration libertarians, either, but we see Shikha making it repeatedly here.

    Physician, heal thyself.

    1. To be fair, libertarians aren’t actually good at coming up with “winning arguments”, regardless of the topic.

      1. Yeah, it is always “I’m the most unyielding in my principles… but I have no idea how to prioritize them!”

  16. “Mothers are best placed to balancing and maximizing their own and their child’s wellbeing because they are the only ones who have a direct and vital interest on both sides here. “There is no other situation in life where this is the case,” I note. “The state can regulate murder because in every murder, even one in self-defense, the perpetrator has an interest only in himself, not the person killed.”

    Susan Smith agrees.

    Why anyone takes Shika seriously is beyond me. She’s a bad parody of everything she espouses.

  17. Gillespie is evidently fucking Shecky, amirite?

  18. The purpose of government (according to the Declaration of Independence) is to protect rights (punish initiations of force). Presumably, the worst initiation of force is murder.

    Now, if government is incompetent to even define murder, then it cannot fulfill it’s singular purpose.

    So, a government that’s incompetent to define murder is a government that shouldn’t exist.

    Please, someone correct my logic if you see an error here…

  19. I think it unlikely that the mainstream pro-life lobby will take up the argument that women who obtain abortions are callously and intentionally murdering babies.

    Their usual position, which I think accords with the actual belief of many of them, has been that such women have been duped by profit-hungry doctors and clinics, who are the ones truly to blame for the murders. This, I think, is why we’ve seen a raft of show-’em-the-ultrasound laws, and why so many anti-abortion billboards emphasize the “I’m a child, not a choice” angle. They genuinely believe that women wouldn’t obtain abortions if they were aware of what they were doing.

    It’s true that Trump has asserted that women who obtain abortions should be subject to prosecution; but this only underscores the fact that Trump is a very recent, and probably very insincere, convert to the pro-life position.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.