Law

The Justice Department May Have Found a Winning Argument Against the Texas Abortion Law

“The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized the authority of the United States...to seek equitable relief to vindicate various federal interests and constitutional guarantees.”

|

Senate Bill 8, the Texas anti-abortion law that went into effect this month, was expressly designed so that state officials could dodge accountability for the state's law in federal court. In a new legal filing, the U.S. Department of Justice has offered a potentially winning strategy for overcoming that legal ruse.

The Texas law seeks to avoid legal accountability for state officials by outsourcing the enforcement of the anti-abortion law to private actors. Under its terms, "any person" may sue "any person who…aids or abets the performance or inducement of abortion" and win a $10,000 bounty plus legal fees if the civil suit is successful. In the state's eyes, this means that no state official needs to answer in federal court since no state official is enforcing the state law.

The Justice Department has offered a different view. In an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction filed in United States v. Texas, the federal government stresses the many ways in which the Texas law "impermissibly regulates the Federal Government…and poses unlawful obstacles to the accomplishment of federal objectives." In other words, because federal sovereignty and federal interests are being harmed by the state, the federal government may lawfully sue the state over those injuries in federal court.

How does the Texas abortion law injure federal sovereignty and interests? For one thing, the state law undermines Section 1983 of Title 42 of the U.S. Code, a federal statute which says that state officials may be sued for constitutional rights violations. If you have been following the roiling national debate over qualified immunity, you have probably heard of Section 1983 since it is the law under which federal civil rights lawsuits are filed against abusive cops.

There is no question that banning pre-viability abortions, as the Texas law does, is flatly unconstitutional under existing Supreme Court precedent. What that means is that those parties impacted by the state law are entitled to seek legal recourse in federal court by filing Section 1983 lawsuits—except that the Texas law was specifically designed to block those parties from seeking that very recourse.

Forget abortion. Say a pro–gun control state legislature did the same thing. Namely, it passed a law banning handguns but then outsourced the law's enforcement to private gun control activists in an attempt to shield state officials from facing Section 1983 lawsuits over the state's blatant Second Amendment violation. Either way, the state's scheme would be a menace to both constitutional rights that have been clearly recognized by the Supreme Court and to congressionally authorized federal judicial action against those rights violations.

The Texas abortion law also runs afoul of a longstanding rule that says that states may not impose civil or criminal penalties on federal officials for carrying out their federal duties. That rule applies here because the Texas law, as the U.S. motion notes, "purports to prohibit federal personnel and contractors from carrying out their federal obligations to assist in providing access to abortion-related services to persons in the care and custody of federal agencies." Likewise, the law "purports to impede the Department of Defense's implementation of its statutory obligation to provide such medical services [abortion] to service members."

These are not far-fetched legal arguments. As the federal government's motion points out, "the Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized the authority of the United States, even without an express statutory cause of action, to seek equitable relief to vindicate various federal interests and constitutional guarantees." Such federal arguments have prevailed before and they may prevail here again.

NEXT: They Came to the U.S. Legally as Children. At 21, They Face Deportation.

Law Abortion Supreme Court Judiciary

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.

Please to post comments

485 responses to “The Justice Department May Have Found a Winning Argument Against the Texas Abortion Law

  1. Will vaccine passports be required to get an abortion? Asking for a friend.

    1. Only if you are here legally.

      1. Look there are legal hurdles to require stuff of people diving across the border. Legal hurdles! You can’t just kick someone out of a place because they don’t have a vaccine card!

        1. Tell that to DeBlasio.

          1. Can you have some spare time to sit back in your chair having your laptop with you and making some money online for some interesting online work said Jenny Francis in the party last nightsee.more what is for you there to increase your pocket money… …
            HERE = =) > JOBS APP

            1. Start making money this time… Spend more time with your family & relatives by doing jobs that only require you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. HYx Start bringing up to $65,000 to $70,000 a month. I’ve started this job and earn a handsome income and now I am exchanging it with you, so you can do it too.

              Here is I started.…………… VISIT HERE

                1. I made over $700 per day using my mobile in part time. I recently got my 5th paycheck of $19632 and all i was doing is to copy and paste work online. this home work makes me able to generate more cash daily easily. simple to do work and regular income from this are just superb. Here what i am doing.

                  Try now………….. Pays24

                  1. Sarah getting Paid up to $18953 in the week, working on-line at home. I’m full time Student. I shocked when my sister’s told me about her check that was $97k. It’s very easy to do.QEd everybody will get this job. Go to home media tab for additional details……

                    So I started……… READ MORE

              1. I’ve got it!!!! This is brilliant!!!! If you are an unborn infant, and you don’t have a vaccination passport, then you can be immediately deported, evacuated, sucked up and shot out, ummmm, your entry into this country can be , uh, well, maybe aborted. i mean, for Biden’s sake, if you don’t have your vaccination passport, you are a risk to society, to say nothing of your host. We just can’t have these parasitic cell clumps floating around without vaccination passports, can we? So, they will have to be deported, at federal expense. as quickly as possible, and sent to research labs, where they can be put to work and learn an honest trade.

        2. Fuck legal hurdles. We have a president who was not legitimately elected issuing executive orders that he flat out admits aren’t legal. So why should Texas listen to the DOJ?

          Fuck Biden, and his entire administration. They all should be put in prison or executed.

          1. THE GREAT JOBS OF USA BOYS GIRLS AND OLDERSHey guys im  free cash from this website you can earn too its so simple you just gotta download this unique system from here>>     Amazon Cash.com

          2. “why should Texas listen to the DOJ?”
            If you read the article, you’d notice that the federal government can bring the hammer down on Texas. State officials may not be shielded from personally facing criminal charges relating to impermissibly restricting the rights of the citizens under their authority. I have a feeling Gov. Abbott will change his tune quickly if he gets arrested and charged with a 20 year felony.

            1. If they try, that may be the tipping point. More and more people are waking up to the fact that we can’t be free with so many leftists in this country.

              1. Find USA Online Jobs (800$-95000$ Weekly) safe and secure! Easy Acces To Information. Simple in use. All the Answers. Multiple sources combined.GTr Fast and trusted. Discover us now! Easy & Fast, 99% Match. ..

                Here………… Pays24

        3. Can you have some spare time to sit back in your chair having your laptop with you and making some money online for some interesting online work said Jenny Francis in the party last nightsee.more what is for you there to increase your pocket money… …
          HERE = =) > Read MORE

        4. Sure you can kick someone out of a place because they don’t have a vaccine card. You can kick them out for not wearing a mask. You can kick them out for wearing a green shirt if you don’t like green shirts. Private property owners can kick anyone out for pretty much ANY reason.

    2. no, but the Dems may farm out the reporting and enforcement of vaccine scofflaws to the general public.

      1. I am making a good salary online from home.I’ve made 97,999 dollar’s so for last 5 months working online and I’m a full time student.FSa I’m using an online business opportunity I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

        For more detail ……………. VISIT HERE

        1. – Fully-optimized for the mobile environment, experience the signature “”PUBG gunplay”” on your mobile device
          – Customize your guns to fit your needs with PUBG’s unique weapon attachment system

    3. https://www.vtpbluewaters.org.in/
      VTP Blue Waters is a VTP Realty Group’s residential township project which is located in Mahalunge, Pune. VTP Blue Waters a prelaunch venture spreads over a huge 100-acre land area, housing 1, 2, 3, and 3 Resident duplex units.

  2. There are approximately zero examples of clearly unconstitutional gun control laws being blocked prior to trial and appeal.

    And even if an injunction were granted, at some future date the courts will rule that the law is constitutional for fetuses beyond 16, 18,20 or 22 weeks. Anyone who inadvertently crosses that future line will be held accountable.

    So needless to say that will have a “chilling effect”.

    1. Good to see recipe at https:\\homehealthrecipe.com

    2. That they are resorting to made up bullshit to defend made up bullshit is both unsurprising and educational.

    3. https://www.vtpbluewaters.org.in/
      VTP Blue Waters is a VTP Realty Group’s residential township project which is located in Mahalunge, Pune. VTP Blue Waters a prelaunch venture spreads over a huge 100-acre land area, housing 1, 2, 3, and 3 Resident duplex units.

  3. I wonder if Damon has read any of the posts on Volokh about this law…

    Doubt.

    1. I wish Texas had not used the novel method of… “enforcement” for this law, because that’s all anyone in the media seems to focus on. I still think the most interesting part of the law is that it didn’t ban abortion, it merely created a bright line rule limiting abortion.

      Poll after poll shows that a majority of Americans support some limits to abortion, but that limit is never well-defined. It would have been more interesting to me to see the limit debated more vigorously than the novel legal enforcement mechanism.

      1. The media simply seizes on whatever talking point the abortion-fanciers give them. Since the novel enforcement mechanism is particularly threatening to Texas abortionists, the line has gone out…denounce the mechanism, and if possible get gullible journalists to discuss the enforcement mechanism while eschewing discussion of the merits of abortion.

        1. Do you think the media wants a discussion on whether it should be legal to kill a fetus with a detectable heartbeat? That might unsettle the fence-sitters, might make the fetus look a bit more human. So we’re supposed to “forget abortion.”

        2. The media are co-conspiritors not gullible victims here.

          1. The media are criminals and many even outright traitors and seditionists.

        3. Note to foreign readers: Cretin here is the sockpuppet for Robert Dear, the 2015 cop-killer who murdered and wounded people at a Colorado clinic and has been spared from the death sentence and evidently gotten access to the prison library computer.

          1. And you know this how? And did he steal any planks from the 1972 LP platform while casting spoiler votes? According to you, that appears to be quite popular.

        4. There is no such thing as an “abortion fancier”.

          1. Remind me why anyone should take your seriously?

            1. There is zero risk of that happening.

            2. Hank is seriously high.

              Reminder:. I have Hank Phillips magic decoder rings for sale on Etsy.

              1. My guess is that he’s always been a crackpot, and age hasn’t helped him. He likely suffers from at least mild dementia. He will probably go full Hihn in the next few years.

                1. Hank is an ersatz Hunter S. Thompson wannabe who lacks writing talent and logical coherence. He mistakes concrete ideology for intelligent commentary.

                  But yeah, old age and a misspent life are catching up with him.

      2. I have to agree with you there.

      3. “that limit is never well-defined”

        Individual states have limits, although they vary from state to state. Do you mean that you want a uniformity of abortion laws at the Federal level instead of leaving the details of abortion limits to individual states?

        1. Right. So Texas’ abortion limits fall within the ~22 states (based on my quick count) that have gestational limits on abortion.

          However, since abortion is a constitutionally protected right, are any gestational limits by any state a violation of the constitution, or does the SCOTUS recognize that there might be reasonable limits to that right?

          1. I’m not an expert on abortion law, but the state-level gestational limit laws have been around for a long time. That would indicate that the states’ right to make such laws was settled long ago.

          2. Gestational limits are typically in the 22+ weeks range.

            6 weeks is truly novel.

            What is fascinating is that they are essentially forcing scotus to pick an age that is ok to ban. The severability clause is robust.

            If not 6weeks, then what?

            Federal courts will have to fall back on viability (Roe?) and allow all else to stand.

            The dirty secret is that almost all abortions are pre-viability so we will be back to the status quo.

            1. Viability is. Avowed approach. It’s based on standards of medical technology, not personhood. Defining personhood is the way to go. Although that would create the complication of retroactively defining most leftists as something other than human.

              1. You’re just looking for a way around the inalienable right to life.

                Patriots oppose you.

      4. “it merely created a bright line rule limiting abortion”

        And that line is before many women know they are pregnant.

        1. True.

          Fortunately it is not before they know they had sex.

          I suspect the gestational age will be modified on appeal.

    2. What post on Volokh discussed the DOJ motion for temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction?

  4. “Forget abortion.”

    Let’s not.

    If lefty states haven’t used this idea for gun control, it’s because the inferior federal courts haven’t exactly been zealous in blocking gun-control measures. Why would they need to avoid review by the lower federal courts? Plus I thought they’d already passed laws allowing people to be sued to have their guns confiscated. Have the lower federal courts enjoined those laws yet?

    So back to abortion – the specific problem here is that the Supreme Court knows Roe is shaky, but they don’t have the balls to say so, and they outsource enforcement to the inferior federal courts, who invoke the Supreme Court precedent to justify “abortion rights.”

    Only the Supreme Court can correct the problem, but they seem hesitant to do it. Let’s see if they’ll ignore a prolife decision from a state court (though that’s assuming the Texas courts are more prolife than the federal courts, which is something I don’t know).

    A federal district court is not a suitable forum for a state to be sued in, anyway. But don’t take my word for it, consider the Federalist 81:

    “The Supreme Court is to be invested with original jurisdiction, only “in cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, and those in which A STATE shall be a party.”…In cases in which a State might happen to be a party, it would ill suit its dignity to be turned over to an inferior tribunal.”

    https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed81.asp

    1. Just to be clear – this was basically a campaign promise to the people of New York that states would not be “turned over” to lower federal courts. Obviously, the Supreme Court and lower courts have seen fit to break that promise, the question is were they justified in doing so?

    2. Yup. Abortion isn’t a constitutional right, so hence the US government has no compelling interest to intervene. That is unlike the right to keep and bear arms, which is a constitutional right. However, the courts have also been very unwilling to actually enforce that.

      1. After Quiting my office job I was looking for a job which is not only financially benificial but also less time consuming so that I spend some time with my family. After a lot of research I noticed that only online work has that kind of credibility. But in past two years I Worked at many sites and all of them were spammer. But for the last 4 months I have been working on a website which is not only Popular world wide but also US certified. I am earning upto 15000 dollars a month by working only 2 hours a day. Go to Home MEDIA TECH INFO TAB for further information ……… JOBS APP

    3. “the Supreme Court knows Roe is shaky, but they don’t have the balls to say so”

      It’s hard to take someone seriously when they talk about the Supreme Court this way. The Justices are serious legal scholars who honor the principle of stare decisis, just as, say, doctors honor the Hippocratic Oath.

      1. I think I see what you did there.

        1. Wait, I don’t even see what I did there. I was making a plain-spoken, non-joking argument.

          1. Mike, it is likely that he (like I) saw the ridiculousness of suggesting that the Supreme Court has always honored the principle of stare decisis (do you really believe that Thurgood Marshall or cared about stare decisis? He cared about his preferred result being accomplished, whatever the means necessary); the fact that doctors repeatedly and openly flout the Hippocratic Oath; and the fact that the original oath (along with a noncompete clause) explicitly forbad abortion, along with poisoning and other forms of killing.

            1. the ‘or’ there could be applied to Earl Warren, William Douglas, or, say, Sonia Sotomayor.

            2. To be very clear, I did not say Justices _always_ follow stare decisis. I only said they honor it, and give it great weight in their rulings.

            3. I had never heard about the Hippocratic Oath and abortion. I just read about it.

              It’s actually not clear it prohibited abortion in general, but may have instead meant that the Greek physician should not administer a pessary himself, but instead get a midwife to do it for him.

              1. “get a midwife to do it for him.”

                Is that how they honored their oaths?

                1. It was how they honored it, according to one theory I just read. It didn’t explain that well whether it was a matter of not touching a woman’s private parts to avoid sexual touch or to avoid uncleanliness, or whatever.

                  Unfortunately, ancient texts don’t come with a lot of explanatory footnotes.

                  Sounds like “the original Hippocratic Oath” is an anti-abortion talking point that I stumbled into. The funny thing is the Hippocratic Oath wasn’t even important to the point I was making. It was just a random example of a professional creed honored by a profession other than judicial.

        2. I see it too, but I wonder if he knows what he did there.

          1. “Who is Number One?”

            1. You are Number Six.

              1. And number 2 would like a word with you.

          2. Nope, I don’t. You could explain it to me.

            1. I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy.

              — The Hippocratic Oath, par. 4

              1. Yup, I definitely stumbled onto a anti-abortion talking point about the Hippocratic Oath.

                The whole point I was making was about judges honoring state decisis. Mentioning the Hippocratic Oath was not important to the point I was making.

      2. “serious legal scholars who honor the principle of stare decisis”

        Table of Supreme Court Decisions Overruled by Subsequent Decisions

        https://constitution.congress.gov/resources/decisions-overruled/

        1. Nobody said the Supreme Court never overrules a previous decision. The point is they often honor previous decisions because of stare decisis and legal reasoning, not because they “don’t have balls”.

          1. It’s not just that you’ve backing away from your initial assertions, it’s that you think that you’re *still* in a position to say who should be taken seriously.

            “The Justices are serious legal scholars who honor the principle of stare decisis, just as, say, doctors honor the Hippocratic Oath.”

            As for honoring stare decisis, you made your assertion without qualification – the justices “honor the principle of stare decisis.”

            And you invoked the Hippocratic Oath without knowing about what was in it.

            Now you insinuate that it’s “legal reasoning” which keeps the court from overruling the Roe decision, which is ridiculous.

            But go ahead and pronounce on who deserves to be taken seriously.

            1. I never backed away from my original position. Some people reading my original position read an absolutism into it that wasn’t there in the first place, and I clarified my position.

              I was unaware that there was a clause about abortion in the original Hippocratic Oath. I wouldn’t have used it as an example if I had known, because the Hippocratic Oath was not important at all to the point I was making about _judicial_ professionalism.

              I recommend, though, that anyone who has memorized a talking point that the original Hippocratic Oath read about the topic in more depth.
              It’s not as clear cut what the clause meant to doctors of the time as you smugly think it was.

              By the way, my original comment said nothing about the _original_ Hippocratic Oath, anyway.

              I still maintain you are not seriously discussing the Supreme Court if you talk about whether they “have the balls” to make this or that decision. They are serious, lifetime legal scholars.

            2. If anyone here is intellectually curious, and wants to go beyond memorized taking points about the Hippocratic Oath, read this article about the Hippocratic Oath, Roe v Wade, and practice of abortion in the ancient world:

              https://eidolon.pub/the-hippocratic-oath-in-roe-v-wade-ded59eedfd8f

              1. “Justice Blackmun’s research into the Hippocratic Oath brought him to the interpretation of physician and classicist Ludwig Edelstein, who had decided that the Oath was a Pythagorean document. The Pythagoreans practiced radical non-violence; of all the various philosophical schools in ancient Greece, they would have been most likely to defend fetal life. Edelstein reasons that the Oath was just one of many views on medical ethics in the fifth century BCE and probably a minority view. This, he posits, should explain the discrepancies between the injunction of the oath and our evidence for seemingly ubiquitous ancient abortion practices.”

                1. “Edelstein reasons that the Oath was just one of many views on medical ethics in the fifth century BCE and probably a minority view.”

                  How on earth does that help you? It only makes your position worse.

                  Why are you blathering about alternatives to the Hippocratic oath when it was the Hippocratic Oath you specifically mentioned?

                  “the discrepancies between the injunction of the oath and our evidence for seemingly ubiquitous ancient abortion practices.”

                  You’re just digging yourself in deeper. The “ancient” world also practiced infant exposure.

                  https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-roman-studies/article/abs/childexposure-in-the-roman-empire/3410A0618E4B37F1CF1EE52B11DC89F4

                  Nostalgic for the good days, are you?

                  1. I never said anything about referring to the original Hippocratic Oath. I was quite clearly referring to the modern era. Modem Hippocratic Oaths do not mention abortion.

                    1. You cited an article which damages your own cause, you git.

                      Even “Justice Blackmun’s research” counts against your point.

                    2. Yeah, yeah…… you weren’t referring to THAT Hippocratic Oath. Just the other one………

                      Yeah, that’s the ticket!

      3. Wow, you actually made sense for once and… Oh, it was accidental. Broken clocks!

    4. The laissez-faire Libertarian party in 1972 published a platform protecting pregnant women from legalized violence at the hands of religious fanatics nearly identical with German National Socialists, Italian, Spanish and Vichy fascists and Ceausescu’s communist dictatorship. That Cretin applies a “lefty” smear to the only non-socialist party on the planet these past 50 years says a lot about the writer’s grasp of reality and honesty regarding individual rights. The Supreme Court copied the LP plank shortly after the electoral vote count, and Canada followed our lead. Most countries have repealed girl-bullying ku-klux Comstock laws, but surly fanatics may emigrate to mohammedan Nigeria without the hurdle of a language barrier.

      1. Hank Phillips comment checklist:

        1972 LP platform…….. CHECK!
        Bigoted comment about religion……… CHECK!
        Claim about copying LP ‘planks’………CHECK!
        Rants about ‘spoiler votes’……….. MISSING!

        Goddamn Hank, nothing on spoiler votes? Step up your game.

  5. So do the feds sue the Texas legislature for writing the law that way?

    1. Probably. I have little doubt the justice department can find a novel legal reason that the law violates some sort of legislative process.

    2. Texas sued the Feds for passing a protective tariff in 1860, so why not? The outcome back then was that girl-bulliers lost and also lost the privilege of making sexual use of women legally disallowed to resist being raped. This is again about mystics coercing women into involuntary labor squeezing out cannon fodder to please brutes with no grasp of exponential functions and as innocent of the definition of an individual right as an acephalic child.

      1. And you LOVE seeing infants murdered. Don’t you?

  6. Has the DoJ found a winning argument against Biden’s non-enforcement of our immigration laws? No? Are they looking for one? Funny how some things are a priority and some are not for the DoJ.

    1. Why would the King’s retainers go after the King?

    2. Garland is a bigger piece of political shit than Holder even was. Amazing to watch.

      1. Imagine if that douchenozzle were sitting on the SCOTUS. Whew, bullet dodged.

        1. Say what you will of McConnell, he kept this excrescence off the Supreme Court, for a while anyway.

          1. Remember, Barr was the political hack, tho.

    3. Not really. Women, since ratification of the 19th Amendment, can vote. Illegal aliens cannot. Infiltrators on the 1980 LP platform committee published a plank interesting perhaps to pedophiles and children accustomed to being molested. But overarching all other considerations is the fact that minors cannot vote, so the molestation plank had only its intended effect: it repelled women voters away from the LP. Politicians are welcome to side with 1873 Comstock Reconstruction Conservatism, and the more mature LP will gladly replace them with Libertarians in both Houses.

      1. Has anyone ever figured out what Hank is talking about in any post? Is there a cypher I’m unaware of?

        1. The things I’ve divined about him from his arcane rantings……

          Hank loves abortion, and infanticide

          He’s an anti religious, bitter, bigoted atheist

          He possesses many delusions. Including conspiracy theories about people ‘infiltrating’ the LP

          He’s obsessed with obscure events that center around 1932, and 1972

          He almost certainly rambles loudly to himself, in public

          People cross the Street to avoid him

          After he gets up a family dinner, the other people present look at each other uncomfortably, until one of the asks “what are we going to do about Uncle Hank?”

          He’s a fucking wacko

  7. There is no question that banning pre-viability abortions, as the Texas law does, is flatly unconstitutional under existing Supreme Court precedent…Forget abortion. Say a pro–gun control state legislature did the same thing. Namely, it passed a law banning handguns but then outsourced the law’s enforcement to private gun control activists in an attempt to shield state officials from…

    Just give up trying to compare the unconstitutionality of banning guns to the unconstitutionality of Texas’ latest offensive in the culture war.

    Get it clear: the rabid pro-choice collective couldn’t care fucking less about constitutions, individual rights, etc. They care about abortions being performed at will and paid for by the state. End of story. Trying to suggest they have some higher, loftier goal for civil rights in nonsense.

  8. Ban guns to “save the children” but murder them first in the womb.

    The left are an odd bunch.

    1. yeah, move your company to Texas for lower taxes and fewer regulations, then act shocked when you discover Texas is full of conservatives who pass conservative laws.

      1. Unless the company is in the abortion business, why would the business’s owner care?

        Abortion is not a holy sacrament to everybody, you know.

        1. The only domain of “healthcare” that progressives don’t want regulated.

          1. “My body, my choice! Except for COVID vaccines, then it’s perfectly OK to force a jab.”

            1. “My body, my choice, except in the case of everything that isn’t abortion.”

              1. Yep. Outside of homos and infanticide, everything else requires total federal control.

      2. Those are Christian National Socialists who pass Enabling Acts and set up a bullying dictatorship. Socialists eager to coerce and kill for prophets and mysticism are still socialists. They are definitely nothing like Libertarians.

        1. You know you don’t have to come here and type up all the words that show up in your alphabits cereal, right, Hank?

          1. Everyone either ignores or laughs at him. You should check out his website. Same kook shit he writes here.

    2. The left is pro-choice, except when it comes to freedom of association, contract, and trade. The right is pro-life, except when it comes to the death penalty, protecting cops with itchy fingers, and waging endless wars.

  9. Secession, separation, and self-determination. These are the only long term, viable solutions to the problem. Living with people that despise you, and whom you despise, is not a requirement for a free society. In fact, it makes a free society impossible, as both factions exist solely to make life as miserable as possible for the other.

    We are no longer a nation, but a corrupt, collapsing state full of people with no common culture, identity, or beliefs.

    We do not have to live like this.

    1. Not to dismiss a serious issue, but I’m reminded of this T-shirt:

      https://i.pinimg.com/736x/dc/86/34/dc8634e6e1dbdfec72c6440149175c0f.jpg

      1. Nothing to do with the South. Any state should be free to leave the union. California has been flirting with the idea for quite some time now, and I fully support their independence even though I think it is a hellhole full of horrible people.

        1. As a Californian-born Midwesterner, I propose that all Californians be given an opportunity to emigrate; we should, however, vet them carefully. The test should include an essay question- “What went wrong in California?”

          1. When we force California to leave the union we can have strict limits on immigration from there. Just to be a dick.

          2. Progressives should be expatriated, expatriation being compulsory.

    2. So the loser of the coin toss will be required to annex DC?

    3. Exactly. California and Texas and Florida and New York are big enough and distinct enough to go their own ways. Smaller satellite states could join with them for defensive purposes.

      1. The only way to “shrink” the federal government is to ignore it. The only way to ignore it is to be independent. I see no moral argument against secession. Indeed, what is decidedly immoral is the state forcing people to live together.

        1. There is no moral argument against secession. There’s only a legal argument grounded in a mystical nationalism.

      2. Just get rid of the progs.

    4. ‘Bye!

    5. True. We could actually accept the fact that sometimes American culture accept our beliefs and sometimes it rejects them. Because there is no such thing as “the one, true way” to live. No one is right all the time. No one is wrong all the time. If you think differently, you are fooling yourself.

  10. Just give up trying to compare the unconstitutionality of banning guns to the unconstitutionality of Texas’ latest offensive in the culture war.

    Are You Interested In Poker Games ?

    1. only if you can bet from space.

  11. This article is hot garbage.

    “purports to prohibit federal personnel and contractors from carrying out their federal obligations to assist in providing access to abortion-related services to persons in the care and custody of federal agencies.”

    If the feds’ claim here is that the Texas Act “purports to prohibit” activity (solely) by creating a private cause of action, then it’s no different than the claim already rejected, and that rejection sustained by SCOTUS inaction. They can appeal from such a claim raised against them, not before.

    The winning argument here is that Reason’s masters are pro-abortion, and damn anything resembling the law.

    1. Unfortunately for mystical bigotry, women have individual rights and the votes to back them with armed enforcement. Lutherans in Germany convinced the populace that Jews had no rights. Televangelized Trilbys in former quadroon ball and Mormon states are somehow convinced, like Mohammedans, that women need coercing, not defense of their individual rights. That is their problem, not Reason’s. The Libertarian Party proudly saw to at least partial enforcement of those rights in 1972 and 1976, and the decision stands.

      1. A rather wordy way to explain that you’re an antireligious bigot.

        You don’t even have to believe you’re more than an accidental shitstain in a random universe to think that human beings should be protected against being killed.

        But I suppose it helps.

        1. He’s a real annoying bigoted sack of crap.

  12. “Say a pro–gun control state legislature did the same thing. Namely, it passed a law banning handguns but then outsourced the law’s enforcement to private gun control activists”

    I’m no Einstein but I think I can predict who would win a confrontation between a non-gun person trying to privately enforce a law and take away a gun person’s guns, and, uh, the gun person.

    1. Except that the “outsourcing” involves deputizing private citizens to use the court system to enforce the sanctions, not themselves actually walking up to a Planned Parenthood facility and shutting it down. The legal fiction is that after the court hearing the police who come get you aren’t keeping you from aborting a child, they’re forcing you to cough up $10,000 to satisfy a court judgement, and putting you in jail if you object.
      It’s a form of legalized vigilantism.

      1. This is much like what backward conservative infiltrators added to the LP platform to keep us from getting 4 million votes again. The death sentence for confessed and red-handed murderers is a just alternative to taxing us at gunpoint for their comfort and upkeep. What worked to drive voters away from the national LP will hopefully drive voters away from the Texas GOP.

        1. Doubt it. Have you actually paid attention to what Team Blue is up to?

          Alternatives are dire, boyo.

        2. Libertarian Party founder David Nolan, though moderately pro-choice himself, was against the inclusion of an abortion plank in the national platform. If principled libertarians can disagree in good faith over a hotly contested issue that libertarianism has nothing novel or uniquely interesting to to say about, then the party, officially, should say nothing about it.

      2. Jail? Guess it depends on precisely how you object. If all you do is non-violently refuse to pay, the worst that is likely to happen is your house or car being seized and auctioned (or your medical equipment if you’re running a clinic).

        If Texas wanted to put real teeth in it, they would allow the plaintiff to claim the $10K as support for any child of the plaintiff’s choice. *Then* there can be jail and lots of other police-y stuff.

    2. This seems to be part of what “red-flag” laws do, put the confiscation of guns into the hands of any number of third parties to be enforced by the government. Ex-wife mad because you were late on an alimony payment…”Hello, I’d like to report my ex-husband for red-flag purposes”. An argument with you neighbor of parking spaces? “Hello, I’d like to report…”

      Everyone can become a gun-control vigilante at any time, safe in the knowledge that it’s not themselves that have to actually confiscate any weapons.

      1. People do this now already. My crazy ex tried that shit nearly a decade ago.

  13. Of course Root is here justifying murder as a constitutional right like the good little leftist he is.

  14. “There is no question that banning pre-viability abortions, as the Texas law does, is flatly unconstitutional under [existing Supreme Court precedent].” Very telling how that sentence ends, instead of [the Constitution].

    1. Invoking the penumbric emanation clause makes anything constitutional.

      1. Or un. Depends on what outcome you need.

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

        Abortion may or may not be one of those “others retained by the people”, but the 9th clearly means that there may well be rights unenumerated, but covered by the Constitution. We don’t have to squint or read between the lines to find justification for some unenumerated right, we need Congress or SCOTUS to elevate a “right” to the same level as the enumerated rights.

        OTOH, the pathetic state of protection of the enumerated rights doesn’t bode well for any unenumerated rights.

        1. The right to be free of state meddling in whether a woman can decide for herself to have an abortion or not is rooted in the Fifth and Fourteenth “due process” rights, not the Ninth’s unenumerated rights, however that might be sounder. Arthur Goldberg, in a concurring opinion in Griswold v Connecticut pointed out that the anti-contraception law could be struck down on Ninth grounds, but the majority opinion relied on the Fourth and Fifth. Many libertarians think Goldberg was onto something there.

    2. Love how precedent is only inviolable when it serves progressive ideological objectives. Any time social leftists get a ruling they like, it acquires instant super-precedent status.

      1. Roe vs Wade was an unconstitutional decision even in the eyes of many abortion advocates (the few who are honest). One thing about precedence that people seem to miss is that it can, and in many cases should be overturned. If you just allow bad precedence to become invincible in court, propagation or error will obliterate the integrity of the system.

        1. Exactly…

      2. This is exactly why Federal Judge nominations should be more carefully scrutinized before congress to ensure they have no history of political activism or party ties.

      3. Another example of this is the “Civil Rights” act. Don’t be fooled by its false label, its 100% Marxism. It didn’t ban systemic racial discrimination, it mandated it and set criteria for enforcement through affirmative action. Liberals love to name things what they are not to deliberately confuse debate and optics.

        1. This is actually a perfect example of why precedence need to be overturned when they become outdated. On dozens of occasions in the last 60 years, the supreme court ruled that affirmative action measures are in fact discriminatory against whites, but that its “justified” based on a history of discrimination against blacks. This is obviously an obsolete precedence given the fact that the ones receiving the benefits in current generations were not at any time subject to these past discriminatory laws, so they are receiving compensation and entitlements they don’t deserve.

      4. When Obergefell was decided, clerks had to provide licenses immediately, without even being allowed to wait for the states to fix minor legal details. E.g., In Tennessee, or maybe Kentucky…as I recall from the time, the marriage license must be obtained from the clerk of the court in the county the woman resides in; which county do two men getting married have to file in? Legislatures had no time to fix these sorts of things, gays could get married NOW regardless of paperwork or procedures.

        But when Heller was decided, D.C. was allowed drag out their changes (or lack of changes) for ever.

        On a related note, after Obergefell, a licensed marriage for gays was 100% instantly valid in all states. But why does the same logic not apply to CCW licenses?

    3. The reason for this is that the Bill of Rights protects individuals, not spermatozoa. First Amendment moleration of some mystical fantasies is different from deputizing mystical bigots empowered to engage in coercive invasion of the female half of the population. The same Constitution that establishes borders at which foreigners may be inspected also blocks zealots eager to violate the 13th Amendment.

      1. At conception a new human Individual is present as proven by DNA fingerprinting science.

        Any other criteria simply defines how old the individual is and to violate one’s right to life based on age, is unconstitutional.

        To deny this is to deny science, flat earthers.

        1. When the Reptile People lay eggs, do they immediately become persons, or not until they hatch?

          1. The conceptus is human, but when does it attain legal personhood? My fingernail clippings can be proven to be human, also.

            1. Your fingernail clippings aren’t a living human organism.

              1. How do you know? Have you seen them?

  15. Senate Bill 8, the Texas anti-abortion law that recognizes the fetal heartbeat as proof of life that went into effect this month, was expressly designed so that state officials could dodge accountability to reserve a power to the People in order to provide a chance for the state’s law to survive in federal court.

    Even if you don’t agree with my fix, you have to admit that the author’s language displays significant bias.

    1. Agreed. Your fix is perfect. The law does not prohibit abortion, it just establishes at what point it becomes murder. Frankly, the law is too lenient given that it makes the only penalty for murder a civil lawsuit. If we don’t draw the line at a heartbeat, where is the line to be drawn? The abortion debate is not what people think it is. It has nothing to do with the “rights of the mother” it has to do with the rights of the child and at what point the child is considered to have rights as a human being. I don’t have a strong stance on that as it is a very ambiguous determination. I just want people to be honest about what should be debated.

      1. Further more, this article falsely presumes that Roe vs Wade was in itself a constitutionally compliant decision. Its a perfect example of why Federal Judges need to be carefully screened to ensure they have no history of political activism that might cause them to abuse their powers. People keep saying abortion laws are unconstitutional, but have yet to qualify that claim.

      2. Green Teeth here is quite the expert on Sharia law and the righteousness of girl-bullying. How dare those females imagine THEY have rights?! If Green Teeth Marines know as much about language as about matters of Allah’s Law, they should have no trouble finding partisans in Nigeria or Afghanistan.

        1. SO… you’re advocating the murder of children on humanitarian grounds?

          1. Not children. Not alive. Not humans. Unless I missed it when personhood was established as attaching at conception.

            1. I’d imagine that lie does help people speep better at night.

              1. Not a lie. Nor is there an epidemic of roughly 60% of Americans having trouble sleeping at night. Or 85%, if you include those who think that most, but not all, abortions should be illegal.

                1. That is a person. It is murder. More than 9/10 abortions have nothing to do with the mother’s health.

                  It WOULD be awfully convenient to just bump off undesirables, Margaret Goebbels, but some of us are opposed to genocide, eugenics and being completely selfish.

                  1. *You* think it is a person and that it is murder. The law and 85% of your fellow Americans disagree.

                    First establish your premise as a generally accepted fact, THEN you can start using it as a basis for other conclusions. That’s how it works.

      3. It only seems ambiguous to you because your initial premise is wrong.

        There is no correct answer for how old a human can be before you’re allowed to violate their right to life. It is never allowed.

        At the point a new human exists, at conception, they have the inalienable right to life.

        1. Not at conception. As of now, the standard is viability.

          1. Both science and logic prove that a new human exists at conception.

            Viability is irrelevant.

            By the way, viability is defined as the ability to CONTINUE living which babies will do unless they are prematurely removed.

            There’s a name for people who deny science and logic thinking they know better, it starts with an “f”, fuckwits or flat earthers.

            1. Science and logic are the antithesis of the anti-abortion position, which is why it is roundly rejected by Americans. Science very much distinguishes between the *potential* for something and the *reality* of that thing. Potential life isn’t life.

              The “logic” assertion is the most ridiculous, since in order to be true you would have to assume that the “logical” thing could only be defined by anti-abortionists. Because, again, most Americans find it illogical. But apparently they don’t count.

              1. You have refuted nothing.

              2. Potential life isn’t life.

                An egg and a sperm are potential life, you idiot. Fetus is a stage in the development of a human being. Just because a caterpillar gets squished does not make it ‘potentially’ the exact same organism as every butterfly.

                1. They have no shame and no clue about rational debate.

                  They are DESPERATE to believe and convince others of their virtue.

                  Throwing out lies to hope one sticks is their desperate strategy. It’s obvious and tiresome.

                  They are beaten by the steadfast commitment to reality as defined by logic and science as we refute their lies. We win because lies don’t.

                  1. Here’s one, of many, false assertions that the anti-abortion people keep falsely claming: that pro-choice people are “desperate” to prove anything. Personally, I would never agree to abortion of a pregnancy I was responsible for. However, I also am not so arrogant and self-righteous as to force someone else to accept my decision as theirs. I certainly wouldn’t pretend that anyone who disagreed with me was a murderer or evil or morally bankrupt or whatever the latest ad hominem attack on pro-choice people is.

                    1. And you’re too cowardly to stand up for the inalienable right to life of a helpless innocent baby.

                    2. No, I just know that it isn’t a baby. Because, you know, it isn’t.

                  2. And considering the anti-abortion position is based on oversimplification, word games, and misrepresenting science, I’d be careful about accusing others of lying.

                    1. The anti abortion position is based on the inalienable right to life.

                      Definitions convey the meaning of words not trickery.

                      If you think I’ve misrepresented science you’ll need to explain how.

                      But I expect you can’t or I’ll just refute what you say with those pesky word definitions and meanings again.

                    2. You conflate the minimal biological definition of life, the legal concept of personhood, and the ability of a fetus to survive when biologically independent into a simplistic (and inaccurate) assertion that all three are present at conception.

                      Using colloquial definitions of words to deny the actual, legal meaning is a word game.

                      And I get that you think that a bundle of cells with 0% chance to live biologically independent (and I’m saying it that way so you don’t try to play your BS word game with the word “independent”) counts as “alive”, but calling that a reach is being very, very, very generous. It would be more accurate to say it’s total nonsense.

                    3. You are lying again, so desperate to believe and convince others that your advocacy of killing babies is virtuous.

                      “ You conflate the minimal biological definition of life, the legal concept of personhood, and the ability of a fetus to survive when biologically independent into a simplistic (and inaccurate) assertion that all three are present at conception.”

                      I have never done that. You are challenged to demonstrate otherwise. The inalienable right to life applies to the minimum definition of it. The dictionary definition of a person is what I use in argument. The viability, ability to CONTINUE living is irrelevant to the baby’s right to life.

                      Using lobby groups to bully the courts to rule that words have different meanings to manipulate judgments is the word game you desperately advocate.

                      You believe that you’re generous. That’s ridiculous. You’re a fascist advocating that your rights supersede the rights of others.

                    4. “I have never done that. You are challenged to demonstrate otherwise.”

                      The biological definition of life is conception. The legal definition of life is personhood, which happens with a live birth. Right now there is an “in between” position when the fetus is capable of independent life (biologically speaking) but hasn’t yet been born, which is viability.

                      I am sympathetic to, and find a reasonable compromise in, the idea that personhood should be granted to the last category. For a simple way to view it, if the fetus was suddenly outside of the woman’s womb, would it be able to sustain its life (again, biologically)? If not, there is no reasonabke possibility of personhood.

                      You seem to think that the conception and personhood are the same. They are not. And the number of people who see it your way is very, very small. Using government force to impose a small, religious opinion on everyone is the antithesis of America.

                    5. But the crux of the matter is that the beliefs of most are pretty much settled. No matter what anyone says, anti-abortionists are convinced they are right. No matter what anyone says, pro-choicers are convinced they are right. And neither has the proof necessary to establish the reality of one side or the other.

                      Which leaves it in the realm of law. And the baseline should always bend towards liberty and away from government force, especially in things that involve religion and fundamental Constitutional rights.

                      If you believe that abortion is murder, don’t have one.

                    6. Refusing to consider counter arguments is the definition of bigotry.

                      Your belief is refuted. Proven wrong. Your refusal to recognize this demonstrates your bigotry.

                      You said the “legal definition of life” is at birth. You are lying. Prove it provide a link to demonstrate that the legal definition of life is at birth.

                      You may want to consider this about legal definitions of life.

                      “The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines “child in utero” as “a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.”[1]”

  16. While I can’t day that I support the Texas law I do find it amusing that the abortion loving left is now having to deal with a legal structure of their own making. The entire Americans With Disabilities Act is enforced through lawsuits. Too lazy and cowardly to establish actual standards, the Democrats left the definition of ” reasonable accommodation” to the jury which is deciding how much of your money they want to give away.

  17. I find it ironic that certain media outlets will complain about private entities being “state actors” against abortion but are perfectly ok with private businesses being state actors for vaccine compliance enforcement.

    1. And censorship

    2. The bases of both major parties are “by any means necessary” sophistic ideologues.

      1. Both? I would say most political parties, not just two.

  18. For one thing, the state law undermines Section 1983 of Title 42 of the U.S. Code, a federal statute which says that state officials may be sued for constitutional rights violations.

    The question is whether it says that state officials may be sued for constitutional rights violations by other people.

    So we need to know whether, say, Minnesota state officials may be sued for constitutional rights violations by say, state officials of, say, New Mexico ? I suspect probably not.

    1. Whenever a leftist writes or speaks about “the law” you always have to insert [the spirit, as I see it of] in front. They never follow the letter of the law, as the letter is so… constraining.

      Section 1983 doesn’t permit claims against state officials who do not enforce a law. The Texas AG doesn’t enforce this abortion law, which is why SCOTUS did not revive a claim against him in the case the pro-abortion folks already lost.

      What DOJ is doing now is just completely absurd, but they’re under marching orders. Maybe we’ll get a nice precedent foreclosing this kind of garbage get-off-my-federal-lawn/how-dare-you-pass-laws suit from DOJ against a State in the future.

  19. Is Root an idiot? Abortion is not a constitutional right. It isn’t in the Bill of Rights and was not passed as a constitutional amendment. The woke “justices” have no authority to decide on abortion in the first place. As such it is a State’s issue to manage unless the we amend the constitution. Its pretty clear and the media and abortion proponents have always distracted the true situation to Americans.

    Gun ownership is IN the Bill of Rights. It isn’t that hard wokes..

    1. Just to repeat myself from below:

      The right to send your children to a private school, or to homeschool them, is not in the Constitution either. Pierce v. Society of Sisters is where the Supreme Court “created” that right. Parental rights in general are not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. But does anyone really question that they exist?

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

      If that is to mean anything, it means that it is an invalid argument to say that a right doesn’t exist because the Constitution doesn’t say it does. The 9th Amendment doesn’t tell us how to figure out what unenumerated rights exist, but it clearly tells us that there are unenumerated rights.

      People make this “but it isn’t in the Constitution” argument against abortion when they don’t have anything better. And since the 9th Amendment (which is one of the ten Amendments that make up the Bill of Rights) explicitly says not to do that, it is a extremely weak argument.

      1. You don’t have a right to my used bath towels simply because it’s not specifically disavowed.
        You have a right to bear arms and freely travel because they are specifically allowed.

        None of these rights are inalienable against a determined government, which is why the 2nd.

        1. Your bath towels analogy doesn’t make any sense.

          There were Federalists that argued against a bill of rights precisely because they said that some moron would then claim that the government could restrict someone’s liberty as long as the bill of rights didn’t list that specific liberty. Madison didn’t think anyone would be so stupid as to fall for that, but figured that the 9th Amendment spelling it out couldn’t hurt. I guess that Madison didn’t anticipate that not only would there be people that would be dumb enough to want to argue that only the exact listed rights are protected, but that they would ignore the plain language of the 9th Amendment not to do that.

          1. You haven’t made the case that abortion is a right “retained by the people.” Being conceived yet unenumerated is no quicker a path to Constitutional protection than… being conceived in a blue state.

  20. Abortion is not a constitutional guarantee. Assuming it was just a medical procedure, you have no more right to an abortion than the right to any other medical procedure, most which are heavily regulated. And it’s not just a medical procedure. It’s the taking of a human life. What is wrong you guys?

    1. God’s Own Prohibitionists call for all manner of socialized medicine in their platform. Delete that, and eliminate medical licensing and there is no need to try to single out women for special discrimination. Republicans claim to have supported the Equal Rights Amendment before it was fashionable. Now is a good time to get it ratified and tell the mystical girl-bulliers “sorry, but my hands are tied.”

    2. Nope. Not a life. Not a person.

      1. The personhood of a fetus is debatable and a question for metaphysics and ethics. That the fetus is “alive” and “human” is indisputable biology, and to deny it is flagrantly antiscientific.

        1. Thank you. The anti-abortion position rarely acknowledges a difference between the two.

          1. He just said the baby was a living human, you unscientific dipstick.

            1. “The personhood of a fetus is debatable and a question for metaphysics and ethics.”

              Since personhood is the basis of individual rights, he absolutely did not say it was a living human.

              Conception and personhood are separate things. And “killing” a “living human baby” requires personhood first. Which doesn’t happen at conception. And, as he said, “is debatable and a question for metaphysics and ethics.”

              Dipshit.

              1. You said the “legal definition of life” is at birth. You are lying. Prove it provide a link to demonstrate that the legal definition of life is at birth.

                You may want to consider this about legal definitions of life.

                “The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines “child in utero” as “a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.”[1]”

  21. If Federal laws are more important than State laws then there needs to be minimal Federal laws. Remember the country is a collection of States that have joined together for common defense and trade.

    We are citizens of the State where we live and citizens of the United States of America. In effect the Union is a Treaty between 50 separate sovereign States.

    There are differences in the majority opinion in the various States on various issues. The vast majority of laws should be Local not Federal.

  22. Regardless of your views on the legality of abortion, I find it very rich for a libertarian publication to argue for more Federal overreach over States’ rights. And then try to justify by juxtaposing a Constitutionally protected right (gun ownership, 2A) with a non-Constitutionally protected right that only originates from a Supreme Court ruling that many legal scholars, including Libertarian ones, is legally flawed (Roe v. Wade)

    1. Best post here…

    2. I’m with you here! The Texas law is absolutely rotten, but the Federal response is just as rotten.

      The Justice Department has offered a different view. In an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction filed in United States v. Texas, the federal government stresses the many ways in which the Texas law “impermissibly regulates the Federal Government…and poses unlawful obstacles to the accomplishment of federal objectives.” In other words, because federal sovereignty and federal interests are being harmed by the state, the federal government may lawfully sue the state over those injuries in federal court.

      In other words, the Federal Government is not defending a woman’s body, a woman’s right to choose. Rather, it is objecting to the Texas law because it interferes with “Federal objectives.”

      And if the “Federal objectives” were set by an American version of Nicolai Ceauşescu, who bans abortion and requires monthly OB-GYN exams to supposedly verify that no abortions occur, then the woman’s right to choose becomes null and void and no one can act in opposition to those “Federal objectives either.

      Somebody on both sides is getting lofs of billable hours from all this.

    3. The whole point of superstitious mysticism is being brainwashed into believing stuff for which there is not a shred of evidence, then standing at Armageddon to die forcing that belief and all its attendant legislative coercion on others. So of course Sharia legal scholars believe that anything protecting women–even temporarily–from their legal violence is “flawed!” That’s the way circular reasoning operates until it picks up a gun and then finds out about unequal but apposite retaliatory force. Evolution ain’t on their side, though they struggle to evade the realization.

      1. The whole point of superstitious mysticism is being brainwashed into believing stuff for which there is not a shred of evidence,

        You can’t decide moral values based on evidence. Opposition to abortion doesn’t depend on “superstitious mysticism”.

        1. You can’t decide moral values based on evidence. Opposition to abortion doesn’t depend on “superstitious mysticism”.

          Then what does it depend on? At a minimum, it depends on a subjective valuation of a pre-viable embryo or fetus as being equal to a person that has been born. But actually more than that, since it places that embryo or fetus’s needs ahead of the woman’s needs and desires in a way that we don’t require anywhere else in law. No one is ever legally required to put themselves at risk or to take on a physical burden against their will for the benefit of another person, even if it would be necessary to save that person’s life. If someone is trapped in a burning car, you are not required to go and help them, because you could be hurt or killed if you do. The most you can be required to do is to try and obtain further help. (Such as calling 911) If you know of such a situation that I am missing, I’d like to hear it.

          1. 9/10, abortions are for convenience. That is evil.

            1. Why is it evil? And do you actually have anything to say about what I actually wrote?

              1. 9/10 abortions are not for the health of the mother or on account of rape, incest or other deleterious factors.

                You are killing a child for convenience. That is evil. If you have trouble understanding that, there is something truly wrong with you.

                1. Then there is something “truly wrong” with about half of the U.S. population and the majority of people in most western countries that are okay with abortion for “convenience”. Or maybe, we see things differently than you do and it is you that has a problem since you won’t engage with anything I am saying that explains my perspective. You just insist that I am somehow a disturbed person that is obviously wrong, but you can’t explain what is wrong with any of the arguments I am making, other than that I am wrong.

                  1. Your perspective is it’s OK to kill children for convenience. Mine is, fuck you, that’s a person.

                    1. Prove it first. Don’t assert it. Prove it so that the overwhelming majority of people who listen to your moral reasoning say, “Hm. That is absolutely makes sense to me, morally. I will express that opinion whenever anyone asks about my beliefs.”.

                      Let me know when you manage that, then you’ll have a leg to stand on.

                  2. Then there is something “truly wrong” with about half of the U.S. population and the majority of people in most western countries that are okay with abortion for “convenience”.

                    Over half the country also believes there is something “truly wrong” with the views and values of “about half of the U.S. population.” Who are you to dispute the majority opinion?

                    1. A majority makes it right? How many people supported the Brownshirts? Stalin? Mao? Trump?

            2. That’s a batshit crazy assertion. 90% are for convenience? That’s a pretty liberal definition of convenience.

              1. Those are not my numbers. It’s a lowball from abortion providers’ reports.

                1. I wasn’t questioning the number. I was questioning the definition of “convenience”. To get to 90% you have to cram a crapload of different reasons under that heading.

                  1. Convenience is ‘not threatening the life and sanity’ of the mother. Mom is not at risk. She is not a victim. She wants to move on with her comfortable life… at the cost of murdering her child.

                    This. Is. Evil.

          2. But actually more than that, since it places that embryo or fetus’s needs ahead of the woman’s needs and desires in a way that we don’t require anywhere else in law

            I don’t see that. Whether a woman gets pregnant is usually under her control: she can abstain from sex, she can use contraception, and she can use the morning after pill. If she chooses to do none of those things, she can be legally presumed to have entered a binding commitment to carrying the pregnancy to term. There are many reasons other than the “rights” or status of the fetus for society to require this.

            I don’t see how this is any different from what we require of men: when a man gets a woman pregnant, he is financially responsible for the offspring and he has no control or choice over whether the woman has or doesn’t have an abortion.

            Now, from a libertarian perspective, I fully agree that the state shouldn’t impose such restrictions; but from a libertarian perspective, private employers, private medical licensing boards, private home owners associations, private insurance companies, etc. would all be permitted to discriminate and retaliate against women who have abortions.

            1. Is the libertarian perspective that the state should not be involved in enforcing this particular category of rights? If abortion is recognized to be the morally unlawful and intentional killing of another human being, and ending the life of a human fetus in the womb typically qualifies, which seems to be the only reason anyone would find moral fault with abortion, is there not at least a presumption that general laws against murder would apply here?

              1. The libertarian perspective (as well as the original American perspective) is that people should freely associate and govern themselves according to their own principles.

                So, there are no “general laws” against murder; what constitutes “murder” and how that is prosecuted and punished varies depending on where you live.

                From a libertarian point of view, progressive communities should be free to legalize and subsidize abortion and euthanasia, while Christian communities should be free to punish these acts severely.

                Again, that’s also the traditional American view: the federal government has no business telling the states about what does and doesn’t constitute murder.

                1. I wasn’t specifically talking about the federal government. I was talking about states that legally prohibit murder in general. So, if one community decides it will permit slavery, or child sex trafficking, or the murder of homeless people, they should be free do so without interference from a central governing body on your view?

                  1. “No one should be forced to live according to laws they don’t consent to” is not a libertarian principle. “No one, inside or outside government, should be formally permitted to violate individual rights” is. Libertarian criminal law is prescriptively universal, not culturally relative.

                    1. Libertarian criminal law is prescriptively universal, not culturally relative.

                      It is. That doesn’t mean you have the right to impose it on others by force.

                      “No one should be forced to live according to laws they don’t consent to” is not a libertarian principle.

                      That, in fact, is the essence of libertarianism.

                      “No one, inside or outside government, should be formally permitted to violate individual rights

                      That’s the progressive view. And apparently you are going to impose that progressive view even at gunpoint.

                  2. So, if one community decides it will permit slavery, or child sex trafficking, or the murder of homeless people, they should be free do so without interference from a central governing body on your view?

                    Ah, such nice weasel words. What you are actually asking is: “Should my government have the power to forcibly expropriate me and to enslave people in government military service for the purpose of imposing a particular form of government and law on unwilling people in a different state/country.” And the answer to that, from a libertarian point of view, is clearly “no”.

                    1. See? When we aren’t talking about the government forcing religious values on its citizens, we see eye-to-eye. Military force should be limited to national defense. And not the neo-con definition that says “we have to attack them and overthrow their government before they attack us.”.

                    2. When we aren’t talking about the government forcing religious values on its citizens,

                      “The government forcing religious values on its citizens” is what you advocate, just like Misek does.

                      Military force should be limited to national defense.

                      And, according to you, to forcing states to comply with your abortion mandates.

    4. Regardless of your views on the legality of abortion, I find it very rich for a libertarian publication to argue for more Federal overreach over States’ rights.

      States don’t have rights. People do. States (as in state governments) have powers. Those powers are limited by the Constitution so that the states don’t violate the rights of people. Too often, people have called upon “state’s rights” when what they really want is the ability to violate the rights of people. The 14th Amendment corrected the mistake of not including the state and local governments in the restrictions in the Bill of Rights from the beginning.

      And then try to justify by juxtaposing a Constitutionally protected right (gun ownership, 2A) with a non-Constitutionally protected right that only originates from a Supreme Court ruling that many legal scholars, including Libertarian ones, is legally flawed (Roe v. Wade)

      The right to send your children to a private school, or to homeschool them, is not in the Constitution either. Pierce v. Society of Sisters is where the Supreme Court “created” that right. Parental rights in general are not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. But does anyone really question that they exist?

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

      If that is to mean anything, it means that it is an invalid argument to say that a right doesn’t exist because the Constitution doesn’t say it does. The 9th Amendment doesn’t tell us how to figure out what unenumerated rights exist, but it clearly tells us that there are unenumerated rights.

      1. Those powers are limited by the Constitution so that the states don’t violate the rights of people.

        The Constitution does not limit state powers significantly; that is, as long as it is compatible with state constitutions, states can violate freedom of religion, freedom of speech, privacy, and lots of other “rights” that the federal government cannot violate.

        It’s a 20th century legal construct that limits on federal power extend to state governments. The consequences of that have been an unwarranted extension of federal powers over the states and over self-determination of the people within the states.

        1. Other than the Supremacy Clause, the Article III powers of the Supreme Court, and the 14th Amendment, nothing prevents states from violating the enumerated rights in the First Amendment.

          So no, it isn’t a 20th Century legal construct. It’s a late-18th-Century legal contruct.

        2. Even arch-conservatives like Justice Thomas agree with the idea of incorporation of the Bill of Rights against the states. (Though he prefers the Privileges or Immunities Clause to the idea of substantive due process.) You’re really out there on your own if you hold that the 14th Amendment doesn’t restrict the states to at least mostly the same extent that the federal government is restricted against violating individual liberties.

          1. You’re really out there on your own if you hold that the 14th Amendment doesn’t restrict the states to at least mostly the same extent

            The 14th Amendment is an express limit on states. Nothing comparable exists for abortion.

            Even arch-conservatives like Justice Thomas agree with the idea of incorporation of the Bill of Rights against the states.

            How nice for him. It doesn’t change the fact that the Constitution does not, in fact, impose these restrictions on the states.

            1. Ah, so you know the ultimate meaning of the Constitution, more than people who have spent the last 40 years or so interpreting it for a living like Justice Thomas?

              Someone certainly thinks a great deal of himself, doesn’t he.

              1. No, I stated a simple historical fact: the US Constitution, as written, expressly did not apply to the states. Incorporation became possible through the passage of the 14th Amendment. Even then, it was a legal construct and inference, not part of the Constitution.

                Those are historical facts that Thomas agrees with. Furthermore, in his opinions, he has objected to incorporation. So there is no contradiction between what I said and what Thomas says.

                Finally, regardless of legality and constitutionality, regardless of whether you like or dislike incorporation, the simple fact is that incorporation has made the US less federal, less libertarian, more centralized, and more authoritarian.

                1. “Even arch-conservatives like Justice Thomas agree with the idea of incorporation of the Bill of Rights against the states.

                  How nice for him. It doesn’t change the fact that the Constitution does not, in fact, impose these restrictions on the states.”

                  Your original reply said Justice Thomas was wrong.

                  Your response to me says that Justice Thomas doesn’t believe.

                  Should I assume you meant the second and didn’t intend to say the first?

                  1. Your original reply said Justice Thomas was wrong.

                    You’re hallucinating. I didn’t even mention Justice Thomas.

  23. Genocide isn’t new.

    People who have decided that murder is an acceptable means to an end are desperate to believe and convince others of their virtue.

    They’ll throw the most ridiculous lies at the wall hoping one sticks. Unless we refute them publicly.

    RvW came to the erroneous conclusion in 1973 that the baby is part of the woman’s body. DNA fingerprinting science refuted that in 1989.

    1. And you know whatof you speak about genocide, right? /sarc

      1. I refute what I deny. You never have.

    2. Nazi scum.

      1. You just make that shit up because you certainly can’t cite any evidence for it.

        Does it burn you up that you can’t refute what I say, what you deny?

        Hahaha.

        1. You cite one old paper and trust in the government to base your absurd theories on.

          You’re deranged Nazi scum and everyone knows you’re full of shit.

          So again, fuck you, Nazi scum.

          1. You just make that shit up because you certainly can’t cite any evidence for it.

            Does it burn you up that you can’t refute what I say, what you deny?

            Hahaha.

            1. Does it burn you up knowing the rest of the world looks at you with pity and disgust?

              YOU are the one trying to refute horrific, known history with paper-thin propoganda, miserable Misek.

              Oh, and you’re still Nazi scum. Follow your leader.

              1. Exactly the way these fuckwits deny irrefutable evidence that abortion is killing babies, you ignorantly deny the irrefutable evidence I’ve provided that the holocaust never happened without ever refuting it..

                You just blurt out ridiculous shit just like they do. You are they.

                Yes there’s all kinds of stupidity on display.

                1. If it’s so “irrefutable”, why does almost no one believe it?

                  1. You’re desperate to believe and convince others that your desire to kill babies has virtue.

                    There are close to 1 million abortions every year in the US.

                    Since 1973 that’s a lot of desperate murderers.

                    1. I have no desperation surrounding my beliefs about the right to choose. Not only am I perfectly comfortable with the morality of my position. And since I don’t have a desire to convince anyone to kill anything, that isn’t a problem either.

                      And just so I understand correctly, are you asserting that the Holocaust never happened when you said, “you ignorantly deny the irrefutable evidence I’ve provided that the holocaust never happened”? If so, you questioning anyone else’s morality is rich.

                2. I called you out for basing your contrary assertion to history on a single, lost document.

                  It is not incunbent on me to prove the sun rises in the east, the world is round or that Nazis engaged in genocide. These are well-established historical and scientific facts, and the onus is on YOU to prove your batshit crazy love for Adolf’s circumcised half-Jew bojangles.

                  So yes, plenty of crazy on display.

                  Nazi scum.

                  1. If you suggest that you have refuted my statement, as you did, you’re damn right you’re going to have to prove it.

                    You never have.

    3. DNA fingerprinting is what conveys personhood to a fetus? I must have missed that ruling. Can you cite it?

      Just saying something is so doesn’t make it so. And saying life begins at conception has never been true. It isn’t factual, it isn’t morally convincing, and it isn’t the law. You can’t even convince a majority of Christians that abortion should be illegal in all cases. Because it doesn’t make sense.

      1. DNA fingerprinting science proves that from conception a new human individual exists.

        The definition of person is what conveys personhood to a baby. 1. A living human.

        This is all that is required to convey the inalienable right to life to every baby.

        To deny this is to deny logic, science and the constitution.

        1. DNA fingerprinting proves that from conception the *possibility* of a new human individual exists.

          The definition of a person is what conveys personhood to a baby? Even if true (which legally it is not), you need to establish what “living” is without using circular logic. As of now, a fetus isn’t considered a living human.

          So, no. Your “logic” and “science” are both easily refuted, your legal footing, as of now, is terrible, and the Constitution protects people, not potential people.

          1. “As of now, a fetus isn’t considered a living human.”

            By whom? Maybe irrational murderers desperate to believe and convince others of their “virtue” by throwing ridiculous lies against the wall hoping one sticks.

            The medical community, experts on human life say otherwise. Educate yourself. Cite provided.

            http://www.mccl.org/post/2017/12/20/the-unborn-is-a-human-being-what-science-tells-us-about-unborn-children

            1. Would you prefer I said, “As of now, a fetus isn’t considered a person”? I get that you have to refute the granular definitions of words because the logical construct of fetal personhood is untenable. So I will choose my words better next time.

              You should do the same. So, for example, stop calling it a “heartbeat”, since a fetus doesn’t have a heart until about 9-10 weeks. Fair?

              1. Only when you choose to accept the dictionary definition of the words you use in argument will your choice of words matter.

                1. I’ll accept the legal meaning of words used to describe a legal concept, rather than the common usage.

                  I call my dogs my babies. It doesn’t make them babies.

                  1. You advocate that courts rule to change the meaning of words to manipulate decisions and subvert the constitution.

                    That is the only word game you desperately advocate.

                    Your dogs may be babies. They just aren’t human babies.

                    You really don’t understand the meaning of words do you?

                    1. No, I advocate for words meaning what the written law says it means. Trying to expand that meaning is a word game.

                      And the legal definition of words is established in legislation, not the judiciary. If the law doesn’t say that a fetus is a baby, the fact that people say that doesn’t change the law. Which is what you want.

                    2. You said the “legal definition of life” is at birth. You are lying. Prove it provide a link to demonstrate that the legal definition of life is at birth.

                      You may want to consider this about legal definitions of life.

                      “The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines “child in utero” as “a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.”[1]”

  24. In this year do not worry about money you can start a new Business and do an online job I have started a new Business and I am making over $84, 8254 per month I was started with 25 persons company now I have make a company of 200 peoples you can start a Business with a company of 10 to 50 peoples or join an online job.For more info click on this web link……www.cashidea1.com

  25. The first Libertarian platform repealed all laws forcing women into involuntary labor of childbirth. The Thirteenth Amendment put William Graham Sumner and Lysander Spooner’s ideas about individual rights into law–to the horror of males accustomed to raping slave girls and adventurers enamored of conscripting youths into service as involuntary murderers. A way was found to circumvent the antislavery amendment to accommodate militarists, and the 1873 Comstock laws likewise coerced women–but only until 1973. The jig is up, yet the brutes still imagine the “pro-life” initiation of deadly force will turn back the clock. In Afghanistan maybe, but not These States.

    1. Are you actually suggesting that women are too stupid to know that choosing to voluntarily engage in sex results in a new person in their body with the inalienable right to life.

      The baby didn’t aggressively put itself there.

      1. The Texas law doesn’t make any exceptions for rape, Rob. Or are you with Todd Akin on this and think that a woman’s body “shuts the whole thing down” if it was “legitimate rape”?

        1. Let’s agree on the vast majority of abortion over 99% that occurs after voluntary consensual sex first.

          That you bring up rape means that it’s a large part if not all of your argument even though it only represents less than 1% of abortions.

          Then we can discuss all the victims of rape.

          1. Bullshit. It doesn’t matter what the % is (I’m certainly not going to agree to a number you pull out of thin air as a rhetorical gambit, anyway). I bring up rape because the Texas law does not make any exceptions for that, so the argument that women should “take responsibility” is the one that is problematic. That Gov. Abbott make himself look really stupid and/or a liar when asked by a reporter about the lack of a rape exception adds to that problem.

            1. 1% isn’t bullshit. Cite provided.

              https//www.liveaction.org/news/fraction-abortions-rape-incest-health/

              You need to recognize that the vast majority of abortions have nothing to do with rape.

              If rape isn’t fundamental to your advocacy of abortion then make your argument for the other 99%.

              We’ll deal with the 1% momentarily.

              1. If rape isn’t fundamental to your advocacy of abortion then make your argument for the other 99%.

                Jesus, read what I am writing for comprehension. Rape isn’t fundamental to my advocacy for the availability of abortion. I am responding to your insistence that a woman’s “voluntary” choice to engage in sex is relevant to your opposition to it. If your argument is that 99% of the time, a woman consented to sex, thus it is okay to ban all abortions without making an exception for the 1% that are rape victims, then you better fucking deal with that 1% first, not “momentarily”.

                1. Have you agreed that abortion violates the inalienable right to life of the baby?

                  1. Nope. Not a baby.

                    1. Flat earther.

                    2. Religious zealot. See? I can do ad hominem attacks as well. Of course, mine actually has a basis.

                    3. Your basis is lies. Unless you provide a link to evidence of my religious zealotry of course. Liar.

                    4. You believe that life begins at conception. Outside of a few particularly self-righteous religious groups, that belief is virtually non-existent. That makes it much more likely that you are a religious zealot than that I am a flat earther.

                    5. Life is a continuum. We don’t create it.

                      Living cells of both biological parents combine at conception creating a distinct individual that is still living.

                      That is the irrefutable science and logic of it period.

                      I challenge you to cite any medical authority that denies this.

                      The popularity of what murderers want to believe is irrelevant.

                    6. I am not, and never have, refuted the minimum biological definition of “life”. I have constantly asserted that life, embodied in fetal personhood, does not begin at conception. It attaches further along the continuum you referenced.

                      And again with the “popularity” nonsense. People have moral reasoning. When asked about the moral conclusions they have come to, a vast majority reject the idea of fetal personhood. Whether it is opinion polls or voter referendums, when asked about the moral assertion that fertilized eggs are people (in the legal and moral sense), people reject that moral assertion. Even in North Dakota, that moral belief is rejected. And it’s not like North Dakota is a hotbed of lefties, socialists, and atheists.

                      You don’t get to reject other people’s moral conclusions because you don’t like them. You are not such a moral paradigm that your moral opinion matters and that of anyone who disagrees with you doesn’t.

                    7. Your moral conclusions are based on this.

                      “I have constantly asserted that life, embodied in fetal personhood, does not begin at conception. It attaches further along the continuum you referenced.”

                      Prove it. Cite ANY professional medical body that supports that.

                      Failing that. You’re just making shit up to support your faulty conclusion.

                      I have every right to expose bullshit and the responsibility to oppose it from influencing law.

                    8. Holy crap, your intentional ignorance is astonishing.

                      Personhood isn’t a biological issue. It is a legal and moral issue. The minimum biological definition of life is unconnected to personhood. The ability to survive independently or a live birth are much more relevant to personhood.

                      But, as keeps being pointed out to you, personhood is a metaphysical, ethical, moral, and religious decision. Try to keep up.

                    9. The definition of person is a living human.

                      If we were discussing identification, when the baby leaves the mother at birth would be appropriate. While within the mother, identification is unnecessary.

                      When discussing life, that begins at conception the unborn baby is defined as a person because it is a living human.

                      You said the “legal definition of life” is at birth. You are lying. Prove it provide a link to demonstrate that the legal definition of life is at birth.

                      You may want to consider this about legal definitions of life.

                      “The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines “child in utero” as “a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.”[1]”

                2. Under Texas law, rape victims have six weeks to prevent implantation and/or terminate a pregnancy. Why isn’t that enough?

                  1. And where are they going to go to get an abortion if emergency contraception fails (assuming they were able to get that, what with religious conservatives wanting pharmacists to be able to opt out of dispensing it and shit like that)? The woman wouldn’t know whether it worked until she either gets or misses her next period. My quick reading is that home pregnancy tests can still give false negatives until around the time of her missed period, typically more than 2 weeks after conception. (4 weeks gestation, if she is pregnant.) That gives her 2 weeks to arrange and abortion. Texas already had a law that required a 24-hour waiting period before getting an abortion after an in-person consultation and getting an ultrasound. (And the provider being forced to offer her the chance to view the ultrasound and listen to the sonogram and for them to read her a state-mandated script.) Thus, she needs to take 2 separate days off of work and hope that she can get it done before the remaining 2 weeks is up.

                    Basically, something over 80% of abortions are made illegal by this law already, plus the simple threat of litigation and all of that cost has been doing exactly what the law intended, which is to intimidate most of them into not performing abortions at all, even within that narrow window.

                    Deep red states have spent the last 30 years finding ways to make it harder for women to get an abortion while doing jack shit to help them avoid an unwanted pregnancy in the first place. Republicans use this as a culture war issue to drive their base to the voting booth. They don’t want to actually solve any of the problems related to unwanted pregnancies. It would likely be the worst thing possible for them, politically, for this law to actually stand.

                    1. And where are they going to go to get an abortion if emergency contraception fails. […] Thus, she needs to take 2 separate days off of work and hope that she can get it done before the remaining 2 weeks is up.

                      Oh my, sex has consequences! Who would have thought!

                      Deep red states have spent the last 30 years finding ways to make it harder for women to get an abortion while doing jack shit to help them avoid an unwanted pregnancy in the first place.

                      It’s very easy to avoid an unwanted pregnancy: don’t have unprotected sex. You know, same thing gay men have had to live with for decades.

                      It is perfectly reasonable for a free community of human beings to say “if you have an abortion, we don’t want you to be part of our community”. That’s the purpose American states were created for.

                    2. You keep asserting that there was unprotected sex that resulted in the pregnancy. I’m not sure why you think that has to be the case, but a basic understanding of sex ed would enlighten you.

                    3. You keep asserting that there was unprotected sex that resulted in the pregnancy. I’m not sure why you think that has to be the case,

                      I don’t think it “has” to be the case. Obviously, protections and contraception can fail, but that’s rare when used properly. If that worries you as a woman or as a man, you should abstain from sex altogether.

                      I don’t see what any of that has to do with whether abortions should or shouldn’t be legal.

                    4. “I don’t see what any of that has to do with whether abortions should or shouldn’t be legal.”

                      I don’t either. The choice to have sex is completely irrelevant to the abortion debate, unless you are tying to pretend that women are only allowed to have sex for procreational rather than recreational purposes. In which case you are just piling self-righteousness on top of moral superiority with a topping of “traditional values must be accepted by all” to create an authoritarian sundae that is anathema to those who value individual liberty.

                    5. Iwomen are only allowed to have sex for procreational rather than recreational purposes

                      Women can have sex for any purpose whatsoever. It’s just that in states where abortion is illegal, they have to accept the possible consequence of an unwanted pregnancy.

                      authoritarian sundae that is anathema to those who value individual liberty.

                      Oh, you certainly value “individual liberty”. Sadly, you don’t value liberty at all.

        2. The Texas law doesn’t make any exceptions for rape, Rob

          For what purpose? Women who get raped can take the morning after pill and/or get an abortion within the first six weeks.

      2. I support late-term abortion in few cases. Nazi scum are one of those.

        1. A fetus can join the Nazi party? Huh, I didn’t know that.

          1. In your case as well.

            1. Get a room, fuckwits.

              1. Get a grip on reality, Nazi scum.

                1. Exactly the way these fuckwits deny irrefutable evidence that abortion is killing babies, you ignorantly deny the irrefutable evidence I’ve provided that the holocaust never happened without ever refuting it..

                  You just blurt out ridiculous shit just like they do. You are they.

                  Yes there’s all kinds of stupidity on display.

                  1. Wait, you deny the Holocaust happened? And you think I’m a terrible person? That’s … interesting.

                    1. That’s the first truthful thing you’ve said.

                      I guess even a broken watch is right twice a day.

                    2. You deny the Holocaust?

                    3. Where has your anonymous sock puppet ass been?

                      I have soundly refuted all aspects of the bullshit holocaust lie here many times with irrefutable evidence of logic and science.

                      None of the bigots here have ever refuted my evidence though they still deny it.

                      Whenever I choose, I rub their noses in it. Next time you’re welcome to get some too.

                    4. I’ve only been here for about a month. This is the first time that I heard you denied the Holocaust. When someone called you “Nazi scum” I thought they were just throwing insults and I ignored it. I had no idea it had a factual basis.

                      To be honest, I’m a little fascinated. How does one come to deny the massive historical documentation of the Nazis as well as the on-the-ground testimony of victims and liberating soldiers and the physical structures that were used to carry out such evil. It would take a prodigious effort of self-delusion. And I thought that Q and The Big Lie were the most extraordinary delusional beliefs I had ever personally encountered.

                    5. Here’s one example of my providing irrefutable evidence and rubbing noses in it.

                      Fill your boots. Get some.

                      https://reason.com/2021/06/03/why-did-it-take-stanford-so-long-to-recognize-this-satirical-flyer-as-protected-speech/#comments

                    6. Maybe I’m not making the connection, but how does an article about the Stanford Law School’s Federalist Society and First Amendment protections dispute the Holocaust?

                  2. “Irrefutable.” Hahahahahhahahahahahahahhahha… Good shit.

                    1. If it was refutable, why hasn’t anyone?

    2. The first Libertarian platform repealed all laws forcing women into involuntary labor of childbirth.

      I’m not aware of any such laws. Can you point to them?

      After all, whether a woman gets pregnant is completely under her control, namely based on whether she has sex, uses contraception, and/or uses the morning after pill.

      1. …and/or uses the morning after pill.

        That’s an odd thing to bring up given that the Hobby Lobby case was about their belief that emergency contraception like that is equivalent to abortion (or least that it can be, despite a lack of evidence that it can ever terminate an established pregnancy or prevent implantation of a fertilized egg).

        1. That’s an odd thing to bring up given that the Hobby Lobby case was about their belief that emergency contraception like that is equivalent to abortion

          Why is it odd? You are raising objections to the Texas bill, but under the Texas bill, this is still legal. In fact, abortion is still legal within the first six weeks, which is more than enough for dealing with a pregnancy resulting from a rape.

  26. There is no question that banning pre-viability abortions, as the Texas law does, is flatly unconstitutional under existing Supreme Court precedent.

    The Dunning-Kruger is strong with this one!

    1. How is this an example of the Dunning-Kruger effect? Is it in any way possible for the Texas law to be compatible with Casey?

      1. Is it in any way possible for the Texas law to be compatible with Casey?

        SCOTUS can overturn Casey, and they may well do so.

        How is this an example of the Dunning-Kruger effect?

        You’re right, it’s not. It’s actually tendentious, manipulative, propagandistic language. A neutral way of conveying the same information would have been:

        Banning pre-viability abortions, as the Texas law does, is in conflict with previous Supreme Court decisions; however, those decisions themselves are controversial in constitutional legal circles.

        So, did Root try to present controversial precedent as immutable constitutional law because he doesn’t know any better or because he is trying to manipulate his audience? You tell me.

        1. You may have been triggered by his language, but he didn’t say anything incorrect, nor was it “tendentious, manipulative, propagandistic language.” He said it was “flatly unconstitutional under existing Supreme Court precedent.” [emphasis added, in case you missed it before] And I agree with him that there is no disputing that basic fact. You may want to frame it differently, as a matter of advocacy, but he said absolutely nothing factually or legally wrong. You disagree with what the precedent should be, and you may not like the implications of what Root said, but he was just stating a basic fact of the case. If you see manipulation in him doing so, that is your issue, not his.

          1. “tendentious, manipulative, propagandistic language.”

            Oh, it very much was that.

            You know, as a gay atheist, I actually really don’t care about abortion either way.

            But the abortion debate really brings some clarity to the kind of duplicitous left wing a–holes that have infiltrated the libertarian movement. That includes you.

            1. I haven’t infiltrated anything, since I’m not a libertarian.

              1. It’s patently obvious that you aren’t a libertarian.

                But you are here spewing progressive, authoritarian, collectivist arguments.

                1. I dunno. He is a lot more libertarian than the ones advocating for government force being used to require people to follow a religious moral argument.

                  1. He is, in fact, advocating for government force to require people to follow a religious moral argument, namely the religious moral argument that women have a fundamental right to abortion.

                    In a libertarian world, people voluntarily form communities and govern themselves according to their own moral preferences. In the US, that libertarian world view is expressed by having different states with different laws.

                    That is, if you don’t want to live under Texas law, move out of Texas.

                    States have admittedly grown too large to serve that function well; the solution to that problem is more subsidiarity, not more centralization. Unless, of course, you are a progressive authoritarian in libertarian clothing.

                    1. “namely the religious moral argument that women have a fundamental right to abortion”

                      That’s not a religious moral argument. Life beginning at conception, however, is.

                      At least you acknowledge, even if just to yourself, that the only way your miniscule opinion about abortion has a prayer of ever becoming real is if you don’t even have to convince whole states. Even Texas doesn’t have a majority of citizens that believe life begins at conception.

                    2. That’s not a religious moral argument.

                      Sure it is. Your dogma is that women have a right to an abortion and you cling to that belief religiously, just like anti-abortion Christians hold to the dogma that life begins at conception and must be protected by the state.

                      At least you acknowledge, even if just to yourself, that the only way your miniscule opinion about abortion has a prayer of ever becoming real is if you don’t even have to convince whole states.

                      I don’t have an opinion about abortion either way; as a gay atheist, I couldn’t care less about what women scrape out of their reproductive systems. My position is that states should decide for themselves.

                      I do have an opinion about you and Misek: you are both bigoted, religiously dogmatic, totalitarian a–holes.

                    3. Are you suggesting that you would be okay if your supreme state determines that you personally don’t deserve the right to life?

                      Your expressed view of a nation boils down to nothing more than every person being a warring tribe against the interests of every other.

                      You think that your liberty supersedes the liberty of others.

                      If not, you would support the single moral and legal authority of the constitution.

                    4. “Are you suggesting that you would be okay if your supreme state determines that you personally don’t”

                      Is there a phrase thst is bugger than “straw man”? If so, this is it.

                      “Your expressed view of a nation boils down to nothing more than every person being a warring tribe against the interests of every other.”

                      No, I believe un the government being subject to the consent of the governed. Regarding “warring”, if you accept that the consent of the governed is the standard, then you have to accept that sometimes your beliefs win and sometimes they lose. I usually use the word “consensus”, but that’s basically all a Democratic Republic is.

                      “You think that your liberty supersedes the liberty of others.”

                      No, I believe that every person’s liberty is equal. I have never stated otherwise.

                      “If not, you would support the single moral and legal authority of the constitution.”

                      The Constitution is a legal document first and an enumeration of foundational ideals that Ameruca is built on. It is not a moral document. It specifically rejects the idea that it is a moral document in the First Amendment, which prohibits the imposition of religion by the state.

                    5. Fuckwit I was replying to the other fuckwit.

                      Try to keep up.

                    6. Are you suggesting that you would be okay if your supreme state determines that you personally don’t deserve the right to life?

                      I already don’t have a “right to life” in the US. Neither do you. All we have is a “right” not to be killed without due process by the state. The rest is up to us. And I’m OK with that because that’s how free societies operate.

                      Your expressed view of a nation boils down to nothing more than every person being a warring tribe against the interests of every other.

                      No, that’s your expressed view of a nation: all tribes war against each other and the winning tribe sets the rules.

                    7. “Fuckwit I was replying to the other fuckwit.

                      Try to keep up.”

                      And you noticed that he basically said the same thing I did with different words, right? Because as much as he and I disagree on many points, it seems like his foundational beliefs are libertarian. Even if they take him in a different direction than me sometimes.

                      That would be the heterodox nature of libertarianism that makes it such an appealing philosophy.

                  2. But you’re both still fuckwits.

  27. Oh Thank God we can continue to kill babies ?

    1. No one can legally kill babies. Even the Texas law’s text messes up the appropriate medical definitions, since it refers to a “fetal heartbeat” at 6 weeks gestation. (That’s 6 weeks from the woman’s last menstruation, by the way. So it is around 4 weeks since conception.) But the fetal stage of development starts at 9 weeks gestation. At 6 weeks gestation, it is still in the embryonic stage and it isn’t really a heart yet. It is a blood vessel that starts to contract. There is also no brain yet, as neurons haven’t even started to form.

      1. Just think, that could have been you!

        1. Actually, no, it couldn’t have been. Abortion was not legal in the state I was born in the year I was born. Not to mention that my mother, despite being a 19-year old single college student with no interest in marrying my father, is way too much of a softy to ever have considered abortion. I don’t need to feel grateful for that either. I equally don’t need to feel grateful that I implanted in her uterus, which fails to happen an estimated 50% of the time for fertilized eggs. Or that I wasn’t miscarried, which can happen around 20% of the time for established pregnancies. I also don’t need to feel grateful that my mother met and had sex outside of wedlock with my father in the first place, which the social conservatives against abortion also think is a no-no.

          I don’t need to think about any of that, or feel grateful for my good fortune, because I simply never would have existed had the chain of events been different in any of those particulars. This is what you all are not getting, it seems. Abortion is not the same as killing a person, even a baby, because it prevents a person with thoughts, feelings, and memories from ever coming into being in the first place. All kinds of innocuous changes with zero moral implications in the chain of events that leads to a baby being born could prevent that from happening as well. Why should abortion be more tragic than a man stopping to pick up a quarter he sees on the ground that prevents him from ever meeting a woman that he otherwise would have loved and married and had children with?

          1. Wait, you mean people never broke the law to get abortions? Color me awed by the law abiding victims.

            There are moral implications to killibg babies.

      2. Abortion is the killing of babies.

        1. The award for simply repeating the disputed statement goes to Rob.

          1. If you’re saying that you’re disputing that abortion is killing babies, then you must be making the argument that the unborn aren’t babies. Are you keeping up?

            Here, simply the definitions of baby and child refute your argument. From merriam Webster. Do you deny this, flat earther?

            Baby: 1. a very young child:

            Child: 3a : an unborn or recently born person

            1. I’m keeping up fine. wreckingball referred to abortion as killing babies. I disputed that with detailed facts about human development. You said, “Abortion is the killing of babies.” Thus, you simply repeated what wreckingball was saying without adding anything new. You want to play games with definitions rather than address any of the factual distinctions between a 6 week embryo and a newborn infant.

              You just did the usual thing I see around here from people that have no interest in rational debate. Avoid any argument that you can’t actually dispute and pound on something irrelevant that makes you feel superior instead.

              1. You said it was in dispute. I simply refuted your irrelevant dispute.

                That’s how winning an argument works dipshit. Get over it. I have.

                1. That’s how winning an argument works dipshit. Get over it. I have.

                  You “win” the argument in the way a pigeon wins at chess. By knocking all the pieces down and shitting all over the board and then strutting around cooing about your victory.

                  1. The definitions of the words you used refuted your irrelevant dispute.

                    Your dispute was flat earther irrational.

                    Do you still dispute that abortion is killing babies? A simple yes or no will suffice.

              2. Abortion is killing babies. No dispute.

                1. Lots and lots of dispute. From a vast cross-section of American society. Whose moral decision-making is exactly as valid as yours.

                  1. Flat earthers dispute that abortion is killing babies.

                    1. So the majority of Americans are flat earthers? That’s news to me.

                    2. I’ve demonstrated that the unborn are defined as babies.

                      Abortion kills them.

                      Obviously you’re not making the connection. What do you believe you’re denying?

                    3. You’ve demonstrated that you can ignore anything other than your belief and continually claim that you are “refuting” things by playing word games and making false analogies between the most basic biological meaning of the words “human” and “life” and the legal, moral, and ethical quandry that is personhood. Refusing to accept things you don’t like isn’t “refuting”.

                    4. Misek JasonT20, and Nelson are like Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini having a discussion. You are all three authoritarians, you simply differ on your policy preferences.

                    5. I don’t want to force anyone to do anything, which is kinda the bread and butter of an authoritarian.

                      I am advocating for those who wish to restrict individual liberty and violate the religious freedom of most Americans to be required to actually convince people they are right before they try to use the power of the state to force everyone else to live by their moral beliefs.

                      I’m not sure what is authoritarian about that.

                    6. I don’t want to force anyone to do anything

                      Sure you do.

                      I’m not sure what is authoritarian about that.

                      Of course you don’t. That’s because your view of “liberty” is roughly that of a socialist: society as a collection of individuals whose liberties are protected by “the state”. You then get into endless debates with other statists about what what constitutes “liberty”.

                      Concepts such as subsidiarity, community, and self-determination simply don’t exist in your analysis.

                    7. Your view of liberty is that of a fascist.

                      Your view of a nation is nothing more than every person being a warring tribe against the interests of every other.

                      You think that your liberty supersedes the liberty of others.

                      If not, you would support the single moral and legal authority of the constitution.

                    8. Your view of a nation is nothing more than every person being a warring tribe against the interests of every other.

                      Not at all. My view is that like-minded people ought to have the right to form communities under rules that are mutually agreeable to them. We call those communities “states”. Some of those communities may be pro-abortion, some may be anti-abortion.

                      You think that your liberty supersedes the liberty of others.

                      How does “my liberty” play into this at all? I’m a completely disinterested third party when it comes to the actual rules of abortion in my state. I’m neither arguing for abortion nor against it, I’m arguing for the ability of like-minded individuals to form communities of their choosing.

                      If not, you would support the single moral and legal authority of the constitution.

                      The US Constitution has no moral authority and very limited legal authority. It is expressly a document that limits itself to delegating a selected, small number of powers to the federal government. You treat the US Constitution as a replacement for the Bible, and that is morally and religiously reprehensible.

                      Nutcases like you and JasonT20 are trying to turn the US Constitution into the “single moral and legal authority” and that simply won’t work: the country will fall apart rather than go that way.

                    9. Violating the inalienable right to life is not among the limited authority afforded to the states.

                      Remember that, the authority is LIMITED, to prevent the discord and conflict that you are myopically driving toward.

                      The founders recognized that truth and reality is a singular authority that doesn’t change with its popularity in any ignorant tribe.

                      By definition, you either recognize and accept reality as demonstrated by evidence of logic and science or you are counted among the ignorant bigots.

                    10. “Sure you do.”

                      What is it I’m trying to force people to do?

                      “Of course you don’t. That’s because your view of “liberty” is roughly that of a socialist: society as a collection of individuals whose liberties are protected by “the state”. You then get into endless debates with other statists about what what constitutes “liberty”.”

                      The Constitution is socialist? Interesting theory. Tell me more about how a collection of individuals consenting to be governed by a document enumerating the rights that the governed possess and the responsibility of the government to protect those rights is authoritarian? And how discussions about the meaning of liberty is “stateist”.

                      Unless you actually meant to say that America is socialist and authoritarian. Did you?

                      “Concepts such as subsidiarity, community, and self-determination simply don’t exist in your analysis.”

                      When you put those three together like that, it sounds like a Sovereign Citizen pamphlet. It certainly doesn’t sound like the consent of the governed. It sounds more like if you and everyone on your street believe the same thing you shouldn’t have to accept the opinions of anyone who disagrees with you.

                    11. Violating the inalienable right to life is not among the limited authority afforded to the states.

                      The US Constitution doesn’t “limit authority afforded to the states”; it simply delegates limited power to the federal government (10A).

                      And there is no general “right to life” in the US Constitution. All it says is that “[no person shall] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law “.

                      The founders recognized that truth and reality is a singular authority that doesn’t change with its popularity in any ignorant tribe.

                      Oh, I agree that truth and reality is a “singular authority”. We have a plurality of societies not because there are different, equally valid truths, but because people are flawed and imperfect and therefore we don’t recognize “truth and reality”.

                      When one group of people is convinced that they have discovered “truth and reality” and that they are the “singular authority”, we end up with fascism/socialism.

                      And I have asked you before: why stop at US national boundaries with your crusade for the truth? Abortion is practiced around the world. Why not invade Sweden and impose your preferences on them as well?

    2. Once a baby is born, you can’t kill it. It isn’t a baby before it is born.

      1. There are so many levels of stupid here…

        1. You shouldn’t talk about your fellow anti-abortionists like that. There’s a difference between accepting things on faith and stupidity. They are blind, not stupid.

          1. Once she’s dead and in the rug, she’s just a hooker!

  28. I saw someone make a really interesting point about this Texas law. He noticed, as many others have, that national Republican politicians aren’t saying much about it. He argues that this is a case where the dog caught the car he was chasing. What does he do now? Some people around here have pointed out that polls show that a majority of people would put some restrictions on abortion.

    But the other side of those poll results is that a large majority want abortion to be legal in at least some cases. It is around 20% that would ban abortion entirely, which is what this law does. (The 6 week thing is a distractor. That is 6 weeks since the woman’s last menstration. 2 weeks after a missed period is hardly much time to confirm that she is pregnant and arrange to get an abortion. Especially with the waiting periods red states tend to impose.)

    Republicans have used abortion as a way to drive their base to the polling booth for 40 years now, but it remains to be seen what would happen if it actually gets banned in any state. The regulations that have shut down all but a few clinics in some states (with some red states being down to one) don’t get as much attention as this Texas law is generating. Or what will happen if the Supreme Court actually overturns Roe and Casey.

    1. I agree with that. I don’t think it was supposed to get through the courts. The whole law is bizarre. If you are going to make something illegal then the state should enforce it. Not just make it a civil matter.

      Then if an individual has to bring a suite they need to hire a lawyer and all that and risk losing legal costs. Who gets the $10 k? None of it makes sense.

    2. People support abortion to save the mother or in the case of traumatic rape (if the mom can carry to term sanely, I encourage her to do so and adopt).

      These issues comprise less than 10% of all abortions performed by anyone’s metrics.

      Do I need to argue further, or do you think we can kill a few less babies?

      1. People support abortion to save the mother or in the case of traumatic rape (if the mom can carry to term sanely, I encourage her to do so and adopt).

        To borrow from Jack Nicholson’s performance in A Few Good Men, is there another kind of rape besides traumatic rape? And why would you encourage a rape victim to carry her rapist’s progeny to term, taking the risks and burdens of pregnancy?

        And apparently, not everyone really supports abortion to save the mother. (See the case in Ireland of Savita Halappanavar. An Irish hospital refused to perform an abortion until 17 week fetus no longer had a detectable heartbeat, even though the doctors saw no chance that it would survive. She died after the fetus did because she developed sepsis that may have been prevented had the abortion been performed when she asked for it.) Even outside of the immediate need of an emergency, pregnancy carries risk, as it isn’t often possible to predict the emergency in advance. About 1 woman dies of complications from pregnancy for every 6000 live births in this country. Why should a woman be forced to take that risk against her will under any circumstances?

        1. Statutory rape for a blindingly obvious example.

          Can we kill fewer babies now, or do you need more blood to feel morally right with the left?

          1. Statutory rape for a blindingly obvious example.

            If statutory rape isn’t at least potentially traumatic for the adolescent girl, then why is it illegal?

            Can we kill fewer babies now, or do you need more blood to feel morally right with the left?

            When you actually address my arguments rather than constantly bring up red herrings, maybe we can have a discussion.

            1. Yes, dipstick, I cited statutory rape as an example of potentially non-traumatic rape after you said all rape is traumatic. It’s what happens to many, many teen couples with awkwardly timed birthdays.

              Again, 9/10 abortions are for CONVENIENCE. Per abortion providers’ reports. This. Is. Murder.
              The mother is not in danger. She was not a victim. Her child is the victim.

          2. Dude, a rape baby is still a baby. You can’t go killing babies because their mothers are traumatized.

            And you have to treat mothers who do kill rape babies as capital criminals. In Texas, you have to execute them. That’s a quarter of all women to the electric chair.

            All of these are absolutely required if you believe that a fetus has personhood rights equal to a child’s.

            These are your superior morals.

        2. And seriously, you’re arguing about US medical law with… Ireland? Why do you want to kill babies so badly?

          1. And seriously, you’re arguing about US medical law with… Ireland?

            Uh, I bring up that case in Ireland as what could happen in the U.S. if abortion was banned here. Duh? And you might want to recognize that the case of Savita Halappanavar was a significant turning point in Ireland’s abortion restrictions that resulted in them ending the ban on abortions there. In an overwhelmingly Catholic country.

            Why do you want to kill babies so badly?

            Yeah, there is clearly no rational discussion to be had with you or Rob.

            1. Your irrelevant dispute was soundly refuted with the definitions off the words you used.

              You called that word games and now claim that rational debate is impossible.

              The definitions of words give communication meaning. They aren’t games.

              Rational debate does appear to be impossible with you.

    3. But the other side of those poll results is that a large majority want abortion to be legal in at least some cases.

      And abortion is legal under the Texas law, until there is a heart beat.

      That is more than enough for any woman who has had unprotected sex to abort her fetus.

      You have yet to come up with a scenario under which a woman has an actual need to abort a fetus after a detectable heartbeat.

      1. Are you reading anything that I write? 6 weeks gestation is 6 weeks weeks since a woman’s last menstruation. That is 2 weeks after she would have expected her next menstruation to realize that she is pregnant and arrange an abortion. It isn’t a fetus at 6 weeks gestation. It isn’t a beating heart, but a blood vessel that has started contracting. There is no brain at that point. Yet you still want to say that it is equal to a person and that banning abortion at after that is just fine.

        You have yet to come up with a scenario under which a woman has an actual need to abort a fetus after a detectable heartbeat.

        The only scenario I need to bring up is that the woman doesn’t want to be pregnant. How much more need is there than that?

        1. 6 weeks gestation is 6 weeks weeks since a woman’s last menstruation.

          It’s six weeks since the woman had unprotected sex without contraception. Presumably she knows that, right?

          The only scenario I need to bring up is that the woman doesn’t want to be pregnant. How much more need is there than that?

          Well, she has plenty of options of preventing pregnancy: abstinence, barriers, contraception, the morning after pill, and abortions within six weeks of unprotected sex.

          It isn’t a fetus at 6 weeks gestation.

          Why do I care? You seem to think that this is some kind of moral issue. It’s not. It’s a question of self-determination and subsidiarity. That is, Californians can choose to live by one set of rules, and Texans can choose to live by another.

          The US Constitution no more guarantees women a right to an abortion than it guarantees a fetus a right to life. Those are decisions that are for states to make, according to the preferences of the people who live there.

          1. Actually, since ovulation occurs roughly 2 weeks after menstruation, it is 4 weeks after she had sex (give or take). And why should the assumption that it was unprotected be there? Unless you know of a 100% certain contraceptive method (short of a histerectomy) that no one else knows about.

            Why is this 6 week line so hard and fast? It seems, to quote pretty much every anti-abortion person here, “arbitrary”.

            1. Texas drew the line at six weeks, California at nine months. Both are valid choices that, in a free society, political units ought to be able to make for themselves.

              It’s you and JasonT20 who want to impose a single standard on every community of people on this planet. That is not libertarian.

              1. Forcing people to accept 6 weeks is libertarian? And allowing people to live their moral beliefs isn’t? That’s pretty irrational.

                I don’t want to impose any standard on anyone. I have stated and defended my own belief, as has Jason. Neither of us are saying anyone else has to live by our beliefs.

                Unlike you.

                1. Forcing people to accept 6 weeks is libertarian?

                  Allowing people to form communities that require that as a standard for membership is libertarian. In fact, the ability to form such communities is a bedrock of libertarianism. States are the levels at which such communities are formed and standards are set in the US.

                  I don’t want to impose any standard on anyone. … Neither of us are saying anyone else has to live by our beliefs.

                  You want the entire country to live by your beliefs. You want every woman in America to have abortions available to her anywhere in the country. And, in practice, you even want Americans to be forced to pay for other people’s abortions.

                  Unlike you.

                  I am neither pro-abortion nor anti-abortion. I simply don’t care which rule is in place. But it’s clear that both the pro- and the anti-abortion folks who are foaming at the mouth about this (like you and Misek) are going to continue to use this issue to hijack US politics and run this country into the ground, all the while both of you are making sure that the federal government amasses more and more power.

                  Since you a–holes will never agree and will never stop until this country has been destroyed, I believe that people should be able to decide at the state level.

                  1. The constitution doesn’t give states the right to violate the constitution.

                    You are suggesting that libertarians are traitors by advocating rendering the constitution meaningless,

                    Funny what a thorough debate will expose.

                    1. The constitution doesn’t give states the right to violate the constitution.

                      The Constitution delegates certain powers to the federal government. Where does the Constitution delegate the power to prohibit abortions to the federal government? The Constitution doesn’t even mandate protection of life, it only mandates equal protection of persons within a state.

                      You are suggesting that libertarians are traitors by advocating rendering the constitution meaningless,

                      The Constitution isn’t a libertarian document. And, as far as I’m concerned, disagreeing with the Constitution doesn’t make someone a “traitor”; becoming a “traitor” means actively working with an enemy to destroy a country.

                      It’s you who holds such absurd, over the top beliefs, not me.

                    2. “Where does the Constitution delegate the power to prohibit abortions to the federal government?”

                      Via the inalienable right to life for all people in every state regardless of their popularity.

                    3. There is no “inalienable right to life for all people” in the Constitution. The Constitution prohibits states from depriving persons of life without due process, nothing more.

                      What you want is to criminalize and severely punish a particular kind of killing, and there is nothing in the Constitution that requires that.

                  2. “You want every woman in America to have abortions available to her anywhere in the country.”

                    And you want to forbid that. One of us is advocating for allowing others to make their own decisions. One of us is advocating for restricting a woman’s freedoms.

                    I come down on the side of personal liberty and the state not being allowed to impose moral/religious restrictions on citizens. Even if you believe that the state can regulate purely moral decisions, should it?

                    “I am neither pro-abortion nor anti-abortion. I simply don’t care which rule is in place. But it’s clear that both the pro- and the anti-abortion folks who are foaming at the mouth about this (like you and Misek) are going to continue to use this issue to hijack US politics and run this country into the ground, all the while both of you are making sure that the federal government amasses more and more power.”

                    By saying “pro-abortion”, you are tipping your hand. Leaving abortion in the hands of the individual and not the state is advocating for the right of a citizen to choose for themselves. Hence “pro-cboice”. Plenty of people would never get an abortion themselves, but don’t think it is right to take away that choice from another.

                    “continue to use this issue to hijack US politics and run this country into the ground, all the while both of you are making sure that the federal government amasses more and more power.”

                    I agree that the culture wars are a distraction from important issues and prevent people from focusing on limiting the power of the federal government. But when cultural conservatives try to use the power of the state constrain personal liberties, moral choices, and individual rights, what is the alternative? Allow theocracy? Abandon religious freedom?

                    1. And you want to forbid that.

                      Not at all. I want states to have the ability to legislate this on their own.

                      One of us is advocating for allowing others to make their own decisions. One of us is advocating for restricting a woman’s freedoms.

                      For the nth time, I don’t care what women do with their reproductive systems.

                      What I am advocating is that people like you and Misek get yourself separate states where each of you can live according to the principles you like.

                      In addition, freedom of association is a basic liberty as well, and that includes the ability to form communities in which people are legally bound to specific standards. That is a basic liberty you are denying.

                      But when cultural conservatives try to use the power of the state

                      Which “the state” are you talking about? The federal government? State government? Local government?

                      State and local government necessarily infringe on individual freedoms all the time because individuals want to be able to form communities according to binding rules of their choosing.

                      constrain personal liberties, moral choices, and individual rights, what is the alternative? Allow theocracy? Abandon religious freedom?

                      The US had established churches at the state level through most of its history, combined with guaranteeing Americans the ability to vote with their feet. That is a stable system under which a large number of people can coexist.

                      What doesn’t work is the kind of federally imposed laicism that you advocate, because you come into direct conflict with the kind of federally imposed theocracy that Misek advocates. And while you people are fighting it out, you are destroying the country.

                      You two are replaying the conflict between protestants and Catholics, between Christians and laicists, and between communists and fascists in Europe, and the outcome has always been disastrous.

                    2. Surprisingly, I agree with what you are saying about the states’ right to legislate a different … call it culture … than others. However, I also believe in the Supremacy Clause and the fundemental enumerated rights in the First Amendment. When you put those together, banning or restricting abortion seems to violate the Constitution, which would necessarily require a federal intervention.

                      That said, I am part of the group of folks who view the Establishment Clause as being protective, not expansive. So the government is constrained from passing any measure that allows exceptions for religious beliefs or preferences religion in the public sphere. This is also why I support Scalia’s opinion in Smith. In general, I feel that the only way for the government to avoid elevating religion is to be purely secular. To fiercely defend an individual’s Free Exercise rights, but just as fiercely protect a religiously-neutral public sphere.

                      So, for example, while I see Texas legislating open carry, license-free concealed carry, or other liberal (small l) gun laws as consistent with the Constitution, and therefore not a Federal issue, protecting religious freedom is a Federal issue.

                      To be fair, I also believe that the combination of the Ninth Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, and Article III establishes abortion as a Constitutional right.

                      Finally, I believe that governmental action that is less restrictive is preferential, especially if the more restrictive behavior is entirely allowed by the less restrictive behavior. So, for example, if there is a law that says that people can only wear primary colors and another that says people can only wear yellow, the primary color law would be preferential because it is less restrictive and the entirety of the more restrictive statute is allowed in the less restrictive statute.

                      Having been raised Catholic and being the son of a man sexually abused by a Jesuit priest, I know what it looks like when a religion is more concerned about perception and power than moral behavior. I have personal experience with the difficulty in “love the sinner, hate the sin”, “judge not lest you be judged” (aka the mote and beam parable), and other Biblical cautions against self-righteousness, so I try to empathize with those who also struggle with it. But when my spiritual and moral beliefs coincide with my secular and Constitutional beliefs, I often fail.

                    3. However, I also believe in the Supremacy Clause and the fundemental enumerated rights in the First Amendment. When you put those together, banning or restricting abortion seems to violate the Constitution, which would necessarily require a federal intervention. … protecting religious freedom is a Federal issue.

                      I don’t see what banning abortion has to do with the Establishment Clause. There are perfectly secular reasons for wanting to ban abortions; many secular states have banned abortions. Furthermore, under the US Constitution, the Establishment clause only applies to the federal government; it was incorporated only in 1947, and even then only to a limited degree. Finally, abortion is not a religious practice, so banning it doesn’t interfere with the free exercise of religion even if it was the job of the federal government to force states to be neutral on religion.

                      Obviously, in practice, SCOTUS has the power to declare either abortions or abortion bans to be unconstitutional; SCOTUS can declare a ham sandwich to be unconstitutional. So debating what SCOTUS has done (including incorporation) is pointless, since it is pretty arbitrary.

                      What we can debate is what the Constitution originally meant, how the US fared under those original rules, and what the likely effect of different systems is. Trying to set a single standard on abortion for the entire country will not work because there are too many people who oppose abortion. And it won’t end with abortion: every single social, economic, and political issue will increasingly be mandated by the federal government, based on the same bogus arguments you are making. The historical ideal of the US as a diverse collection of states with distinct cultures, societies, and rules will be destroyed and the US will turn into a centralized, authoritarian technocracy.

                      That is what you are advocating. And I don’t want to live in the sh*thole that you will be creating this way.

                    4. “I don’t see what banning abortion has to do with the Establishment Clause.”

                      The rhetoric, manpower, funding, logistics, and organizations are virtually all either religious or religious-adjacent (pro-life politicians using religious language, publicly religious business leaders, etc.). Secular language is used because it is a smart strategic decision, but it is undeniably a religious movement.

                      “the Establishment clause only applies to the federal government; it was incorporated only in 1947, and even then only to a limited degree.”

                      I believe that the 14th Amendment extends equal protection requirements to the state government as well, but I’m not a lawyer or a Constitutional scholar so there are others who could explain it better.

                      The Establishment Clause is in the text of the First Amendment. It has existed as part of the Bill of Rights since the Constitution was ratified.

                      “Finally, abortion is not a religious practice, so banning it doesn’t interfere with the free exercise of religion”

                      Constraining the bodily autonomy of a woman who wishes to have an abortion based on religious beliefs infringes on the free exercise of religion for that woman. As I mentioned before, I am among the folks that believe that the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause are there to protect Americans from religious coercion being used against them by the government. If a woman doesn’t want to voluntarily accept a set of religious beliefs, the State cannot force those beliefs on her.

                      “Trying to set a single standard on abortion for the entire country will not work because there are too many people who oppose abortion. And it won’t end with abortion: every single social, economic, and political issue will increasingly be mandated by the federal government, based on the same bogus arguments you are making.”

                      I think that perhaps you have misunderstood my position. I am not advocating for any restriction to be put on anyone.

                      I am specifically and intentionally arguing that using government force to make anyone do anything in regards to abortion should not happen.

                      The anti-abortion side, however, requires the State to use force against citizens. There is no other way to stop voluntary abortions. I believe that is an illegitimate use of the power of the State, based on the rights guaranteed in the Constitution.

                      “The historical ideal of the US as a diverse collection of states with distinct cultures, societies, and rules will be destroyed”

                      I think that is a bit of hyperbole. Having a framework of Constitutionally guaranteed rights that cannot be infringed upon by anyone (including the states), especially such a small and specific list of rights, doesn’t present the kind of danger that you seem to fear.

                      The vast majority of laws passed by states are what makes them unique from one another and never run afoul of the Constitution. This issue, I believe, does run afoul of the First Amendment. Among others.

              2. Texas drew the line at six weeks, California at nine months. Both are valid choices that, in a free society, political units ought to be able to make for themselves.

                You’ve gotten the facts of human development wrong on the 6 weeks thing, both Nelson and I have pointed it out. Just look it up somewhere so that you don’t look willfully ignorant anymore.

                Texas didn’t pick 6 weeks for an arbitrary reason, though. The “fetal heartbeat” (again, not a fetus as 6 weeks gestation, and not a heart) is a milestone that carries emotional weight with pro-lifers. Texas’s choice of 6 weeks gestation is then a “valid” choice for a “free society” if you think that it is valid for a vocal part of a community to restrict a woman’s autonomy over her own body to satisfy their wistful feelings about the contractions of a blood vessel in an embryo without any neurons yet.

                And California does not draw the line at “9 months” either. That is just stupid. Neither SCOTUS precedent, nor any state that I’m aware of makes it a right to abort a pregnancy that close to a due date. Not that any doctor not named Kermit Gosnell would actually perform an abortion at that point, when I’m sure that simply inducing labor or performing a C-section would be far simpler and safer in the imaginary case of a 9 month pregnant woman insisting on getting the fetus out right then and there. This bullshit meme of pro-choice people wanting women to have the right to abort right up until birth is just that, bullshit.

                It’s you and JasonT20 who want to impose a single standard on every community of people on this planet. That is not libertarian.

                Is it libertarian to say that human rights aren’t universal and that each community should get to pick their own set of basic human rights? Since when is libertarianism based on moral relativism?

                Our fundamental rights as human beings don’t depend on what government we live under, at any level. But we rely on government to protect those rights, since anarchy and only having those rights we can defend with our own force is the alternative. I don’t go along with an idea of federalism that allows different states or local governments to secure fewer of my rights than what the federal government must respect.

        2. I don’t consider choices of convenience that hinge on the murder of others as acceptable.

    4. The 6 week thing is a distractor. That is 6 weeks since the woman’s last menstration. 2 weeks after a missed period is hardly much time to confirm that she is pregnant and arrange to get an abortion.

      It’s six weeks after the woman had unprotected sex without contraception. Presumably, women know this, right?

      1. Why do you assume there was no contraception?

        1. Correctly used contraception is highly effective, so women are very unlikely to need an abortion if they use contraception. In the few cases where women get pregnant despite using contraception and where they miss the six week window, they’ll just have to suck it up.

          1. Because you say so? That doesn’t seem arbitrary at all.

            1. Because you say so?

              No, because the law in Texas says so.

              That doesn’t seem arbitrary at all.

              Rules on abortion are always arbitrary, no matter where you draw the line. Both you and Misek suffer from the delusion that this issue can somehow be resolved rationally, and both of you are willing to destroy this country to get your way.

              1. My opponent here is arguing for the courts right to change the meaning of words to achieve a lobby groups objective.

                Now that’s playing word games.

                Not only does it destroy our ability to communicate and come to agreement on issues, it destroys the very meaning of the constitution.

                The courts are changing the meaning of words today to change society and sow unresolveable discord amongst people.

                This has come to our attention more clearly with the abortion debate where the inalienable right to life of babies is violated.

                A nation that tolerates that doesn’t deserve to stand.

                1. The courts are changing the meaning of words today to change society and sow unresolveable discord amongst people.

                  About half of Americans want abortion on demand and about half don’t. That’s just a fact. Courts and semantics don’t change that fact.

                  This has come to our attention more clearly with the abortion debate where the inalienable right to life of babies is violated.

                  Abortions were legal in many US states during much of America’s existence, reflecting the views of the people who founded the particular state. Regardless of what you think of the morality of abortion, it is simply a fact that the US Constitution has not granted the power to protect the unborn to the federal government.

                  A nation that tolerates that doesn’t deserve to stand.

                  We agree! So, let’s get rid of this “nation” and restore it to what it originally was intended to be: a federation of mostly independent states that make their own laws on abortion and murder.

                  1. You would afford some people the inalienable right to life but not others on the basis of their popularity.

                    I will oppose traitors like you every day of my life.

                    1. You would afford some people the inalienable right to life but not others on the basis of their popularity.

                      The “right to life” means that the state cannot deprive citizens of their lives arbitrarily. You seem to think it means that the state has a positive obligation to protect your life at any cost, but that is simply not what that phrase means or has ever meant. The US federal government and state governments fail to prevent hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths and killings every year. Your life and that of your family is first and foremost your responsibility.

                      I will oppose traitors like you every day of my life.

                      You are breaking with historical American norms, under which abortion and murder were state matters. And where is this going to end? Are you going to invade Sweden with the US military because you disagree with their abortion laws?

                      You are the “traitor”, Misek: you are a little fascist who wants to destroy the foundations of American greatness and exceptionalism.

                    2. Yet you support Nazis. How the fuck do you reconcile that? Genocide for thee but not me?

                    3. You’re full of shit. Nobody here can demonstrate that I supported or am a Nazi.

                      You and the rest are simply desperate to believe your cherished lie that I have soundly refuted.

                      You have never refuted my evidence so now I represent your bogeyman in your delusion bigotry. You are textbook brainwashed.

                    4. You have never refuted my evidence so now I represent your bogeyman in your delusion bigotry. You are textbook brainwashed.

                      I don’t know whether you “support the Nazis”, but your views clearly are totalitarian and collectivist.

                    5. You’re full of shit. Nobody here can demonstrate that I advocate totalitarianism.

                      I advocate responsible laws and that authority be commensurate with responsibility.

                      I don’t give collectivism or individualism much thought. Not like you left versus right extremists constantly bicker and natter about.

                  2. So, let’s get rid of this “nation” and restore it to what it originally was intended to be: a federation of mostly independent states that make their own laws on abortion and murder.

                    The Articles of Confederation had the states being mostly independent and had a weak central government. The Founders decided that wasn’t working and tried again with the Constitution that gave the federal government Supremacy. Yes, the states are mostly responsible for defining criminal law within their own jurisdictions, but they are not even somewhat “independent”, let alone “mostly”, under the Constitution.

                    And as I’ve said before, the Congress of the Civil War and Reconstruction eras recognized the mistake of not including the states as being restricted by the Bill of Rights, and I believe that the 14th Amendment corrected that mistake. I believe that it at least should be that the states are just as limited in their ability to restrict fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution as the federal government is. Perhaps there are constitutional scholars and Supreme Court Justices that disagree that it is that way or should be that way, that is my view.

              2. “Both you and Misek suffer from the delusion that this issue can somehow be resolved rationally”

                I do not. The anti-abortionists will never compromise because, as wrong as they are, they truly believe the are on the side of the angels.

                I am fighting against the state being empowered to force moral positions (especially tiny minority positioms) on citizens. If you oppose a coercive state, you should oppose abortion restrictions.

                1. I am fighting against the state being empowered to force moral positions (especially tiny minority positioms) on citizens.

                  What if Catholics want to live together in a state that is governed by Catholic law? We might call such a state “Maryland”, for example. You are denying them that ability.

                  Your view of liberty is very limited: you think of “the state” and “individual liberties”. Community and subsidiarity is absent from your understanding of liberty. Your understanding of “liberty” is that of a utopian communist, and in practice, that kind of “liberty” simply doesn’t work.

                  If you oppose a coercive state, you should oppose abortion restrictions.

                  I do oppose federal abortion restrictions. And I also oppose federal mandates on states to permit abortions.

                  I want progressives to live in California according to progressive ideals, I want Mormons to live in Utah according to Mormon ideals, and I want Catholics to live in Maryland according to Catholic ideals. That way, they are all happy. More importantly, I can live as far away from all of them as possible.

                  Political and legal diversity at the state level is a good thing for liberty, and it’s the founding principle of this country. The only thing I would change is that instead of 50 states, we should probably have 500 at this point.

                  1. “What if Catholics want to live together in a state that is governed by Catholic law? We might call such a state “Maryland”, for example. You are denying them that ability.”

                    This would be a clear-text violation of the Establishment Clause. It is the same for Sharia law, Talmudic law, High Holy Rudabega law, or any other religiously-based legal system.

                    “Community and subsidiarity is absent from your understanding of liberty.”

                    If by this you mean that I don’t support the idea that you can keep finding smaller and smaller “communities” that will allow for any law to pass muster, I agree. But if you mean that I don’t support different states making different laws that reflect the culture of the larger community, that isn’t true.

                    It’s why I find Republicans at the state level so hypocritical. When they control the localities and not the state government, it is all about local control. However, when they control the state government and not the localities it is the other way around. Democrats love to have top-down hierarchies, so they tend to engage in the same hypocrisy at the state/national level. But since they are more top-down, it happens a lot less often.

                    “I do oppose federal abortion restrictions. And I also oppose federal mandates on states to permit abortions.”

                    Do you see any fundamental rights that would justify a Federal intervention? I mean this very sincerely, not as a cheeky sarcastic question. Do you see the states having the right to adjudicate all rights? I’m definitely getting the sense that you are opposed to Marbury v Madison and Griswold v Cinnecticut.

                    1. This would be a clear-text violation of the Establishment Clause.

                      How? The Establishment Clause says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

                      Nowhere does it say in there that states may not do this. In fact, for most of US history, states did just that: they established religions. The very idea behind the US was that of a diversity of individual states united under an umbrella of free trade, free movement, and common defense.

                      But if you mean that I don’t support different states making different laws that reflect the culture of the larger community, that isn’t true.

                      Well, you obviously don’t support it on religion, and that’s probably the most important area of a state’s culture.

                      Do you see any fundamental rights that would justify a Federal intervention? I mean this very sincerely, not as a cheeky sarcastic question.

                      The Constitution guarantees “a republican form of government” in each state, due process when the state deprives you of life/property/liberty, equal treatment under the law for all citizens, and free movement of goods/services/capital between states. Within that framework, individual states could be anything from Christian conservative with a state church to fully laicist.

                      That’s the original meaning of the US Constitution and the way the US was set up. It’s the only way a bunch of vastly different states can come together and coexist peacefully. Both the US and the EU started out that way. But in both cases, authoritarians are trying to turn a voluntary, pluralistic arrangement into a centralized nation state, and that won’t end well.

                    2. “Well, you obviously don’t support it on religion, and that’s probably the most important area of a state’s culture.”

                      Correct. I believe that religious neutrality is one of the cornerstones of the Constitution and a fundamental duty of government. The Founders were all Christians. They very easily could have made America a Christian nation. Instead they made it a nation of Christians. I don’t think that was an accident or an oversight.

                      Of all the things that make people want to kill each other *and* feel like it is justified, religion heads the list. Making a specific religion, never mind a fundamentalist interpretation of that religion, the preferred provider of divine guidance is begging for trouble.

                      But, to be fair, I want to have a fundamental foundation of rights that cannot be taken from me if I get a job in a new state or if my heart or head leads me to a place where my free exercise of religion is constrained by the government. It is not an unreasonable fear.

                    3. Nowhere does it say in there that states may not do this. In fact, for most of US history, states did just that: they established religions.

                      For most of the history prior to the Founding era, most colonial governments were involved in religion, yes. (With colonial America giving preference to the Anglican church, given that it was and is the Church of England, I would think.) As a counterpoint, though, recall that Rhode Island was founded by Roger Williams as a place of religious freedom and no government involvement in religion due to his experience and banishment by puritans from Massachusetts for suggesting that people be free to think and say what they want about religion.

                      As for the Founding era and after, you are wrong. The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom was passed in 1786 (Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were key in that.). That disestablished the Anglican Church as the official church of Virginia and prevented the state from collecting taxes from the general population to distribute to churches. What states still had established religions at the time of the ratification of Constitution would disestablish them well before the Civil War. (Though some states still restricted public office to Protestants or Christians more generally until the late 1800’s. A couple states still have laws on the books banning atheists from office, but the Supreme Court has held those unenforceable for several decades now.)

  29. Sometimes we want to post a beautiful image on Facebook, Instagram, or another social network but do not know precisely what. We joined the useful to the pleasant and selected beautiful images with phrases of various kinds for you to share on your networks. Check it out!
    https://bit.ly/3ApHRkY

  30. Mystical Republicans call for all manner of socialized medicine in their platform. Delete that, and eliminate medical licensing and there is no need to try to single out women for special discrimination. Republicans claim to have supported the Equal Rights Amendment before it was fashionable. Now is a good time to get it ratified and tell the mystical girl-bulliers “sorry, but my hands are tied.”

  31. Meh, IANAL, but even I can see this line of argument won’t cut any ice.

    …because federal sovereignty and federal interests are being harmed by the state, the federal government may lawfully sue the state over those injuries in federal court.

    A lawsuit is a dispute between actual people. “Sovereignty” can’t be a party to a suit, only people can. An “Interest” can’t experience harm, only people can. This suit has no standing, is my guess.

    No, you’re going to have to wait for actual people to actually perform and actual abortion and then get actually sued in court. That’s how this works in the real world.

    1. It used to work that the court can injuct against obviously unconstitutional laws.

      But not when you speak to the ghost of James Madison and he tells you every sperm is sacred.

  32. What should happen is that the long-awaited national “force women to give birth against their will” goal of the Republican coalition, its single domestic policy priority for 40 years, should go into effect, but only nominally. Loopholes will be wide enough to pass an aborted baby through. Maybe some poors will be saddled with unwanted offspring, but it’s not like they had it so great before.

    The benefits will be manifold. Republicans will have no organizing principle anymore for the evangelicals, who are already starting to glimpse the possibility that just maybe some of their leaders have been fibbing to them about how much they fuck pool boys in the butt.

    Once that party is dead and buried, the new zoomer progressive majority can emerge, sans genders, and murder as many babies as their heart desires before we all die from Charles Koch’s insurmountable greed.

    1. ……how much they……take it up the butt…..is as likely, no?

  33. I do love that an OB/GYN went public and basically said, “I performed an abortion that violated the law. Come and get me.”.

    Time to put your money where your mouth is, theocrats.

  34. Remember when Donald Trump, flying by the seat of his pants, wasn’t remotely conversant in this topic (despite likely having procured countless abortions in his time), but still logicked his way into a position that makes more sense than the standard line?

    Eh, no wonder he was your president. He actually is smarter than his followers. It’s just that that’s not saying much.

    Anyway, he said there had to be some punishment for the mother? And then all the theocrats whispered “Donald, ixnay on the unishmentpay! Keep the conversation abstract and simple! No implication! This isn’t morality class, you moron, this is about controlling people’s votes!”

    Because if abortion is the murder of a child you kind of have to throw a huge amount of women in prison forever.

  35. You can tell the authoritarians who pollute these comment sections by their mindless support for banning abortion.

  36. https://www.vtpbluewaters.org.in/
    VTP Blue Waters is a VTP Realty Group’s residential township project which is located in Mahalunge, Pune. VTP Blue Waters a prelaunch venture spreads over a huge 100-acre land area, housing 1, 2, 3, and 3 Resident duplex units.

  37. I earned $5000 ultimate month by using operating online only for 5 to 8 hours on my computer and this was so smooth that i personally couldn’t accept as true with before working on this website. if you too need to earn this sort of huge cash then come and be part of us. do this internet-website online ……….. https://www.flyerbank4.com

  38. For the anti-abortion people here, is an abortion to remove a fetus that is stillborn/failed to thrive/not viable/whatever-you-want-to-call-it-when-a-fertilized-egg-fails-to-develop-into-a-live-birth acceptable?

    And, is an arthroscopic surgery to sever the umbilical cord in a pregnant woman also forbidden? Since, you know, there is no requirement for one person to feed and house another person.

    For those who like to play word games, we can call it “nutrient and metabolic substance retention surgery”. That would be accurate, would it not?

    1. Granted, there would have to be an abortion of the “dead” fetus soon after since, you know, a fetus isn’t a separate individual and is incapable of life on its own.

      1. When you won’t accept the dictionary definitions of words like baby, human, person and life, you can forget about debate because anything you do say is meaningless

        Demonstrating your Irrationality is the only good that comes from your presence. It ain’t much.

        1. I don’t accept the colloquial definition of a word to have more validity than the legal definition in a discussion of a legal issue like personhood.

          1. Then you remain both meaningless and corrupt because when the meaning of words can be changed by anyone language and communication become meaningless, irrational and irrelevant.

            It doesn’t matter who the lobby group influencing the courts legal definition is.

            1. Words as used in everyday conversation are changeable and can shift over time. Legal definitions of words are not. If you are arguing that the law should change if the way a word is used changes, you are advocating for a chaotic and constantly shifting interpretation of the law based on what the kids are saying these days.

              1. Judges aren’t supposed to define words. They are supposed to use existing definitions to understand the science and logic that define reality, truth. You know, “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.”

                It is you who has admitted to denying the established dictionary dictionary definitions in favour of a contradictory “legal” definition.

                This is your claim about the unborn.

                “Nelson
                September.19.2021 at 9:40 pm

                …Not children. Not alive. Not humans…”

                These are the definitions :

                Child: 3a : an unborn or recently born person

                Alive: 1 : having life : not dead or inanimate

                Human: 1 : of, relating to, or characteristic of humans

                Upon what do you base your denial that these dictionary definitions apply to the unborn?

                1. Because child, alive, and human (and baby for that matter) insinuates that the organism that you are talking about has established personhood. That is not true for most, if not all, of the times you use them. Much like you misuse infanticide and murder. Those also don’t have the meaning you want them to have vis-a-vis a fetus.

                  To make it clear: personhood is a legal state. Fetuses do not have personhood.

                  You can reference every dictionary on the planet and it doesn’t change these facts:
                  1) a fetus does not have human rights under existing law, so they are neither legally alive nor legally a human.
                  2) a fetus is not alive under existing law, so they are legally neither a baby nor a child.
                  3) these legal states are not altered the slightest bit by what Merriam-Webster or Oxford, or any other dictionary says. Only a legislature can change the definition of those things.
                  4) no matter how much you insist that dictionaries, not laws, define words, if you walked into a courtroom with your dictionary and the other side had a legal text, you would get your ass kicked. Because that’s how the law works.

                2. “Judges aren’t supposed to define words. They are supposed to use existing definitions to understand the science and logic that define reality, truth. You know, “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.””

                  It’s like you don’t understand how the legal system works. I’m not a lawyer, but I’m pretty sure almost everything you said there is wrong. And “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth” is the oath witnesses tale, not the judge.

                  There is what is true and what you want to be true. Learn to tell the difference.

    2. Since, you know, there is no requirement for one person to feed and house another person.

      Tell that to the father who has to pay child support.

      And, is an arthroscopic surgery to sever the umbilical cord in a pregnant woman also forbidden?

      Why not? Lots of medical procedures are currently forbidden, often for completely arbitrary reasons.

      1. OK, I’ll restate. Is an arthroscopic surgery to sever the umbilical cord in a pregnant woman immoral?

        1. OK, I’ll restate. Is an arthroscopic surgery to sever the umbilical cord in a pregnant woman immoral?

          I couldn’t care less. But about half the country has strong preferences one way, and half the country has strong preferences the other way. And it’s the same on many other issues. The way to resolve this is to let different states make different choices and let people vote with their feet.

          It’s totalitarian a–holes like Misek and you who want to force a single moral and legal standard on the entire country. That’s not the principle this country was founded on, and if we continue this way, we’re headed for civil war and breakup.

          FFS, the US used to be a mix of states with various state religions, many of which hated each others guts, and they agreed to live and let live. But no, that’s just not good enough for you.

          1. The constitution forces single moral and legal standards on everyone, asshole.

            1. The constitution forces single moral and legal standards on everyone, asshole.

              No, the US Constitution delegates certain limited powers to the federal government, nothing more. Historically, US states have been all over the map in terms of morality and criminality of acts.

              The idea that the US Constitution ought to impose a single moral and legal standard on everyone is something that appeals to fascists like you and socialists and progressives like the people you argue with over abortion.

              Delude yourself all you want, the US can’t exist as a country with a single moral and legal standard; it is far too diverse, not just on the issue of abortion but on many other issues.

              And Nelson and JasonT20 are right on one thing: you are on the losing end of this. Meaning, the majority of Americans want abortion to be readily available. If you want to live in a community where abortion is illegal, you will have to do that at the state level.

              1. You think that standing up for the single moral and legal authority of the constitution is wrong. That makes you a traitor.

                The constitution doesn’t give states the right to violate the constitution.

                1. You think that standing up for the single moral and legal authority of the constitution is wrong.

                  I deny that the US Constitution ever aspired to having a “single moral and legal authority”. It is expressly a document that only delegates a limited, enumerated list of powers to the federal government. It contains no moral judgments at all. It tolerated a wide range of policies on abortion and murder in different states for most of this nation’s existence.

                  That makes you a traitor.

                  Indeed, that is what you believe: that people who disagree with you politically are “traitors”.

                  I don’t think you’re a traitor, but you certainly are a vile human being, Misek.

                  1. The inalienable right to life for all people is a singular moral and legal authority that no actor can legally or morally violate.

                    Recognizing and accepting this isn’t vile. Denying it is.

                    1. The inalienable right to life for all people is a singular moral and legal authority that no actor can legally or morally violate.

                      The US Constitution guarantees that “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”.

                      Nowhere does it guarantee any person or human being a “right to life”.

                      Recognizing and accepting this isn’t vile. Denying it is.

                      What makes you “vile” is that you call people who disagree with you politically “traitors”, effectively calling for their death.

                    2. Do you deny the validity of the Declaration of Independence?

                      “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
                      The declaration was made to guarantee equal rights for every person, and if it had been intended for only a certain section of people, Congress would have left it as “rights of Englishmen”.”

                      Yes if you deny it you’re a traitor.

                    3. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

                      So from this, you derive an obligation by the state to criminalize abortion performed by private doctors, because you consider “men” to include fetuses and because you consider “life” to be an “unalienable right”.

                      If that’s your reasoning, we would also have to criminalize any act by any private party that interferes with my “pursuit of happiness”, since “pursuit of happiness” is listed on equal footing with “life” as a right. Obviously that is absurd.

                      The Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution place limits on government. They don’t impose a requirement on government to criminalize private conduct.

                      Yes if you deny it you’re a traitor.

                      I conclude that if you come to power, you’ll shoot people who disagree with you politically. Thanks for being honest about that.

                    4. I advocate the punishment for crime.

                      Lying is coercion, it should be criminalized.

                      You lie.

                  2. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
                    The declaration was made to guarantee equal rights for every person”

                    When the Declaration was written, the standard for being a person was called the quickening. It happened at 16-20 weeks. So would you like to change your argument or should we assume you now believe life begins at 16 weeks at the earliest?

                    1. You’re desperate, refuted, fuck off.

                    2. When the Declaration was written, the standard for being a person was called the quickening.

                      Personhood under the US Constitution starts at birth, not with the quickening.

                      Religions generally believe that ensoulment happens with the quickening.

                      None of that is relevant to abortions. Prohibitions against abortion can be justified on grounds other than the status of the fetus. After all, we have laws against animal cruelty even though animals clearly are not persons.

                    3. “Personhood under the US Constitution starts at birth, not with the quickening.”

                      Correct. Like many other parts of the Constitution, it was a much more liberal position than was generally accepted at the time. In the late 18th century, a fetus was not considered to be alive until it moved. That was called the quickening.

                    4. “You’re desperate, refuted, fuck off.”

                      So I’m assuming you read the link that I posted showing you that, legally speaking, child, person, human being, and individual all require a live birth and you feel a little foolish.

                      Don’t. It’s pretty clear that you are young, probably a teenager. I’m 50 and I would guess that NOYB2 is also middle-aged. We, like many others on this site, have been gathering knowledge and thinking about these ideas for decades. For a kid, you didn’t do a bad job of advocating for your position. You’ll get better with more practice.

                      But I would suggest you not post “fuck off” when you get frustrated. It makes you lose credibility. Find either the biggest factual weakness of the other theory or the biggest factual strength of yours and circle back to re-establish your balance.

                      Although sometimes you need to recognize that you have lost this round and just retreat and regroup.

                    5. You deny the inalienable right to life of the unborn because you claim they are not alive, human or persons.

                      You also deny the established definitions of those words that prove the unborn are alive, human and persons.

                      Instead you claim that the law has ruled that the unborn are not those things.

                      I provided a copy of “The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines “child in utero” as “a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.”

                      This is proof that the law recognizes that the unborn are living humans with rights.

                      At this point your argument was refuted as a lie and it was finally obvious that you are insincerely wasting our time. I told you to fuck off and you should have.

                      This is when you chose to play your final card, the nefarious proof that the law determined that the unborn are not alive and hence have no rights.

                      Your own post, own goal, showed that your law as evidence clearly states in section c that it does not apply to or make any determinations about the unborn in any way.

                      c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.”

                      I have demonstrated that the law clearly recognizes that the unborn are living humans with rights and I have demonstrated that the law that you provided as evidence doesn’t deny that the unborn are living humans.

                      You have been soundly refuted. Your argument is refuted. The definitions of living human persons with inalienable rights apply to the unborn.

                    6. “This is proof that the law recognizes that the unborn are living humans with rights.”

                      No, that law says a fetus will be treated as a victim for the purposes of that particular law, and only if the crime us one of the 60+ enumerated crimes the law lists. It says nothing about conferring personhood to a fetus for any other purpose except the one stated. And it cannot, based on the plain text, be used to do so.

                      “I have demonstrated that the law clearly recognizes that the unborn are living humans with rights and I have demonstrated that the law that you provided as evidence doesn’t deny that the unborn are living humans.”

                      I’ll do this one last time and use simple terms so you can follow.
                      1) Fetuses have never, ever had personhood status in US law.
                      2) There is no law, including the Constitution, that gives fetuses the same legal status as a live birth.
                      3) 1 US Code 8(c) says “Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.””
                      4) If a fetus has never had legal personhood status and 1 US Code 8(c) shall not does not change (specifically “affirm, deny, expand, or contract”) the status of anything “at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.”, then a fetus is specifically does NOT have legal personhood status according to the statute.

                      It’s really not that hard to understand.

          2. “I couldn’t care less. But about half the country has strong preferences one way, and half the country has strong preferences the other way”

            Actually, those that believe abortion should be illegal in all cases has never exceeded 15%. And historically between 60% and 70% of Americans support abortion being legal in most or all cases. Right now it is a 60%/39% split, but while it rises and falls by a few points depending on the year, the trend is clearly pro-choice.

            This is the classic “both sides” problem in American politics. A vocal, but small, minority is given equivalence to the consensus position. It makes a false dichotomy.

            “It’s totalitarian a–holes like Misek and you”

            I don’t see how advocating for religious freedom and individual liberty is totalitarian.

            “if we continue this way, we’re headed for civil war and breakup.”

            I wish that we could all just accept the consensus and be governed by the ideals we were founded on. But the system we have built, with extreme gerrymandering, party-line voting, and litmus tests to assure orthodoxy, makes that increasingly unlikely. It’s how we end up with AOC and Bernie Sanders talking about socialism as if it isn’t rejected by most Americans. It’s how we have people talking about The Big Lie as if it isn’t rejected by most Americans. Deficit spending, foreign wars, earmarks, government overreach, etc. are rampant regardless of the party in charge. This is the country we live in because it is the country that we have allowed to come into being.

            Ultimately I am an optimist. I believe that sooner or later the will of the people, who largely live in the center-right, will prevail. Unfortunately, I also believe that people don’t pay attention unless it is a crisis. So I view what’s happening now as both a response to the poor stewardship of the country and the only way that people will pay enough attention to change things. This abortion law will shake the complacency of the people who support choice, but never thought they had to worry about it being taken away. The reckless deficit spending of the past 40 years, which is about to culminate in a horrific fiscal disaster, will shake the complacency of those who never thought the chickens would come home to roost.

            But I ultimately believe that we need a crisis to shatter the “with us or against us” false dichotomy that we have allowed the Dems and GOP to exploit for decades. Basically, the last time a party stood up for universal principles and country over party, Richard Nixon was shown the door by fellow Republicans.

            As displayed by Donald Trump and Bill Clinton, that doesn’t happen any more. And without a crisis, it will never change.

            1. I don’t see how advocating for religious freedom and individual liberty is totalitarian.

              Religions are communities, not individuals. By mandating that all levels of government permit abortions, you are destroying religious freedom.

              I wish that we could all just accept the consensus and be governed by the ideals we were founded on.

              Yes, like Misek, you are a collectivist who wants to impose federal laws based on consensus. The idea that the US is a federation of different states/communities, with free trade and movement of people but otherwise each with different values and laws is utterly foreign to you.

              And without a crisis, it will never change.

              Oh, I agree: we are a crisis away from the kind of progressive/fascist/collectivist utopia you and Misek long for; the only question is which of you two ends up in charge.

              And mind you, while I like the principles of self-determination and subsidiarity on their own, I really just have a simple practical interest in it: I want progressives to stay in California and NY, social conservatives to stay in Mississippi and Utah, so that middle of the road people don’t have to put up with either of you.

              1. “By mandating that all levels of government permit abortions, you are destroying religious freedom”

                I am not requiring people to have an abortion. They have the choice to have or not have one, depending on their religious beliefs. Allowing others to make the same decision does not destroy religious freedom. It is similar to the fallacy that gay marriage somehow impacts heterosexual marriages.

                “Yes, like Misek, you are a collectivist who wants to impose federal laws based on consensus.”

                To a certain extent, but I also believe that the consensus will change over time with new information and technology, among other factors.

                I also believe in the rule of law. I believe that there is a 0% chance that every law will be a good one, but through challenges and the legal/appellate process bad laws can be removed, as long as the challenger is willing to face the consequences of their illegal behavior if they lose.

                This is also why, as adamantly opposed to abortion restrictions as I am, I am not one of the Chicken Littles. The forces opposing abortion are gradually losing ground. Given the decades-long decline in religious faith (especially the more fundamentalist sects) and the increasing “liberal” beliefs of young people of faith (support for gay marriage, for example), the anti-abortion position will be in the same position in 20 years as the anti-gay position is today.

                “The arc of moral history is long, but it bends towards justice.” Assuming liberal democracies survive, they will eventually be centered around secular morality. Even if I live for another 50 years I probably won’t see it. But that’s what I see as the trend line of the past 60 years.

                “The idea that the US is a federation of different states/communities, with free trade and movement of people but otherwise each with different values and laws is utterly foreign to you.”

                Not really. The different states acting, as Brandeis said, as ‘the laboratories of democracy’ is vital to a vibrant country that can retain relevance as history moves forward. I do, however, believe that there is a fundamental framework from which the structure is built. And the rights guaranteed in the Constitution forms that framework.

                My biggest problems with the Texas law are twofold. One, it unleashes the unconstrained id of private citizens to hunt down other citizens for fun and profit with virtually no protections against abuse and a pool of vulnerable defendants that is so vast it encompasses anyone even tangentially connected to the abortion. And two, it is specifically designed to circumvent the checks and balances that prevent overreach by any one (or two) of the three branches. The only way the rule of law functions is if each branch has another branch that can examine, assess, and check their powers.

                “Oh, I agree: we are a crisis away from the kind of progressive/fascist/collectivist utopia you and Misek long for”

                God, I hope not. I’m hoping that it is the heterodox moderates that finally rise up and tell the “only two ways to think” folks to go fuck themselves. Go back to parties with diverse positions on issues, so you would have more conservative Democrats like Joe Manchin and Jon Tester and liberal Republicans like Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski. Where the vote tallies on issues would be reflect the issues and attitudes of their constituents rather than the priorities of the national party, donors, and lobbying groups.

                “I want progressives to stay in California and NY, social conservatives to stay in Mississippi and Utah, so that middle of the road people don’t have to put up with either of you.”

                That is the most simple description of libertarianism, isn’t it? The right to be left alone. Even more fundamental than the socially liberal/fiscally conservative PoliSci X/Y description.

                Ultimately, with a few significant disagreements on priorities, we agree on much more than we disagree about. Which shocks me, to be honest. I appreciate you engaging like this with me.

                1. I am not requiring people to have an abortion. They have the choice to have or not have one, depending on their religious beliefs. Allowing others to make the same decision does not destroy religious freedom.

                  Religion and culture to you is apparently just a matter of individual choices and preferences. But in reality, religion is about community and the rules under which communities live. Catholics wish to live in communities where abortion does not occur and is legally prohibited.

                  It is similar to the fallacy that gay marriage somehow impacts heterosexual marriages.

                  I don’t see the “fallacy” there; the ability of gay men to get married clearly has an impact on heterosexual marriages, culture, and the structure of a community. Having all the people to whom opposition to gay marriage matters live in a couple of states is a good thing as far as I’m concerned as a gay man: that way I don’t have to interact with them and they don’t have to interact with me and we’re all happy.

                  I also believe in the rule of law. I believe that there is a 0% chance that every law will be a good one, but through challenges and the legal/appellate process bad laws can be removed, as long as the challenger is willing to face the consequences of their illegal behavior if they lose.

                  So you have a progressive, technocratic view of law, where laws are incrementally improved in order to improve society collectively. Well, I don’t believe in that. In fact, every time that has been tried, it has ended in disaster.

                  Assuming liberal democracies survive they will eventually be centered around secular morality. Even if I live for another 50 years I probably won’t see it. But that’s what I see as the trend line of the past 60 years.

                  The trendline of the the past 60 years in “liberal democracies” is demographic self-destruction, mass immigration, economic stagnation, and massive growth of state power. The term “liberal democracy” is a fig leaf for what is little more than failing, stagnant authoritarian technocracies.

                  And the rights guaranteed in the Constitution forms that framework.

                  The US Constitution guarantees states the rights not to be bullied around by the federal government, the exact opposite of what you are trying to use it for.

                  1. “Religion and culture to you is apparently just a matter of individual choices and preferences.”

                    I do actually see religion as a community. That is not only an important part of its appeal, it is also reinforces core values. However, it should not be the determining political force for a community that includes people who don’t share that religious tradition.

                    I believe that culture is much more complex. Much like a good mixed drink or a well-made dish, knowing that you like all of the ingredients doesn’t mean that you know exactly how it will taste when they’re all combined. And often an unusual ingredient that doesn’t seem to fit makes the whole thing better than you could have imagined. Basically, I see culture as the chaotic and unpredictable sum of the parts of a community coming together to create a set of shared values. It is almost mystical.

                    “Catholics wish to live in communities where abortion does not occur and is legally prohibited.”

                    OK. What is the logic that says that Catholics (in your scenario) should have a veto on my rights because they don’t approve? My belief is that my fundamental rights are not subject to anyone else’s approval.

                    Much like a community full of atheists wouldn’t have the right to ban religion.

                    That said, I think you are probably in the “extreme republican” (small r) camp, viewing the Federal government as a necessary evil that should be constrained as much as possible and the state governments as the heart of the republic that should have the broadest range of powers possible. Is that close?

                    “So you have a progressive, technocratic view of law, where laws are incrementally improved in order to improve society collectively. Well, I don’t believe in that. In fact, every time that has been tried, it has ended in disaster”

                    Not really. I assume that there will always be flaws in a law. I assume that some will become irrelevant or will become unacceptable to modern beliefs or will fail to accomplish what they were designed to do, or be successful or any one of a thousand different outcomes running the gamut from excellent to disaster. There is no way to “incrementally improve” laws. Basically, I think we should cheer the good ones, get rid of the outdated and ineffective ones (and the worst of the bad ones) and then soldier on. Anyone who thinks they can create the perfect law is fooling themselves.

                    Laws are like anything else in life. You keep moving forward. You hope that you are making things better when you do act, hope that you recognize when you shouldn’t do anything, and hope you can avoid micromanaging the country into a hot mess.

                  2. “The US Constitution guarantees states the rights not to be bullied around by the federal government, the exact opposite of what you are trying to use it for.”

                    How does the Supremacy Clause fit into your theory?

                2. My biggest problems with the Texas law are twofold. One, it unleashes the unconstrained id of private citizens to hunt down other citizens for fun and profit with virtually no protections against abuse and a pool of vulnerable defendants that is so vast it encompasses anyone even tangentially connected to the abortion.

                  This didn’t happen in a vacuum. Progressives have used this strategy for a few years now to outlaw private conduct they don’t like. Furthermore, Texas acted now because progressives have ended the compromise on abortion under which the US has operated for a few decades: the Hyde amendment and promoting a culture in which abortion is safe, legal, and rare.

                  And two, it is specifically designed to circumvent the checks and balances that prevent overreach by any one (or two) of the three branches.

                  How? The Texas law was duly enacted by a majority of Texas legislature, it is supported by the Texas executive branch, and Texas courts have not found any problems with it.

                  1. “Progressives have used this strategy for a few years now to outlaw private conduct they don’t like.”

                    Agreed. It is a terrible thing that pits citizens against each other, armed with their self-righteousness and a license to sue. This is slightly worse, since it doesn’t even require the person be connected in amy way to the situation, but that’s like saying that being poisoned with arsenic is worse than being poisoned with rat poison. It’s a distinction without a difference. It’s all poison.

                    “Texas acted now because progressives have ended the compromise on abortion under which the US has operated for a few decades: the Hyde amendment and promoting a culture in which abortion is safe, legal, and rare.”

                    As far as I know the Hyde Amendment not only isn’t going anywhere, but it isn’t even being challenged by anyone but the lunatic fringe. Texas did this because it is part of the focused efforts by conservative states to get Roe overturned, either as a matter of law or a de facto ban through … unique … legal structures.

                    “How? The Texas law was duly enacted by a majority of Texas legislature, it is supported by the Texas executive branch, and Texas courts have not found any problems with it.”

                    Because as of now Roe is the law of the land, abortion is an unenumerated Constitutional right per the Ninth Amendment and the Texas law directly circumvents Roe in a way that tries to prevent review by the Supreme Court. It’s too cute by half and a terrible precedent because it is something that can be used to assault any right, enumerated or not, in the Constitution.

                    1. Roe vs Wade was based on misinformation.

                      The baby is not or part of the woman’s body as proven by DNA fingerprinting science in 1989.

                      Advocating for RvW is advocating misinformation.

    3. The left has a tendancy to change words to make their policies appear more reasonable on the surface.

      9/10 abortions are of no threat to the mother’s health or sanity and a child is murdered to make her life easier. FTFY.

      1. People desperate to believe lies lobby courts to change definitions to manipulate decisions that they then use to believe and convince others that their lies are true.

        This conspiracy to lie to themselves and others is the word game they advocate.

        Courts don’t define words.

      2. 9/10 abortions are of no threat to the mother’s health or sanity and a child is murdered to make her life easier. FTFY.

        Nevertheless, that’s how large numbers of people choose to live. Just like large numbers of other people choose to idolize the Pope, or reject the Catholic Church, or hold beliefs that you or I or someone else may consider unspeakably offensive.

        The peaceful way of resolving those issues is to agree to disagree and live in separate states with separate laws. That’s why we have France, Germany, Sweden, and Spain. That’s why we originally had Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, and Pennsylvania.

        Those different states got together into free trade and free movement arrangements, but as soon as that happens, both in the EU and in the US, people like you are trying to hijack the arrangement and impose a single set of laws on everybody.

  39. The DOJ? ha,ha,ha….ho,ho, haw,haw…..

  40. Your belief is refuted. Proven wrong. Your refusal to recognize this demonstrates your bigotry.

    You said the “legal definition of life” is at birth. You are lying. Prove it provide a link to demonstrate that the legal definition of life is at birth.

    You may want to consider this about legal definitions of life.

    “The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines “child in utero” as “a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.”[1]”

    1. Yes, there are many retarded laws. That’s the main reason Reason exists.

      1. Which is why courts have no business making legal definitions and retards refer only to them.

      2. Oh, and is not alive. Legally speaking.

    2. “You said the “legal definition of life” is at birth. You are lying. Prove it provide a link to demonstrate that the legal definition of life is at birth.”

      Here you go. Simple, to the point, and unambiguous:
      https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8

      It isn’t long, so I’ll post it for you;
      1 U.S. Code § 8 –
      “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant

      (a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

      (b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

      (c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.

      See? Like I keep telling you, a fetus is not a person, is not a human being, is not a child, and is not an individual.

      1. Section c admits that it does not address the unborn. It is irrelevant to any discussion about the unborn.

        1. Yeah. You’re definitely reading that wrong. A says rights attach only to those born alive. B defines what born alive means. And C says nothing changes in the legal status of anything (a fetus) prior to live birth.

          So yes, it specifically talks about the “unborn” and says they don’t have the rights afforded those who have been born alive.

      2. And nowhere does that law say that life begins at birth.

        How embarrassed you must be.

        1. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

          If all you have are semantic games and a refusal to acknowledge what you don’t want to accept, I can’t help you.

          1. The irony is palpable.

            Your nose has been rubbed in your bullshit.

            1. These are the elements of the law:
              A says rights attach only to those born alive.
              B defines what born alive means.
              C says nothing changes in the legal status of anything (a fetus) prior to live birth.l

              THat’s about as black letter as it gets in law.ack

              1. A. says “shall include” not exclude.
                B. defines “born alive” irrelevant to the unborn.
                C. Clarifies that A and B don’t apply to the unborn.

                That is specifically what that section says and laws mean exactly what they say.

                1. You can’t possibly be this dense.

                  A says what a person/child/human being/individual is.
                  B defines the term “born alive”
                  C says that definition doesn’t change the status of anything before a live birth, which is what a fetus is.

                  This is his the law works. Terms are often defined and limited to the specific law (which is why the unborn victim definition you keep harping on doesn’t say what you want it to say. If you don’t like it, change the legal system and legislative processes. Otherwise, you just have to accept you are wrong.

    3. Oh, and is not alive. Legally speaking.

  41. You notice all of the limitations and caveats in that law, correct? It in no way establishes personhood for a fetus. It allows a fetus to be considered a “legal victim”, nothing more. And even that is limited to the “over 60 listed federal crimes” in the law. And the definition of a “child in utero” is specifically for this law only, not an establishment of that definition for any other laws.

    Do you not understand how laws work? They have to be specific, as being overly vague gets them invalidated by a court (usually an appellate court). So the only situation in which a embryo/fetus/child in utero is considered a crime victim (not a person, just a victim) is IF it is injured or killed in the commission of a specific list of crimes. Otherwise, it can’t even be considered a victim.

    I oppose this sort of law on several levels, most significantly because it is basically raising the legal status of a single type of victim (a pregnant woman) over the status of all other victims of the same crimes.

    If you did any research on these types of laws, you would see that they are specifically crafted to allow for an escalator that a prosecutor can use to increase the severity of the crime, but not to convey any sort of legal status on the fetus outside of this specific law.

    This is what I mean about the legal definition of words being different than the plain-language usage of the words. Because in a legal setting, only the legal definition matters, in the way it is defined in the statute, and no more.

    I’m sure one of the lawyers could do a better job of explaining it to you, but what you just posted is an own-goal.

  42. Yes section c specifically stated that the law had no impact on the unborn.

    They were extremely specific that they avoided the unborn altogether.

    That law has clearly stated ,as your own goal ,that it has no bearing on the rights of the unborn.

    It is nothing as your basis for making any claims about the unborn you are wrong and refuted.

    1. No, it says that the status conveyed to a live birth is in no way transferred to anything (a fetus) before live birth. It literally says that after a live birth you have a person and before that you do not. It’s not that hard to interpret.

      1. “(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.“

        That’s not what it says fuckwit.

        You are full of shit. Fuck off.

        1. You deny the inalienable right to life of the unborn because you claim they are not alive, human or persons.

          You also deny the established definitions of those words that prove the unborn are alive, human and persons.

          Instead you claim that the law has ruled that the unborn are not those things.

          I provided a copy of “The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines “child in utero” as “a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.”

          This is proof that the law recognizes that the unborn are living humans with rights.

          At this point your argument was refuted as a lie and it was finally obvious that you are insincerely wasting our time. I told you to fuck off and you should have.

          This is when you chose to play your final card, the nefarious proof that the law determined that the unborn are not alive and hence have no rights.

          Your own post, own goal, showed that your law as evidence clearly states in section c that it does not apply to or make any determinations about the unborn in any way.

          c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.”

          I have demonstrated that the law clearly recognizes that the unborn are living humans with rights and I have demonstrated that the law that you provided as evidence doesn’t deny that the unborn are living humans.

          You have been soundly refuted. Your argument is refuted. The definitions of living human persons with inalienable rights apply to the unborn.

          1. I put together a connect-the-dots explanation of 1 US Code 8(c) for you above.

            I also pointed out the specific and clear limitations that the 2004 law puts on the definition of a fetus (only a victim for a small list of crimes and only if it is injured or killed).

            Laws mean exactly what they say. No more, no less. And you are trying to make both of those laws say much, much more than they actually do.

            1. You lie. That is proven.

    2. There’s a name for people who deny science and logic believing they know better. It starts with an “F”, fuckwits or flat earthers.

      They have no shame and no clue about rational debate. They are DESPERATE to believe and convince others of their virtue.

      They throw out the most ridiculous lies in the hope that one sticks. It is their desperate and tiresome strategy.

      They are beaten by the steadfast commitment to reality truth as demonstrated by the evidence of logic and science as we refute their lies. As demonstrated here.

      We win because lies don’t have the authority of truth.

Comments are closed.