Abortion

Without Roe v. Wade, Abortion Will Remain Legal in Most States

The experience with the Texas Heartbeat Act offers a preview of what that means.

|

Texas Right to Life says S.B. 8, the state law that prohibits abortion after fetal cardiac activity can be detected, has "saved at least 100 lives PER DAY" since it took effect on September 1. Another calculation suggests the number "could be as high as 132."

One reason for the uncertainty is that Texas women who have crossed S.B. 8's legal threshold, which typically happens around six weeks into a pregnancy, can still obtain abortions in other states with less restrictive policies. In that respect, recent experience in Texas offers a preview of what will happen if the Supreme Court decides, contrary to what it has been saying for nearly half a century, that the Constitution does not protect a woman's right to abortion after all.

A case the justices will hear in December, involving Mississippi's ban on elective abortions performed after 15 weeks, presents an opportunity to revisit those precedents. But if the Court repudiates them, the consequences will be much less dramatic than pro-life activists hope and pro-choice activists fear.

Unlike Mississippi's law, which was blocked before it took effect, the Texas ban has survived multiple challenges, including a Justice Department lawsuit that produced a short-lived preliminary injunction, because of its novel enforcement mechanism, which relies on private litigation rather than direct state action. Both laws are plainly inconsistent with Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that said states may not ban abortion before "viability," and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the 1992 ruling that reaffirmed Roe's "central holding."

What would happen if those barriers were removed? The current situation in Texas provides some clues.

The abortion clinics that challenged S.B. 8, a.k.a. the Texas Heartbeat Act, estimated that it would affect "at least 85%" of women seeking abortions. But that does not mean the law has reduced abortions by 85 percent, which would amount to something like 127 fewer abortions per day, judging from statewide data for 2020.

Appointments at abortion clinics in nearby states such as Oklahoma, Louisiana, New Mexico, Colorado, and Kansas surged after S.B. 8 took effect. While the financial and logistical burdens of traveling to other states probably have deterred some newly prohibited abortions, many are happening anyway.

According to the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR), Oklahoma and Louisiana are among the 22 states that are likely to severely restrict abortion if Roe v. Wade is overturned. But the CRR classifies New Mexico, Colorado, and Kansas as states where elective abortions probably will remain legal, meaning those options would still exist even if Texas legislators, newly liberated by the Supreme Court, banned all abortions.

In 21 states, the CRR says, abortion rights are protected by statute or by judicial interpretations of state constitutions. Seven states lack such explicit legal protection but are not considered likely to enact bans in the absence of Roe.

Assuming that 22 states ban elective abortions, Middlebury College economist Caitlin Knowles Myers calculated this year, the average distance to an abortion clinic for women of childbearing age would increase from 35 to 279 miles. The upshot, she and her colleagues estimate, would be about 14 percent fewer abortions—around 87,000 fewer annually, based on the 2018 total reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

"A post-Roe United States isn't one in which abortion isn't legal at all," Myers told The New York Times. "It's one in which there's tremendous inequality in abortion access."

Public opinion about abortion regulation varies widely across the states. In most of the country, however, neither voters nor legislators are inclined to support the sort of sweeping restrictions that were common prior to Roe.

Something like a 14 percent drop in abortions would be a welcome development for those who view the procedure as tantamount to murder. But it is a far cry from the goal that has driven the pro-life movement since Roe and the dystopia envisioned by that decision's most passionate supporters.

© Copyright 2021 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

NEXT: Top Cop Who Presided Over Deadly Corruption in Houston Loses His New Job in Miami 6 Months After He Was Hired

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Get on the pill and have him wear a condom if you don’t want to live with the known consequences of a penis ejaculating in a vagina.

    1. Ever heard of rape?

      1. I make 85 dollars each hour for working an online job at home. KLA I never thought I could do it but my best friend makes 10000 bucks every month working this job and she recommended me to learn more about it. The potential with this is endless.

        For more detail …. READ MORE

      2. I’m gong to point out. If a man’s raped he will still owe child support to the mother. This is settled case law, and likely will remain so until the artifical womb is invented and the victim pool expands to people more likely to garner sympathy.

        1. Seriously paycheck of $19632 and all i was doing is to copy and paste work online. this home work makes me AS able to generate more cash daily easily.jji simple to do work and regular income from this are just superb. Here what i am doing.

          Try now……… Go to this link

        2. Hey Guys, I know you read many news comments and posts to earn money online jobs. Some people don’t know how to earn money and are saying to fake it. You trust me. I just started this 4 weeks ago. I’ve got my FIRST check total of $850, pretty cool. I hope you tried it.JYn You don’t need to invest anything. Just click and open the page to click the first statement and check jobs .. ..

          Here what I do………. VISIT HERE

      3. Thought that went away when Biden got the Democratic Party nomination; #metoo went silent after Biden was the nominee.
        To answer your question, yes. From Biden,Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Matt Lauer, Charlie Rose and Al Franken. Those last few progressives reportedly only sexually assaulted their victims. My bad.
        Abortions due to rape is under ten percent of the total amount of abortions in the United States. And are those abortion decisions made months into the pregnancy or early after the crime? Equating irresponsible behavior by two people that have full control of the outcome prior to having sex versus a helpless victim of rape is weak.

        1. Having sex is “irresponsible”? How very self-righteous of you.

          1. Thanks for the strawman. Having sex without owning the potential outcome except by resorting to killing a life is. When one chooses the behavior they choose the outcome.

            1. It isn’t a life. That’s the self-righteous part.

              1. Heartbeats are associated with inanimate objects?

                1. It doesn’t need to be. Without the ability to sustain its own existence, it isn’t alive.

                  1. Same can be said for a one year old. Or a nursing baby seal. I don’t advocate for clubbing baby seals either.

                    1. That’s a straw man. You and everyone else know that it’s a reference to a fetus’ ability to biologically, independently survive outside the womb.

                      Acting like I meant life didn’t begin until the fetus is 18, out of the house, and gainfully employed or some other idiocy is transparently dishonest.

                    2. False. They are not identical but the same argument can be used.

                    3. How about this as an illustration, to put us on the same page.

                      If you place a one-year-old, a nursing seal, and a pre-viability fetus on a sterile, non-toxic, whatever-you-need-to-acjnoledge-there-are-no-external-factors surface, the one-year-old-and the seal will continue to live. The fetus will not.

                      Because it can’t survive on its own.

                    4. Not if you have self-righteously killed him/her via abortion.

                    5. No, even if I haven’t. If the mother dies before viability, the fetus dies 100% of the time.

                      That is the definition of “incapable of sustaining life”. That is the definition of “not viable”.

                      Yet another glaring weakness of the anti-abortion case. Without abortion, most fetuses will die if the mother dies. You keep wanting to make violent, criminal, murderous analogies to make it seem like the only way a fetus wouldn’t be born is if someone does something. But the truth is that, without abortion, fetuses are incapable of surviving on their own. They aren’t viable. They aren’t alive.

                      No matter how many dishonest definitions of “heartbeat” you float, no matter how many “killing innocent babies” lies you speak, no matter how many duplicitous laws you pass, nothing will change that central, basic truth.

              2. lol isn’t going to become a mailbox.

                1. “Going to become” is the point. Potential life isn’t the same as actual life.

                  1. lucky we have you to be the decider.

                    1. I didn’t decide anything. I just pointed out the use of words that mean “potential”. Which is exactly right.

      4. The little thing/person inside the womb hasn’t, but let’s kill it anyways.

        The rapist wants abortion legal the most. It helps eliminate evidence.

      5. Is that like when any male-type person says or does anything unwanted, at the present time or any time in the future, to any female-type person?

      6. I do not concur with your premise. We do not execute rapists. Instead, we let the victim execute their unborn child. The unborn child is not the rapist and deserves no punishment. That is neither just nor moral.

        1. The mother has rights. The fetus does not. Nor should it.

          1. Then you must be in favor of a person, who injures a woman, such that she loses a baby she is carrying, gets charged according to the injuries sustained only by the mother.
            If the mother wants to bear a child, when it has its existence taken, it certainly is considered a life.

            1. I agree 100% that fetal victim laws are terrible laws. I don’t agree with making some victims more “victim-y” than others. If someone kills someone else, the punishment should be the same if the victim is a man, a woman, a child, a grandparent, or a pregnant woman. Placing tiers on victims is not part of the rule of law.

              Along the same vein I oppose hate crime escalators, affirmative action, and other escalators that make some people “more significant” than others.

              Much like the logical fallacy that makes some people more or less valuable than others based upon their status, race, attackers, etc., the idea that something that isn’t alive in any legal sense can suddenly be considered alive if the wrong crime is committed against a pregnant woman (but not other crimes) lacks any rational basis.

              And even if you believe that a fetus is alive, philosophically, you have to admit that it is not alive, legally, outside of these types of laws.

      7. Of course. Using rape as the only justification for abortion, the number would fall by perhaps 98%. I’m sure that’s far too few abortions to make you happy though.

        1. Nobody wants more abortions. Claiming otherwise is dishonest.

    2. Stop eating outside food if you don’t want to live with the known consequences of ingesting tapeworm eggs.

      Doctor: “Sorry dude, the tapworm egg inside you has hatched. It’s your own fault for being careless. Don’t come to me”.

    3. And if someone gets pregnant anyway? The Puritanical ‘if you have sex you deserve to lose your rights” nonsense is just more moralizing by people who believe they are better than everyone else.

      Bottom line is you can use your morals to guide your behavior, but keep it to yourself. Don’t project your self-righteousness onto anyone else.

      1. Versus “if you have sex another loses their rights.”

        1. The “other” doesn’t have rights. Because it isn’t a person. There is only one person involved and her decisions shouldn’t be overruled by someone else’s moral opinions.

          1. There are three lives involved.

                1. Only in the mind of a small minority of people. They don’t get to decide for everyone else.

                  Using the standard of “generally accepted”, the belief that life and personhood both begin at conception fails. Using the standard of “somewhat accepted, it fails. Only when you use a “minimally accepted” standard does your assertion make sense.

                  1. I agree with you on conception. Texas agrees with me on when life becomes worth defending.

                    1. You mean when a heartbeat without a heart happens? It seems like a pretty arbitrary line, since there doesn’t seem to be anything that is significantly different between before a tube starts circulating blood and after. The fetus won’t even have a heart for another month or so.

          2. “Because it isn’t a person”
            Said by every slave holder in history.

    4. Those are the two methods most likely to fail. Use failure rate is over 10% for condoms or the pill. She is better off with a hormonal IUD which has less than 1%.

    5. I got $97450 up to now this year working on the online and I’m a full time student. I’AM profited. It’s really simple to know vbop and I’m in order that cheerful that I got some answers regarding it. Here what I do….. Visit Here

    6. It is not a known consequence – it is a possible consequence. There are millions of times when sex does not result in pregnancy. Your logic is very flawed.

  2. Can we please remember to call out the “access to [thing]” framing that leftists use? It’s just the euphemism immediately preceding and serving the same purpose as “equity” which they seem to use more frequently now.

    All of the above is, of course, a euphemism for communism. What’s yours is theirs.

    1. Readers will observe that Christian National Socialist comebacks haven’t changed since the 1930s.

    2. Except your body. Except except for vaccines.

  3. The 14th amendment doesn’t exclude the unborn from personhood, in fact it actually defines the unborn as persons.

    “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; 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.“

    Amateurishly taken out of context “all persons born or naturalized” has been misrepresented by SCOTUS and others to define persons as born, excluding the unborn,

    Clearly the 14th though is defining citizens as born or naturalized the unborn person does not need to be recognized as a separate citizen when they are within the woman.

    The 14th goes on to define all other persons other than born or naturalized citizens, meaning the unborn and unnatralized, non citizens as having equal protection to life, liberty and property.

    Taken in full context, the 14th defines the unborn as persons with the right to life.

    Nowhere does the constitution exclude the unborn from personhood.

    Roe vs Wade didn’t offer any evidence to the contrary, so their conclusion is without merit.

    Here’s your chance to provide the evidence RvW didn’t. Where does the constitution exclude the unborn from personhood? Fill your boots.

    1. You are either incredibly ignorant or incredibly extremist in your interpretations. And given your past overreaching posts, presenting the argument as “a fetus is assumed to be a person, so it is a person unless you can prove it isn’t”, it’s obvious you are a zealot.

      Reasonable people recognize that “person” does not include a fetus in the Constitution. And as of now, US law also doesn’t recognize a fetus as a person until live birth. You don’t like it? Get a law passed that changes the definition.

      Roe specifically identified a fetus as part of the woman’s body until viability, so it is specifically identified as not a person. It also specifically addresses the legality of restrictions and doesn’t address personhood of the fetus at any point before birth.

      1. If you’re going to deny someone the right to life, kill them, because “you say” they aren’t person’s you’d better damn we’ll be able to prove it or you are a zealot.

        Reasonable people recognize the unborn are human beings aka persons.

        DNA fingerprinting science was not available to Roe, which proves the unborn are never part of the woman’s body, woman’s DNA.

        1. First “someone” has to be a person. A bundle of cells isn’t a person legally, morally, or logically. It may, one day, with the right conditions, becomes a person. But that is far from certain.

          1. What are you if nothing more than clump of cells?

            Here are the definitions that prove the unborn are persons.

            Here is your favourite, the legal definition of person.

            person
            the object of legal rights. There are two kinds of legal person: human beings and artificial persons such as corporations.

            Collins Dictionary of Law © W.J. Stewart, 2006

            Now here is the definition of human being

            “any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens.”

            http://www.dictionary.com/browse/human-being

            Are you still in denial that the unborn are persons?

            1. Do you even recognize that by using a legal text to define a legal person, but a non-legal text to define “human being” instead of US Law (defined in 1 US Code 8 as “shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development” and “[not] applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section””), you are making a clearly dishonest argument?

              As the saying goes, “Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts”. The facts are that the legal definition of person, individual, human being, and individual does not include anything before live birth.

              1. The only legal definition that excludes the unborn from personhood is Roe vs Wade which admitted in their conclusion that demonstration otherwise would cause the entire conclusion to collapse.

                Science has done and Roe vs Wade needs to collapse leaving no remaining legal exclusion of the unborn from personhood.

                1. Every legal definition of person in federal law excludes fetuses. Literally nothing in federal law establishes fetal personhood and every law that addresses it rejects it.

                  If you can’t even acknowledge simple truths, even if you don’t like them, what good are you for an honest debate?

                  1. If they can’t be considered a person, then how can someone, who causes their death, unpermitted by the mother, be charged with murder?

                    1. It is a terrible category of laws referred to as fetal victim or fetal homicide laws. They give a constrained status to a fetus in a specific set of circumstances and allow them to be treated as a crime victim. They are sentence escalators.

                      In general (and specifically in the federal law) the fetus is considered a victim IF AND ONLY IF it is injured or killed and IF AND ONLY IF it happens during the commission of a SPECIFIC sets of crimes. In any other situation (if it isn’t injured or killed or if it is injured or killed during an unlisted crime) the fetus has the same legal status it has in any other situation: none.

      2. And as of now, US law also doesn’t recognize a fetus as a person until live birth.

        In many, maybe most, states a fetus is recognized as a person.

        In the case of the death of a pregnant woman, unless it is known somehow that she intended abortion, the death of the fetus is counted as a second death and, should the death have a human cause, can be charged as a homicide or manslaughter.

        But the important part is that when no intent is known, the bulk of US law errs on the side that yes, a fetus is a person.

        The ONLY time a fetus is NOT considered a person in law is when it’s mother kills or intends to kill it.

        1. Discarding a clump of cells sounds less murdery.

        2. There are states that have “fetal victim” laws. There is a federal law as well. But they don’t confer personhood on a fetus. If there is a crime committed (and in the federal law it is a specific list of crimes) *and* the fetus was injured or killed in the commission of that crime, then and only then can the fetus be considered a victim. If it isn’t one of the listed crimes, the fetus isn’t considered a victim regardless of whether it is injured or dies as a result of the crime.

          There are a few states that have “fetal personhood” laws ready for the day when the definition of a person, federally, stops excluding fetuses. But usually when they are put to voters, even in deep red states like North Dakota, they fail.

          1. This isn’t new, nobody is waiting for anything.

            Here are the definitions that prove the unborn are persons.

            Here is your favourite, the legal definition of person.

            person
            the object of legal rights. There are two kinds of legal person: human beings and artificial persons such as corporations.

            Collins Dictionary of Law © W.J. Stewart, 2006

            Now here is the definition of human being

            “any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens.”

            http://www.dictionary.com/browse/human-being

            Are you still in denial that the unborn are persons?

            1. I’ll copy my response from above, since you copied your “argument”.

              Do you even recognize that by using a legal text to define a legal person, but a non-legal text to define “human being” instead of US Law (defined in 1 US Code 8 as “shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development” and “[not] applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section””), you are making a clearly dishonest argument?

              As the saying goes, “Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts”. The facts are that the legal definition of person, individual, human being, and individual does not include anything before live birth.

    1. What you’re trying to say is ‘FUCK JOE BIDEN’.

      Please, avoid the alternate as it is already morphing into boomerish cuteness–with the intent of killing the whole phenomena.

  4. Never should have this in the first place, you should think about what you do before denying the outcome, its your rights your body but the live inside also do have rights i believe! Just check this
    https://foodbloggersunite.com/

    1. How do you define life? What if the woman who is pregnant does not define life the same as you? You cannot define life and it is presumptuous to think that you can.
      Arguments should be based on what can be proven.

      1. OK, so I have explained what makes sense to me. If you haven’t seen it elsewhere I can walk you through a Cliff’s Notes version.

        Can you walk me through your logic?

        The three concepts that are at issue are when life begins biologically, when it begins philosophically, and when it begins legally. That’s not to say that they are necessarily three different points, depending on your beliefs, but they are three different things.

  5. Two things.

    One, let’s say SCoTUS ditches Roe. What happens? Well, what should happen. The question will go to each state legislature and they will make laws reflecting the will of their constituents. BTW, that is the way it is supposed to work. SCoTUS should not be ‘judicializing’ social, political or cultural questions; nor should they be put into that position by legislators.

    Two, I am not a fan of the statutory construction of SB-8, because I am concerned how this construction will be used going forward. The statutory construction was specifically designed to frustrate legal challenges. Put simply, if SB-8 is used here, I promise you it will be used elsewhere for other political, social, cultural questions.

    Even without Roe, abortion will still be available.

    1. Without Roe, the baby will have the inalienable right to life.

      1. It already does; JUST NOT AT THE EXPENSE OF PIMPING OUT SOMEONE ELSE…

        1. If you force an uninvolved person to be dependent on you through something you do, it’s not ‘pimping’ to expect you to take responsibility for your actions.

          And you damned sure shouldn’t get the legal right to kill that person because they’re ‘inconvenient’.

          1. Not a person. And if it is, the mother has no obligation to keep it in her womb.

            The problem you are faced with is that if the fetus is a person, it is a person. As in any and all laws apply equally to them. There are a myriad of new ways a fetus could be legally removed from the mother’s body if it is a person. Because making all new laws to cover “a person who is also a fetus” is very, very problematic.

            The argument could be that a person breaking into your house isn’t allowed to stay even if you didn’t have the strongest locks possible to keep them out and despite the fact that they would die if they weren’t allowed to stay. An unwanted criminal would absolutely be evicted. The fetus, despite all efforts by the mother and father, took up uninvited residence in the mother’s womb and should therefore be treated like any other person in that situation.

            That’s just one random scenario I pulled out of my ass. If a fetus is a person, it is a person like any other and the mother has no inherent, legal obligation to it. The only way around that reality is a bunch of “yeah, but” arguments that would just highlight the fact that the mother (but not the father) would have their rights challenged by a bundle of cells.

            1. Until you refute the dictionary definitions of person and human beings, that I’ve provided above, the unborn are considered persons by rational people.

              Fill your boots.

              1. I accept that legal definitions are what matters to the law. Finding a dictionary that disagrees makes exactly zero difference, legally.

                Your preferred definition is irrelevant to the law because that’s what laws do. They define terms for the purposes of the law. Which is why a “fetal victim” or “fetal homicide” laws can exist for the exclusive purposes of those laws, but nowhere else.

                Is that strange? Absolutely. Is that what the law says? Absolutely.

                1. It contradicts logic and science which is misinformation.

                  You go with “legal misinformation” and I’ll go with “logic and science”.

                  Just start with that next time and spare us all your waste of time.

                  At least you are clarifying where the law is wrong.

                  1. Fortunately, logic, science, and the law all reject fetal personhood. Literally none of them convey personhood to a fetus. Nor does the Constitution, while we’re at it.

                    If you end up getting into college some day, you will learn that not only is life not black and white, it often isn’t what you want it to be. Try to accept that people can have equally reasonable, but conflicting, beliefs that are no more or less “true” or “right” than the other.

                    Also, realize that you are not inherently morally superior to anyone else. Just because someone doesn’t agree with your moral reasoning doesn’t make you good, decent, and right and everyone who disagrees with you evil, depraved, and wrong.

            2. “…despite all efforts by the mother and father…”
              Presupposing that we are nothing more than rutting animals, who have no control over our actions.
              In virtually every case, an act was performed that provided an “invitation”.
              To equate a baby in the womb with an intruder is as sick as advocating their murder.

              1. If you want to hear an expanded and detailed advocacy of this idea, look up Walter Block and evictionism. It is a crazy, but not illogical, argument.

      2. Not true. Nothing in US law confers legal personhood to a fetus.

        1. Slaves didn’t have legal person hood either. I guess I’m not a person either unless the government says so.

          1. Trees didn’t have legal personhood (and still don’t).

            My statement is as relevant to the abortion discussion as yours is. Meaning not at all.

        2. You refuted your own statement at 3:10 pm today.

          Your logic is that faulty.

          1. As has been pointed out repeatedly to you, “fetal victim” and/or “fetal homicide” laws do NOT convey legal personhood on a fetus in any situation except the specific ones named in the law.

            Exactly zero fetal victim/homicide laws give absolute personhood status to a fetus. It isn’t possible to claim such status from the text of the laws.

      3. Science proves the unborn are human beings aka persons.

        The law in this case is irrelevant. Anything that contradicts science it is misinformation.

        1. No, it doesn’t. And no matter how many times you say “DNA fingerprinting”, that reality doesn’t change.

          1. DNA fingerprinting science does prove that a fetus is itself a member of the species Homo sapiens, is therefore a human being and therefore a person.

            Until you refute the offending definitions you’re only denying what you can’t refute. With zeal.

            1. 1 US Code 8 disagrees with you. Not only does your “A therefore B therefore C” logic sophomoric, it is directly countered by the actual law. From now on I’ll just shorthand this truth as “1 US 8”. If you don’t want to accept the truth, you are choosing willful ignorance.

              1. When the law contradicts logic and science it is misinformation.

                You go with “legal misinformation” and I’ll go with “logic and science”.

                Just start with that next time and spare us all your waste of time.

                At least you are clarifying where the law is wrong.

                1. The law often contradicts logic and science. It doesn’t make a damned bit of difference.

                  Of course, you also mean YOUR logic and the science that YOU accept. You are under the illusion that there is only one valid moral and scientific way to view abortion. You are very, very wrong.

      4. Babies do have that right. You cannot define what constitutes a baby and if you cannot define something then you cannot with any integrity base an argument on what you would presume or believe.

    2. “One, let’s say SCoTUS ditches Roe. What happens? Well, what should happen. The question will go to each state legislature and they will make laws reflecting the will of their constituents.”

      Most states already have such laws, Roe is holding them in abeyance. If the Supreme court ditches Roe, those laws immediately go back into effect.

      1. Yes Brett….so what.

        1. The point is this “what should happen” seems to have nothing to do with the law; These states already have laws, even without the state legislature revisiting the topic. So, perhaps they won’t bother revisiting it?

          1. As of 2019, 13 states have fetal personhood laws. However, they specifically don’t cover abortions (because that would be unconstitutional).

            North Dakota is one of the most important non-personhood states because unlike the others, which were passed by legislators polishing their “pro-life” bona fides, the legislature in North Dakota passed the measure and, when it was put to the voters in a ballot referendum to become part of the state constitution, it was resoundingly rejected.

            It seems that if you ask politicians what the people think you get a much different answer than when you let people speak for themselves.

            1. It isn’t unconstitutional unless the U.S. Constitution specifically provides that the U.S. has power over the subject, which it doesn’t and thus abortion is under the auspices of the Tenth Amendment.
              Five, out of nine, glorified lawyers don’t get to create rights nor make laws.

              1. This is the text of the Ninth Amendment:

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

                The Founders included it because they feared that “future generations might argue that, because a certain right was not listed in the Bill of Rights, it did not exist”.

                So, basically, what you just did.

    3. Texas’ new fugitive slave girl-bullying law is angling for the same exemptions that banks got for enslaving young males. After loaning money to England and France on the presumption that Russia would defeat Germany, U.S. financiers were horrified to see communist revolutionaries pull Russia out of the war. The solution was to induce the Supreme Court to declare that conscripted servitude may look, smell, walk and quack like slavery, but isn’t. Our boys got killed and banks got back some 20 cents on the dollar. It therefore follows that Long Dong & Co. can be induced to “not see” that forcing women into labor for unwanted births is both involuntary and servitude. Quod erat demonstratum.

  6. Roe vs. Wade has been the law of the land for 48 years. I know conservatives won’t like to hear this, but it is a losing issue for Republicans in elections. Even many Republican women want the that choice, but won’t admit it publicly.
    Regardless, it is the worst means of birth control. but women in “trouble” will turn to abortion legal or illegal. Both sides need to update their policy, Democrats on demand into the 9 month is wrong, and Republicans being against the morning after pill is just as wrong.

    1. Why the hankie-wringing concern for Republican National Socialist chances in the election? A vertical line looks exactly like the population curve. Yet mystical fanatics and racial collectivists insist bounty hunters with guns threaten doctors and force women into the involuntary labor of reproduction. The argument that communists gave up on such coercion first, therefore women’s rights are communist. Ceausescu’s communist dictatorship in Romania forced women to reproduce. So… didn’t that end well?

    2. However, it is largely conservatives who have it as an important or essential element of getting their vote. Anti-abortionists are the minority, but they are vocal and much more likely to be one- or two-issue voters on abortion.

      So even if Republican women do want to have abortion legal, they are much less likely to vote on it. As are most other pro-choice people. It is an imbalanced of political impact that probably won’t change, even with the sudden realization to the complacent that religious zealots might actually get their way.

        1. https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/Abortion.aspx

          I used to have an aggregate of reputable poll organizations, but I can’t find it. This is Gallup, which recorded 24% who believe abortion is an important issue with a 30%/19% pro-life/pro-choice split on single-issue voting.

    3. I think this comment has a lot of merit. What happen when a right you have had for 48 years goes away? I think there will be a great deal of social consequences here that will have to a be addressed. We don’t generally talk about abortion, but it is far more common than we have been thought to believe. Estimates are that 1 in 4 women have had an abortion and that is means that there will be real world consequences to overturning Roe v Wade.

      1. “What happen when a right you have had for 48 years goes away?”

        We could look back at the slave owners and see how it was for them.

        1. Slave owners did not take it well. They found other ways to exploit black people.

          What I am talking about affects a far broader group. Slave owners were a minority and many who died for the Confederacy may not have even owned slaves.

          What about parents of daughters? Most hope that a sexually active daughter will not get pregnant, but knew there were option if that did happen? What about couple that could plan their family but now may not have options. What about couples with health concerns that could rely on abortion if the worst happened? There would be broad social implication and people who did not have strong feeling about abortion may have to change.

    4. you’re a man so you can’t have an opinion on this, sorry.

    5. Civil Rights was a losing issue for 100 years too. Once passed however, it became a winning issue. When States are given back their 10th Amendment Rights, the same thing will happen – freedom tends to grow on you, but to your point, no parent is going to force their 13 year old girl to give birth to a baby produced by rape by a stranger.

      1. More to your point are any parents of a young girls or woman is not going to force their daughter to continue the pregnancy no matter how the pregnancy began. As a parents, something I have experience with, I would assist and guide the young person in the making the best decision for themselves. If that decision was to terminate the pregnancy then that happens.

  7. This is a natural consequence of turning the Constitution on it’s head and saying the federal government has any and all powers not specifically prohibited to it. This is exactly why “democracy” was a dirty word to the Founders, it meant mob rule and the tyranny of the majority. You want democracy, Nancy? You’re getting it good and hard.

    1. Would you consider anti-abortion legislation in conservative states the tyranny of the majority?

      1. Holy crap man, quit flailing about. Abortion is not a right and the federal government technically does not have authority on this matter (although that obviously hasn’t stopped them). Your arguments are pure emotion at best; if you think abortion is moral and necessary, then argue those points, although I think you’ll find that much harder.

        1. I didn’t say anything about whether or not it was a right.

          You said, “This is exactly why “democracy” was a dirty word to the Founders, it meant mob rule and the tyranny of the majority.”.

          My question was simple. Would you consider an abortion ban in a state whose citizens favored one to be “mob rule” or “the tyranny of the majority”?

          1. For reference, I believe the earliest a baby has been born and survived is a little over 20 weeks. But generally a preemie born before 24 weeks is unlikely to survive, even with modern medical equipment.

            1. This was supposed to be an addendum to my necessity/morality post. I don’t know why it got posted here.

        2. And to address your challenge of arguing for the morality or necessity of abortion, I will break them out.

          Regarding necessity, what seems necessary depends on the situation, doesn’t it? A mastectomy isn’t necessary for someone without breast cancer (or the likelihood of getting it). Someone with a genetic/family history that makes it a strong possibility may decide it is necessary even if they don’t have a tumor, but not everyone would agree. Someone with large tumors that haven’t metastasized (or even if they have) will almost invariably think it is necessary and most people would agree. So necessary isn’t relevant because necessity is subjective.

          The moral argument is one I have made repeatedly. If a fetus is incapable of independent life (biologically speaking, just to head off the dishonest “a newborn/1-year-old/5-year-old/teenager isn’t independent” bullshit) outside the womb, it isn’t alive. The way I see it, morality only enters into the equation when there is an actual life involved. Note that, unlike Roe or the legal definition of personhood that exists today, I believe that the point where it becomes morally wrong to have an abortion is between 26 and 30 weeks.

          Simply stated, I believe that the point at which a fetus is a life vested with rights isn’t at conception and it isn’t at live birth. Like most people (and virtually all moderates), I think it falls somewhere between. And the point at which the fetus has the capability of surviving outside the womb is the line that makes sense to me.

          1. A DNA analysis of that breast tissue would show it to be exactly the same as the person from whom it was removed.
            That’s not the case with the “tissue” you so demeaningly use to refer to a baby.

            1. It was an analogy. Used to highlight the fact that “necessity” is relative to the situation and the person making the decision.

              I noticed that, like most anti-abortionists you don’t address the central issues, you just try to drag the discussion into the weeds.

              Are you willing to address my central points rather than falsely pretending I wasn’t making an analogy?

  8. Roe v Wade was copied from the 1972 Libertarian Party platform. This was right after The legal Pill nullified Comstock laws banning mail order condoms that denied life to spermatozoa with detectable wiggles. Roe has since helped Canada and Mexico repeal all girl-bullying laws. Yet now comes Jacob Sullum in the role of a conservative speculating to German voters in 1932 that Jews probably won’t be interned in camps even if Positive Christianity’s National Socialist candidate gets elected. How reassuring!

    1. Geeze, I’ve already pointed out that this isn’t true. The LP platform of ’72 didn’t even have an abortion plank, and Roe didn’t copy diddly squat from it.

      Why do you keep repeating this lie?

      1. He’s a faggot. Or he made his hos abort his babies if he’s straight.
        Probably a faggot though.

  9. Abortion is a states rights issue co-opted by the federal government for reasons not many people fully understand. The simple fact remains that most Americans favor some restrictions on abortion procedures. There needs to be a more dignified conversation about how best to preserve female autonomy in America and at the same time defending the rights of the unborn.

    1. It’s actually as easy as can be… Pro-Life can attempt to survive all fetal ejections. Women still have rights to their own body and the [WE] mob citizens can survive and adopt all the “unborn”.

      Ironically; This is actually a back-step from the Roe v Wade ruling as State bans are permitted after viability. Secondly ironic is that Roe v Wade was written by conservatives with a very Pro-Life view point as just pointed out…

      But once the [WE] gang gets a little Power; MORE, MORE, MORE just keeps creeping around the corner.

      1. Women still have rights to their own body

        Yes. To their OWN body.

        But they don’t have rights to someone else’s body.

        And if two people force an uninvolved person to form inside a woman’s body NEITHER of those people gets to kill the uninvolved person simply because their existence is ‘inconvenient’.

        1. Well if you’re in my house/property even after I invite you come over and then tell you to leave and you refuse to; I will eventually shoot you or the police will.

          Deal with it.

          1. The police don’t shoot trespassers…unless it is in DC.
            If you invite someone to take a ride on your zeppelin and ask them to leave at an elevation of 3,000 FT then forcibly make that happen, you have violated their rights.

            1. If you’re stuffed up my *ss; I really don’t care.
              My body – UR trespassing in the worse way possible.

              1. Now we’re getting to the truth of your ideology of murder.

                Abortion advocates better brush up on their schtick before Roe vs Wade collapses.

                1. Ironically; You’ll be the one out supporting the shooting of pregnant women when push comes to shove. But don’t let that fact get in the way of your self-centered innocence parade.

              2. If I invited you on a blimp trip, and halfway through decided you were not good company, I’d return you safely.

  10. …. And at the very foundation of this and every other curs-id tyrannical political propaganda giving rise to a [WE] mob Gov-Gun-Power building gang…

    In a correctly operating USA; Other people’s PRIVATE life is NOT any business of the [WE] mobs. It’s Oppressive. It’s not in pursuit of anyone’s Liberty or Justice. It’s just mobs and mobs of Power-Mad wanna-be dictators.

    That day YOU aren’t even considered to have property rights of your own body (i.e. YOU) because too many wanna-be dictators find joy in owning you and telling you that you HAVE TO REPRODUCE.

    From a political perspective there is no difference between –
    Forced Sterilization
    Forced Reproduction

    Pro-Life needs to just mind your their own d*mn business for once. Every Siamese twin, every horribly car accident, every grandpa, every MEDICAL procedure DOES NOT NEED [WE] mob approval. Get a life of your own!!!!

    1. You can’t murder people in private either.

      1. Yet everyday families decide to “pull the plug” on family members.
        Seems your claim lacks substance.

        1. Your analogy lacks logic.

          Temporary life support is only legally withdrawn when medical professionals determine scientifically that hope for life after support is unlikely.

          Which is clearly not the case in the vast majority of abortions.

          You are a desperate lunatic. You’ll throw any ridiculous bullshit against the wall hoping something sticks.

          1. Which is clearly 100% the case in all pre-viable abortions.

            It has ZERO as is NO CHANCE of being a living person by ALL the medical attention it can receive. Pure defiance of reality is the only way anyone could think otherwise.

            But hey; each to their own. When it’s YOU; then you can decide whatever you want to believe and it won’t be anyone else’s business to decide that for you.

            1. The unborn are already living people as the definition of viability confirms, “the ability to continue living”.

              Unlike a terminal patient on life support, the unborn at every stage of development have the ability to continue living if they aren’t murdered in abortion first.

              Abortion would be unnecessary if the unborn weren’t viable.

              1. Before viability they do not have the ability to “continue living”. So once again, you are making a pro-Roe argument.

                1. Viability was defined before being amateurishly misrepresented by the abortion advocates to mean something else in their favour.

                  It simply means the ability of something to continue living.

                  From conception every healthy person is viable.

                  1. All people live their first 9 months in the womb.

                    1. Not separate from the mother’s body. That is, in fact, the definition of viability.

                    2. The origin of viable.

                      viable (adj.)
                      1828, from French viable “capable of life” (1530s), from vie “life” (from Latin vita “life,” from PIE root *gwei- “to live”) + -able.

                      http://www.etymonline.com/word/viable

                    3. And a fetus outside of the womb is incapable of life.

                      Even your “find the dictionary definition that says what I want to hear” fetish can’t find a definition that even tangentially hints the the phrase “as long as it is in a womb”.

                      A fetus before viability, by definition as well as in the real world, is NOT capable of life. If the fetus was removed from the womb or if the mother were to die, the fetus would not survive.

                    4. A person outside of air isn viable.

                      If someone wrapped a bag over your head you wouldn’t be viable either.

                      Can we?

                    5. Now, now. That’s not very pro-life is it? Are you one of those people who call themselves pro-life, but really mean you can kill people who don’t agree with you?

                      Basically, are you a zealot or a hypocritical zealot?

                2. Before viability they do not have the ability to “continue living”.

                  Sure they do.

                  If you do absolutely nothing to a fetus and just let it develop there, where you put it, it keeps on living.

                  1. If you cut the umbilical cord, what happens? Because the definition of viability requires something to be able to live on it’s own, not connected to an umbilical cord.

                    1. *its, not it’s

                    2. Can the mother smother or coathanger attack a premie that needs medical assistance to remain alive and that be ok?

                    3. Can the fetus survive if the mother died? If not, it cannot sustain its own life. So it isn’t viable.

                      You keep trying to say “unless something horrible is done, the fetus will survive”.

                      That’s not true. Before vuability, the fetus could not survive if the mother died, period. Nothing has to be done to it. Without the mother, the fetus wouldn’t survive.

                      Once that chance becomes more than 0%, we can talk about the relative morality of abortion. Until then, the anti-abortion definition of personhood (often, in the abortion debate, referred to as “life”) is not convincing.

                    4. Not by his or herself.

                    5. Exactly. That is what viability means. And it is an excellent, logical, and reasonable dividing line. Before, not alive. After, alive. Philosophically and legally speaking.

          2. “scientifically that hope for life after support is unlikely”

            So a fetus before viability? I thought you were anti-abortion. Seems pretty inconsistent, doesn’t it?

            1. All people live their first 9 months in the womb.

              1. Oh B.S. Rob; I lived in my dad’s pecker for a day before that!
                Yes; Pro-Life has really gotten this insanely retarded.

                All so they can stuff Gov-Guns where they don’t belong in other people’s personal life’s. Just put your guns down already!

                1. If intelligence was the measure for personhood you’d be living in hiding. Maybe you are.

                  Nobody but you is claiming that “you” were ever inside your fathers dick.

                  You’re a desperate lunatic. Still flinging ridiculous shit against the wall hoping it sticks.

                  It doesn’t stick. Get over it.

                  1. Put down the rock, Rob. Your house is made of glass.

                    1. DNA Science says the unborn are living Homo sapiens.

                      Homo sapien is the definition of a human being.

                      Human being is the definition of a person.

                      This is how science proves the unborn are persons.

                      Any legal contradiction of this logic is misinformation.

                  2. And only “YOU” are pretending a 30% development is a baby, or a person, or etc, etc, etc…. Which is imaginarily fulfilling that 60% still missing. You are trying to FORCE other’s to reproduce; pure and simple.

                    1. Science proves the unborn are persons.

                      Those who contradict science are spreading misinformation.

                    2. Science does no such thing. Science says that a blastomere/embryo/fetus is, in basic biological terms, alive. That is very different than a person.

                      One of the most difficult things in the abortion debate is that life, person, and alive are all used interchangeably. But they are technically three different things. Alive is a biological definition, life is a philosophical definition, and person is a legal definition.

                      I am as guilty of it as anyone else but it is less forgivable for me since my moral and philosophical positions don’t require muddying the difference between them, as the anti-abortion position does.

                    3. In the vast, vast majority of cases the creation of the baby was not forced on anyone, by anyone but the two, who decided to perform the act, whose consequence is a possibility.
                      Don’t want to kill a baby, don’t have sex.
                      As humans, who know the consequences, there is no excuse for not knowing it could happen.
                      Unless, of course, you are so inhuman as to be OK with killing babies so you can have your jollies.

                    4. Here is where your logic breaks down:

                      “Don’t want to kill a baby, don’t have sex.”

                      First, on the subject of sex. It is not only for reproduction. In fact, i wouldn’t be surprised if over 90% of sex was for recreation and/or pleasure. It is a normal urge that has many positive mental and physical benefits for participants. And there is nothing wrong with that.

                      Second, you believe that abortion kills a baby. That isn’t even the majority view, never mind a universal truth. People who don’t believe a fetus is a life don’t have any problem with abortion. And there is no rational reason that they should be forced to surrender their beliefs and be forced to accept yours.

                      Most sexually active people, assuming they weren’t given an ignorance-only sexual education, know (and use) contraception. They aren’t perfect, but they are pretty damned effective.

                      “As humans, who know the consequences, there is no excuse for not knowing it could happen.
                      Unless, of course, you are so inhuman as to be OK with killing babies so you can have your jollies.”

                      If you replace “have your jollies” with “not have to walk”, your argument could be used to condemn anyone who chooses to drive a car. It would be just as accurate in terms of the chance of killing someone (even if your definition of “baby” were accepted as true), but it would be WAY less condescending, self-righteous, and morally self-congtatulatory.

                      Smug moral superiority is usually a sign of something else. Hopefully in your case it’s a lack of self-awareness and not sociopathy.

  11. Roe v Wade should be overturned or modified. It is crazy to give the Federal Government any power. There are way too many opinions on abortion in a one size fits all manner. Let people decide by voting with their feet. Laws regarding abortions should be made on the local level, where the more local the better.

    Of course all laws are better the more local they are. Personally I feel the county level is even better than the state level.

    1. Constitutional rights are one size fits all.

      Get over it.

    2. Let people run other people’s personal life by voting
      = [WE] mob dictatorship and unlimited rulers.

      Individual Liberty and Justice is well established as a Federal Authority by the Bill of Rights and the Founders very stated purpose.

      1. The last entry in the Bill of Rights states that powers not granted to the U.S., as abortion is clearly not, is to be left to the states to decide.
        Nowhere in the powers granted is the ability to decide disposition of the unborn, as Congress has noted in never passing a bill regarding such.

        1. Read the Ninth Amendment.

        2. Unless you think that the rights to privacy and/or bodily autonomy aren’t rights, abortion is covered.

  12. “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

    1. When do laws, like those against murder, theft, rape, etc. become tyrannies?
      Are they exercised for the good of the victim?
      Are those oppressive, too?
      Laws prohibiting abortion, to those in possession of humanity, are as just as any other.

      1. No, laws prohibiting abortion violate the First and Fourth Amendments on their face, as well as the unenumerated rights to medical privacy, personal privacy, and bodily autonomy (the right to control your own body).

        They are also illogical, morally deficient, coercive, and morally paternalistic. Basically, before a fetus is capable of surviving on its own, legally prohibiting abortion is about as anti-American, anti-Constitutional, and self-righteous as any tyranny-of-the-minority law could possibly be.

  13. Lots of folks assume that SCOTUS won’t decide that embryos and fetuses are persons whose right to life cannot be deprived without due process of law.

    I agree that it seems unlikely that the Court would go there in a single step, but . .

    1. SCOTUS already went there with Roe vs Wade.

      Lots of people think it will collapse if reviewed for two main reasons.

      DNA fingerprinting science established in 1989 proves that the unborn are individual persons.

      Nowhere does the constitution actually exclude the unborn from personhood contrary to what Roe vs Wade concluded.

      1. DNA fingerprinting identifies a fetus as having it’s own DNA. Which is the inevitable result of the basic science of sexual reproduction. So, thank you, Captain Obvious. That doesn’t mean it’s a person.

        Nowhere does it include a fetus as a person, either. By your argument, anything that isn’t specifically mentioned as “not a person” is now a person. It is both legally and logically untenable.

        1. Yes DNA fingerprinting science proves that from conception a new human being aka a person lives.

          Because the constitution doesn’t exclude the unborn from personhood roe vs Wade erred in their conclusion that it did and must collapse.

          1. The default isn’t that a fetus is a person. The default is that, at live birth, you have a person. If you wish to assert something different you need more than just “I say so” for a reason. Or “DNA fingerprinting”, which only proves that, if everything goes well, a fetus will become a person with different DNA than their parents.

            Can you acknowledge that the issue isn’t a cut-and-dried, black-and-white issue?

            Also, can you acknowledge that the biological definition of life and the legal definition of life are two different things?

            1. Properly applied science and logic need to be clear cut. It is their reason and purpose for existence. Civilization and the legal system itself is based on this authority.

              Any legal contradiction of logic and science is misinformation and needs to be overturned.

              The concept of “defaults” is irrelevant.

              1. Any logical or scientific contradiction of the law is, by definition, irrelevant to the law. A law means exactly what it says, with the parameters that it lists and the definitions that it states in the statute.

                If a law says “person” means “an organism endowed with rights”, that’s what it means. If it says “person” means “live birth”, that’s what it means. If a law says “person” means “righthanded human”, that’s what it means. If a law says that a fetus is a person for the purposes of a fetal homicide law, but only for those purposes, that’s what it means. A law can be rescinded or overturned or made obsolete by new laws or challenged and made unenforcable or invalidated in a bunch of other ways the lawyers here could tell you about. But the one thing you can’t do is just decide that the law doesn’t mean what it says and substitute your preferred dictionary definition.

                This is actually the central argument of “originalist” or “textualist” view of the Constitution. The idea is that words used in the Constitution should be interpreted by what the words meant at the time that the Constitution was written. Not using definitions as they have developed over almost 250 years.

                Same concept. Use the words as they are defined in the law, not anywhere else.

                1. You’re a satanist.

                  Your argument has to ignore the concept of right and wrong.

                  It obviously makes no difference to you, to whom all meaning is derived from the whim of your master. Today the judge but really whoever has power.

                  Only one third of the founders were free mason satanists. They had some influence but the concepts of right and wrong and inalienable rights are your downfall.

                  1. “ I am willing to say that an abortion is as morally wrong as having a beer. Neither are morally wrong.”

                    Of course you are.

                2. I am not a Satanist. That would require that I believe in the Biblical version of God, which I do not.

                  I don’t ignore right and wrong. I merely don’t reach the same moral conclusions you do. Those are very different things.

                  I don’t have a master. My moral beliefs are consistent and well-established. I am old enough to have thought (and lived) through moral dilemmas, independent enough to ignore my childhood indoctrination to search for alternate viewpoints, intelligent enough to examine the things I found, heterodox enough to accept that others may not agree with me but that doesn’t require that one of us be right and the other wrong, and confident enough to have faith in my beliefs.

                  I have no clue what sort of deranged history you read, but one third of the Founders were not “mason satanists”, whatever those are. Although I would be curious which ones you think were satanic, masonic, or both.

                  Inalienable rights are my birthright, not my downfall. As far as I know, inalienable rights aren’t capable of being anyone’s downfall.

                  Finally, the fact that I see abortion as morally acceptable within the boundaries I have reiterated repeatedly makes perfect sense. As long as there isn’t life (in the philosophical/moral sense) or personhood (in the legal sense), there is nothing wrong with abortion.

                  1. Maybe you’re just really stupid or maybe you’re just another dime a dozen liar.

                    There are secular atheist satanists. Who knows what kind of Heinz 57 you are.

                    What is clear is that your “moral code” equates killing a helpless innocent baby with “having a beer”. That says a lot. Whether you’re ready to admit it is irrelevant.

                    Laws change as quickly as they are overturned. For you to equate laws with moral right demonstrates your moral depravity.

                    Im sure you do hide behind the human rights that you deny unborn human beings. Whose inalienable right to life define you as an advocate of murder.

                    Masonic satanism, and their influence in the creation of the United States is a matter of fact. Are you oblivious to the Masonic symbolism on the one dollar bill? What’s that, coincidence?

                    You are morally and intellectually bankrupt as I have demonstrated here time and again.

                    Every time you crawl out from underneath that rock in my presence I’ll demonstrate for all to see just how wrong you are.

                    1. I am, absolutely, a secularist. I believe that religion has no place in governing. Because I believe in the First Amendment, which protects Americans from theocracy as much as it protects religion from government. However, I am neither an atheist nor a satanist.

                      My moral code opposes not only murder, but any war that isn’t directly national defense. So no “domino theory” wars, “regime change” wars, “war on terror” wars, or any of the other bullshit reasons Presidents and politicians use to justify new wars. But to have a murder, you must have a person. And a fetus, in my estimation, is neither a person nor alive. Morally there is no rational reason to call something that has a 0% chance of life (if the mother dies) a person or alive. So before 26-30 weeks, there is no moral reason to ban abortion.

                      Your interpretation of inalienable human rights is as muddled and biased as your moral absolutism. And your belief that Masons are satanists is bizarre, with conspiratorial overtones that are literally too insane to bother trying to understand.

                      My intellect is in the top 1%, so we have very different definitions of “bankrupt”. My moral code is strong, with most of my core principles having been examined and re-examined throughout my life.

                      Moral absolutists, on the other hand, are incapable of building a self-sustaining moral code because they are either intellectually incapable of, or lack the moral courage to, fearlessly examine their beliefs with the idea that they might be wrong. The other possibility is that the absolutist is young, ill-informed, and lacks confidence. I have been operating under the assumption that you are the second category. If you are an adult, that’s just pathetic.

                      The saddest part is that you seem to actually believe that you haven’t looked like an ignorant ass every time you try to talk about what the Constitution says or means, try to deny the black-letter reading of a law, try to assert legal personhood for a fetus under the law or the Constitution, say that a dictionary overrules a law, or pretend like there is only one valid moral code in the world (yours).

                      The Mason/satanist thing is just the WTF cherry on top of your sundae of stupidity and ignorance.

                      Unless you are a teenager. In which case I would advise you to search out and study ideas that conflict with your own. Learn that there are good, decent, moral people who don’t share your moral code. The world isn’t black and white.

                      I have had great discussions with people like Cal who completely disagree with me on abortion, yet could hold a vigorous discussion without calling me evil, a baby killer, pro-murder, or morally bankrupt. And he made some great points and forced me to think about things, including my assumptions, differently He thinks I’m wrong. I think he’s wrong. And though I can’t speak for him, I know that I don’t think that he is a bad person or that I’m morally superior to him or that he is stupid or ignorant or awful because his moral code is different than mine.

                      If you are an adult, please grow up. If, as I believe, you are a kid you should search out ideas that challenge your assumptions. You will be a better person for it.

                    2. Top 1% eh? Wow.

                      And you haven’t refuted a word I’ve said.

                    3. If you believe that, then you either can’t read, can’t understand what you read, or don’t accept anything you don’t like. I repeatedly make counterpoints to your extreme assertions and moral absolutism. You don’t like them, but that doesn’t make them wrong.

                    4. There can be no rational argument with a moral relativist who believes that whatever they believe is right.

                      Rational argument requires accepting the absolute principles of logic and science to discern what is right.

                      If you think you’ve refuted anything I’ve said you’ll need to prove it using logic or science. Relativist rhetoric isn’t good enough.

            2. Someone, who lacks humanity, relies on a legal definition of life.
              “Personhood” is a construct to deny that the unborn is alive.
              Abortion takes away the life of the unborn.
              It is as simple as that.

              1. Nothing is that simple.

                Your post boils down to: Everyone believes that a fetus is a human and no one can honestly disagree, so if they say they don’t agree they are lying. Therefore they believe that abortion is murder. Therefore their defense of abortion makes them evil. Therefore they lack humanity.

                Or you can accept that there are people who honestly believe the moral/philosophical definition of life doesn’t occur at conception (and a sizable amount believe it doesn’t occur until live birth). That there are people who honestly believe the points at which a fetus is biologically vested with life, morally vested with life, and legally vested with life are three separate points. That there are people who have an honest difference of opinion with you. And that they have put just as much thought and concern into their beliefs as you have into yours.

                Either over half of all Americans lack humanity (or as much as 85%, if you believe that anyone who doesn’t believe life begins at conception is included) or there is an honest difference of opinion and they are just people trying to follow what they believe is right.

                So which makes more sense? That most Americans lack humanity or that it isn’t a simple, black-and-white issue?

        2. person
          the object of legal rights. There are two kinds of legal person: human beings and artificial persons such as corporations.

          Collins Dictionary of Law © W.J. Stewart, 2006

          1. As has been pointed out to you, repeatedly, a dictionary doesn’t overrule a law. According to the law, a fetus is not a person.

            1. You contradicted yourself at 3:10 pm today demonstrating that you already know the law recognizes the unborn as persons.

              Roe vs Wade is an error that is already collapsing.

              1. No, the law recognizes a fetus as a person ONLY if it is injured or killed and ONLY for a short list of crimes. For any other situation, as well as for any other crime, the fetus is NOT a legal person.

                If you can’t even read simple limiting clauses in a law, maybe you shouldn’t pretend you know what you’re talking about.

                1. Can the fetus own property? If it’s actually a legal person, it can, but AFAIK there is no state where it can.

                  1. That is a whole other category of laws that would be affected by fetal personhood. Tax implications (you would be able to claim your fetus as a dependant, claim EIC benefits as if you had a real child, you would be able to claim SNAP benefits, etc.).

                    Hell, imagine the insanity of having a pregnant mother lose custodial rights to a child that hasn’t even been born. Or the difficulty of having a fetus as an inheritor in a contested would create? Or, even more bizarre, inheriting from an uncontested will and then “dying” in the womb (stillbirth) with an estate? That doesn’t even bring into the discussion various criminal laws that would make everyday activities (running, climbing ladders, etc.) potential criminal acts due to various child protection or child abuse laws.

                    But anti-abortionists have managed to avoid addressing all of the consequences of fetal personhood (except the ones they want to talk about) and, if it became law, wouldn’t have to worry about any consequences so they just don’t care as long as they can force everyone else to follow their beliefs.

              2. These are a called “fetal victim” or “fetal homicide” laws. They are enhancers to another crime. Without one of the specific crimes happening, the fetus is just a fetus. Not a person.

                1. You posted at 3:10 pm.

                  “As of 2019, 13 states have fetal personhood laws. “

                  If you want to refute yourself properly, provide a link to cite and a description of how you are wrong.

                  1. The Supremacy Clause means that when federal and state law conflict, federal law prevails. As of now federal law says a fetus is not a person. Until that changes the state laws are in abeyance. Not rescinded or invalidated, just not relevant or enforceable until the federal law changes.

                    As of now a fetus is not, legally, a person. Even if all 50 states had fetal personhood laws, a fetus would still not, legally, be a person. That’s how the law works. That’s how the Constitution works.

                    1. When anyone, any court, any god denies logic and science, they’re wrong.

                      Wrong laws are still wrong.

                      Roe vs Wade is collapsing and as easy as that your position on the personhood of the unborn is wrong.

                    2. And if the law changes and adopts fetal personhood (which I wouldn’t hold my breath for, if I were you), my position would change from believing that biological life begins at conception, moral life begins at viability, and legal life begins at conception. Because I have my beliefs, but that doesn’t prevent me from acknowledging things that are true.

                    3. Sorry, I meant to write change from bio life at conception, moral life at viability, and legal life at live birth to believing that …

                    4. What you believe is irrelevant.

                    5. What I believe is exactly as relevant as what you believe. Overruling Roe isn’tbthe simplistic panacea that you imagine, suddenly curing all of the ills of abortion and ushering in a utopia where every fetus is born and comes into the world safe and loved and supported and embraced by a loving mother.

                      You do like simplistic moral narratives, though, so you probably think that getting rid of Roe would solve all of the problems.

                    6. I don’t rely upon belief to discern right from wrong. I use logic and science.

                      Your moral relativism relies upon and exist solely in belief. That’s what makes it meaningless.

    2. The easiest way for the SC to remove it’s unconstitutional diktat, prohibiting laws that restrict abortion, is to simply rule that it is rightly an issue for each state to decide, as the Tenth Amendment decrees.
      No need to intrude on decisions that are not within the powers of the United States.

      1. Except for the Ninth Amendment and the unenumerated rights to medical privacy, personal privacy, and bodily autonomy. Unless you don’t think those should be rights, either.

  14. Unfortunately I feel that the only way to reduce the amount of money that tax payers have to spend for contraceptive abortions is to make them illegal. So be it.

    1. ^THIS; Is the best Pro-Life argument I’ve ever heard.
      Sadly it makes a crime before any crime has actually happened.

    2. The only problem? Taxpayers don’t pay for abortions.

  15. To all commenters/readers: I recommend watching/listening to the SOHO Forum debate from December 2020 in which abortion was debated.
    https://reason.com/podcast/2019/12/20/libertarianism-and-abortion-a-debate/
    “Libertarianism and Abortion: A Debate
    Walter Block and Kerry Baldwin debate whether women should have the legal right to terminate their pregnancies.”

    Kerry Baldwin argued the pro-life side and made a remarkably cogent argument that was rather novel. By the Oxford style voting, Mr. Block “won” the debate but even in the closing he was so impressed with her argument he was basically admonishing the voting audience for the result. HIGHLY RECOMMEND!

    1. correction: My memory was somewhat faulty – Mr Block did not make any more comments after the voting was completed. His compliments came earlier during the debate.

      1. That was my first exposure to Block’s evictionism argument. It still bothers me that I don’t see it as a rational argument, but I can’t find a strong argument as to why.

        1. Nobody gives a shit, Nelson, since according to your own arguments you’re not a person and have no rights.

          1. I’d love to hear how you come to that conclusion. Please, edify the group.

    2. I also highly recommend it. It forces you to think outside if the typical arguments.

  16. Abortions have been performed for at least 4000 years. A “law” isn’t going to stop them from happening — it will just make it a bit more difficult (and risky) for those without the money or connections to get them.

    As with drugs, prostitution, guns, alcohol, and quite a few other things, “prohibitions” do not “get rid” of the “problem.”

    1. Are you saying that abortion (intentionally ending an innocent human life) is just a minor vice morally equivalent to having a beer? Your post may have been /s but I can’t tell.

      1. “Are you saying that abortion (intentionally ending an innocent human life) is just a minor vice morally equivalent to having a beer? Your post may have been /s but I can’t tell.”

        Nope. In case you are wondering, I am decidedly pro-choice. But, irregardless of that, I was just pointing out that it will be just as fruitless an endeavor.

        1. Irregardless indeed. Dipshit

      2. I am willing to say that an abortion is as morally wrong as having a beer. Neither are morally wrong.

    2. Nope, laws don’t stop all murders, but we still need them.

      1. …And all those miscarriages of women who smoke, drink, use butter or meat, doesn’t sleep long enough or anything made-up…

        “Charge them with MURDER!”, screams the pitch-fork carrying Pro-Life mob.

        1. Shhhhhhhh!. If you actually admit what fetal personhood means the Americans will overwhelmingly reject it. And it is already rejected by the people, so stop making it harder to lie to them!

    3. Who are the victims if you and I choose to snort coke? Or pay women to have sex? Or buy an AR-15?

      1. Chumby — I am simply pointing out that women have been having abortions for thousands of years, whether illegal or not. This is a matter of history. Those who have both the resources and desire to get one, will still get them.

        1. Rape and murder have occurred for at least that timeline as well.

          1. And a lot of other things, too, like genocide and slavery, as a couple of examples.

      2. Chumby, if you are advocating that those things should all be legal, count me in! Pretty fundamental libertarianism, agreed,

        1. Exactly. No victim. No baby clump of cells dies.

          1. No victim in abortion, either.

            1. Only in the minds of those who lack humanity.

            2. Or in the minds of the self-righteous and delusional.

  17. your repeated cheers for baby murder are boring

  18. also the “… is a human right” sign is ludicrously tragic.

    1. If a fetus gets pregnant in the womb, the fetus has the right to abort that fetus.

      1. But what if the fetus’ fetus is also pregnant?

        1. Then she will need to abort her fetus before she is aborted. The Russian nesting doll abortion paradox.

  19. What is ¨pro-life¨ about creating a black market for surgical services?

  20. You can be morally against abortion, but not want to make the procedure illegal.

    No one wants an abortion, but no contraceptive is 100 percent effective. The most effective contraceptive options are the most expensive (IUDs and Norplant). Condoms have a 95 percent effective rate with “perfect” use, but only 85 percent with typical use. So the wealthy are likely to have access to the most effective contraceptive. The wealthy can also travel for an abortion if needed. Those that are prevented from getting an an abortion are the poor that can afford to take off of work and travel.

    However, the law will hurt people that want the child and don’t want an abortion, but need one for medical reasons. These abortions happen in the second trimester and are always tragic as the parents want to have the baby, but something horrible happened. However, doctors will put women’s lives in danger because they don’t want to lose their medical license if they perform the abortion.

    Waiting for some super conservative women to die and then see some in the movement realize why making a medical procedure illegal is problematic.

    1. Wow, what a myopically narcissistic perspective.

      Not one hint of concern for the human being that abortion kills.

      You’re a monster.

      1. No, she is like a lot of people. There is a sizable group of people who are personally pro-life but don’t want to make abortion illegal.

        People can hold a personal belief and not feel that they should impose that belief on others. It is definitely the most libertarian position possible.

        I get that you are a zealot and you think that anyone who doesn’t share your beliefs is evil.

        Apparently those who share your beliefs, but want to let others make their own decisions, are also evil.

        So, basically, there is only one belief about abortion and one way to act on it? Anyone else is a monster?

        If you ever learn how to make bombs, innocent people will be in danger. Your level of zealotry, your willingness to dehumanize others, and your apparent lack of empathy for anyone who sees things differently than you make you a ticking time bomb.

        Seek professional help. Your behavior is deeply disturbing.

    2. You aren’t alone in your beliefs about what is right, both for yourself and for the country. Don’t let the bastards get you down. Bullies should always be resisted.

      1. Morality is, simply put, the human attempt to define right and wrong, or good and bad.

        Your beliefs along with other abortion advocates aligns with some variation of moral relativism. In short the belief that right an wrong aren’t absolute but merely whatever someone thinks they are.

        In this way zealots of moral relativism deny reality by denying logic and science whenever it suits them to instead claim that whatever they believe defines what is right. It isn’t itself satanism, but is a required prerequisite to get there.

        Moral relativism is pure ideology and does not exist outside the realm of theory.

        Moral absolutism necessarily exists in practical application throughout all aspects of society. Fortunately our architects rely upon absolute principles of physics and strength of materials.

        Logic and science are necessary tools for moral absolutists to define right from wrong. There is a right way to live just like there’s a right way to build a bridge and it doesn’t change simply because you want it to.

        I expect this is why you don’t see any moral difference between having a beer and killing an unborn human being simply because there exists a law that says you can.

        Moral relativism is the ideology that results in perpetual conflict and hatred.

        There can be no rational argument with someone who believes the right answer is whatever they believe it is.

        1. “Morality is, simply put, the human attempt to define right and wrong, or good and bad.”

          Correct. A human attempt, which means inherently flawed. And no one has a monopoly on morality. There is no identifiable “ultimate moral truth”. Every moral code or set of moral conclusions have weaknesses, gaps, internal conflicts, and biases. Religious moral codes aren’t inherently better or worse than non-religious codes, but they are more dangerous because they are more passionately believed and often used to justify violence.

          The idea that there is anything other than moral relativism is a fallacy. All moral codes are relative because every moral code contains prioritization of moral/immoral behavior.

          For example, is Christianity evil (or morally wrong)? There are many Catholics out there that give the good that the Church does more weight than the evil it perpetrates. My father was raped by a Jesuit priest when he was a child and it haunted him his whole life. It was literally one of the last things we talked about before he died at 82. I don’t see any way to describe it but evil. Do we judge the morality of the Catholic Church by its moral teachings or its moral behavior?

          How about me? I am pro-choice. But I have obviously never had an abortion, nor have any of my partners. I would not advocate for an abortion if that was a discussion between me and a partner. So am I morally evil? Does the fact that I have had a bunch of sex, but never been married, make a difference? Does the fact that I have been in a monogamous relationship for over 20 years make a difference? Should we morally judge people by words or actions? Are actions more important than words? Less? Is a ritual like baptism or a wedding relevant to morality? Is my 22 years with the same woman without being married more or less moral than a 15 year marriage that ends in divorce?

          If you think that there is an absolute moral truth, are there any exceptions?

          Since you insist that there is an absolute definition of right and wrong, what is it? Which elements of life are absolutely right and which are wrong? Is it words and platitudes? Is it actions? When do words and intentions without any action lose the “moral” label? Do the ends justify the means? If it stops 100 abortions, is murdering one person morally acceptable? Two? Five? How many bad things can a good person do before they are no longer good? How many good things can an evil person do before they are no longer evil?

          And don’t pretend like vague statements like “murder is wrong” will cut it, since the devil is always in the details. What constitutes murder? If you kill someone to prevent them killing you, is it wrong? How about killing to prevent rape? Severe physical damage? Minor physical damage? If they are verbally and psychologically abusing you, does it justify killing them? How about unintentionally killing someone? An innocent bystander hit by a stray bullet? Would the reason that bullet was fired matter? If it was fired by a cop trying to stop a murderous rampage by a terrorist, would that be morally OK? How about if it was fired by a kid who got into their parent’s gun and killed their friend?

          Morality is a tricky and complex thing. There is no one-size-fits-all morality. And there certainly isn’t any code out there that has all the right answers. Nor any person. Nor any god.

          Truly idiotic statements like, “There is a right way to live just like there’s a right way to build a bridge and it doesn’t change simply because you want it to” just show that you have never thought about morality in any depth, ever taken a fearless moral inventory, or, clearly, ever built a bridge. There are many ways to come to a moral conclusion, much like there are many ways to build a bridge.

          Moral relativism is accepting the fact that different people will put different priorities on different things, based upon their experiences and how much they have examined their moral code.

          Moral absolutism is like fantasy. It isn’t real, but a lot of people have written a lot of books about it.

        2. Also, as an addendum, moral relativism isn’t believing “the right answer is whatever they believe it is.” It is that moral codes are reached by everyone and they are all different. Not malleable, but also not identical. I have a firm and well-examined moral code. It just isn’t the same as yours. Or anyone else’s. And that’s not just unremarkable, it should be expected.

          Only people who can’t accept that there are no (or at least vanishingly few) absolutes in life pretend that morality is different. And the world is constantly changing, so even what seems good today could be exposed as evil in 20 or 50 or 100 years. Being a moral person is a constant job. If you see it as one-and-done, you’re doing it wrong.

  21. Your argument against moral absolutism is that flawed people can’t perceive it.

    What makes you think those same people can perceive moral relativism?

    At least moral absolutists are striving to do the best they can with logic and science.

    1. The right way to build bridges isn’t to let anyone decide how.

    2. “At least moral absolutists are striving to do the best they can with logic and science.”

      That’s what everyone does, dumbass. Absolutists are just unwilling to admit they aren’t any better at it than anyone else.

      For someone who seems to believe that moral absolutism exists, you don’t seem to be able to tell us what it contains. You can’t even walk through a simple examination of what you believe and what it means.

      Your moral code seems to comprise of empty insults, a refusal to face difficult truths, self-righteous arrogance, and an unwillingness to accept that it is possible for people who disagree with your moral beliefs to be moral people.

      Any time you want to put the details of your moral beliefs out there for everyone to examine and comment on (like many of us have done), we would welcome it. But you’ll have to find a lot more moral courage than you’ve displayed so far.

      1. If everyone discerned what is right using logic and science then everyone would come to the same absolute conclusion.

        There wouldn’t be anyone obstinately demanding that what they believe or think is right, moral relativism.

        1. And what elements should be used in your logical analysis? Religious moral codes? Modern academic writings? Enlightenment philosophers? Ancient Greek philosophers? Chinese philosophers from thousands of years before the modern era? Jewish philosophers from their 5000+ years of history? Are secular philosophers less valid than religious philosophers? More?

          How about science? Science proves that evolution is fact and creationism is not. Does that mean anyone who believes in creationism (or, under its more recent marketing campaign, intelligent design) is incapable of moral logic because they can’t understand how science works? I reject that. Human-caused climate change has as close to scientific unanimity as anything in history. If someone rejects that, and the moral conclusions that come from it, are they incapable of reaching the “right” moral code?

          When “science” and “logic” are brought into the realm of philosophy (which is what moral beliefs are), the weight that someone puts on each, what elements they accept or reject, and where those things take a person all combine to create an individual’s moral code. And assuming a person isn’t accepting one of the mass-produced moral codes in their entirety, they will all be slightly different. When I grew up people were called “cafeteria Catholics” (or Christians) when they accepted some of the moral “rules”, but rejected others. That is moral relitivism. And it is normal.

          Where you start your moral journey changes where you finish. There is no absolute moral truth. It is literally impossible to identify a single, absolute moral truth. It always has and always will be unique to each person.

          1. What?

            Now you’re afraid of logic and science?

            Whatever happened to “ That’s what everyone does, dumbass.”?

            1. I’m fine with logic and science. It’s as false to claim that science and logic are absolute when regarding morality as it is to claim there is some absolute moral code that is 100% true and all other codes are false.

              1. What makes you believe that to be true?

                I’ve used logic and science to prove that the unborn are persons while you choose to believe one obsolete law.

                Without logic ad science to settle things people are in perpetual conflict and hatred. Of course it will determine the best morality we’re capable of perceiving.

                You claim to value logic and science until it determines what you don’t want it to. Then you’re all moral relativism.

                You are at the top 1% of hypocrisy.

                1. You obviously don’t understand what “proved” means. You have made a lot of assertions, but proved almost nothing.

                  For example, your beloved DNA fingerprinting. Scientifically it proves two things: the fetus has human DNA and it has different DNA than either of its parents. That’s all. It proves nothing else. You made assertions about what those two facts mean, philosophically, morally, and legally, but there is no supporting logic that connects the simple scientific facts to the conclusions you reach. That doesn’t prove anything.

                  You don’t even use words correctly, which is bizarre for someone with a dictionary fetish. “Obsolete” means “no longer in use”. 1 US Code 8 is not in any way obsolete. It is a present, active law on the books with absolutely no challenge in sight. No one is trying to rescind or replace it. Overruling Roe v Wade won’t change it.

                  People are in perpetual conflict and hatred for a plethora of reasons, not least because some people are so fanatic in their beliefs that they will refuse to accept things that they don’t want to accept and turn to violence to force others to submit to their beliefs. So, for example, people who call themselves pro-life will kill innocent people and call it justified because they can’t accept that abortion is legal.

                  I do value logic and science. I am not stupid enough to think that either has only one answer. Probably because I see constant discussions of what scientific results or data or theories mean. Disagreement about the meaning of those things (and more) is actually a major element of science. Your certainty that science only yields on answer is pure nonsense.

                  I don’t know why you are under the mistaken impression that science and logic has determined anything that I don’t want it to. I’ve reached my beliefs through the use of logic, science, various philosophies both ancient and modern, and intellect. Like most other people.

                  But since you think you have proved so much, you should be able to answer some simple questions about this “absolute moral code” that you understand and most other people don’t.

                  Your “absolute morality”. Is it written down somewhere?

                  1. I am referring to this definition of obsolete “ cause (a product or idea) to become obsolete by replacing it with something new”. You demonstrate the use of something that has become obsolete.

                    DNA Fingerprinting science was developed after RvW decided that the unborn aren’t persons. It proves the unborn are persons through a simple logical chain of word definitions as I’ve demonstrated here many times. Here is one more remedial summary.

                    DNA proves the unborn are living individuals of homo sapien species, Homo sapiens are human beings, human beings are persons.

                    You deny this logic and science in favour of an obsolete law.

                    What I’ve said is written here. Whether it’s been said before is irrelevant. If you can refute it, do so. If not, accept it or demonstrate irrationality.

                  2. “I am referring to this definition of obsolete “ cause (a product or idea) to become obsolete by replacing it with something new”.

                    OK, we’ll go with the dictionary definition you have cherry-picked. Riddle me this, Batman. What is the “something new” that has replaced 1 US Code 8?

                    “DNA proves the unborn are living individuals of homo sapien species, Homo sapiens are human beings, human beings are persons.”

                    What you are failing to understand is that the first two steps of your statement are scientific facts and the third, the most important, is opinion. Nor do the first two, logically, lead to the third.

                    You keep confusing your opinion (or your conclusion) for fact. Most people literally, as in when they are asked, don’t agree with your logic. You really need to differentiate between fact and opinion.

                    My beliefs are my opinion. I have never claimed otherwise because there is no absolute truth about when a fetus becomes a person. Definitely not in the scientific community, nor among moral philosophers, nor in the legal community. There just isn’t, no matter how many times you say there is.

                    “What I’ve said is written here. Whether it’s been said before is irrelevant. If you can refute it, do so. If not, accept it or demonstrate irrationality.”

                    Wait, you think YOU have discovered the absolutely true moral code that is superior to everyone else’s? How many other people understand and accept your perfect moral logic?

                    1. The idea that the unborn are not persons has been replaced with the truth demonstrated by logic and science that they are.

                      The legal definition of person as a human being that I provided above is not just an opinion. It is an accepted definition that gives all communication meaning.

                      If you don’t agree with my logic, refute it. The fact that you haven’t but continue to deny it simply demonstrates your own bigotry.

                      I’ve told you that your beliefs are irrelevant here. Your advocacy of killing helpless innocent human persons is what I oppose.

                      If you can’t refute what you deny you’re a bigot.

                    2. “The legal definition of person as a human being that I provided above is not just an opinion.”

                      Yes, it is an opinion. And you can’t replace a law with an opinion. Certainly not a minority opinion like yours. And yes, definitions give communications meaning. And the law clearly and specifically defines “person” as “after live birth”. And it has NEVER had a different legal definition in the entire history of the United States.

                      I have refuted your “logic”. Repeatedly. Much like Trump and the 2020 election, the fact that you don’t accept it doesn’t change reality.

                      The biggest problem you have is that the most significant refutation (besides constantly wrecking your “a fetus is a legal person” idiocy) is this: people have the capability of moral reasoning and just saying that they are wrong doesn’t make it so. Nor does making logical arguments with gaping holes in them. People have moral agency and reaching a different conclusion than you doesn’t make them wrong.

                      Also, you clearly don’t understand what a bigot is if you think it includes “people who don’t agree with my moral conclusions”.

                      And I noticed that you, again, avoided talking about your “moral absolutism”. From what you’ve said it seems like you are claiming that the correct, absolute moral code is YOUR moral code. You can’t actually believe that.

                    3. If all dictionary definitions that define every aspect of communication are just opinions, then EVERYTHING communicated is no more than opinion.

                      Every law is opinion. Every scientific or logical proof, nothing more than opinion.

                      I understand now why it seems to me that you can’t understand plain english.

                      If every word is defined as mere opinion to be dismissed, you are completely irrational and there can be no agreement with you on anything.

                      Fuck off and go away.

                    4. Because words have several definitions and a dictionary is an imperfect way to define what a word means for the purposes of law, they are clearly defined in the body of the law so there is no confusion. So if your preferred dictionary definition conflicts with the legal definition, for the purposes of the law what you want the word to mean is irrelevant. If you can’t even wrap your brain around a simple, obvious, and logical element of legislation, you are intentionally trying to remain ignorant.

                      1 US Code 8 defines person for the purposes of US law. Period. The fact that you don’t like it? Too bad, that’s what the rule of law is. You can fond a dictionary that says what you want? Too bad, that’s what the rule of law is. If you walk into a courtroom and tell everyone that a word doesn’t mean what the law says, it means what your dictionary says, you will get laughed out of the courtroom, as well as lose your case. Because we are a nation of laws and that’s one of the things that make us a stable democracy and not a banana republic.

                    5. From 1 us code 8

                      “ (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.”

                      It specifically says that it does not exclude the unborn from having rights.

                      Nowhere does it say that the unborn are not persons. It just ignores the unborn completely.

                      It cannot be used to advocate abortion.

                      I’ve proven that the rest of humanity recognizes that the unborn are persons.

                      If the law refuses to, it’s in denial.

                    6. Yes, it says that it doesn’t change any status of anything before live birth. And section A defines person as after live birth.

                      Logic with me, since you consider yourself such a logical person:

                      If Section A defines a person, child, individual, and human as “after live birth” and Section C says nothing in the statute will change the status if anything before live birth, then …

                      If your answer isn’t “a fetus isn’t legally a person”, you suck at logic.

                      “I’ve proven that the rest of humanity recognizes that the unborn are persons.”

                      Not only does “the rest of humanity” NOT recognize a fetus as a person, less than 20% of Americans believe a fetus at conception has rights. Why do you say things like this that are clearly, on their face, a lie. If you want to lie to make your point (which anti-abortionists usually do), at least try to be subtle about it. Scream at the top of your voice about third trimester abortions. There hasn’t been a legal third trimester abortion, without medical necessity, documented in over 40 years. But there *were* some in the 70s, so talking about how horrible that is without mentioning how long its been since it last happened is dishonest, but it is just true enough to be an *effective* lie.

                      Finally, a law can’t be “in denial”. A fetus has no rights in American law. Period. Never has. And even if Roe is overruled, a fetus STILL wouldn’t be a person, legally. That would take a law. As of right now, on 13 states have managed to pass such a law. So a fetus would, in most circumstances, be considered a person. But, in an ironic twist, not in terms of abortion. Because all of those laws specifically exclude abortion due to the fact that they would have been declared unconstitutional if they had, since Roe forbid bans on 1st and 2nd trimester abortions. I’m sure you’ll hate that, but it’s the way the laws read.

  22. 259 comments and I don’t see anyone mention what seems obvious to me. It might be wise for women– I mean people who think they are women– to concentrate their lovemaking towards the middle/end of their cycle, so that if they miss their period, they have plenty of time to do something before it’s too late. Failing that, or if they’ve been raped, they should still have a week or two if they act. After that, someone can mail them ‘the abortion pill”.
    Come on. Have some agency.

    1. More women will turn to underground methods to murder unwanted children when cutting babies to pieces and scraping them out from inside them is illegal.

      The inherent associated risks will influence women to choose even more responsible sexual choices.

      There will be far fewer women trading sex for money or influence and fewer future Meetoo claims as everyone acts more responsibly around sex.

      1. Wow, you really live in fantasyland.

        “There will be far fewer women trading sex for money or influence”

        What? What does abortion have to do with prostitution? Why do you think most prostitutes sell sex?

        “fewer future Meetoo claims as everyone acts more responsibly around sex.”

        This is even dumber, which seems impossible. Metoo is about powerful men leveraging their power to sexually harrass and assault women. What makes you think that changes in how non-criminals view sex change the behavior of sexual predators? Do you think that if rape victims wore more modest clothes that they wouldn’t have been raped?

Please to post comments