Abortion

Pro-Life Libertarians Can Cautiously Cheer the End of Roe

For libertarians who see unborn babies as innocent rights-bearing individuals, reducing the number of lives ended by abortion brings us closer to our credo.

|

Libertarianism's proponents have long held conflicting opinions when weighing the limits of unborn babies' rights to life against the limits of pregnant women's rights to bodily autonomy and self-determination.

It's such an unsettled topic that Reason devoted a whole magazine issue to abortion all the way back in 1978. One's capacity for reasoning cannot be held as the standard for personhood, argued the writer Karl Pflock, because "any attempt to classify human beings as 'persons' and 'others'—the former protected by the nonaggression principle and the latter fair game—is doomed to failure. Such distinction making is a Pandora's box of social and ethical ills."  

"The only safe bet," he concluded, "is to accord every member of our madcap race the status of 'person,' no matter what his stage of life and development." 

Pflock's moral reasoning was seemingly out of step with the Libertarian Party platform of the time, which advocated for "the repeal of all laws restricting voluntary birth control or the right of the woman to make a personal moral choice regarding the termination of pregnancy." 

In the years since, the L.P. has embraced a less sweeping stance: "Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration." Though less vociferous a defense of abortion rights, the newer plank might also be more reflective of libertarian sentiment. Survey data on libertarians is hard to come by, but a 2008 survey found that one-third of libertarians are pro-life. A 2013 Public Religion Research Institute report, meanwhile, found that 57 percent of libertarians opposed making abortion access more difficult. Libertarians who consider themselves pro-life tend to hold a wide array of public policy beliefs and views on how to best learn from the past evils of other types of prohibition.

For those pro-life libertarians—and I count myself among them—the repeal of Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey would be worth celebrating. Such a decision would not end abortion, but it would almost certainly reduce the number of abortions performed annually in the United States. That's something pro-life libertarians can cautiously cheer. 

In Roe and Casey, the Court guaranteed a woman's right to abortion and sought to minimize the "undue burdens" that might obstruct them. Overturning those decisions would not result in national abortion prohibition; instead, it would return the issue to state legislatures. The result would be a state-by-state patchwork of abortion law. Restrictions passed in some places would likely result in fewer abortions overall, though the size of the effect would depend on the precise nature of the legal patchwork. Under the assumption that 22 states will ban abortion if Roe is overturned, for example, Middlebury College economist Caitlin Knowles Myers estimates that 14 percent fewer abortions would be performed each year. 

This reduction in abortions would stem from the overturning of a Supreme Court decision that many libertarian-leaning legal scholars, as well as some pro-choice liberal legal minds, have long argued was deeply flawed from the outset. And it would do so via an essentially federalist approach that libertarians have long advocated for contentious issues. 

"On a practical level, if not on a moral one, there is a case in favor of devolving decision making on an issue that has split the country for decades," Reason's Stephanie Slade argued this week, noting that even abortion-rights advocates like the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg took issue with the legal reasoning and manner in which Roe was decided.

"Roe was egregiously wrong from the start," noted Justice Samuel Alito in the Dobbs draft ruling that was leaked to Politico this week, which signals that the Court is likely to overturn Roe this year. "Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences."

Libertarians can defensibly argue that striking down Roe would mean striking down bad jurisprudence and properly returning the issue to the states. Here's how this would play out in practice: Some state constitutions, like New York's and California's, provide or will soon provide explicit protections for abortion rights in the event of a Roe repeal. Other states, in contrast, have trigger laws on the books meaning that, if Roe is overturned, abortion will automatically be made illegal except in cases where the life of the mother is endangered. (Some of the states also have exceptions for babies conceived via rape and incest.)

Though many libertarians believe federalism is only desirable if it's also liberty-preserving, and that abortion rights being stripped away in some states flies in the face of that, many libertarians believe that a move toward federalism returns us to long-held constitutional principles that are too frequently trampled all over. The idea, as always, is that legislative decision-making is most reflective of the will of the people when made at as local a level as possible. The median voter in Paducah, Kentucky, where providing an abortion would become a felony, is going to have different preferences and moral intuitions than his or her counterpart in New York City, where abortions would remain legal and easy to obtain. Federalists believe those differences ought to be reflected by their states' laws.

But for pro-life libertarians, the most consequential result of overturning Roe and Casey is that some number of unborn babies' lives will be saved via a legal regime that is defensible on libertarian grounds. This consideration is frequently cast aside as if it's a mere distraction. But for people like me, it's the crux of the issue. 

Take Texas, where I live, as an instructive case study. In September 2021, abortion was outlawed after six weeks. Texas Health and Human Services Commission reported 5,400 abortions statewide in August of that year and 2,200 in September, once the new law went into effect—a 60 percent reduction. But it would be wrong to consider Texas' data without further analysis. 

The actual estimate for how many people were dissuaded from getting abortions is closer to 10 percent, according to University of Texas at Austin researchers, since many women procured abortion pills online or traveled to nearby states. (Oklahoma and New Mexico in particular reported significant upticks.) Texas is also unique in that many women in the southern part of the state can easily hop the border to Mexico, where misoprostol, one of the two drugs used in a typical first-trimester abortion, can be cheaply procured over the counter—though it's somewhat less successful at inducing an abortion than when coupled with the second drug, mifepristone. 

For pro-life libertarians who see unborn babies as innocent rights-bearing individuals, even modestly reducing the number of lives ended by abortion brings us closer to our credo that we will not harm nonaggressing beings. It is consistent with a belief that our laws ought to be few in number, carefully crafted to protect individual rights. 

There are, of course, many ways that abortion restrictions can go wrong: Criminalizing abortions for ectopic pregnancies has been floated by some GOP legislators in places like Missouri (but removed from the legislation since). States may wrongly prosecute innocent women for miscarriages or struggle to handle the cases of women who engage in behaviors meant to harm their fetuses so that they will miscarry. Poorly crafted laws may also discourage women who procure illegal abortions from seeking necessary treatment at hospitals for subsequent infections. Extending leniency to such women so they can get the care they need, free of fear of being locked up, would be one of the surefire ways to reduce maternal mortality in this new legal paradigm. 

These issues all involve weighty tradeoffs with harrowing consequences. But for those of us who view the pro-life outlook and libertarianism as compatible, it matters that some significant number of the more than 600,000 abortions performed in our country annually, down from a peak of more than double that in the '80s, won't happen. 

A 14 percent reduction would amount to roughly 84,000 individuals each year whose lives will be saved. Each of them may someday contribute to the pluralistic richness we all get to experience in this wild, enormous country. Taking even imperfect steps to reduce the number of abortions will restore some moral consistency to a nation that aspires, yet frequently fails, to treat each person with dignity.

NEXT: Problems With the Supply Chain Began Before the Pandemic. Here's What Biden Can Do About It.

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. [[In the years since, the L.P. has embraced a less sweeping stance: "Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration." ]]

    How much more pro-choice can a plank be? The only thing more pro-choice would be to mandate abortions.

    1. “Recognizing that Slavery is a sensitive issue, we advocate that the question be left up to each individual slaveholder’s conscience” Reason, March 1858 issue

      1. Also female infanticide (Reason China, March 1982), ethnic cleansing (numerous issues), and fratricide (Reason, Old Testament).

        1. Does the libertarian sentiment of leaving the choice to murder up to the murderers conscience apply in all cases or only when the victim is a helpless and innocent baby?

          1. We know you prefer killing babies in gas chambers.

            1. Jewish babies. According to him, they’re all Jews are Nazis.

              1. Like peanut butter and chocolate, working closely together today in Ukraine.

                There doesn’t seem to be any hard feelings as long as the Jewish president arms and puts them in power.

                Get with the program.

      2. Mandating abortions would be anti-choice. The pro-choice movement is against mandating women give birth if they don't want to, but is also against forcing women to have abortion or tubal ligations if they don't want to.

        Most people that are pro-choice also want more support for women so that they can have more options.

        Why don't we have male shaming laws? Every woman that wants an abortion is saying the person that impregnated me can't provide sufficient financial or emotional support. So if we want to force women to give birth, where is the public shaming of the man who recklessly created a life that he could not support?

    2. Nobody on either side holds a good-faith view on abortion. The left thinks it's a rite of passage for women that should celebrated like a Bat Mitzvah. The right thinks it's a blood sacrifice that women relish doing.

      It's neither of those things. It's a medical procedure that stems from a depressing issue (unplanned pregnancy). But people have turned it into a bigger issue than it actually is (except for sex-selective and third trimester abortions—those are objectively wrong and should be banned everywhere).

      1. [[The right thinks it's a blood sacrifice that women relish doing.]]
        No. Just no. No. That's not true.

        How can you argue that abortion should be legal for any run of the mill pregnancy (AKA, you can have an abortion just because you want one) but then turn and say that sex selective abortion is not a valid reason? I don't see the distinction. If you think it is an equality issue, that becomes a circular argument because pro-choice already assumes that the baby is not a person endowed with any rights.

        1. I was talking about abortions for unplanned pregnancies.

      2. Third trimester abortions are illegal in 43 states. Only exception being life of the mother -and those are all performed in a hospital.

        There are roughly five abortion practitioners in the US who deal with third trimester abortions. Down from six since one was murdered. The overwhelming majority of those abortions are not life of the mother -yet. But they are where the mother had already decided to carry to term and something went badly wrong with the fetus eg cerebral hydrocephalus.
        It is fucking ridiculous that the mother and doctor can't make this decision - but Elmer Gantry and Elmer Fudd and Ima Blowhard make the decision.

        1. Because of democrats, we can’t have nice things.

      3. If you believe early-pregnancy abortion should be legal, then how can you stop sex-selection abortions? Couples aren’t likely to tell a doctor that is the reason for wanting the abortion. I’m actually pretty conflicted on this issue - while I used to be staunchly on the pro-choice side, I have slowly drifted to the pro-life side as I’ve aged, but not totally. This is truly the one subject that there will never be any law established that satisfies both sides.

        1. already happens in fertility clinics, where embryos are selected and sometimes accidentally lost (sorry, "murdered") pre-implantation.

        2. Babies have the right to exist, or they don’t.

          1. No one has a right to exist.

      4. Hilarious. My moral red line on abortions (sex-selective and third trimester) is objectively correct. Everyone with differing opinions is subjective.

        If one believes that a fetus is a person, not an unreasonable opinion, then it shouldn't be hard to see why being opposed to abortion can be a big deal. Your statement that the issue has turned into a bigger deal than it actually is indicates, that you either don't understand that position or view it as unreasonable.

        1. How is it not a person? Do you think it’s biologically something completely different that undergoes a miraculous transformation at some undetermined point where the DNA spontaneously realigns to become human?

    3. Overturning Roe versus Wade would be a Y-U-G-E-L-Y beautiful thing. While it is true that such an action would increase the number of the dreaded "libtards" (we conservative Republicans love this term), Jews, Asians, Hispanics, Latinos, Arabs, Muslims and blacks in the United States, it would also increase the number of "our" great people. Additionally, when I am president again in 2025, I'll just order the military to shoot everyone not like us. Problem solved. Yes, I am truly a very stable, and a very good-looking, genius. Oh, and by the way, my best buddy Vlad rules!

      1. 2 out of 10. Try being more subtle.

      2. Weak.

    4. The 1972 LP plank secured repeal of all girl-coercing Comstock laws. What the Army of God Trojan horse suggests is rewriting the 13th amendment: "Recognizing that slavery and involuntary servitude are sensitive issues and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration." The same cowardly straddle changes any libertarian legislative proposal into a paean for communist anarchism.

  2. Overturning those decisions would not result in national abortion prohibition; instead, it would return the issue to state legislatures.

    Yes, in the short term, that is what would happen. But in the long term, why wouldn't abortion become a federal issue once again? After all, if Roe v. Wade is repealed, then abortion becomes just one more medical procedure among many which may be regulated by the federal government via the magic "interstate commerce" clause. If "interstate commerce" is enough justification to ban pot nationwide, it is certainly enough justification to ban abortion nationwide. Repealing Roe means that the requirements for the government to ban abortion nationwide - not a constitutional amendment, but just passing a law - got a lot lower, and it would be absurd to think that Republicans won't try to take advantage of that. You already have voices on the right like Ben Shapiro and Matt Walsh calling on Republicans for a nationwide ban. So I absolutely expect Republicans to campaign in 2022 and 2024 for more pro-life senators in order to pass a nationwide abortion ban, and I absolutely expect Democrats to campaign in 2022 and 2024 for more pro-choice senators in order to pass a law guaranteeing abortion access nationwide.

    1. But in the long term, why wouldn't abortion become a federal issue once again?

      Read the draft opinion. It clearly lays out not only is abortion not a judicial protection in the constitution as a right but also heavily implies not a valid constitutional power of the government.

      1. You didn't answer my question.

        If the magic "interstate commerce" clause is justification enough to ban pot nationwide, why wouldn't it be justification enough to ban abortion nationwide?

        1. I did answer your question. Read the fucking draft.

          Just because you want to ignore it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

          1. Aside from the judicial rights finding alito weighs in on nationalizing legislation and how it shouldn't have been nationalized.

            “In the years prior to [Roe v. Wade], about a third of the States had liberalized their laws, but Roe abruptly ended that political process. It imposed the same highly restrictive regime on the entire Nation, and it effectively struck down the abortion laws of every single State. … [I]t represented the ‘exercise of raw judicial power’… and it sparked a national controversy that has embittered our political culture for a half-century.”

            “In the years prior to [Roe v. Wade], about a third of the States had liberalized their laws, but Roe abruptly ended that political process. It imposed the same highly restrictive regime on the entire Nation, and it effectively struck down the abortion laws of every single State. … [I]t represented the ‘exercise of raw judicial power’… and it sparked a national controversy that has embittered our political culture for a half-century.”

            The draft delves into state and federal functions. Which you seemingly are ignorant about. The draft heavily implies a federal law would also be struck down.

            Commerce clause constructions are much more utilized by left leaning judges than right leaning ones. So save your constructed fears for the side more likely to make those constructions.

          2. Here he directly discusses States having different constructions of abortion laws.

            “In some States, voters may believe that the abortion right should be more even more [sic] extensive than the right Casey and Roe recognized. Voters in other States may wish to impose tight restrictions based on their belief that abortion destroys an ‘unborn human being.’ ... Our nation’s historical understanding of ordered liberty does not prevent the people’s elected representatives from deciding how abortion should be regulated.”

        2. And why wouldn’t the magic “interstate commerce” clause, which can ban medicine nationwide, be justification enough to ignore your privacy when it comes to an abortion?

          For people who want to maximize the choices individuals are free to make: this is less freedom.

          For the people who hate it when SCOTUS interferes with their unconstitutional laws: they have no leg to bitch on.

          1. Unless you are one of those individuals who gets decapitated while in the womb. In that case the roles are reversed.

          2. "For people who want to maximize the choices individuals are free to make: this is less freedom" --- not true. There will always be states, many states, where abortion is legal. If you want an abortion you can go get it in one of those states. If you disagree with the state's abortion law where you live then you're free to rent a UHaul and move. The correct move back to federalism creates way more freedom.

            1. It takes the decision-making away from the individual and gives it to the state (literally, in this case). That is the opposite of more freedom and the opposite of liberty.

              1. Now do vaccine mandates!

                1. This is Nelson’s dream world……

                  https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/as-beijing-covid-19-outbreak-proves-stubborn-mass-tests-become-routine

                  FTA:
                  “The people said movement curbs will generally remain through the month due to fears of a rebound even though case numbers have been falling.

                  Authorities in some districts issued notices ordering people back into their residential compounds after having let them out for brief walks or quick shopping.

                  In a video shared widely on Chinese social media, police in hazmat suits argue with residents who were told they needed to be quarantined after a neighbour tested positive.

                  “This is so that we can thoroughly remove any positive cases,” one of the officers is heard saying. “Stop asking me why, there is no why. We have to adhere to national guidelines.” “

                  The Biden regime, especially Fauci, would do this in a second if they could get away with it. Nelson would be one of their biggest cheerleaders.

                  1. I think that's horrifying, based on an unrealistic and unattainable zero-Covid policy, and cause massive supply chain impacts that will create unpredictable economic pain and inflation throughout the world depending on which cities, ports or regions are shut down.

                    One of the companies I worked for had the city and port that they used for almost all of their textile products shut down for four months last year. By the time their products arrived it was the next season and everything was virtually worthless.

                    It is a terrible policy, but it's the sort of thing that is possible in a brutal totalitarian regime. It's yet another example of the importance of a free society.

        3. The hopeful answer is: we have a court that has been slowly working to rollback a jurisprudence that defined the sun shining across state lines as to be justification of interstate commerce. We had a very, very long time of very bad law that is taking a long time to correct. We are slowly moving there on things like Roe, Chevron, Qualified Immunity. It is slow. The courts move slow, and whether I have issue with that I can at least understand the reasoning of moving slow.

          But I will add, even if it does become a federal issue, it is still more appropriately a legislative issue.

          1. Why should it be legislated at all? If a patient wants it and a doctor is willing to perform it, why should anyone else be empowered to insert themselves between doctor and patient?

            1. What is your stance on gun ownership? People want them, stores sell them, so why should anyone else be empowered to insert themselves between store and customer?

              1. Within reasonable limits (I don't think grenade lauchers and automatic weapons should be legal), I agree.

                1. Anything that is normally carried by an infantryman should be legal for all citizens.

            2. You want to ban, control, and regulate everything else in the world. Now we get to an elective surgical procedure that exists for the sole purpose of killing a baby. Which in your mind requires no controls.

              How do you expect to be respected, or even taken seriously?

              1. I don't know who you are addressing, since I am not in favor of "ban[ning], control[ing], and regulate[ing] everything else in the world"

        4. Do not be silly.

          such an argument would justify banning assault rifles nationwide.

    2. And odd you quickly jump to imaginary actions of Republicans when Schumer is literally have a vote forcing Roe to be federalized next week.

      This is why people call you a leftist shit.

      1. Weird how you want to turn every discussion into a battle between people and personalities, instead of an exploration of ideas.

        What I wrote above:

        I absolutely expect Democrats to campaign in 2022 and 2024 for more pro-choice senators in order to pass a law guaranteeing abortion access nationwide.

        You ignore that and instead just go full-on attack mode. That is why you are just an unthinking junkyard dog. No thought, no logic, just instinct and emotional response to attack attack attack.

        1. And your post highlights my complaint dummy.

          Dems to campaign, gop to pass a law. DESPITE a vote occurring next week.

          Are you really this stupid jeff?

          1. Yes, and he’s dishonest too.

    3. If the left hadn't been overplaying their hand all these years, there would probably already have been federal protection legislated and signed into law. Spending the last two decades equating aborting a viable child to women's healthcare rights hasn't done them any favors.

      1. Nor has allowing the LGBQT people to appropriate womanhood to the degree that no one trusts them to protect women.

      2. Plus they want you to pay for the abortion of others. The Biden administration quietly reversed the Hyde Amendment during the pandemic.

      3. Even fewer people believe that aborting a viable child is good than think a fertilized egg has rights. And both are tiny minorities. Stop pretending the average pro-choice person is the same as the most radical.

    4. I think you are right that congress will forever have the threat of legislating on this, and various politicians will continue to do their best to keep this a federal issue on both sides.

      But here is the thing: Other than using it for fundraising, I don't realistically expect any actual changes to happen except on the margins, which means Wolfe's argument holds: this will IN PRACTICE (not rhetoric) be handled at the state level.

      There was a poll just released stating that even among people who believed Roe v Wade should remain, Abortion is only the main concern of like 8 - 11%. So, like illegal immigration, the threat/promise of legislation will be used by both parties to keep this narrow slice of single issue voters on their side. And like illegal immigration, the Dems will insist that they are going to do something about it until they are in power, at which point they will fail to do anything meaningful other than executive orders. (And vice versa)

      Right, wrong or indifferent, the legislative system has no incentive to fix this at the federal level, and so we should expect this to remain for the long term. That ain't great for political discourse, but from a freedom perspective, it will keep these decisions closer to the locality where they are being made.

    5. It depends on how the Supreme Court opinion is written. If it makes it clear that a major part of the logic for overturning Roe v Wade is that the Constitution gives Congress no power to regulate the matter, Congress can't turn around and pass a law one way or the other without a Constitutional amendment.

    6. 1972 LP: “We further support the repeal of all laws restricting voluntary birth control or voluntary termination of pregnancies during their first hundred days.” That is the platform plank that with one electoral and 4000 popular votes got the Court to repeal Comstock coercion of females. Brown v. Board of education stopped Alabama, Louisiana, Georgia, Mississippi and Texas from legislating to coerce the black half portion the population. The same folks who cheered when Army of God bullies murdered doctors want Sharia Law in America.

  3. "For libertarians who see unborn babies as innocent rights-bearing individuals, "

    How one equates a fetus dependent on the mother's body as an individual must have a very loose concept of the term.

    Lastly (by most definitions), a baby is a young child - which means it is born.

    1. The definition of words change with time.

      1. Then the moral implications of words might change as well, no?

    2. Are you saying the mother and the fetus are actually 1 organism without distinction? Some sort of chimera?

      1. More like a religious mystery, beyond human comprehension.

        1. Religion isn't required when you have secular penumbras and emanations.

    3. A true miracle: from meaningless (large) clump of cells to fully vested citizen in a matter of minutes.

    4. It's absolutely an "individual". What it isn't is "independent".

      And arguing the definition to try and score a gotcha doesn't actually address the concern the author is expressing, which you undoubtedly already knew.

      The abortion of an otherwise healthy zygote, embryo, or fetus, is absolutely the ending of an individual human life, even if that life is not yet independent.

      And yet, despite being anti-abortion, I'm also pro-choice. It's basically the same issue as vaccine mandates for me. They'd like to say "Well, yes, but, in one case it's body autonomy, and in the other case it's complicated by other factors like public health so it's not comparable". Which is obvious nonsense given that abortion is complicated by factors like living right near the twilight borderlands of murder in many people's eyes.

      In both cases it's not that it's clear cut, it's that the body autonomy factor is so critically important that personal autonomy rightly overrides some legitimate concerns. Freedoms come at costs, nearly across the board, and those costs can be pretty ghastly. It's not about denying that the consequences will ever occur, it's about accepting the blood price of the most valuable thing we can have.

      1. "In both cases it's not that it's clear cut, it's that the body autonomy factor is so critically important that personal autonomy rightly overrides some legitimate concerns."

        This seems like such a cop out. Body autonomy *obviously* isn't a critical importance to you if a baby's body is being killed. These aren't questions of Body autonomy and "some legitimate concerns". They are the questions of Body autonomy of the mother and the Body Autonomy of the baby.

        1. So... you support vaccine mandates, then?

      2. This is probably the starkest (and distressingly nuanced, for the anti-abortionists) cawe I've seen for the pro-choice position. It acknowledges the grey area that most people live in, belief-wise, and acknowledges that, for most issues of freedom and liberty, there is no "pure" position.

        The counterargument for anti-abortionists is the belief that a fertilized egg is a person with rights. Yet that argument first requires belief, then that you backfill with reasons to believe. That's why the "life begins at conception" (and Soldier, I am referring to "life" as a person with rights not the basic biological definition) position has never gained traction in 50 years, despite the massive amounts of money and effort by anti-abortionists. It's just not convincing if you start from a position of scepticism.

        It will be interesting to see the laws that states choose to make and the timing of any challenges. If Clarence Thomas or another conservative Justice passes away or otherwise leaves the Court, would pro-choice advocates count on Roberts to swing their way or would they wait until two conservative Justices are replaced by moderate or liberal replacements (a long game, as evidenced by the patience of the anti-abortion strategy, but an effective one)?

        We know that there will continue to be court challenges regardless of what the skew of the Court is until someone gets 60 votes to pass clear legislation or the filibuster gets eliminated (stay strong, Joe Manchin!). I don't see this issue resolving any time soon.

    5. If you are comatose and require life support, are you an individual? With no significant brain activity, there is no proof of personality or consciousness, only a meat puppet attached to a machine.

      1. Yet another dishonest comparison. No one is advocating for removing rights from a person. The dispute is about when those rights are acquired.

        My personal belief is that brain death (or brain activity that can sustain the body) is the line on both ends. But that obviously isn't what the law is right now.

        I just wish the anti-abortionists, with their weird belief that slavery is somehow analogous to abortion (which is absurd and actually disputes their beliefs) or that end-of-life issues are somehow relevant to beginning-of-life issues or the inevitable Nazi accusations, would be a more honest. There is a strong pro-life case to be made for a 20 week ban if the anti-abortionists weren't driving the bus on that side of the debate.

    6. My infant children were absolutely dependent on the mother and myself...They must not have been individuals either. I wonder why people persist on naming infants when they must be some excess appendage of the mother.

      1. There might be some slight difference between a 4.5 month fetus that is hard wired to the blood stream of a particular individual, and a neonate that is breathing on its own and capable of consuming nutrients via the mouth like the vast majority of people. For one thing, many many people are capable of feeding that latter case, despite the fact that it cannot feed itself yet.

        So, in fact, this statement: My infant children were absolutely dependent on the mother and myself is actually false. They were almost certainly not actually in any way dependent upon you or their mother personally.

        Someone had to take care of them. The fetus is strictly dependent on a single individual. That's the difference between those two cases.

        "Someone would need to feed the child anyway, so there's no difference in requiring a specific person to carry it around inside of them."

        And you called my position a cop out? Are you just emoting, here, or do you actually think that that was supposed to be a convincing argument?

        1. There are a lot of differences between a 4.5 month old fetus and a neonatal baby. There are a lot of differences between a baby and a toddler, and so on. The point is, do the differences matter to the question? Does the fact that the mother is the only who can feed the fetus matter to its personhood? It seems strange to define someones personhood by what they require.

          If the baby was checked out of the hospital by its mother(dads not in the picture), and then was found dead 4 days later due to starvation, who would be charged with murder? The hospital? The grandparents? It would be the fault of the mother, since unless she allowed outside intervention, the mother was the only one who could feed that baby. And it mattered not a whit to the personhood of that baby.

      2. "My infant children were absolutely dependent on the mother and myself."

        But if you set them down on the floor they wouldn't immediately cease to function. That is what "independent" means in the abortion debate, not the redefinition that anti-abortionists keep pushing in a dishonest narrative.

    7. so for you independence is necessary to be an individual worthy of all human rights? so then the elderly can just be "aborted" too, right? or what about the disabled? if you engage your brain you'll quickly see that is a ridiculous test.

      1. If you engaged your brain you would see that your post is hyperbolic and ignorant of the actual position of pro-choice advicates. Or intentionally misleading, which is more likely.

    8. Under your interpretation, a child is not an "innocent rights-bearing individual" until is it old enough to get an independent income sufficient to feed, house and clothe itself.

      The one good point in such an interpretation is that Antifa thugs must then be eligible to be aborted.

      1. Can you truly not see a difference between a newborn that can be bottle fed by any other adequately competent human and a fetus that's sharing blood with a specific individual?

        1. I cannot when the question is "which one is it okay to kill?"

          1. I mean, I suppose admitting that you have cognitive limitations at least provides fair warning to others. Thank you for your consideration.

      2. No one says that except anti-abortionists. Rational people understand what "independent" means in the abortion debate.

    9. If embryos and fetuses are "rights-bearing individuals", then termination of an unwelcome pregnancy is clearly an act of self-defense and cannot be prohibited.

      1. But don't you know that once you've allowed a guest into your home, you're never allowed to evict them again? Even if the invitation was specifically for a non-permanent visit? I mean, given that everyone knows that's a possible outcome of allowing people inside, they really bear responsibility themselves for having done that, even if they had only done so with the intention of it being a short visit.

        1. In that situation, if an unwanted guest who has been properly served notice of eviction physically resists leaving, we're expected to call law enforcement to violently remove them rather than doing it ourselves. Of course, it is possible that the evictee could be injured or killed in that process, but that doesn't mean you can't have them removed because that jeopardizes their safety.

    10. What a bullshit semantical argument, designed to dehumanize a human infant.

    11. Uninfiltrated Libertarians wrote these platforms: “We further support the repeal of all laws restricting voluntary birth control or voluntary termination of pregnancies during their first hundred days.” Begging the political state to extend the initiation of force inside of women is the same anti-rights collectivism that urges cops to maim and murder blacks--then protects them from justice.

  4. All libritarian should cheer every time the federal government disolves its powers and let the state decide

    1. Agreed. Unlike the implications from Jeff above that roe has to stay because the gop may nationalize a law in the future despite the dems already calling to do so next week and court pack to undo it.

      1. Can we get at least one "Democrats pounce" for a change?

        1. Hahahah…… no, no…….

    2. Wouod have said that about slavery, Jim Crow, or laws against consenting adult sex?

    3. No, not when the federal courts choose to allow violations of rights. The whole point of protected rights is to put some actions beyond the reach of democracy and federalism. The right of pregnant women to bodily autonomy and self-ownership is violated by prohibition of abortion. For the federal courts to set a nationwide standard for protection of those rights was appropriate.

      1. Babies have rights too. Stop pretending they only exist to be murdered.

        1. Babies have all of the rights of every other person. Fetuses do not.

        2. Stop pretending that women cease to have rights when they become pregnant, and only exist to service the fetus.

    4. Hallelujah brother! Repeal the 13th now, it's high time liberty was back on the march!

      1. According to the Christianizers, blacks needed the lash to give them proper respect for the Word of Owah Lawerd. Whites didn't "need" this any more than men "need" to be bullied into surrendering control of their reproductive functions. The same Klan that wants laws bullying blacks wants laws bullying girls. This is the corollary of counterfeit collectivized "rights." The result, leaving aside whether 200,000 additional populators a day is a good guarantee of war, is the loss of individual rights.

  5. Although it may be "your body"; the one you are carrying is not "yours". And a true libertarian believes in the "Don't tread on anyone" mantra so one would surmise that having an abortion is the ending of someone else life?

    1. The your body construction fails on day one of the magic canal fairy. It would imply of logically consistent a mother can drop an infant 1 day after birth on the ground and simply walk away. Nobody can force the mother to even expend energy to take the infant to an adoption center or one of the infant drop off locations that exist for abandonment.

      1. It would imply of logically consistent a mother can drop an infant 1 day after birth on the ground and simply walk away.
        ---------------
        Throughout history this wasn't as rare as you'd think.

      2. That's ridiculous. The situation of a born and breathing infant is very different from that of a fetus inside of and attached to the mother's body. The laws should recognize the utter uniqueness of that relationship and not try to apply rules that govern other situations.

        1. Nope.

    2. the one you are carrying is not "yours" --- So kick it off your carriage..
      Y'all make this so hard..... It's actually very simple.

      Pro-Life is caught in a conundrum... The very basis of their claim is proven false by fetal ejection. So I guess they'll just LIE, LIE, LIE, LIE and LIE some more until the LIE becomes truth...

      1. Move to strike. Nonsensical.

    3. If a woman does not consent to remaining pregnant, it is she who is being tread upon if she is prevented from terminating a pregnancy or if she is prosecuted for doing so.

    4. Striking how few "zygote/embryo is a person" advocates bother to try to actually establish any reasons for this, vs. assume it is self-evident and logically mandates forced gestation by the state...

      Majority of abortions are now by morning after pills, dealing with something literally too small to be seen but with rights so strong it requires government to force someone to gestate and create a child.

      Currently, many fertilized eggs are naturally flushed out by the body. Given the elevated state of rights of the zygote, if medical capabilities advance with techniques that reduce the odds of that, is the state empowered to force women to undergo treatment to reduce those odds? Why not, if it is indeed a fully fledged individual with rights?

      If a doctor is operating in a fertilization lab and selecting among embryos to implant, does the state have a role in protecting embryos that are not selected or damaged in lab error?

    5. Another addled communist anarchist comes to lecture libertarians and objectivists, biologists and census-takers on how women must be singled out and legally deprived of individual rights by men with guns sent by agents of the Political Kleptocracy. Ya gotta love that voluntary mute loser button!

    6. Porky here must've been the brainless half of a Siamese twin. Sad...

  6. Perhaps unwanted fetuses should be re-branded as illegal aliens.

  7. Oh, cool. I'd been really busy at work the last couple of days and hadn't been to the site. I was wondering if anyone had written anything about the Roe v. Wade thing here. I wasn't sure if it was something Reason would weigh in on, y'know?

  8. Who expects democrats to protect women’s rights when they can’t even understand what a woman is anymore?

  9. I generally avoid discussing abortion because the debate attracts absolutists (and a tremendous amount of emotion and faulty logic). I can appreciate the difficulty of establishing a point where a fetus achieves "personhood" and some measure of rights. I also favor the notion of bodily integrity and dislike the idea of the police state extending into a womb. But it's impossible to have a rational discussion where the termination of an ectopic pregnancy is considered the moral equivalent of shooting a child in the head.

    1. “But it's impossible to have a rational discussion where the termination of an ectopic pregnancy is considered the moral equivalent of shooting a child in the head.”

      It’s impossible to have a rational discussion about abortion on demand at any time when only the edge cases like ectopic pregnancy are “all you need to know” that killing babies is awesome.

    2. But pro-lifers do not believe they are remotely similar. A doctor should seek to resolve the medical problem and, if it kills the baby, that is unfortunate. It's when the procedure is specifically to SOLELY kill the baby that it becomes a problem.

      Will the baby die resolving an ectopic pregnancy? Yeah, probably. Is the procedure to rectify it done SOLELY to kill the baby? No, it is not.

      1. @damikesc you totally nailed it. i've been saying this for years but the libtards don't want to hear it. the fact is that there is no time at which an abortion is necessary to save the mother. i've had doctor friends tell me this is true. it may be necessary to deliver the baby to save the mother, but as you point out, the objective is not to kill the baby. the baby may or may not survive the delivery, but that is also true for a normal delivery.

        1. So your claim is that medically necessary abortions aren't a real thing, so we can only conclude that those doctors who refused to give them, and instead let a woman die, were just assholes?

          Interesting take.

          1. you didn't read what i wrote, did you? the point is that the baby MAY need to be delivered but it doesn't need to be killed. can you not make that distinction?

    3. I'm kind of with you here, rhough I end up getting on the periphery of the discussion anyway.

      No minds are ever changed in an abortion discussion, and not even the Internet changed that. I don't even think that many minds would change if Sci-Fi writer Victor Koman's idea of Transoption (transplant of embryos) became possible.

      For one thing, the word starts with "Trans", so Right Wing Religious Nuts and Left-Wing Turf-Protecting TERF Feminists would both automatically have a shit-fit. Second, The Vatican, the Westboro Baptists, and Unabomber Eco-Luddites would all scream that "it ain't natural!"

      People would still get shot or bombed for entering clinics, just for different reasons, even though the procedure of Transoption avoids ending any life!
      I'm sure that transplanted embryos would die too in the course of such terrorism. Sooo...What was all that about "All life is precious?"

    4. EXACTLY....
      It's quite humorous to find out Roe v Wade was ESTABLISHED by a Republican Supreme Court. It is ALREADY VERY PRO-LIFE.....

      But; [WE] mob Power-Mad Gangs just can't be happy.. Their thirst for POWER and GOV-GUN DICTATION just can't ever be satisfied.

  10. [[But it's impossible to have a rational discussion where the termination of an ectopic pregnancy is considered the moral equivalent of shooting a child in the head.]]

    Its a good thing that no one is arguing that then...?
    Where are you seeing such an argument being made?

    1. This was supposed to be reply to the comment above but somehow got its own line.

    2. no one is arguing that

      Because they're not honest enough.

  11. As a pro-choice libertarian, I feel that both Democratic and Republican leadership have outsourced abortion policy to extremists, and consequently there is no compromise position possible.

    Polls show that Americans support the idea of a fundamental right to abortion -- one that decreases according to the specific circumstances as potential human life draws nearer to birth as a viable human being. That is the central holding of Roe.

    Snuffing out all discussion of compromise has had the effect of radicalizing the political factions that dominate the opposing viewpoints, whose presence discourages elected decision-makers from taking action. It also has reduced the polemic to an unhelpful war between the rule of religion and the rule of law.

    1. pretend for a minute that you believe that an abortion is always murder, as many, many people do (me included). how could you ever compromise? there are many things in life where compromise is completely unacceptable. would you compromise on the issue of euthanasia being legal?

      1. Why would I pretend I'm an idiot?

        Or are we also pretending that there are never cases where a fetus is non-viable and letting the pregnancy continue will kill the mother?

      2. Pretend for a minute the you believe a woman is a sovereign individual, and that pregnancy doesn't change that, and therefore her body may not be seized by the state to protect an embryo or fetus. How could you ever compromise?

        would you compromise on the issue of euthanasia being legal?

        Yes.

        1. i agree that the woman is a sovereign individual, and that pregnancy doesn't change that. but i also know there is another person in her womb who is also a sovereign individual and the mother does not have the right to kill that person.

          1. Yes, she does. If the fetus is just "another person", then terminating an unwelcome pregnancy is a act of self-defense. I don't agree with looking at it that way—I believe the law should recognize the utter uniqueness of the situation and set unique rules about it.

            1. if a woman has a right to kill her baby then i have a right to kill you. no difference.

              1. Am I inside your body, literally feeding on your blood? I must be hallucinating.

                1. Well, you are receiving certain benefits paid for with my tax money.

                  1. Just like every other parent whose children are subsidized by the rest of us taxpayers. Welfare is everywhere.

            2. An act of self defense? Bullshit. The baby isn’t an armed invader there to kill her.

              1. If a woman doesn't want the fetus in her body, and we consider the fetus to be just another citizen and ignore the uniqueness of the situation, then it is in fact an intruder against which she may defend herself. As I said, I don't agree with looking at it that way. Our rules for abortion should recognize that pregnancy is not analogous to any other human relationship.

      3. "pretend for a minute that you believe that an abortion is always murder, as many, many people do (me included)."

        To make this an honest statement you would have to change "many, many" to "very few". Roughly 15% of Americans think abortion should be illegal.

        You are on one extreme. There's an even smaller group who thinks abortion should be unrestricted (about 9%). Everybody else thinks it should be legal to a greater or lesser degree.

        That's Sequel's point. Your group and the extremists on the other side are making it impossible for the 75% of us who believe it's somewhere in between to actually make a reasonable policy.

    2. "both Democratic and Republican leadership have outsourced abortion policy to extremists, and consequently there is no compromise position possible."

      THIS!

    3. So Quisling was a patriotic Norwegian national socialist, Ku-kluxers combine racial and gender collectivism for Christian special treatment, Franco was God's caudillo, Hitler defended Positive Christianity and girl-bullying mystics who buy a magazine subscription as a Trumpian Horse ticket now explain that a reasonable libertarian only stones women until they are groggy and bleeding out the ears. The Kleptocracy invested girl-bullying in 11 GOP campaign platforms, and are here to help Libertarians.

  12. For pro-life libertarians who see unborn babies as innocent rights-bearing individuals, even modestly reducing the number of lives ended by abortion brings us closer to our credo that we will not harm nonaggressing beings.

    "Nonaggressing beings?" So is Liz Wolfe a Jainist, who weara a mask and sweeps her path to keep from even accidentally breathing in or stepping on a bug?

    1. I doubt she is even vegetarian

    2. Reductio ad absurdum does nothing to strengthen your position on the matter

      1. Just makes your butt hurt more obvious.

  13. I repeat myself but I agree with Pflock. also, a line about letting the pflocking people decide is too easy so I won't.

    1. Get the Pflock outta here! 😉
      https://youtu.be/_XoifYo9JCM

      1. why AMC will show Fast Times but neither Porky's is a mystery.

  14. the real question is how you can still call yourself a libertarian if you think that the state should be doing what it will take to stamp out abortions...this means monitoring "miscarriages", inspections of postal delivery of medicines, maybe a register of pregnant women in general. A real libertarian paradise.

    1. Was the state monitoring miscarriages prior to 1973?

      1. You're assuming that the prolife people are going to use this decision to revert back to pre-Roe attitudes/tolerance. Rather than celebrate their victory with some righteous boot stomping

        1. I’ll be enjoying the tears of the Hollywood Marxist idiots by the gallon from this.

    2. Well Said

    3. Ambrose Bierce understood mystical collectivist mentalities: A distinguishing feature of socialism as we have the happiness to know it in this country is its servitude to anarchism. In theory the two are directly antithetical. They are the North and the South Pole of political thought, leagues and leagues removed from zones of intellectual fertility. Anarchism says: “Ye shall have no law”; socialism: “Law is all that ye shall have.” They “pool their issues” and make common cause, but let them succeed in their work of destruction and their warfare would not be accomplished: there would remain the congenial task of destroying each other.

  15. Abortion was not considered to be murder in 1973.

    1. And thus the whole purpose of the 'murder' claims.... Generally they (The Power-Mad) can't be justified in pushing people's PERSONAL LIFES around with Gov-Guns without some B.S. Science Claims...

      And Abortion isn't alone in this area of Bullying Science.
      Climate Change B.S. and propaganda...
      Smoking B.S. and propaganda.....
      etc, etc, etc, etc............... ALL POWER-MAD [WE] Gangs.

    2. So? Blacks were considered chattel in 1850.

      1. And today virtually everyone holds the moral belief that slavery is evil. Right now the anti-abortionists only have 15% and that number hasn't changed since Roe was decided.

        Slavery is an issue that, as people spoke out against it, the moral beliefs of the vast majortiy of people moved from acceptance to rejection. That has never happened with abortion.

        Anti-abortionists love to use the slavery analogy without realizing that it undermines their position. If abortion was such a clear and obvious moral wrong, the time, attention, money, and effort of the anti-abortion movement would have made people realize it over the last 50 years and embrace banning abortion. They have not, because slavery is evil and abortion is not.

    3. The States the 13th and 14th Amendments were written to restrain leapt at every opportunity to thrust women into prison for failure to sacrifice freedom and join the Credere, Obbedire, Combattere war on TR's race suicide ideas. In the 60s their churchly citizens were known to leave a book & Beatles albums burning to go chase and bully a pregnant lady.

  16. If we accept the premise that the entity in the womb is a rights-bearing person, it would logically follow that taking the life would be premeditated, first-degree murder. In this case both the mother (and the doctor, in the case of a surgical abortion) would both be guilty. Depending on the state, this could result in a sentence of death or life without parole for tens of thousands of people, mostly women, every year.

    1. Maybe [WE] Gang-ups are the very root of the problem in the USA.

    2. If a "rights-bearing person" is inhabiting a woman's body against her will, then removing it clearly and act of self-defense, not murder.

      1. That depends on whether we consider the womb as intimate a form of property as a lawn.

      2. Not surprising that a narcissistic sociopath Marxist like you would consider babies to be disposable chattel.

        1. What "baby"???

      3. What if the woman invited the tenant, fully knowing that the tenant would then need her to be able to survive for at least 9 months and more realistically a 8-10 years? Is that invitation without any consequences?
        I understand that many women would like it that way (Jack Nicholson's character said that he wrote from the point of view of a woman: "I think of a man, then I take away all reason and accountability.") But men seem to be a bit more interested in the "accountability" angle.

        1. There is no "invitation".

    3. Premise? It’s a fact. It is not an ‘entity’. It’s a human, with human DNA, a human cellular structure, and human sentience.

      1. You have an incredibly deficient understanding of what sentience is. First you need a brain. An embryo/zygote doesn't have a brain.

        You do the math.

    4. The Comstock Law (Search: "Republicans Banned ALL Birth Control") explicitly demanded that a mom's letter to a daughter explaining how to use the rhythm method to lessen the chance of pregnancy be punishable by 10 years on a chain gang and a fine in gold worth $300,000 of what the Kleptocracy now calls "dollars." Only my blog reproduces that law as text rather than blurry images of inkstains. These prohibition laws are hidden from view for the same reason Christian National Socialism kept its pro-altruism death camps a secret.

  17. Oh cool, another "libertarian" who thinks women being investigated (and charged) for murder when they have miscarriages is an acceptable cost to defend *your* principles.

  18. Even if you believe that life and rights begin at conception, it doesn't necessarily follow that society has the knowledge to make a better decision than the mother and her doctor/advisors.
    Hayek - knowledge - society.

    Course this has almost never been about loving fetuses as our unborn citizens and peers. It has been about infantilizing women as incompetent and tending toward slutty.

    1. And btw - if fetuses have rights shouldn't they have the vote too? I know we don't think 30 trillion debt is real money/servitude. But maybe they do.

      1. Not the vote, perhaps, but their parents should certainly start getting tax deductions upon fertilization.

        1. Thanks to; Crony Socialism and [WE] women 'empowerment' mobs.

      2. And fetuses should be educated about butt sex and cross dressing.

        1. I’m sure that’s something democrats would like to do.

      3. JFree: "People under 18 have no rights since they aren't allowed to vote."

        1. That's funny. So you think kids actually have rights of their own?

          1. They have the right to not be murdered.

            1. The situations are exactly the same aren't they.
              If a kid is at-risk from their mother, then a phone call will bring social workers out and within a few minutes the kid is separated from the threat and put in a safe space.
              If a fetus is at-risk from the mother, then the solution is to force the woman into continuing to support the fetus for many months. And indeed to prohibit any neglect that might increase the risk to the fetus.
              Golly. Maybe it ain't the fucking same thing at all.

              1. You’re gibbering.

      4. THAT idea would settle the issue: let every pregnant individual vote twice in all elections. If fertile women are to be singled out for coercion by a coalition of male bigots and female mystical harridans, proxyholders ought to cast that added vote on behalf of the object of the pro-altruist whack jobs' professed tender mercies. Scott Adams never thought of that idea!

    2. Life begins at conception. That is pretty clear. Is it human life? That's the question. Human life doesn't really begin until about 18 months of age, until then any fetus or baby is a potential human, a proto-human who does not yet possess full human qualities, such as self awareness or language. The question is why we would protect some proto-humans only starting at a certain point (third trimester of pregnancy or birth).

      1. ‘Potential human’. What else will it ‘potentially’ become?

        1. Unviable. More than 50% of fertilized eggs never become human beings. There's a lot that can happen between the beginning and the end of gestation.

  19. Calling a fertilized egg a person with full rights is insane. You are insane. Your argument is nonsensical. You are in a cult. You need to get deprogrammed or walk off a cliff, whichever gets you out of our orifices faster.

    Roe is the most libertarian regime you could hope for. Leave it up to the individual. It's a supposedly controversial moral disagreement, so the government should not be deciding it, if it can help it.

    States' rights is not the same as individual rights. For whatever reason *cough* desegregation *cough*, libertarians have conflated states' rights with liberty, a patently absurd proposition. It's no guarantee that individual liberty gets guaranteed by the feds. That's just sort of how it works out, at least with respect to certain states.

    1. You’re an ignorant fuck who should probably have his vocal chords and hands removed you don’t spew this obsequious Marxist drivel.

    2. Tony probably knows the state-restraining part of Roe was copied almost verbatim from the 1972 Libertarian Platform. National Socialist Republican bigotry is alienating members and voters. So this prohibitionist party of high tariffs, high taxes and shoot-first prohibitionism now wears a mask saying "Trump Likes Libertarianism," join us and help bully those bitches, beat the crap out of pothead blacks and beatniks and gradually ban all trade and production "for the children." The Borg seek to absorb us.

  20. There are NO pro life libertarians.

    A libertarian doesn’t want the State to decide the fate and most important decisions of half the populations.

    You are just Christian Radical Statists.

    1. So no rights for the baby?

      1. A fertilized egg doesn’t have rights. How would it ever exercise them? At that point, you’re many months out from an organism capable of even the most basic consciousness. It doesn’t have any thoughts, feelings, desires, wishes, or agency.

        Can an organism with literally zero capacity for agency or action have rights? I mean, we might as well be talking about giving rights to a head of broccoli.

        Ok, but say it does have rights.
        Do those rights then override the rights of a woman over her body?

        1. A one week old baby doesn't have any thoughts, feelings, desires, wishes, or agency. Do you think libertarians should accept infanticide? If you do, congratulations on being intellectually consistent.

          1. Well; Anyone who has ever seen a real baby knows that a load of B.S... but to the more important part. It is no longer in conflict with someone else's own body rights. Ya know; that LARGELY dismissed woman who most definitely has thoughts, feelings, desires, wishes, or agency..

            1. Wait a minute. If an unborn baby is a hassle, a newborn one is doubly so, many times in total conflict with a woman's thoughts, feelings, desires, wishes, and agency. So by that logic, a woman should be able to kill her child at any point up to the point where it is legally deemed an adult by the State if it interferes with her life.

              And that newborn baby may have desires, wishes, etc., but it certainly doesn't have agency, unless things have changed and babies can now feed, change, and bathe themselves, and move about freely.

      2. What "baby"????

    2. There are no pro abortion libertarians doesn’t want the state to sanction the cold blooded murder of defenseless babies.

      FIFY

      1. What "baby"???

    3. That's not true. Though I disagree strongly with their unfounded premise, seeing abortion from the perspective of a conflict of rights that favors the fetus' right to life is co.pleyely compatible with libertarianism.

      Leave the purity tests to the GOP and Dems. Libertarianism is strong enough to embrace differences of opinion, even on a subject as virulent as abortion.

      1. You’re not a libertarian. You’re a democrat.

        1. Never have been. Never will be.

      2. Singling out women for enslavement via coercion is Christian national Socialism, NOT libertarian platform nor objectivist ethics nor Lysander Spooner's careful separation of vices from crimes. Superstitious mystics want men with guns to force women to reproduce against their will. This is simply another version of the rapes practiced by both variants of Socialism in the Balkan wars and WW2, and in the Colonial South before Reconstruction.

      3. Semi-literates who have never really read their own Wholly Bauble or Koran can be counted on never to have read the 1972 and 1976 Libertarian Platforms. The LP wrote the key part of Roe v Wade and the suit originated in Austin, Texas. Ceausescu, Papal pederasts and all manner of ignorant prohibitionists were horrified that the 10-year sentence on a chain gang for writing about abortion was suddenly snatched away. Search "Republicans Banned ALL Birth Control"

    4. Petr Beckmann, Orwell and Ayn Rand warned against accepting Newspeak. The same mystics who insist on calling Freethinkers "atheists" are The Anti-Life chaptered in part 3 of Atlas Shrugged. The first third of Atlas was already written in 1947, while Christian National Socialists were being hanged and shot for slavery, genocide, racial collectivism and initiation of deadly force. See http://www.aynrandlexicon.com

    5. Christian National Socialism was Germany's pro-altruism and pro-coercion movement. The Republican party has been copying that model since 1920.

  21. What is missing from the abortion debate is responsibility by the man. After all, life doesn't begin with the egg. It begins with the sperm forcing the egg to fertilize. It is a coercive act and the ejaculator is the guilty party. They could have worn a condom - and didn't. They could have gotten a vasectomy and didn't. They could have chosen to refrain from spreading their seed and they didn't.

    Clearly then the best deterrence upon discovering that an abortion has occurred is to castrate the man who initiated the whole problem.

    Hmm. Wonder why prolifers never heard down that path?

    1. Your rage is making you extra stupid.

      1. All these male commenters telling this female author what she should think about abortion. And yet these same commenters post/like those memes which state that men cannot have an opinion on abortion. Weird.

        1. Why was it two weeks ago birthing people could have babies regardless of the biological apparatus they were born with, but now only "women" can have babies and men should be silent, but silence is violence, so even though I'm not a biologist I have to know what a woman is....Things have gotten so confusing lately.

          1. Democrats are living contradictions.

        2. Men are the ones voting to coerce and enslave women. There are female mystical brainwashees, even rented shills for Republican photo ops. In fact, Republican national socialist photos are where you see token Quisling females. Look at Google images of women in Ireland, Argentina, Canada after beating the crap out of girl-bulliers at the polls, and what you see are women plus a few males who understand "moral rights and political freedom."

    2. Because it’s an idiotic idea. Does that clear things up for you.

    3. Sure, sure; So every lawn company who plants a lawn in someone else's yard should have to mow that lawn for life.

      It's B.S. people telling others what must happen in their yard; but it's even MORE B.S. to be projecting blame of one's OWN yard onto others.. Which Women have been doing for a while.....

      Perhaps that's why Pro-Lifers feel the 'right' to dictate women.. Women have had their irresponsibly subsidized for years. (Empowering Women to STEAL by Gov-Gun Force!)
      If I had an ounce of retaliation; I'd be Pro-Life just out of spite.

      1. Ha so what have the pro-death folks been pushing.

        Pro-choice is a misnomer to make it sound OK

        It’s the only the choice of death people dispute

        1. What about all those 'dead' babies from abstinence? 🙂

          Anti-Choice is delusional; They've made up mythical creatures in their heads to save; but can't actually output a *real* creature.. So instead lives in a world of delusion and tries to force by Gov-Guns human reproduction processes.

    4. The Prohibition Party and GOP fascisti who began in 1976 to try to again force Comstockism on women heard that argument. A female congressman asked a girl-bullier about laws demanding castration and got no response. Bullies are invariably cowards.

  22. Interesting data point that I saw.

    Roughly half of all abortions are by women with incomes under the poverty line. Half the remainder are just above the poverty line.

    I never even really thought about that class dynamic. So maybe there is a market solution here. Women can sell the fetus and her womb rental to the highest bidder as a way of climbing out of poverty. If the bids do not meet the woman's asking price, then she can decide to abort.

    1. Where have you been? Many surrogates get paid. People pay big $$s for adoption

      1. Don't talk to me. Talk to those getting abortions. And if the price ain't high enough, then raise the price (hint - probably by magnitudes)

    2. Great idea.. Dear Pro-Life. Put your money where your mouth is :).
      Free-market solutions instead of Gov-Gun solutions...

      UR on to something there.

    3. That's frighteningly transactional, but not a bad solution. The free market solves a lot of problems that unnecessary regulations cause.

      Given how much money pro-choice organizations spend each year, they can afford to put their money where their mouth is.

    4. That would only address half the problem, since most baby buyers (OK, "adoptive parents" is the nice term) don't want Black babies.

      1. So half the ?problem? is allowing buyers to have choice?
        Getting pretty desperate here to maintain a narrative..

    5. Harriett Beecher Stowe covered the selling of children in Uncle Tom's Cabin and Dred. All arguments for threatening women at gunpoint then were couched in altruistically Christianizing the savages. Mohammedan arguments for stoning women to death in public squares are also couched in superstitious belief in invisible beings not discoverable via the four forces of nature or evidence of senses. Exponential functions are not kind to superstitious brainwashees.

  23. Roe is a trash ruling. SCOTUS invented a right out of thin air.

    I’m not as optimistic. Expect Kavanaugh and/or Barrett to squish

    1. It is SCOTUS 'ES Job to uphold 'the peoples' law over their government.

      There are many 'Individual Rights' in the U.S. Constitution ( the right to privacy, the right not to be enslaved ) in general terms, "the right to one's own body autonomy" that are easily inferred to generate the Roe v Wade ruling.

      Congress is binded by the people's law as it should be in the USA instead of some [WE] mob-gang dictation. Your State shouldn't be allowed to thwart the Constitution's Individual Rights premise by popular vote.

      The real meat of the issue is Pro-Life [WE] dictation mob wants to live in a delusional world where 'viable' is meaningless. Like pretending a foundation is but a house.

      1. Good grief; SCOTUS ruled that the State can enslave a pregnant Women after 'viability'.. How much MORE SLAVERY does the USA need? Any *excuse* to pull out the Gov-Guns.... Any excuse at all.

        1. Asking someone to assume a responsibility they got themselves into is not slavery. Asking someone to assume their end of a contract is not slavery. Let's not be hyperbolic

          1. Asking someone not to commit murder is also not slavery.

          2. ASKING someone that is not slavery. FORCING them to IS.
            Where is this "contract"? When is it signed? How is it enforceable, when contracting away one's basic rights normally is not?

            1. When you buy something from the supermarket, it's also not a contract (nothing to sign) but it is an agreement. They store cannot confiscate what you are holding in your hand just because you didn't sign a contract with lawyers present. It's commonly accepted that paying for the things you are holding means you are entitled to them. Same with sex - it is commonly accepted that the woman (birthing person?) has a risk of getting pregnant and this harboring a human life.

              1. You're babbling.

            2. There were white slaves in colonial America, transportees from England. The solution was to stop enforcing indentureship contracts. Later, a black plantation owner of a farm named Angola imported actual African captives as tillers of soil. The practice of breeding and coercing their descendants gave rise to the 13th Amendment. Forcing women to breed like slaves violates that amendment and the 9th. The upside is that we will FINALLY have a chance to get rid of the fascist half of the looter kleptocracy.

          3. Forcing women to reproduce is involuntary servitude. Libertarians understood the Second and 13th Amendments before 1973. Desperate fascist cross-dressers infiltrate the LP while their gnosse demand a constitutional Amendment forcing women to reproduce or die trying to resist. Search "Canadian Liberals and American Libertarians"

    2. Barrett won't squish. She is a true believer. It will depend on when Kavanaugh started drinking that day, but I don't think he will budge either.

  24. Nixon and Ford are the kind of "libertarians" who licked the boot-blacking off communist dictator Ceausescu of Romania. This was NOT because he defended individual rights--like Nixon and Ford, he exploited superstition as pretext for initiation of force against women. This was at a time when even other communist dictators understood that vertical population growth is "corrected" by sudden increases in death rates. Libertarians WROTE Roe v Wade and have been infiltrated by girl-bullying fascists. Read the original platforms.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.