Trump's Abortion Stance Is Convenient, but That Does Not Mean He's Wrong
His embrace of federalism is one of those rare instances when political expedience coincides with constitutional principles.

"On abortion," The New York Times claims, former President Donald Trump "chose politics over principles." In reality, Trump's recent clarification of his abortion position is one of those rare instances when political expedience coincides with constitutional principles.
In a Truth Social video posted on Monday, Trump said each state should be free to regulate abortion as its legislators and voters see fit. The result, he conceded, would be a wide range of policies, including liberal regimes that allow nearly all abortions as well as strict bans.
Through his Supreme Court appointments, Trump bragged, "I was proudly the person responsible for the ending of" Roe v. Wade, which for half a century overrode state policy choices by ruling out most abortion restrictions. With that obstacle removed, he said, "the will of the people" should prevail in each state.
That view jibes with what the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, a longtime Roe foe, imagined would happen after the decision was overturned. Scalia complained that Roe "destroyed the compromises of the past, rendered compromise impossible for the future, and required the entire issue to be resolved uniformly, at the national level."
Trump's statement nevertheless provoked criticism from pro-life activists who want to renationalize the abortion issue in the opposite direction. Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, was "deeply disappointed" by Trump's position, complaining that it "cedes the national debate to the Democrats who are working relentlessly to enact legislation mandating abortion throughout all nine months of pregnancy."
If those Democrats are successful, Dannenfelser warned, "they will wipe out states' rights." But the same could be said of Republicans who disregard Scalia's objection to Roe by trying to "uniformly" resolve the issue "at the national level."
In 2022, for example, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R–S.C.), who joined Dannenfelser in criticizing Trump's comments, proposed a federal ban on abortion after 15 weeks of gestation. Although such a law would cover only a small percentage of abortions, the bill dismayed many of Graham's Republican colleagues in the Senate.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R–Ky.) said most of them "prefer this be handled at the state level." Sen. John Cornyn (R–Texas) likewise said "my preference would be for those decisions to be made on a state-by-state basis."
Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R–W.Va.) concurred. "I don't think there's an appetite for a national platform here," she said. "I'm not sure what [Graham is] thinking," she added, "but I don't think there will be a rallying around that concept."
There was not. Graham's bill, which attracted just nine co-sponsors, died in committee.
What McConnell et al. described as a matter of "preference" and "appetite" is actually mandatory, because the Constitution does not give Congress the authority to regulate abortion. Graham implausibly invoked the 14th Amendment's guarantees of due process and equal protection, which apply to "any person," a category that he said includes fetuses.
Although some abortion opponents have long favored that interpretation, the Supreme Court explicitly rejected it in Roe and so far has declined to revisit the issue. More commonly, members of Congress, including Democrats seeking to protect abortion rights as well as Republicans trying to limit them, have relied on an absurdly broad understanding of the power to regulate interstate commerce that obliterates the constitutional distinction between state and federal authority.
Trump's embrace of abortion federalism makes political as well as constitutional sense. Republicans are dealing with the electoral fallout from Roe's reversal, including shifts in public opinion, rejection of stricter abortion policies by voters in red and purple states, and the surprisingly strong performance of Democrats who oppose those policies.
Given Trump's history of asserting extraconstitutional powers, his abortion stance probably is motivated by partisan concerns rather than federalist principles. But that does not mean he is wrong.
President Joe Biden, meanwhile, favors constitutionally unauthorized legislation that would re-establish a federal right to abortion. On this issue, Trump has improbably managed to claim the high ground.
© Copyright 2024 by Creators Syndicate Inc.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Be still my beating heart!
So seldom do I see any mention of any kind of principles in these pages, I thought at first it was some new writer.
"Given Trump's history of asserting extraconstitutional powers, his abortion stance probably is motivated by partisan concerns rather than federalist principles."
You just need to read down to the bottom to get to the crux of the problem. Any politician will try to spin his position to whatever is most politically expedient for the given audience. Trump is unique in that rather than spin "is" to "might be, or might not be", he simply refutes whatever he previously said. "Flip-flop" barely scratches the surface of this pro-choice Democrat while also being a pro-life Republican.
The fact remains that he brags about overturning Roe. Voters are not going to begin blaming their States for taking away their rights, especially when Trump keeps demanding the credit for it. Abortion is a losing issue for Republicans, whether they embrace murder sentences for women who have them, or whether they merely embrace stripping most of a woman's bodily autonomy. As it is, they know that their only hope of broadening support for their cruelty is through hyperbolic misrepresentations of legalized infanticide. Their arguments can't win on *actual* merits. So instead they pretend they are fighting an imaginary beast that only exists in East Foxnewsville.
A sore winner you are. Trump does EXACTLY the right, most libertarian thing and you still sing sour grapes.
Once upon a time, I was pro-life, anti-abortion. But with time I've come to the conclusion that, until viability (detectable brain waves), abortion is not so terrible. It's more like a suicide since the woman is killing her own potential offspring. But once the fetus is viable it's a different story. The kid is no longer 100% dependent on the mother and has its own burgeoning mental faculties.
People change their minds as they consider an issue from different points of view. Why can't Trump?
If anything, he was playing politics in 2016 and has come back to his earlier position.
What you're saying is basically the Roe v. Wade compromise that the court threw away.
But abortion bans are unconstitutional under the 13th amendment. If you give the fetus a proprietary right to the use of the uterus you in fact enslave the woman to it. Even if a fetus had full human rights it still wouldn't have the right to use force to make the woman use her body to support its life against her will. A fetus survives solely on the woman's good will.
The fetophiles will soon be here to explain to you that fucking somehow amounts to a woman entering a contract with the not-yet-existent embryo to allow it to be a tenant in her uterus for nine months.
If you toss a rock in the air and stand under it, you don't need a contract with it for it to be your fault that it hits you. No invocation of "Is a clump of cells alive?" or "Does it constitute a contract?" necessary.
The real question is, why would you try to convince women, people, of this obvious, simple cause-and-effect situation otherwise. Except to convince them to be as retarded as you are.
He's like Hank, but angry and constipated.
This is the moment you can tell you realize your argument isn't well constructed.
Except contraception fails and of course rape.
Rape is a valid criticism of mad's general comment above.
Contraception failures - not so much. Failure rates are well understood and fully disclosed. Use with that knowledge could be considered your consent and acceptance of the risks.
Rape is a valid criticism of mad’s general comment above.
Disagree. You're giving good faith where good faith is demonstrably unwarranted. You wouldn't disagree with "contraception failures" otherwise. Fudging the definition of rape or assault such throwing a rock in the air and the same rock returning under the force of gravity and hitting the thrower is not a valid criticism. Especially if the initial criticism was about fudging the definitions of murder, slavery, and the woman (or women's) agency.
Now, there is almost certainly a case to be had that I wouldn't drive three states over to enforce my local rape laws or invoke federal rape laws to change your definition or that, in practice the distinctions between our claims is immaterial but, again, *we* are not arguing that pregnancy = slavery, IceTrey is asserting it and you disagree with his fudging of definitions and/or bad faith.
Do we throw people out of airplanes if they signed up to go skydiving but then chicken out once they are up there with an open door?
The responsibility argument only matters if you presume that an embryo (8 weeks but prior to birth) is a person with rights. And even with that presumption, you run into a problem.
Pregnancy carries risk. That risk includes a risk of fatal complications. (~20 deaths per 100,000 live births is the typical statistic in the U.S) If a man is never legally forced to take a 1 in 5000 chance of dying for the benefit of another person, then no woman should ever have to either.
In the words of the inestimable Dave Chapelle:
I don’t care what your religious beliefs are or anything. If you have a dick, you need to shut the f— up on this one, seriously. This is theirs, the right to choose is their unequivocal right. Not only do I believe they have the right to choose, I believe that they shouldn’t have to consult anybody, except for a physician, about how they exercise that right.
Gentlemen, that is fair. And ladies, to be fair to us, I also believe that if you decide to have the baby, a man should not have to pay. That’s fair. If you can kill this motherf—er, I can at least abandon them. It’s my money, my choice. And if I’m wrong, then perhaps we’re wrong. Think that shit out for yourselves.
Right. No one male or female should be forced to be a parent against their will.
Disagree on both counts.
Is that supposed to be a "fair's fair" kind of argument? Carrying a pregnancy to term means: taking on the physical burden and risks of carrying a developing organism for up to 9 months, that will weigh ~7-10 lbs, if all goes well, and then having to squeeze it out of an orifice that is normally half the size of that object or less. If all does not go well: It could require major surgery to remove with less risk than a normal delivery. It could fail to develop properly, resulting in a miscarriage or stillbirth, where all of that burden and risk was for naught. It could result in a infant that has developmental problems that range from minor to severe enough to require a (shorter than average) lifetime of medical care. It could be viably healthy but pose an increased risk to the future health of the woman, or it could end up being fatal. It could have those developmental disorders I mentioned before, and include an increased risk of health complications, including death.
For the man: He could have to pay to support the child, assuming it is born, but he obviously could not forced to pay more than he is able to while still supporting himself.
I fail to see how these are in any way equivalent.
They are not nearly equivalent, which is why the woman should and does have all the power over the situation after the man has made his sperm donation. On the other hand, if the man isn't married to the woman and has not otherwise contracted to support the child, he should not be obligated to. No one should be involuntarily imposed upon to be a parent. Not women nor men.
Then the cunts should not be raiding the wallets of men or government coffers if you're going to give them a "get out of jail free" card for murder to avoid responsibility. And does thisnprincilpe apply to all other areas of life or just this one to get people to shut up?
I never see people that refer to abortion as murder really be willing to follow through with that. Or voice the logical conclusion of that thinking. I.e. prosecuting women that have abortions for murder, doctors that perform them for murder, nurses or other medical assistance for accessory to murder, etc. I can only conclude that you just use that language for the effect, not because you really believe it.
The US military, where men take the lion's share of the risks of dying, covers your 1 in 5000 and probably then some.
[Previous reply never posted.]
You mean the all-volunteer U.S. armed forces that include women serving in combat zones?
Since the Al-Qaida terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, more than 300,000 US women have been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. A total of 166 women were killed during combat operations and over 1,000 were wounded, according to the Washington, DC-based Service Women’s Action Network (Swan).
Except contraception fails and of course rape.
Right, stepping out of the way of the rock fails occasionally and is a reason why you should exercise some minimal forethought before tossing a rock overhead and someone else throwing a rock at you isn't the same as you tossing a rock in the air.
Again, 6 yr. old children are expected to understand this and your insane opposition explicitly makes exceptions for these cases, but you persist in your efforts to make yourself and others (seem) (more) stupid.
Ad hominen, you lose.
Your analogy is pretty water tight. Republicans are insisting that once she throws a rock up in the air, a pregnant woman may not step out of the way to avoid it. Government MUST prohibit any movement. Otherwise how can anyone be certain she will take a rock to the head?
Under further consideration, I'm thinking maybe that isn't the absolute winningest policy.
All these silly analogies fail because pregnancy is an utterly unique situation. It is unlike any relationship between persons. There is nothing analogous.
No, you're just dishonest as a method of argument.
What have I been dishonest about?
You mean the woman who willingly chose to have sex with full knowledge of the possible consequences? Fuck off with defending murder by claiming a right to total unaccountability.
And here he is. Took longer than I expected.
Libertarianism isn’t the freedom to ignore consequences of willful acts.
It is weird to me how your side is forced to claim individualism doesn’t occur until a magical non specific point in someone’s life. There is no consistency. And the conclusions of your beliefs set up an entire array of horrible that naturally extend from your beliefs.
At least be honest with your construction for what it is. Your entire argument extends post birth as stated below. So own your argument. Extend it to killing the 1 month old child.
Libertarianism is not the state seizing someone's body for the use of another.
Nobody siezed it.
Yours is a flaccid argument.
Seizing implies the baby entered by force lol.
The "baby" never "entered". It is created by the woman's body. The seizure takes place when the state prohibits the woman from controlling what goes on in her own body.
Damn, even the Virgin Mary needed help from god.
"It is created by the woman’s body."
Did you ever learn about the birds and bees?
Maybe he's a Muslim and thinks sperm is made in the spine. Who knows what they think about parthogenisis.
It must be your inability to recognize the humanity of the pregnant woman that makes you oblivious to the uniqueness of pregnancy and the glaring difference between a fetus inside her body and a baby outside.
Yes, did you?
If the woman's body created it --- why does it not happen at all times?
There seems to be something ELSE required for it to happen.
Where do you think it comes from? The Stork?
Oh fuck. Here we go again.
Look, nature is an unfair bitch. If nature was fair and balanced the male would have to carry the baby for four and a half months and suffer the same hormonal roller coaster the woman has to deal with.
But men don't have to deal with it. They can leave town and avoid their social responsibilities. Sure, the government can try to track him down and force him to pony up child support but that's clearly not a given as plenty of men manage to avoid their duties as provider of 50% of the genetic material for the child.
What at the time may seem a serious relationship on its way to marriage and a family can change drastically when the pregnancy test comes up positive. That's a strong smack of reality to what is often a young couple, maybe not even finished with high school much less any further education they may be hoping to gain.
Now into that mess of raging hormones, fear of the future, the problems of raising a kid on your part time job at McDonald's, dealing with angry parents and the social pressures of a peer group, dickheads like you toss a pile of religiously motivated guilt on these kids by saying gawd will hate you and send you to hell if you murder your unborn child.
Gee, aren't you so helpful.
A baby in the belly isn't something that can be compared to any legal bullshit. Sure, it's the natural result of sex. Sure the kids should have considered that consequence. Because as we all know teenagers have a fucking stellar record when it comes to making good choices about the future.
But all that be damned. They didst layeth as doth a husband lay with his wife and their sinful ways didst createth a life which thy gawd didst invest with a soul at the moment the holy sperm didst connect with the sinful egg and through original sin didst they bringeth a life into this ungrateful and sinful world. Thereforeth the babe must be grown inside the woman for she is a sinful creature whom cannot be the equal of man. The babe must be deliverethed and even if the man doth skippeth town the woman's sins make her fully responcible for all that passed between them and verily she must sucketh it up and serve the needs of the child until it telleth her to fuck off.
This is the 21st century. We've moved forward from your bronze aged religion and the number of people who think your gawd is a pile of bullshit is increasing. Stuff your holy book sideways up your ass and let people who think women are our legal equals with full rights as a human being naturally evolved from primates and carrying a shit ton of animal instinct baggage make the decisions here.
It is amazing how angry the kill baby movement gets when their logic is exposed as flaccid.
Lol.
Who invoked God here? I'm using the arguments your side is presenting and showing the logical inconsistencies. Your response was not a logical construction but meaningless gish gallop and ranting.
It is amusing though.
Flaccid?
So you say a lump of cells developing in a womb is a person. Vegans say animals are people.
I've worked with cows, pigs, chickens, and babies.
I think the vegans have the better argument. Cows, pigs and chickens can take care of themselves. Without the womb that lump of cells is dead.
So, when will you stop eating meat, since meat is made from "people"?
"The kids"
Wait, is the left championing under-18s only legal abortion movement now with it illegal for anyone over 18? Did I miss a memo?
Fuck you, I've never voted for a fucking Democrat.
I talk about kids because that's what these under 25 people are. Fucking kids. We infantize them for so long even when we give them the right to vote they aren't ready to make serious choices. Expecting them to consider every potential consequence when the hormones are raging is idiotic. Kids make mistakes and most people understand that hanging them out to dry isn't the right answer.
You want to sentance them to life as parents because you think it's a person at the moment of conception.
Sane people don't agree with you. Sane people let kids have a do over now and again.
I'll throw my $0.02 into this.
Personally, I think abortion can only be morally justified under fairly limited circumstances (which I am not going to detail here).
That said, I'm generally a minarchist.
I don't see any way to regulate any of this consistent with minarchist principles, so abortion should be legal.
I don’t see any way to regulate any of this consistent with minarchist principles, so abortion should be legal.
"Legal" like Alec Baldwin gets to shoot people in the face and Hunter Biden gets to snort blow off hookers' asses while Ashley Babbitt gets shot in the face for trespassing or "Legal" by a more 20th Century definition of murder where, if you anyone, rich or poor, crosses state lines, as long as they weren't involved in 20 abortions or a dozen abortions across 3 states, the most any given state or LEO could do was hope they came back to the county/state?
I agree, but have to insist at drawing the line at some point.
Say something like 18 weeks. One should be able to get their shit together and terminate that fetus in 4 months, and it's possibly (probably?) cruel, to do it after that.
Because, based on the same principles of forced labor, I don't see why we wouldn't allow a mother or father to kill their 1+ year old.
I also think the medical agent should be the only one held criminally liable. At least for the first offense. And then I'd still limit the penalty to judicially imposed norplant or similar.
Yes, i understand that's very unlibertarian.
What about rape?
It should be discouraged.
Social Justice is neither wrote,
You mean the woman who willingly chose to have sex with full knowledge of the possible consequences?
And you said,
Libertarianism isn’t the freedom to ignore consequences of willful acts.
So, what about rape? That isn't a woman having sex while having full knowledge of possible consequences or becoming pregnant through a willful act. You are ready to restrict abortion, but then make sure than any such restrictions are not applied to women that become pregnant due to rape, correct?
Leaving aside for the moment how you intend to determine whether the woman was legitimately raped, you would then find it acceptable to terminate a fetus that was the product of a rape when it is so unacceptable that you want to force a woman to remain pregnant until delivery (if the pregnancy doesn't miscarry first).
But the whole rationale for forcing a woman to continue her pregnancy against her will is the 'sanctity of life' of the fetus, which would not be guilty of the rape that produced it. That contradiction is, of course, what led Todd Akin to accept that pseudoscience of forcible rape causing a woman's body to "shut the whole thing down." How do you deal with that contradiction?
So no mercy for failed contraception or rape?
If "willingly chos[ing] to have sex with full knowledge of the possible consequences" only applied to women who never wanted to get pregnant in the first place, I would still disagree. But those aren't the only people affected by an intrusive Government. Women who desperately want to become pregnant are being sent away from emergency rooms if their nonviable fetus still has a hearbeat, regardless of whether it has any chance of survival. In fact some women in the process of miscarrying have gone into septic shock before hospitals have allowed their physicians and facilities to be used. And some hospitals have *still* refused because the laws are so vague as to put anyone involved at risk. Rape and incest victims are saddled with carrying their rapists offspring to term. It is indefensible until you bring the Bible into the conversation. Religion allows people to commit patently inhumane moral crimes while continuing to feel morally justified. If the Bible is required to form an opinion you can be certain the opinion isn't based on morality.
Thinking things through logically was never the point. If it was, then all of the laws passed in the wake of Dobbs would have carefully considered all of the issues you bring up, and the laws would have been written to resolve those issues in a way that respects women and doctors trying to deal with a terrible situation in the best and most ethical way possible. That these issues have been occurring with hardly any visible effort by Republicans in those states to resolve them in a rational and urgent matter, tells us all we need to know.
Extend your claims by one month post birth.
Nobody can force a woman into a slave contract and expend energy on another person. This means a mother can simply drop the 1 month old baby from her arms into a middle of the road and walk away.
Or maybe drop the baby into a forest at one month old and walk away. Who cares if the child dies. Nobody is forced to take care of it.
Say goodbye to all child neglect laws while we are at it.
This is the conclusion of your belief.
In most states (maybe all now, I'm not sure) that woman could simply hand over the baby to the state childrens' services authority and walk away. No need at that point to cause any harm to the baby if she doesn't wish to be a mother. But you realize that, and are being disingenuous.
And here is the problem of your entire argument.
How can the state force a woman to expend energy on another individual. That is what is being done under the duty of care law to hand the child over. Energy is being extended.
So you agree there is a duty of care that can be applied to an individual. You just want to pretend a fetus isn't an individual to remove the same duty during pregnancy. You agree the state can enforce an action, so you invent the magical birth canal fairy to avoid the same duty prior to birth.
You agree your original assertion is false since you agree the mother has to take some form of action post magical birth canal fairy. Lol.
It's early in the day to be hitting the bong.
And yet you've hit it fairly hard.
Good. You've admitted you have no argument or stance that can be consistently applied.
No, I'm just refraining from dignifying your ridiculous analogies with a serious response. Get back to me when you're ready for a reality-based conversation.
Reality hasn't seen hide nor hair of you in some time.
I'm not the one fabricating ridiculous "analogies".
Oops. The Religious Right doesn't like that either. They freak the fuck out over the concept of abandoning a child for any reasons. The woman didst beareth the child, yea verily she tis its eternal slave. Amen.
Again, only person invoking religion are those who are failing at logical argument construction.
It is very telling.
"she tis its eternal slave."
You're retarded.
You’re retarded.
Literally. 99.9% of the rest of the country is able to come to an agreement (or 50 or 3,243...) between "It should be legal in every case!" and "It should be illegal in every case, just like murder, but I'm not going to drive three states over to prevent one, murder or abortion, and probably wouldn't drive down the block if the woman was raped."
Except for the 0.01% who *need* to portray the latter group as insane anti-science zealots who've been enslaving women back to Cleopatra and trying to bring about A Handmaid's Tale for the last 2000 yrs.
There's a solid case to be had that every woman should have access to Plan B immediately after even an allegation of rape every inch, if not more, than every human should be able to access a firearm but, again, one side can't make that analogy because they don't believe people should have access to firearms *and* that women should be able to wait 6 weeks or longer to shoot any home invaders (which would normally constitute a murder or at least grounds for a trial).
Yeah bro, I still think one of our main problems is that many people can't seem to think outside of strictly binary terms. (By which, ironically, I may also be making a case for gender fluidity, if one is inclined to see it that way.)
It is you being disingenuous here.
If the mother can be required to take care of the clump of cells long enough to be dropped off at a state adoption center - then that requirement has no natural expiration date.
This, by your own example, she could be required to bring the clump of cells to birth and then drop the clump of cells off.
Why is it so fucking hard to terminate your fetus in a timely manner?
At some point, people are less able to convince or assure themselves that the fetus has no consciousness, and become less comfortable with the mother terminating it. Why does everybody have to argue this in bad faith?
A lot of that stems from focusing on Dobbs which didn’t change post-viable legislative powers one single bit. The 'change' was entirely Pre-Viable.
So that would extend to fetal viability, correct? Otherwise, a mother should also have the option of simply killing her newborn, if your logic is followed.
Or you just take the inferred (?propaganda?) ‘killing’ out of the equation and grant an Individual right to Fetal Ejection.
If a woman has the mental ability to drop a kid in the fucking woods then I don't think she will make a very good mother. Perhaps her abandoning the baby to be raised by wolves or some other superstitious fantasy is best for both of them. The kid dies before they are subjected to a horrible childhood with a mother who makes Cinderella's step mother look like a fucking Catholic Saint and the clearly mentally unhinged woman goes on to dye her hair an unnatural color and scream about the patriarchy or some such nonsense.
Man. Even dumber than your other 2 responses. You doing okay?
Why draw a line at all?
Cuz we can't draw a non-line, if you think about it. We just have to draw something, anything, and for whatever goddamn reason it always turns out to be a goddamn line! This is actually crisis inducing.
Extend your claims by one month post birth.
No. Even trying to play that game is an obvious red herring. The goal of abortion is not to kill a human being. It is to end a pregnancy that was either unwanted, or it was wanted, but now poses an unacceptable risk to the pregnant woman. Once a living infant is out of a woman’s body, abortion is completely irrelevant to anything else that might occur. No analogies you try to make involving a infant outside of the womb could possible shed any light on the issue of the legality of abortion.
Even the “one day before it is due” hypothetical is irrelevant. If there is any reason imaginable that a woman might want to not be pregnant at that point, and insist that something be done to make her not pregnant, then inducing labor would certainly be the safest and most efficient way to accomplish that.
Try and extend this argument back further to 8 months or 7 months, and you are still in red herring territory, as any laws that might be justified to restrict abortion at that point would not need to bar abortion before a fetus could be removed from the woman’s body and have a significant chance of long-term survival.
Pro-life advocates that talk about late-term abortion or try and imagine “post-birth” scenarios or analogies are not arguing in good faith.
^Excellent Point^
To all those drawing BS about post-birth ?abortion? the best counter-argument is, "Well, what about pre-sex ?abortion?". Can’t be killing the 'unborn' souls so by Pro-Lifes own arguments RAPE must start happening too.
Well said.
But abortion bans are unconstitutional under the 13th amendment.
Unless you're giving a fetus agency before you insist it's capable of having agency, the mother caused the occupation of her uterus.
Effectively, by your own premises, if someone causes someone else to become enslaved and then roofies themselves to forgetting it happened, the person who caused the enslavement is free to continue the contract or eliminate the slave as they see fit.
Certainly, if someone else, roofies the woman they're responsible but if the woman, somehow, "just forgets" or isn't aware she's as responsible as any drunk or narcoleptic who passes out behind the wheel and wakes up after plowing into something.
A deep drive to left field...
An easy related example.
Youre driving at 3am. While driving you aren’t paying attention and hit a pedestrian in the cross walk. Under your stance regarding a pre birth child, nobody can force you into a duty of care contract. So applying your beliefs above you can simply drive away without checking on the pedestrian or calling 911 in case of emergency.
The situation was caused by negligence. You didnt intend to hit the pedestrian. But nobody can force you into a contract or duty of care to expend energy on verifying the pedestrian is alive or in a healthy and safe place. So you can just drive away.
Again. This is the extension of the arguments you are utilizing to justify abortion.
The baby is an individual whether you like it or not. It has a separate set if DNA from the mother. A duty of care is established by an action taken even if by mistake. There is an expected duty of care just like if the mother drove into the pedestrian.
You simply want to isolate a single instance using inconsistent arguments to isolate a specific situation away from normal applications and expectations.
It’s early in the day to be hitting the bong.
Why do the kill the child chapters always devolve into this argument when their arguments get easily refuted.
It is strange.
Make your logical argument why the above is different. Difficulty. No magic birth canal fairy.
I have better things to do than try to explain the self-evident to someone playing dumb.
Wow. A pedestrian on the street is the equivalent of a lump of cells that has more in common with a cancerous tumor than a human.
You guys really are nuts.
Calling a fetus a cancerous climp of cells shows your own religious worship to abortion.
It is weird how quickly your side devolves when presented with their own arguments.
How come none of you can make a logical construction and resort to throwing out random terms like clumps of cells. Your argument is more emotional than it is logical.
When does the clump of cells with more in common with a cancer tumor become a person?
Holy shit you're retarded.
Read a fucking book.
Most people are comfortable with terminating a fetus during the stages where clump is an accurate description.
Most people are still comfortable when clump is no longer an accurate description, but the fetus is minuscule.
It's a shame that democracy offers no sane, compassionate solution to this problem.
The baby is an individual whether you like it or not. It has a separate set if DNA from the mother.
Why is that what matters? Genes aren't what makes individuals, experience is (consider identical twins). I'm more inclined to say that it is the mind and the ability to understand oneself as an individual that makes an individual human being. And that is obviously not the case in the very early stages of pregnancy, at least.
Nor is it the case in the early stages of childhood nor in some cases of the mentally retarded nor in some cases does he of the mentally ill.
Those are already considered murder and I don't think anyone is interested in changing that (well, someone is, I'm sure, but you know what I mean). This isn't an issue that's going to be solved when someone makes a perfectly logical argument. It will be a compromise based on peoples mostly emotional reactions to it. Most people don't think that an embryo has the same moral status as an adult human. Most people think that a newborn does. Somewhere in between there people are going to draw a line and there will always be reasonable arguments about where that line gets drawn.
Bingo. And that line is outside the realm of any government and lies solely with the individual storing the fetus.
"Storing the fetus" is a sexist, medieval way of looking at pregnancy. The woman is creating the fetus.
Organ transplants have separate DNA too. Organ donors don’t end up ‘owning’ the recipient of their donation. The Pro-Life mob like all Power-mad mobs will deny, manipulate and deceive anyway they can to gain the 'Power' to force Women to reproduce. It fulfills their selfish need to feel significant.
Ah, finally, collapsing into SPB2, sarc/mtrueman, or SQRLSY One-style "I shitpost for the sake of shitposting" eminently mutable idiocy.
You're a little light on the typical amount "Mad casual or casually mad? [smiley emoji][smiley emoji]... ... ..." that's so unquestionably valuable that people would absolutely pay this magazine to read more of, rather than saving time and sparing their sanity by muting.
You're arguing less right for a Womans own body than one's own car. Just because you invite a person in your car doesn't mean they're entitled to it until their destination is reached. And that's the level of respect of one's F'En Automobile. This is a persons own body.
Putting that level of respect of someone else's body literally compounds a right to RAPE as long as they're in 'your' car.
Judge Icetrey declare child neglect laws unconstitutional. Children have no right to enslave their parents.
So file your beloved neglect law charges, remove the child from it's location and move on as it is always dealt with. Not a single case in history is demonstrated where the State shows up with GUNS and enslaves the parents to take care of their children.
"If you give the fetus a proprietary right to the use of the uterus you in fact enslave the woman to it."
The fetus doesn't have a 'right' to be there--the fetus was forced to be there by a woman and a co-conspirator. The fetus was placed in a situation when it's trapped for around nine months before it can escape-- with most escape routes ending in death until after about 6 months.
The fetus was not "placed" there. It never existed anywhere else. It is a creation of the woman's body.
It is a creation of the woman’s body.
No, it is not.
A fetus is created by the joining of a sperm and an egg. This can be done in a petri dish.
Yeah, try that and see what happens. If you end up with a baby in your petri dish, that should get you a Nobel prize.
"with most escape routes ending in death"
And why do you think that is?
You want to pretend it's an Individual with an inherent right to life yet somehow it can't have life as an Individual. You're legislating *your* expectation and fairy-tale imagination and nothing else.
What pretense? Are you not an individual?
Or did someone come to you and bestow a mantle of individuality
after you were born?
The second the sperm joined the egg that was you.
If it had been washed out at that moment you would have died. You. Not a 'clump of cells'. You. You, today, are just more cells grown from that original cell.
Because that's what EVERYTHING starts as--a single cell formed from the haploid cells known as 'gametes'.
And that is exactly the premise your stance lies in. ?Murdering? cells that you *pretend* in *YOUR* imagination is a person. An imagination that has ZERO evidence or reality to it but is just a figment of your imagination.
Can't just believe what *YOU* want to believe and leave everyone else alone….. Oh no!!!!! Gotta get yourself some slaves using 'Guns' so you can feel oh so important.
Heaven-forbid anyone ends up with dead skin-cells on their hands!/s
Absolutely correct. Neither federal nor state governments should be involved in this issue. This is between the woman and her physician.
An Individual Rights issues getting sold off to [WE] mob 'democracy'.
The day-old baby is also fully dependent on its mother, although the mother can get help or give the baby away.
At about 18 -20 weeks the fetus exhibits brain waves, the same measure of human life we use at the other end of life. At that point the mother has had almost 5 months to eject it, so, yes, she has made up her mind and is obligated to take best care of it.
"the same measure of human life we use at the other end of life"
Which rings of Gov-Gun FORCED Healthcare. There are so many similarities. Except forced healthcare doesn't require people to FORCIBLY donate their organs like the Pro-Life mob insists even between family members. There's a massive ignorance displayed to the Woman's Individuality in every Pro-Life argument.
IceTrey's "Handmaid's Tale" argument applies only in the case of forcible rape. In all cases of consensual sex, the woman knows and accepts the risks.
Then look up the legal concept called "estoppel".
The later in the gestational period an abortion is requested, the more responsibility the woman owes to procrastination. Thus each state may reasonably assert rights on behalf of a fetus if a woman granted access to her womb and then allowed a dependency to form because she did not defend her womb rights in a timely fashion.
In all cases of consensual sex, the woman knows and accepts the risks.
If I sign a waiver to the company that is going to take me skydiving, I obviously know and accept the risks. Do they get to push me out of the plane if I change my mind once up in the air?
^THIS^ IceTrey hit's it right on the head.
The New York Times claims, former President Donald Trump "chose politics over principles."
Still waiting for the Times to do the same "politics over principles" thing about the Catholic in office who has been beating the pro-abortion drum.
The Catholic, former pro crime-bill, former "marriage is between a man and a woman damnit", former mental faculties haver, president.
Weird the times didn't notice him flip flopping on almost every principle he ever had
He obviously _never_ had any principles. It's questionable whether he was every even capable of remembering his positions and claims of a year before, but he certainly can't now.
He suopported the Human Life Federalism Amendment.
Democrats aren't expected to have principles.
BINGO!
And, they don't.
Exactly why their party launched the Pro-Life movement in the first place and Republicans wrote Roe v Wade.
Libertarian principle demands that abortion be allowed UNTIL labor under natural conditions where the fetus starts to establish itself as an INDIVDUAL covered by the Right to Life,
A fetus is NOT an individual and has NO individual rights up until labor starts
Wouldn't you know that an objective solution can usually be found to these issues
Ah, the Magic Birth Canals theory of personhood.
The magic of the fact that INDIVIDUALS have a Right to Life
NOT non-individuals!!!!!
With a mother’s approval, the fetus may share in the right to life of its mother – like a joint ownership
I have yet to decide on my view.
Refusing to wait for @reason to discover libertarian Social Rights that they should have worked out by now.
You didnt dispute the magical birth canal fairy. You just doubled down.
Nature is hard to legislate because it's a hard cold unforgiving bitch from which there is no escape. Where is your right to life when nature dumps six feet of snow and rips down the power lines? Where is your right to life when nature drops a hurricane, tornado, typhoon or earthquake?
Nature doesn't give a shit about your religious delusions or the laws you want to create based on those delusions.
Pregnancy is a natural process. Humans trying to legislate rules around that process will invariably have huge disagreements that nature doesn't give a fuck about.
Nature may kill the kid in any of the trimesters. Some kids die as the woman is giving birth. What the fuck do you want to do about that? Call it negligent homicide and toss the woman and doctor in prison? Some kids die months after being born for no fucking good reason. Nature strikes again and fuck your laws, prayers and bullshit superstitions. Who will you lock up when crib death takes a kid?
I was born breach and had the umbilical cord wrapped around my neck three times and tied in a fucking knot. No bullshit. I almost had a certificate of dead birth. I was blue, not faintly blue but cobalt, no fucking oxygen in the blood, blue. I was unresponsive and for all practical purposes was dead. But the doctor saved my life and I've been telling nature to fuck off for 54 years. If the doctor had been too tired or just didn't care enough I would have been dead.
How does that fit into your right to life world?
Considering the obvious loss of brain function due to oxygen withdrawal, I would still declare you partially dead for 54 years.
So individual rights are created by the magical birth canal fairy. Got it.
This is the oddity to me. I define an individual as a unique entity, isolated DNA, own functions.
You define it as a magical instance in time.
Except for pregnant women. You define them as state-owned incubators in service to the fetus.
I get you have to bluster to try to isolate arguments. But even above you admit the state can force the mother to carry and hand off a 1 month old, expending energy.
Be consistent in the application of your arguments. You are not.
Nobody is kidnapping women off the street to impregnate them you retarded cunt. People are expecting a culture of responsibility for the outcomes of freely chosen actions without resorting to harming others if those outcomes happen to be inconvenient.
Seriously? Responsibility? That's the bullshit your shoveling now? How about the man being responcible for half the genetic code of the kid. Will you enslave him into having to pay for the kid as well? Will you put an end to his hopes and dreams as well because he shot his wad into a girl he might have loved or just lusted after? All because his hormones overrode what little common sense he had?
We have more than enough teen aged mothers whose lives are destroyed because their hormones did the thinking. They wind up on welfare and become Democrats. I've read plenty of messages here by your fellow cross cultists that are a variation of Democrats need to die to fix things. Wouldn't it be better if the unborn died and the woman wasn't enslaved to the Democrats?
Democrats should be allowed to be aborted until 30 years old, at the very least.
Rather than a culture of self-ownership and human rights. You know this is supposed to be a libertarian site, right?
The only harming others going on is harming Pro-Life's imagination. Reminds me a F'En childish imaginary creatures. Don't sit on my imaginary friend! claims.
Except for pregnant women. You define them as state-owned incubators in service to the fetus.
A woman and a man force a fetus into existence in a place where it can not leave for nine months without risking death.
They trap that poor person there--they have no right to kill that person for being the victim of their entrapment. No matter how much it inconveniences them.
So all parents should be prosecuted for kidnapping?
FORCE =/= A natural occurrence. FORCE is the result of Gov-Guns or restraints.
It never ceases to amaze me the amount of retarded-ness that gets displayed with Power-mad people are after Gov-Guns of Force.
"This is the oddity to me. I define an individual as a unique entity, isolated DNA, own functions."
True of every organism on our planet! WHERE does the sacredness of HUMAN DNA come from?
http://www.churchofsqrls.com/Jesus_Validated/#_Toc117957741
QUESTIONS THAT THE FANATICS WON’T EVER ANSWER: What do YOU think that the punishment should be for deliberately killing a fertilized human egg cell? Ditto the punishments for likewise killing a fertilized egg of an ape... A monkey... A rat... An insect... If your Righteous Punishments From on High are DIFFERENT in these cases, then WHY? WHERE do the differences come from? And what gives YOU (or the 51% of the voters) the right to punish the rest of us?
Never, ever, have I gotten any serious answers, when I pose these questions, about what the PUNISHMENTS should be! (Could it be that the fanatics don’t want us to focus on THEIR obsession, which is their smug and self-righteous “punishment boners”?). Also, the unwillingness to answer questions is strongly indicative of authoritarianism. At the root here is the unmistakable attitude of “Because I said so, peons! Do NOT question your Rulers!”
As something that may not exactly be part of the human species, I can see why it would be a mystery to you that humans would prefer humans.
But us humans will continue to dominate this planet. Because we can. Now go grab a napkin, if your species also happens to do that thing where water is being released from the eyes. You sure write like it does. Your writing looks like your species does it all day, in fact
So when the aliens from intergalactic space cum all over ye and take all of yer shit, because you didn't have yer property deed properly written in dilithium crystals... I will be sure SNOT to cry in my beer for ye! Selfish assholes, meet karma!
Yeah, psychotic, ineffective, irrelevant, inert losers in their basements hoping for aliens and fairies to bring about da karma. Talk about punishment boners.
Given our ability to dominate and also extinguish everything else that lives on this planet, it's probably inaccurate to call us animals. We have superanimal abilities. So I understand that your species would be upset about our existence.
Don't worry though if you hate us. The next species that may be able to dominate us the same way we can dominate animals is probably in the making already.
So then might makes right? Ass ye have done unto others, prepare to have shit done unto ye! Karma is a BITCH!!!!
If that is so, what have you done that made karma turn you into the disaster you are?
Unfortunately, might makes right even internationally, let alone between species. Does that do something to your schizoid mental defenses?
5.56.666.sick-sick-sick accesses the internet from the psyche ward by spinning its head 360 degrees and more, repeatedly, and barfing green-gray spilled-split-pea soup all over everyone, and growling, “Satan PROMISED me internet access, and you’d better NOT get in MY way, dammit!!!”
5.56.666.Sick-Sick-Sick might want to read the below…
A helpful book is to be found here: M. Scott Peck, Glimpses of the Devil
https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1439167265/reasonmagazinea-20/
Glimpses of the Devil: A Psychiatrist's Personal Accounts of Possession
If “miracle happens here” and 5.56.666.Sick-Sick-Sick gets an exorcism, it needs to recall, you MUST actually PAY your exorcist… Or you might get…
…
…
…
… Re-possessed!
Lol, I win.
Note: When squirrel starts spinning in copy paste error state, that's when you know you won.
I think this copy pasta is funny though, ima bookmark.
Im not saying I like that, by the way.
"You define it as a magical instance in time."
Pure projection! The vast majority of womb-slaver-drivers think that the (actually drawn-out in time) process of fartilization is a "magic instance in time"! Fart off, Magic fartilization fairies!
+100000; Well Said.
What is it about labor - something that is solely the mother - that is special here?
What is the fetus doing at this point that establishes itself as an individual.
At 18-20 weeks the fetus has brain waves. That is the distinguishing feature we use for people at the other end of life. Should be the same at the start.
Lots of animals have brain waves!!! Thou shalt kill NO animals who have brain waves!!!
People at the end of life are not inside someone else's body almost literally drinking their blood. These analogies to other human situations are always silly. Pregnancy is an utterly unique human condition.
inside someone else’s body almost literally drinking their blood.
Do you know anything at all about pregnancy?
Do you know what that word "almost" means?
Why does it have rights when labor starts?
At that point abortion and birth are the same thing, so there's no longer a question.
I don't agree with this 'No right to life till birth' because there is an inherent right to life before birth.
But I will say the "protected citizen" is triggered in the US Constitution at the state of 'born' (exact word).
But even if one entity has a right to life that doesn't automatically give it a right for 3rd parties to to enslave anybody; even it's mother.
One of the mistakes surrounding Roe v Wade was that it was too Pro-Life in that it still allowed states to violate the 13th and force reproduction post-viable. All along it should've just granted complete Individual Rights to ones own self and deemed the fetus person-hood at viability which would actually address the issue correctly in that the mother could retain full 'ownership' of herself by fetal ejection ?C-Section? while not denying the fetus any inherent right to life it may have.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2024/apr/08/donald-trump/donald-trump-explains-his-abortion-policy-with-fal/
Donald Trump
stated on April 8, 2024 in a video posted on Truth Social:
Democrats support abortion measures that result in the “execution” of babies “after birth.”
truefalse = = The Donald is Full of Shit!!!
Wingnut useful idjits CAN be relied upon to repeat the fibs!!!
TDS explains an obsessive compulsive emotional problem where ones entire politics revolves around a single person of de-stain and has nothing to do with anything else.
True or False?
Here at Reason the ones with real obsessions with Trump are also the one's who self-project it constantly by trying to blame everyone else of being obsessed with Trump literally while they continue to revolve everything around Trump.
True or False?
Federalism means that an 1864 abortion law in AZ is enforceable. How do those supporting the idea of Federalism feel when the AZ Attorney General say that she will not enforce this law? If Trump keeps his word and allows the states to decide we have chaos like this.
How do federalists feel when government employees decide they will not enforce laws they disagree with?
Unsurprised is my main reaction.
Oh, you think abortion is the cause of this. Got it.
Arizona already passed the 15 week law in response to the challenge. It will be easy for them to undo the 1864 law as they already took steps to replace it.
But of course you're using it as a meaningless liberal talking point.
The AZ attorney General doesn't set policy for municipal and county courts.
We have always had this 'chaos' - or are you saying the whole country should have the exact same laws?
How do you feel when a sanctuary city declares it will not enforce laws?
Pot is legal in a lot of state because they stopped doing what the federal government told them to - you're fine with 'chaos' there.
I have a feeling this judge is a democrat and made this ruling strategically.
I think Trump's stated position comports with the majority of Americans. It is a compromise.
I sympathize with those who say "ABORTION IS MURDER!". I also sympathize with those who say "IT IS A WOMAN'S CHOICE". I find the people shouting about it (both positions) to be very annoying, hence not capturing any good will from from me, or anybody else.
Except the people "shouting" abortion is murder are actually quietly praying that abortion is murder outside abortion clinics and getting arrested for it. While abortionists are actually getting and have gotten convicted of actually murdering full term babies and people still shout in support of them.
Making your disinterested, equivocation effect seem more like passive support of totalitarianism every bit as much as Reason's out-of-hand assertion that any given COVID restriction is or was reasonable.
While abortionists are actually getting and have gotten convicted of actually murdering full term babies and people still shout in support of them.
What color is the sky in your reality?
Really shouldn't wade into this but I'll offer a perspective. In my rather lengthy lifetime I've had personal experience with abortion. In at least one instance I've found it to be morally justifiable by my personal standards, for whatever that's worth. In others I do not believe it to be morally correct. It's been my experience that challenges encountered in life leave you with at least a little wisdom and the ability to draw some kind of conclusion. On this issue it turns out, that has not happened in my case. I'm pretty sure I'll die without figuring it out. In any case it seems that politically we have no choice but to codify this procedure and accept some limitations, or none, on a federalist basis. Trump's position seems to accept that reality and is probably closest to the general consensus.
"What McConnell et al. described as a matter of "preference" and "appetite" is actually mandatory, because the Constitution does not give Congress the authority to regulate abortion. Graham implausibly invoked the 14th Amendment's guarantees of due process and equal protection, which apply to "any person," a category that he said includes fetuses."
I think this overlooks the much more obvious rationale, which Graham would never endorse, that abortion regulations and federal protection of abortion rights or limited abortion rights would be authorized as an act of Congress enforcing the Equal Protection Clause because it furthers the equality of *women* as opposed to unborn fetuses.
Read what Dobbs really means.
https://bit.ly/3PPfoPn April 4, 2024, CityWatch, The Three Worst Supreme Court Decisions, by Richard Lee Abrams
And you left a link to your irrational stupidity. Good show!
"Thus, under Dobbs if the voters of Kentucky decide that all women over 40 who become pregnant must have abortions, that will be the law."
State legislators know that no matter what position they take, they'll piss off 2/3 of the electorate (because 1/3 hold one extreme, 1/3 hold the opposite, and 1/3 are somewhere in the middle thinking that extremists are evil).
So here's a dodge for legislators in states that have the referendum: Ask voters "At the end of what month of gestation should a fetus acquire legal protection?" (which may have an exception for saving the life of the "birthing person"). Have each voter select a number from 0..9.
Then, instead of using the number receiving the most votes, go to the median -- the number where at least half of the electorate thinks legal protection should attach there or earlier. That then would become the month after which abortion would become restricted.
And the question could be placed before the states' voters periodically -- perhaps once each four years -- so that the number of pissed-off progressives and pissed-off reactionaries would forever remain balanced (and the state's legislators would be forever freed from taking sides).
Trump might have the high ground (federalism) over Biden (democracy) but he's still Constitutionally wrong that the issue is a 'democratic' one. It's an Individual Rights issue.
The fact that some Pro-Life Republicans are trying to invoke the 14th for Reproductive Slavery is humorous since the 13th is precisely where a Right to Abortion resides (violation by involuntary servitude) and the pair of Amendments were passed together.
If mom says 'I want my baby' and at 6 weeks someone kills it, it's murder.
If mom says I don't want it and at six weeks has an abortion it's fine.
Can you not see the wrongness with this?
But it gets worse.
If mom is killed and they don't know if she wanted the baby, the charge is double murder.
In EVERY instance, except the one in which the woman does not want the baby, the fetus is recognized as a person.
Yet still we do this mad, murderous dance.
Every Woman should count as 'double murder'. Isn't that what your praising? Heck; Maybe she wants a family of 20. Does that count as 20-homicide counts? Imagination run amuck.
Pro-Life can 'save' all the ?babies? it wants to it's hearts desire.
They just can't use Gov-Guns to enslave/take a Woman with them against her own will.
Now do tell; What part of that violates anyone's 'rights'?
Guess who's coming out to play with their army of imaginary friends who will magically make YOU disappear???
That's right; Mr. Pro-Life.