Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

The Death of Pro-Choice Republicans

The GOP once prided itself on being the big-tent party on abortion that — unlike Democratic fanatics — didn't have a litmus test on its candidates.

The GOP once prided itself on being the big-tent party on abortion that—unlike Democratic fanatics—didn't have a litmus test on its candidates.

Those days are long gone. Today, the GOP is growing so shrill on the issue, it risks riling its base and creating a Manichean conflict that it cannot control—just as happened on immigration.

Every GOP presidential aspirant is trying to outdo the others in brandishing his or her pro-life bona fides. At the recent GOP presidential debate, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) declared that he believes future generations will "call us barbarians for murdering millions of babies." Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee proclaimed that he'd invoke the 14th Amendment to offer equal protection to fetuses. Even former New York Gov. George Pataki, the most moderate of the lot, insisted that he'd ban abortions after 20 weeks. They all promised to defund Planned Parenthood given revelations that it was selling aborted fetuses. Former Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina even pledged to shut down the government if necessary to do so.

Planned Parenthood might well deserve what it gets. But this is a remarkable shift for a party that until 1976 didn't even mention abortion in its platform—and then only to acknowledge that the GOP was deeply divided between the pro-choice and pro-life camps. Four years later, however, the issue was summarily settled when the platform called for a constitutional amendment protecting "the right to life for unborn children." By 1992, the party's official platform included a call to appoint judges who opposed abortion. And a decade later it mentioned abortion 19 times in nine sections, even referring to it as an "atrocity." Now the GOP has reached a point that someone like Sen. John McCain, who is personally pro-life but believes it would be presumptuous to impose his position on women, couldn't come within hailing distance of the GOP nomination. There is no place in today's GOP for a pro-choice Republican.

What happened? For one thing, the GOP is desperately seeking a victory in the culture war. Gay marriage and abortion were the two main fronts in this war. And with the gay marriage battle now irreversibly lost, it is vital for the GOP to advance on abortion if for no other reason than just to keep its spirits up. Moreover, this is one issue on which pro-life conservatives see an opportunity to seize the moral high ground from the secular left by forcing it to oppose the rights of the ultimate disenfranchised victims: unborn children. The moment seems especially ripe to press this cause, given that millennials, having grown up with ultrasound pictures of themselves on their refrigerators, seem more receptive than any previous generation to a pro-life message.

But there is a real danger that the GOP is seriously overplaying its hand.

For starters, as my Reason colleague Elizabeth Nolan Brown has noted, the pro-life uptick in public opinion might already be a thing of the past. A Gallup poll released last month found that the pro-choice position is, once again, leading among Americans, with almost 50 percent identifying with that label—as opposed to 44 percent with the pro-life stance. What's more, young people's embrace of the pro-choice label, at 53 percent, is back to where it was in the early 2000s after dipping to the 40s in the middle of the decade.

This is not unusual. Support for abortion has been going up and down for decades. Georgetown University's Clyde Wilcox pointed out some years ago that this support was at a record high in the early 1970s after Roe v. Wade but then dropped in the 1980s—only to rebound at the end of the decade, and then decline again in the 1990s. Subsequently, it picked up in the early 2000s and reversed some years later, until now, when it is up again.

There has never been any sea change in public opinion with support for one side or the other plunging precipitously or soaring mightily. Opinion has tended to remain pretty solidly in the middle with a few-point swing on either side.

And there is a reason for this: Abortion is a difficult issue that does not admit a simple right or wrong answer. Indeed, Wilcox maintains, surveys show that with some polarization in the pro-life direction, people make remarkably nuanced moral judgments based not just on the stage of a pregnancy but also on circumstances. For example, respondents are much more willing to allow abortion for teenagers than married career women and poor, single moms than married couples.

If this is true, then the GOP leadership's overheated anti-abortion rhetoric might well end up painting the party in a corner from which it will have a hard time extricating itself. This is exactly what has happened on immigration. The insistence of folks like Rush Limbaugh that every undocumented worker is an affront to the rule of law and national sovereignty unworthy of "amnesty" has made it impossible for the party to make any reasonable compromise. Every time it tries to do so, its base revolts, forcing the GOP to back off.

Something similar might happen on abortion. In the wake of the Planned Parenthood scandal, the conservative commentariat is going to such extreme lengths to portray the organization as extremist that it won't leave its own party much room to maneuver.

David Daleiden, the man who produced the Planned Parenthood videos, told National Review that the purpose of his exercise was—as the headline noted—to "end the tyranny of euphemisms" and show "buyer and end users haggling over the price of living children and negotiating the ways they will be killed in order to do experiments that they want."

"Living children"? "Killing"? Seriously? Such terms used to be reserved for late-term abortions, even in the pro-life camp. But the majority of fetuses in Daleiden's footage were 12 weeks or under, with some in the first month of the second trimester. Deploying such lacerating terminology is meant to create an equivalence between early-term fetuses and live children. This implies that every abortion at any time regardless of circumstances is murder.

This is not a position that is in sync with the intuitions of the vast majority of people. Indeed, even those who self-identify as pro-life have a hard time with a blanket ban unless there are exceptions for rape, incest, and mother's health. When the GOP tried to impose a 20-week abortion ban with an exception for rape only if the victim filed a police report, pro-life female GOP leaders such as Reps. Rene Ellmers (R-N.C.) and Jackie Walorski (R-Ind.) revolted, forcing the bill's authors to back off.

But the new terminology will make such compromises untenable. Why? Because if all abortions are murder, then isn't the rape exception tantamount to "killing babies" for the sins of men? Yet if "babies" are allowed to be "killed" for their fathers' transgressions, then by what moral standard can we force mothers who slip up to give birth except as a punishment for their turpitude?

What all of this shows is that in its obsession for moral clarity, the GOP is trying to shoehorn an enormously complex issue into a black-and-white framework. This will embolden its anti-abortion religious extremists while undercutting the party's ability to deliver on its inflated expectations, just like on immigration. It would be better for the party's political health to return to its big-tent days, when it admitted disagreement and conflict on abortion. That was perfectly reasonable.

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.

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    I looked up "Concern Trolling" on google and it led me to this page..

  • DenverJ||

    Yes, it's nice that Shikka is so concerned for the well being of the GOP.
    Also, you know who else was a "big tent" kinda guy?

  • Kevin Sorbos Manful Locks||

    PT Barnum?

  • Win Bear||

    Concern trolling means you don't have a stake in the outcome. For libertarians, yes, self-destruction of the Republican party is very much a personal concern. And no matter what you personally may believe about the morality of abortion, politically, it's hurting the GOP.

  • rocks||

    Not sure how the GOP leaving the pro-murder camp is necessarily a bad thing.

    That is the problem with newspeak (i.e. pro-"choice") it masks you from the truth. It's not pro-choice its pro-abortion. People don't want to use that wording though because when you talk about what choice you're supporting for some reason people stop supporting you.

  • brady949||

    ^This is pretty much what the article is talking about in a nutshell.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Newspeak consists of both extremes rejecting equal, unalienable and/or God-given rights, to impose their political agenda with force.

    Extreme pro-choicers deny the fetal child's unalienable right to Life.
    Extreme pro-lifers deny the woman's unalienable right to Liberty
    Both rights are precisely equal, per a quick glance at any dictionary, or the 5th and 14th Amendments. But they cannot seem to grasp the concept of competing rights which they teach (or did teach) in high school.

    How can we take sides between two morally corrupt losers?

  • rocks||

    The woman does have liberty, she CHOOSE to get pregnant, even if it was unintentional it still took an action that two people engaged in.

    That is another problem with the "choice" word. The choice is to get pregnant.

    What people don't want is to accept responsibility for their actions

  • Michael Hihn||

    What people don't want is to accept responsibility for their actions

    Accept responsibility for your own insufferable arrogance.
    On what authority do you reject the entire moral foundation of our republic -- equal, unalienable and/or God-given rights? HOW DARE YOU.

    And (laughing) how do we lose our most fundamental human rights by HAVING SEX?

    If you say sex is only for procreation, I'll laugh even harder and send you to a website that will teach you how sex for procreation only the lower animals ... by God's Own Will. Do you also defy the clearly expressed Will of God?

  • obadiahlynch||

    There's no such thing as an 'extreme pro-choicer'. Pro-choice is the mainstream, moderate position.

  • Michael Hihn||

    There's no such thing as an 'extreme pro-choicer'. Pro-choice is the mainstream, moderate position.

    You said that in public? Two totally different concepts.

    Take any mainstream position. Every single one includes extremists and zealots. In this case, extreme pro-choice means totally rejecting fetus's equal, unalienable and/or God-given rights -- as in partial-birth abortion. If you think that rejecting our founding principles and accepting partial-birth abortion is mainstream, then I have a bridge to sell you. Probably two or three.

    (Extreme pro-lifers reject the woman's unalienable rights. So both extremes are anti-individual-liberty.)

  • EndTheGOP||

    One thing is for sure. If the republicans insist on carrying on with their Wars on Women, Gays and Drugs, they will lose themselves into oblivion.

    GOP RIP

  • Hank Phillips||

    Good riddance. I'll miss God's Own Party about as much as I'll miss the Islamic State with its identical brand of sick puppies.

  • Alsø alsø wik||

    The terrain of the debate should be shifted from "when life begins" vs "women's control of their own body" - a debate that will never end and will almost always hurt repubs - to one of "when should a woman be required to assume ownership of her baby?"

    Turn it into an argument about responsibility instead of one about negative rights. That's how we do it with men: once he blows his load it's out of his hands, whatever reproductive rights he might have had are rendered moot. And society is mostly cool with that. So why not an equivalent for women that takes into account the gender-specific phenomenon of gestation?

    No, we won't force you to carry a baby to term and change your life forever (for better or for worse) when you don't even know you're pregnant. But once you do know you're pregnant, at what point do you own the consequences of your actions?

  • Michael Hihn||

    Why deny a woman's unalienable right to Liberty ... which is equal to the fetal child's right to Life? (See dictionary)

    Both extremes try to impose their own view by force. Extreme pro-lifers reject the woman's right to Liberty. Extreme pro-choicers reject the fetal child's right to Life. If Americans stay in the middle, they reject BOTH extremes. Perhaps they sense this is a case of conflicting EQUAL rights, as we’re taught in high school. Fairness is an American virtue.

    Shikha is correct to wonder what the hell the GOP s doing. Extreme socons have NEVER determined a GOP nominee. Rank-and-file Christian conservative are not that invested in the issue, as proven by Reagan.

    Reagan was very devout and public in his faith, but constantly attacked by Robertson and Falwell as "all talk." At his 1980 campaign, Reagan (like Goldwater) was a public defender of homosexuals. The rank-and-file stood with Reagan, against their religious leaders.

    With 40 years in retail politics, I know that most Christians simply want a devout Christian in the White House -- like Reagan, who they still adore. Their faith allowed them to trust Reagan's faith, and feel safe. I say that as an atheist who's always had strong support of Christians. It's amusing. Once they learn I'm an atheist they start looking for values, and I do respect anyone who lives their values on a daily basis. That's all I ever needed for many political victories.

  • Mickey Rat||

    If thr child has an unalienable right to life than that can no more be taken away by law. Such an impasse means that you cannot satisfy both conditions and what to do is not obvious. If the child's right to life must give, then life is not an unalienable right by the rules you want to go by.

  • Berserkerscientist||

    What is an "unalienable right to life"? If you are the only blood donor that matches my needs, can I force you to donate if I'm about to die? Of course not. That is ridiculous.

  • ace_m82||

    By "unalienable right to life", I believe he, and Thomas Jefferson for that matter, meant a right not to murdered.

    The real question comes about when you have created the human being, do you have to provide it sustenance until it can do it itself or it can be done by someone else.

  • Michael Hihn||

    By "unalienable right to life", I believe he, and Thomas Jefferson for that matter, meant a right not to murdered.

    Umm, he also said unalienable. Which means equal, cannot be taken away. Are you saying Jefferson and the founders did not know what they were talking about? Or just choosing what to accept, and on what basis?

    The real question comes about when you have created the human being, do you have to provide it sustenance until it can do it itself or it can be done by someone else.

    Now you say we can implant a 3-month fetus into another woman. Any examples?

  • ace_m82||

    he also said unalienable. Which means equal, cannot be taken away.

    I've never heard "unalienable" being used to mean "equal" before in my life. And considering all the Founders knew that humans die, do you think they meant it as "unable to be taken away" full stop or simply "unable to be taken away" by another human, legitimately? Which is the simplest explanation?

    Now you say we can implant a 3-month fetus into another woman. Any examples?

    Under no circumstance did I say that. Read the statement again and try to apply it generally, not in whatever example happens to pop into your head at the moment.

  • Michael Hihn||

    I've never heard "unalienable" being used to mean "equal" before in my life.

    Your sources suck, and you keep refusing to check a dictionary

    And considering all the Founders knew that humans die, do you think they meant it as "unable to be taken away" full stop or simply "unable to be taken away" by another human, legitimately? Which is the simplest explanation?

    (yawn) No difference. No human may deprive either party's, and legislators are .... HUMANS (gasp)
    You just confessed to lying in your first statement.

    Now you say we can implant a 3-month fetus into another woman. Any examples?

    Under no circumstance did I say that.

    WHOOOSH.

    Read the statement again and try to apply it generally, not in whatever example happens to pop into your head at the moment

    You are so fucking dishonest. "Generally" means in all cases, so you're STILL a fool.

    Pay attention, stalker.

    hen you have created the human being, do you have to provide it sustenance until it can do it itself or it can be done by someone else.

    WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FETUSES.

    "when you carry a 3-month-old fetus, do you have to provide it substance through your own umbilical cord, or can it be done by somebody else."

    IT CAN'T.

    Own up to your nonstop screwups. Be a man. (or woman whichever)
    And stop stalking me.

  • ace_m82||

    Your sources suck, and you keep refusing to check a dictionary

    Just looked up another 7 definitions and found zero that refer to the word "equal".

    No difference. No human may deprive either party's, and legislators are .... HUMANS

    You have no right to murder.

    You are so fucking dishonest. "Generally" means in all cases, so you're STILL a fool.

    Perhaps you should look up the dictionary definition of "generally" now... Also, I didn't talk about implanting anything into anyone.

    Pay attention, stalker.

    Believe me, I could stalk you if I wanted to simply annoy you. You have many posts I ignore as they don't interest me. So do most other people, for that matter...

    WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FETUSES.

    Yes, we are. Also, about other live human beings. We're trying to figure out if they have the same rights as other live human beings.

    "when you carry a 3-month-old fetus, do you have to provide it substance through your own umbilical cord, or can it be done by somebody else."

    IT CAN'T.

    Not even sure what those words are supposed to mean, strung together like that. Please translate into modern English.

    Own up to your nonstop screwups.

    Not quite sure you are even self-aware, speaking to another live human being like that. Take the log out of your own eye, and all that.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Just looked up another 7 definitions (of unalienable) and found zero that refer to the word "equal".

    I'll go slowly.
    Two specific rights. You admit neither cannot be taken away. That means they're equal .... BUT you keep taking one away -- which you NOW admit is wrong. And you can't find the WORD "equal" so they're not equal.

    "when you carry a 3-month-old fetus, do you have to provide it substance through your own umbilical cord, or can it be done by somebody else."
    IT CAN'T.


    Not even sure what those words are supposed to mean,

    By restating your words that I quoted ... umm, directly above ... It shows your analogy is irrational.

    Please translate into modern English

    Umm, you can't shift a fetus from one umbilical cord to another, as your analogy presumes

    When you have created the human being, do you have to provide it sustenance until it can do it itself or it can be done by someone else.

    One more time. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FETUSES.
    HOW CAN SOMEBODY ELSE SUSTAIN A FETUS?

    Not quite sure you are even self-aware, speaking to another live human being like that

    Self-defense of repeated aggression for over a month.

    You forgot to explain why legislators aren't humans

  • ace_m82||

    Two specific rights. You admit neither cannot be taken away. That means they're equal .... BUT you keep taking one away -- which you NOW admit is wrong.

    I have taken away no rights. You have no right to murder or otherwise violate NAP. If you did, you could murder whomever you wanted with no recourse because any law against murder would "violate your unalienable rights".

    By restating your words that I quoted ... umm, directly above ... It shows your analogy is irrational.

    Not my words. Perhaps someone else. You need better research.

    Umm, you can't shift a fetus from one umbilical cord to another, as your analogy presumes

    You are inferring what I didn't imply.

    One more time. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FETUSES.
    HOW CAN SOMEBODY ELSE SUSTAIN A FETUS?

    By waiting until it isn't a "fetus" anymore.

    Self-defense of repeated aggression for over a month.

    I could no more "aggress" upon you from this post than you could to an alien on the other side of the Galaxy.

    You forgot to explain why legislators aren't humans

    They are, duh. They also make laws against murder and other violations of NAP, things you have a problem with sometimes and not other times...

  • Michael Hihn||

    Wackier!

    Two specific rights. You admit neither cannot be taken away. That means they're equal .... BUT you keep taking one away -- which you NOW admit is wrong.

    I have taken away no rights

    I'll dumb it down more.
    1) You say all unalienable rights cannot be taken away.
    2) Then you take away the woman's right to Liberty.

    (flush)

  • ace_m82||

    1) You say all unalienable rights cannot be taken away.
    2) Then you take away the woman's right to Liberty.

    Unalienable rights cannot be legitimately taken away. You don't have the "liberty" to murder or otherwise violate NAP. No woman or man has the right to violate NAP in any way.

    It doesn't matter if you think their "rights come into conflict" (they don't). It doesn't matter that the legislators who ban violations of NAP are human. Unalienable rights mean that neither legislators nor evil individuals can legitimately take them away.

    I'll say it again, very simply: No-one may legitimately violate NAP. That's the purpose of all human law. Most law fails at it, but still.

  • Michael Hihn||

    More "thoughts" from the Christian Taliban.

    You could murder whomever you wanted with no recourse because any law against murder would "violate your unalienable rights".

    These people REALLY think that way!!!!

    The only unalienable rights ever mentioned are the mother and the fetal child. And their rights are thus competing against each other until the child is viable. To deny EITHER right, fetus OR woman violates their equal rights.The conflict disappears when the child is capable of living on its own. Hold that thought.

    The Taliban asserts if the woman exercises her right to Liberty by aborting, that would --- SOMEHOW --- include the right to kill someone OUTSIDE her uterus.

    If a woman is allowed to "kill a fetus" ONLY when it's still in the uterus and ONLY before it's viable ... then the Christan Taliban says the woman (and everyone) can kill people who ARE viable AND outside the uterus

    That's like saying a right to kill somebody ONLY in self-defense = a right to kill anyone with brown eyes.

    Hysteria. Chicken Little. Running around screaming "the sky is falling?"
    This is the same hysteria. The Taliban bought it, but you're much smarter, right?.

  • ace_m82||

    More "thoughts" from the Christian Taliban.

    Reductio ad Hitlerum/Talibanum.

    The only unalienable rights ever mentioned are the mother and the fetal child.

    Good.

    And their rights are thus competing against each other until the child is viable.

    No, they aren't. The woman has every right she did before pregnancy, which simply put, is the right to do everything except aggress against another live human being. All other legitimate "rights" claimed stem from NAP.

    then the Christan Taliban says the woman (and everyone) can kill people who ARE viable AND outside the uterus

    Yes, following what I understood as your "logic" to the next level does lead to ridiculous conclusions.

    To deny EITHER right, fetus OR woman violates their equal rights.

    I hate to even interrupt, as this is the most info you've said about your position in all our arguments, but what rights do the fetal child have at this time (in your opinion)? I would think that if someone can kill you at any time until you're "viable", then any other rights claimed would be fairly meaningless, right? It seems like you only hold that the woman has rights, and that the tiny human has none.

    Also, I note that you refused to answer my charge about what happens to the rights of people who are otherwise not "viable" or have lost their "viability"... Don't be scared!

  • WuzYoungOnceToo||

    I'll go slowly.

    Based on your posts in this thread it would appear that slow is your only speed.

    Two specific rights. You admit neither cannot be taken away. That means they're equal

    Look at these two cars. Both are painted red. Therefore, "red" means "equal".

    You appear to be equal to a bag of hammers.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Bad bluff called

    Perhaps you should look up the dictionary definition of "generally" now.

    Like you were humiliated by the definition of unalienable? Okay!

    gen·er·al·ly
    ˈjen(ə)rəlē/
    adverb
    adverb: generally

    1. in most cases; usually.
    synonyms: normally, in general, as a rule, by and large, more often than not, almost always, mainly, mostly, for the most part, predominantly, on the whole; More
    usually, habitually, customarily, typically, ordinarily, commonly
    "summers were generally hot"
    2. in general terms; without regard to particulars or exceptions.
    synonyms:overall, in general terms, generally speaking, all in all, broadly, on average, basically, effectively

    This now feels like I'm kicking a cripple. Making fun of the handicapped. But just self-defense of your egregious lying and stalking me for over a month.

  • ace_m82||

    Like you were humiliated by the definition of unalienable? Okay!

    Yep, very "humiliated" because one of us thinks that means you can stab blindly in the dark and that's "liberty".

    in most cases; usually.

    Yep. Doesn't say "in all cases", now does it?

    But just self-defense of your egregious lying and stalking me for over a month.

    Showing you that you are wrong is apparently "lying" and "aggression". Posting to a bunch of people on abortion threads is apparently "stalking" you.

    I'm not precisely sure how your brain functions, but I'd love to study it, for science purposes. How much we'd learn by putting you in an FMRI and asking you questions!

  • Michael Hihn||

    Like you were humiliated by the definition of unalienable?

    Yep, very "humiliated" because one of us thinks that means you can stab blindly in the dark and that's "liberty".

    (yawn) That has nothing to do with the definition of unalienable. And since you say that abortion is "stabbing blindly in the dark" ... you've finally succumbed to your hysteria<<br /
    (flush)

  • ace_m82||

    That has nothing to do with the definition of unalienable.

    It has everything to do with your idea of "unalienable". You think that courts ought to "balance rights", so what of my right to blindly stab in the dark? Surely the court can balance that right with your right to life, right?

    Of course, that's not the purpose of courts, it's to determine if someone has violated NAP.

    you've finally succumbed to your hysteria

    Fascinatingly enough, I'm not emotional about this at all. I just point out error, and you've been a gold mine for that.

  • Hank Phillips||

    This is why I never argue with mystics. But I will draw them out so the jury can pass on their guilt or insanity. Sometimes it fails. A Houston jury found one of them guilty of murdering her five (05) children. (Yates, Honey I Killed the Kids case). But a higher court reversed that, evidently deciding that God really did order her to kill them, and instead sentenced Texans to pay for her padded cell. Can't win 'em all.

  • Michael Hihn||

    You're even crazier than we could possibly have imagined.
    Pointy being. you're as gullible and easily manipulated as the other extreme you keep raging about,

  • ace_m82||

    You're even crazier than we could possibly have imagined.

    He's now speaking in the plural.

    you're as gullible and easily manipulated as the other extreme you keep raging about,

    Indeed, one of us is raging...

    I believe in "extreme" NAP, that it applies to all living human beings.

  • Win Bear||

    The real question comes about when you have created the human being, do you have to provide it sustenance until it can do it itself or it can be done by someone else.

    Well, and that's a legally and morally much more gray area. For example, legally, people don't have an obligation to accommodate another person for nine months even if they invited them and the alternative is death. And given that an embryo meets the legal definition of "brain death" and doesn't meet the legal definition of "person", it is hard to see that a mother has any legal obligations towards the embryo.

  • ace_m82||

    And given that an embryo meets the legal definition of "brain death"

    Apparently for about 8 weeks, yes (according to when the Cerebral Cortex starts developing: Wikipedia).

    doesn't meet the legal definition of "person"

    A subjective term that means whatever a politician/judge wants it to mean.

    it is hard to see that a mother has any legal obligations towards the embryo

    Which is the more interesting question. It usually doesn't even get debated because there's so much obfuscation in the debate up to that point.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Berserlscientist
    What is an "unalienable right to life"? If you are the only blood donor that matches my needs, can I force you to donate if I'm about to die? Of course not. That is ridiculous.

    Great analogy. We can always count on a berserk scientist to help clarify things. :-)

    Likewise, government cannot deny my liberty to save the life of a total stranger in the next state. Applying THAT analogy requires claiming the fetal child (or the stranger) has MORE rights than a living adult. Our founders were not so easily conned.

  • Quinn||

    but that's an awful analogy, I can't tell if you're being sarcastic

  • Michael Hihn||

    but that's an awful analogy, I can't tell if you're being sarcastic

    Can government deny my unalienable liberty, to save the life of a total stranger in the next state?

    Since government cannot. then it cannot deny the woman's unalienable right to liberty for life of a pre-viable fetus. Moral principles.

    Or ... if one says it's okay for a fetus but not for a stranger, then the fetus has more rights than a living person, which is wacky enough not to be sarcastic. :-)

  • Michael Hihn||

    Such an impasse means that you cannot satisfy both conditions and what to do is not obvious.

    Not obvious to you, apparently.

    But as we learned in high school, competing rights are resolved by the Judiciary drawing a line ... establishing a boundary ... which must best defend both equal rights.

    From the most-quoted court ruling, "Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.."
    The nose-tip is the boundary. Only the Judiciary can establish that line, as a check-and-balance to legislative abuse ... as guaranteed by the 9th Amendment.

    If the child's right to life must give, then life is not an unalienable right by the rules you want to go by.

    A extreme pro-choicer would say, "If the woman's right to liberty must give, then liberty is not an unalienable right."

    Each extreme rejects one equal right, exactly as I said.

    So thanks for helping me prove that both extremes shit on equal, unalienable and/or God-given rights ... to impose their views by force. Neither extreme can even grasp the concept of equal rights, as their leaderships seek political power and money by manipulating well-intended followers.

    We also learned the elementary logic .... in any system of equal rights, no right can be absolute, because they can conflict with each other ... and they're all equal.

    "There's no free speech right to yell 'fire' in a crowded theater."

  • obadiahlynch||

    There's no such thing as an 'extreme pro-choicer' -- pro-choice is the moderate, mainstream position.

  • Michael Hihn||

    There's no such thing as an 'extreme pro-choicer' -- pro-choice is the moderate, mainstream position.

    You said that in public?

    Hint: take any mainstream oft popular position. Every single one has extremists and zealots. In this case, extreme pro-choice means rejecting the woman's equal, unalienable and/or God-given rights. If you think that rejecting our founding principles is mainstream, then I have a bridge to sell you. Probably two or three.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Correction: " extreme pro-choice means rejecting the fetus's equal, unalienable and/or God-given rights. The most blatant being partial-birth abortion.

  • Michael Hihn||

    , at what point do you own the consequences of your actions?

    At what point does she forfeit her Constitutionally guaranteed unalienable rights (like Liberty)?

    For the religious, at what point does she lose her God-given rights, and for how long? Are there other God-given rights which can be suspended or forfeited? If so, which rights, for how long, and on what authority?

  • tommyboy||

    Most religious people that I know do not believe there is any God-given right to abort a baby. Not speaking for all religions or even all Christians.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Most religious people that I know do not believe there is any God-given right to abort a baby.

    Of course not. Likewise, women have no right to "convenience." People are being manipulated.

    We know that abortions were quite common at the time of Moses. Somewhat obviously. it was not considered murder. Yet t was not banned ... or even a sacrament ... until 1500 years after the death of Christ. Man-made laws versus the Will of God.

  • John DeWitt||

    You're just repeating the question. Unless you're insinuating that no parent at any time can be forced to forfeit some portion of their liberty in order to preserve the life of their offspring.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Unless you're insinuating that no parent at any time can be forced to forfeit some portion of their liberty in order to preserve the life of their offspring

    They obviously can't be forced to. A poor analogy for two reasons.
    1) it's not possible to abort a teenager.
    2) How would such a conflict arise?

  • Procrastinatus||

    "2) How would such a conflict arise?"

    Leaving a newborn in a dumpster would be one. Are you saying a woman doesn't have the liberty to, at will, leave her child to the elements?

  • Michael Hihn||

    Procrastinatus|8.19.15 @ 12:04PM|#
    "Unless you're insinuating that no parent at any time can be forced to forfeit some portion of their liberty in order to preserve the life of their offspring"

    "It's not possible to abort a teenager. How would such a conflict arise?"


    Leaving a newborn in a dumpster would be one.

    Bad example. There is no liberty to "kill" even a viable fetus ... which is BEFORE it becomes a newborn!. Once the fetus is viable ... and more so after it's born ... there is no longer a conflict between two competing equal rights.

    It's dishonest to equate that with "no parent at any time."
    In other words, a genuine example of so wacky an analogy is impossible,

  • John DeWitt||

    I don't think you understand what an analogy is.

  • Procrastinatus||

    So let's be clear; If a woman decides to exercise sovereignty over her own body and leave a child in the elements to die, would you be ok with prosecuting her?

    Or do you support using the law to compel a woman to at least take the child somewhere to be taken care of?

    Do you support her liberty or the child's life? You must choose one Hihn, because they're unalienable, or something.

  • Michael Hihn||

    I don't think you understand what an analogy is.

    It can't be bullshit.

  • Michael Hihn||

    If a woman decides to exercise sovereignty over her own body and leave a child in the elements to die, would you be ok with prosecuting her?

    Even if "sovereignty of the body" was not bullshit, how would it apply to a birthed child? Yes on the prosecuting, but I'm not falling for your trick question.

    Or do you support using the law to compel a woman to at least take the child somewhere to be taken care of?

    Yes .... but irrelevant.

    Do you support her liberty or the child's life? .

    BOTH duh. The child had full rights WAY BACK AT VIABILITY!

    You must choose one Hihn, because they're unalienable, or something

    If it's a fetus we must chose both. When both rights are equal then both must be defended. DUH.

    It says a lot when you people admit being incapable of grasping equal rights.
    As you should have leaned in high school, no rights are absolute because they can conflict with each other. When they do conflict, only the Judiciary may resolve the conflict -- by establishing a boundary which best defends BOTH rights.

    Did you remember learning about, "Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose?" If so, did you forget it's taken from the first Supreme Court decision which set the precedent. High school is old news to most of us.

    because they're unalienable, or something

    I note your ridicule of our primary founding moral concept.

  • Procrastinatus||

    "Yes .... but irrelevant."

    Ok, just to be clear; you would actually prosecute the hypothetical woman who exercises her inalienable right to liberty by refusing to take care of a child any longer. You think she should have arranged someone to care for the child instead of just leaving the child wherever, and you'd be willing to further take the woman's liberty/property by fining/imprisoning her for said exercise of her inalienable right to liberty. You choose the child's life over the liberty of the woman, so everything you've said about rights be alienable and never choosing one over the other is just nonsense.

    Glad we cleared that up, Hihn.

  • Michael Hihn||

    how to blow away a pro-life goober....

    (Procrastinatus) If a wman decides to exercise sovereignty over her own body and leave a child in the elements to die, would you be ok with prosecuting her?

    Even if "sovereignty of the body" was not bullshit, how would it apply to a birthed child? ((NO ANSWER))Yes on the prosecuting, but I'm not falling for your trick question..

    Or do you support using the law to compel a woman to at least take the child somewhere to be taken care of?

    Yes .... but irrelevant....... ((but why? LOL))

    Wait for it....... (smirk)

    You choose the child's life over the liberty of the woman,
    so everything you've said about rights be alienable and never choosing one over the other is just nonsense.

    That child is viable. Ummm, like a viable fetus!!!! (laughing hysterically)
    I never said a woman's liberty includes killing a viable fetus, dumbfuck..
    So your bullying has totally humiliated yourself. (sweet!)

    Glad we cleared that up, Hihn.

    Stop drooling

    Back when I said "It's irrelevant" --- BECAUSE IT'S A "VIABLE" PERSON, NOT A FETUS. (OMG!)

    Yes, I REALLY tried to save you from being a dumbass. But your type is beyond help.

    (my tone and ridicule in defense of thuggishaggresion)

  • Mickey Rat||

    Now ask the same wuestions about the unborn child.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Now ask the same questions about the unborn child.

    Same answer. And how does an unborn child have more rights than a teenager.

    I've addressed your contradiction regarding equal rights here:

    http://reason.com/archives/201.....nt_5525146

  • ace_m82||

    Do I have a Constitutionally guaranteed right to murder people, Hihn? Until you answer that, I fail to see why anyone should continue to "debate" with you...

  • Michael Hihn||

    Do I have a Constitutionally guaranteed right to murder people, Hihn?

    Silly question.

    Until you answer that, I fail to see why anyone should continue to "debate" with you...

    I answer it to you every day or two.

    One more time
    1) The rights to life and liberty are precisely equal.
    2) That's the definition of "unalienable." Will you EVER check a dictionary?
    3) Fundamental rights have co-equal status in both the 5th and 14th amendment.

    With all due respect, perhaps you should stop debating and ... listen ... which starts by opening a dictionary ... instead of shouting down (and/or attacking) anyone who disagrees with you (on anything).

  • ace_m82||

    Silly question.

    Then answer it, if it's so trivial.

    Will you EVER check a dictionary?

    Yes, which is why I know that "unalienable" doesn't mean "equal".

    1) The rights to life and liberty are precisely equal.

    Do I have the right to murder?

    2) That's the definition of "unalienable."

    Do I have the right to murder?

    3) Fundamental rights have co-equal status in both the 5th and 14th amendment.

    Do I have the right to murder?

    With all due respect, perhaps you should stop debating and ... listen ... which starts by opening a dictionary ... instead of shouting down (and/or attacking) anyone who disagrees with you (on anything).

    Do I have the right to murder?

  • Michael Hihn||

    Silly question.

    Then answer it, if it's so trivial.

    Like I said, you get the same answer every day or two.

    " Will you EVER check a dictionary?"

    Yes, which is why I know that "unalienable" doesn't mean "equal".

    (snicker) Tell us what it means, with a link, so I can humiliate you again.

    1) The rights to life and liberty are precisely equal.

    Do I have the right to murder?

    Non-responsive to what you quoted. The answer is no, and it's still a silly question .. unless (sigh) you reject the entire concept of equal, unalienable and/or God-given rights, which is the same answer you keep ignoring.

    2) That's the definition of "unalienable."

    Do I have the right to murder?

    Of course not, silly.

    3) Fundamental rights have co-equal status in both the 5th and 14th amendment.

    Do I have the right to murder?

    (smirk) Still, no

    With all due respect, perhaps you should stop debating and ... listen ... which starts by opening a dictionary ... instead of shouting down (and/or attacking) anyone who disagrees with you (on anything).

    Do I have the right to murder?

    You've now come full circle. All your badgering is based on lying about the meaning of unalienable .. and refusing to read the two amendments .. so you're still a bully.

    (my tone is defense against aggression)

  • ace_m82||

    You've now come full circle. All your badgering is based on lying about the meaning of unalienable

    Unalienable, cannot be (legitimately) taken away. Not applied to "liberty" if the person means "liberty to murder or otherwise violate NAP". I have not lied, my definitions of words are stable.

    (my tone is defense against aggression)

    Disagreement to Hihn is aggression.

    Of course not, silly.

    Finally! Thank you!

    OK, so now that that philosophical question is settled, that means that the whole "conflict of rights" opinion you have is meaningless if it's actually murder. So the only question remains: Is abortion murder?

    It does kill a living human being, so that's a point against it.

    Now, considering that your previous opinion is that the thing has no rights (fewer rights?) because it exists within the body of another living human being, I asked you another question you refuse to answer.

    A giant volunteers to swallow a dwarf who volunteers to be swallowed. After doing this, the giant stabs his stomach a number of times, ending up killing the dwarf. Did the giant violate NAP or not?

  • Michael Hihn||

    Wackier by the moment!

    You've now come full circle. All your badgering is based on lying about the meaning of unalienable

    Unalienable, cannot be (legitimately) taken away. Correct. So far ... but now you go rogue. .

    Not applied to "liberty" if the person means "liberty to murder or otherwise violate NAP".

    (lol) Now you're lying about the definition.

    You keep proving, over and over, my overall premise. Extremists on both sides of the abortion issue lack the desire -- or the mental capacity -- to deal with the inevitable conflicts between unalienable rights ... so they deny unalienable ... or lie about its meaning. .

    have not lied, my definitions of words are stable.

    (laughing) Stable does not mean honest. You just invented your own definition of unalienable.

  • ace_m82||

    (lol) Now you're lying about the definition.

    So, you say that you have the liberty to murder or otherwise violate NAP, right? You'd have to in order to think that's a "lie" or "bullshit".

    Extremists on both sides of the abortion issue lack the desire -- or the mental capacity -- to deal with the inevitable conflicts between unalienable rights ... so they deny unalienable ... or lie about its meaning.

    The only way rights "come into conflict" is if someone violates NAP. As you've said, the right to swing your fist ends at the bridge of my nose. To turn the phrase, your right to stab your body ends at the base of another's brain.

    Stable does not mean honest. You just invented your own definition of unalienable.

    Considering you've got fluid definitions of words, I thought you may have gotten the point. My definition of unalienable is the dictionary definition. If it isn't, then there is no purpose for government because violations of NAP can't be pursued because the aggressor's "unalienable rights" would be violated; his "right" to stab other people (or other violation of NAP).

  • Michael Hihn||

    A giant volunteers to swallow a dwarf who volunteers to be swallowed. After doing this, the giant stabs his stomach a number of times, ending up killing the dwarf. Did the giant violate NAP or not?

    I've answered your crazy question several times. each time a crushing humiliation of your ignorance on this issue -- but you keep asking. You're scary. Or masochistic.

    So now I only answer in young threads, so the largest percentage of readers will see you humiliated. Best I can do against your month-long bullying and documented lies, as my stalker.

  • ace_m82||

    I've answered your crazy question several times

    You've answered a total of zero times. If you've answered so many times (which you haven't), then it should be easy for you to copy and paste your answer, right?

    So now I only answer in young threads, so the largest percentage of readers will see you humiliated.

    You've never answered and there is humiliation, but you're sadly wrong as to who has it.

    Best I can do against your month-long bullying and documented lies, as my stalker.

    It's "bullying" in your mind to tell you you are wrong. Interestingly enough, I've only initially replied to you (directly) once this entire article. You've been responsible for starting all the other interactions we've had. Also, I post a lot on abortion threads, to many people. You're the only one who loses their cool quite this much.

  • Michael Hihn||

    How to humiliate a bullying goober

    A giant volunteers to swallow a dwarf who volunteers to be swallowed. After doing this, the giant stabs his stomach a number of times, ending up killing the dwarf. Did the giant violate NAP or not?

    Yes. But the dwarf is viable. Like a viable fetus. (bwaaaaa haaaaa haaaaaa)

    (I'm saving the link to your self-destruction here ... if you continue your month-long bullying and stalking)

    I TRIED to save you, but ... you kept pushing ... so now you're a public dumbfuck. (Confession: I baited him).

  • ace_m82||

    Yes. But the dwarf is viable. Like a viable fetus. (bwaaaaa haaaaa haaaaaa)

    Ah, so the goal posts have changed, good to know.

    (I'm saving the link to your self-destruction here

    Usually all your deep linking is to non sequiturs, so please do.

    So, now your definition is "viability". Good. Let's work on that one.

    Is bubble boy "viable"? Does he have rights? If bubble boy were kept in a bio-mechanical chamber, would he be viable?

    Let's say you invite your highly disabled adult child (like Stephen Hawking) onto your property. Let's say he falls out of his chair. He's no longer viable, he cannot exist on his own without outside assistance. Can you kill him?

  • Michael Hihn||

    Final lesson. The typical psycho cyber-bully

    Yes. But the dwarf is viable. Like a viable fetus.

    Ah, so the goal posts have changed, good to know.

    HE pastes me saying , "like a viable fetus" -- (ie cannot be killed) ... then says I changed the goal posts!. LOOK AGAIN!! (OMG) That is psycho-level lying across this entire page.

    I moderated the first online libertarian forum. Compuserve still charged by the hour, so we were WELL trained on protecting readers from bullies and stalkers.

    We've all seen their psycho behavior. Driven by aggression. Attacking even when humiliated (thrice here). He admits unalienable rights can't be taken away, but invents his own exception (the psycho part) --- then goes bat-shit crazy at the obvious conclusion. Obvious to you, but you’re sane.

    Anti-abortion psychos (not sincere ones) are DEVASTATED that NO unalienable rights can be taken away -- thus are all co-equal, even LIfe, by definition. (triple-duh) As True Believers they're consumed by hatred. Literally or not, "doing the work of the Lord." The militant self-righteous, a mild version of abortionist killers.

    In psychology, "psychopaths."

    My stalker will likely deny his bullshit again – even with my words still visible. Showing again these people are as crazy as they seem, That SEEMS impossible, but here's undeniable proof. Will he add even more?

    (this is self-defense)

  • ace_m82||

    HE pastes me saying , "like a viable fetus" -- (ie cannot be killed) ... then says I changed the goal posts!

    You did. In all of our interactions, this is the first, the very first, mention of "viability". You do a poor job of actually explaining your position.

    I moderated the first online libertarian forum.

    Appeal to Authority.

    We've all seen their psycho behavior.

    Indeed, we have. It screams that response is aggression, makes childish noises, and writes half it's responses in bold font, for no reason.

    Anti-abortion psychos (not sincere ones) are DEVASTATED that NO unalienable rights can be taken away

    Not the psycho here, but no, unalienable rights cannot be taken away, such as the rights of a living human being to not be murdered.

    (this is self-defense)

    Hihn has no concept as to what "aggression" is... and claims to be a libertarian.

  • Win Bear||

    Do I have a Constitutionally guaranteed right to murder people, Hihn?

    Using the term "murder" is misleading, since it implies malice and/or personal gain.

    You do have Constitutionally guaranteed rights to kill people under many circumstances.

    Of course, since an embryo meets the legal definition of "brain dead", it's hard to see why it would be considered "people" in the first place.

  • ace_m82||

    Using the term "murder" is misleading, since it implies malice and/or personal gain.

    You may infer that, but the term doesn't imply that. Murder = purposeful killing of an "innocent" (meaning, hasn't violated NAP) living human.

    Of course, since an embryo meets the legal definition of "brain dead", it's hard to see why it would be considered "people" in the first place.

    That's the second part of the question, yes, but Hihn won't yet answer the first part. It's almost impossible to debate with someone who won't clarify their position when you ask them a question.

  • Michael Hihn||

    You may infer that, but the term doesn't imply that. Murder = purposeful killing of an "innocent" (meaning, hasn't violated NAP) living human.

    (laughing hysterically) ... by aggression against the woman ... compounded by lying about "unalienable."

    All True Believers justify their deceit and dishonesty by believing they somehow serve some greater good ... the Master Race, the Collective, the Nation, a party or a god. The militant self-righteous,

  • ace_m82||

    compounded by lying about "unalienable."

    Let's play "spot the lie". Go ahead, look up everything I've posted here and look for a lie about the term "unalienable". Good luck with that.

    by aggression against the woman

    Punishing aggression, heck, even pointing out it's aggression, is aggression according to Hihn.

    I'll say it again, because Hihn has decided it's "aggression" to write this definition:

    Murder = purposeful killing of an "innocent" (meaning, hasn't violated NAP) living human.

    All True Believers justify their deceit and dishonesty by believing they somehow serve some greater good ... the Master Race, the Collective, the Nation, a party or a god. The militant self-righteous,

    I don't think I've ever seen projection more perfectly defined than by this statement. So congrats, I guess?

  • Michael Hihn||

    smirk

    compounded by lying about "unalienable."

    Go ahead, look up everything I've posted here and look for a lie about the term "unalienable". Good luck with that.

    (snicker) Your bullshit is in italics:

    Unalienable, cannot be (legitimately) taken away. Not applied to "liberty" if the person means "liberty to murder or otherwise violate NAP".
    http://reason.com/archives/201.....nt_5525648

    You've been humiliated again (yawn)
    Ad now I can use this link as you continue your pathetic bullshit and aggression.

    (In defense of aggression, aka attack lies)

  • ace_m82||

    You actually do think it's "bullshit" that I contend that you have no liberty (right, whatever) to murder or otherwise violate NAP, don't you? It's sad, really.

    I made you say that you have no right to murder, and yet you think that you do in other places of this (ongoing) argument.

    And yes, you think I've been "humiliated" because I don't recognize a right to murder or otherwise violate NAP.

    Also, you have no idea what "aggression" is because you think me pointing out your many logical (and definitional) inconsistencies is "aggression". Therefore, you are entirely incapable of determining the libertarian position on anything.

  • Michael Hihn||

    And yes, you think I've been "humiliated"

    (sweet)

    http://reason.com/archives/201.....nt_5528702

  • ace_m82||

    More deep linking to... an answer that moves the goal posts.

    Deep linking isn't a response, you know. Maybe you don't?

  • Michael Hihn||

    You actually do think it's "bullshit" that I contend that you have no liberty (right, whatever) to murder or otherwise violate NAP, don't you?

    I never said such a thing. The "bullshit" is NOW, when you lie about my words. Again Shame on you.

    Babbling about NAP is mindless -- because you would agress against the woman, by force, for exercising her fundamental rights. DUH

    Being libertarian requires more than memorizing and reciting slogans and soundbites. You need to THINK and APPLY..

    Also learn what aggression means. If I use the threat of force to keep you from leaving your bathroom,. that's aggression. THINK

  • ace_m82||

    I never said such a thing. The "bullshit" is NOW, when you lie about my words. Again Shame on you.

    I didn't lie, I asked a question. I did the best I could at the time to figure out your position. Now it turns out your demarcation point is "viability"... Why it took several hundred posts for you to come out and say that is anyone's guess.

    because you would agress against the woman, by force, for exercising her fundamental rights. DUH

    Responding to aggression isn't aggression. You have no right to murder.

    Also learn what aggression means. If I use the threat of force to keep you from leaving your bathroom,. that's aggression. THINK

    Good luck with that. I deny (though most wouldn't) that you can aggress with mere words. Even if I were to say that you could, an "aggression" would be "I'm going to kill you", not "you're wrong because of [A]". Either way, you're wrong.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Your pathetic lies have been documented here

    http://reason.com/blog/2015/06.....nt_5392727

    and here

    http://reason.com/archives/201.....nt_5527003

    But I can only include two links (snort)

  • ace_m82||

    I challenge anyone to look up these links and figure out how what I said was a "lie" or "bullshit". Perhaps the great Hihn could explain this to us?

    Of course he can't. He's just ranting.

    I do not deny unalienable rights. You have no, and never have had, the right to violate NAP. Hihn's assertion that you have this right is his first stumbling block.

  • Michael Hihn||

    I challenge anyone to look up these links

    Here's another one. TOTAL HUMILIATION (from your bullying)

    http://reason.com/archives/201.....nt_5528702

  • ace_m82||

    Not a lie nor "bullshit". Congrats...

  • Michael Hihn||

    Here's another one. TOTAL HUMILIATION (from your bullying)

    Not a lie nor "bullshit". Congrats

    (lol) It's total humiliation. like I said (smirk)

  • ace_m82||

    (lol) It's total humiliation. like I said (smirk)

    Sadly, you are right. You've been humiliating yourself throughout this comment section...

  • Hank Phillips||

    Wrong. The LP is about the rights of individuals. Communist states are about collectivized rights, econazis are about vague counterfeit rights. The fact is a woman is an individual and owns her body. That superstitious fanatics see inside her a potential brainwashee to their anti-rational beliefs, and want to send men with guns to appropriate that potential brainwashee shows only that they reject reason, individual rights and freedom. Reason, rights and freedom are what life requires. These creatures are anti-choice, anti-rights and anti-life.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Thanks, Hank, now I can defend the other side. Perhaps.
    They are indeed fascists, but so are extreme pro-choicers.
    Do you agree the woman and the fetal child have rights which are precisely equal?

    One may argue that the fetus has no rights until after their existence has been established, but that means the debate is about the fetal child's rights, thus the same as debating how and when those rights must be defended.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Of course, since an embryo meets the legal definition of "brain dead", it's hard to see why it would be considered "people" in the first place.

    That's the second part of the question, yes, but Hihn won't yet answer the first part.

    That's even crazier than your documented bullshit on the meaning of unalienable. For maybe the 73rd time, I reject the notion of brain activity as a determinant, and shame on you for lying about that.

    Your bullshit on unalienable was documented here:

    http://reason.com/archives/201.....nt_5526964

  • ace_m82||

    I reject the notion of brain activity as a determinant, and shame on you for lying about that

    I never said you did. You need to read more carefully. What I was referring to by saying "the first part" was that up to that point, you wouldn't answer whether or not you have the right to murder.

    Considering you're still waffling the point, whether or not you have the "unalienable right/liberty" to murder or otherwise violate NAP, I would say your initial denunciation of that "right" is worth less than the bits it's displayed on.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Bully is HOW dumb?

    ace_m82

    A giant volunteers to swallow a dwarf who volunteers to be swallowed. After doing this, the giant stabs his stomach a number of times, ending up killing the dwarf. Did the giant violate NAP or not?

    (yawn)
    Your dwarf is viable. So it's murder. Just like a viable fetus, genius. (bwaaaaa haaaaa haaaaaa)

    I TRIED to save you, but ... you kept pushing ... so now you're a public dumbfuck.

  • ace_m82||

    You responded to that question twice... this time under (what I assume is) the wrong post. No real problem, but my answer is above.

  • Live Free or Die||

    Brain death counts as death because once brain waves cease, they don't start again. However, for a fetus, the brain waves will come. It doesn't make sense to apply the medical definition of death to a still-growing fetus. It's a person because it's a human being, not due to its developmental stage.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Congressmen seem to think it is OK for their Commander in Chief to murder without any declaration of war--letters of marque and bills of attainder clauses be damned--provided the victim is a believer in the wrong religion (Allah, f'rinstance, or Morpheus, Thor, Loki, Zeus, Bob or the Flying Spaghetti Monster). Now that he is no longer Kenyan they REALLY believe this.

  • tommyboy||

    You can't argue what you want to. If you admit that it is actually a baby and not a clump of cells then you are condoning infanticide if you let them mother choose. The debate is always about when life begins because murder is the dividing line between swinging your arm and hitting someone in this case. Choosing to kill a child whether wanted or unwanted is still illegal. Whenever life begins, killing it at that point is murder. I don't think you are going to solve anything with reframing the debate to something its not about.

    I am really militantly libertarian, believe in legalizing all substances and life/lifestyle choices, but I cannot condone abortion because there are severely unequal outcomes for one the two parties involved if we are wrong about when life begins.

  • tommyboy||

    *face not case

  • Berserkerscientist||

    Anyone has the right to withdraw their tissue, at any time. You can stop a kidney transplant on the operating table. Similarly, a mother can withdraw blood from the fetus. It is an unfortunate (tragic) side effect that the fetus dies.

    The fetus's "right to life" requires enslavement of the mother. Which is wrong, unless you are okay with forcing people at gunpoint to donate blood or organs.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Enslavement os a sin, but murder is worse. Furthermore, with exceptions, any woman can choose not to risk pregnancy. The "right" to behave irresponsibly does not, ever trump the legitimate rights of others. In the case of rape, the guilt of the murder of the fetus rests on the rapist.

    Now, I happen to believe that a fetus is not human. I mean I positively believe that to be the case, as opposed to merely not believing that it IS human. So, I have no problem with legal abortion. But, for somebody who believes that a fetus is human, your argument doesn't work.

  • Berserkerscientist||

    If withholding blood is "murder", then not donating a kidney is "murder".

    The only argument against my argument is that you believe engaging in sex creates an irrevocable contract to provide sustenance and risk death for another person. This is bad precedent, in my opinion.

    Imagine if we could implant a fetus into a man. If a man "irresponsibly" has sex, would you be okay with implanting the fetus, by force, into his body and forcing him to carry the baby?

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    There is a difference between declining to take positive action to save a life and working actively to end one.

    IF a fetus is human, AND the woman does not want to become pregnant, and be responsible for the life of that human, THEN refraining from procreative sex is certainly a reasonable restriction. That is what tongues and sex toys are for.

    Now, as I said, I believe that a fetus is not human. I don't care if a woman kills it because she's too goddamned careless to avoid pregnancy (rape is a special case). But your argument seems (correct me if I'm wrong) to proceed from the assumption that IF a fetus is human its right to live is trumped by a woman's right to evade to consequences ofher short-sightedness. That's not an argument that anyone who thinks a fetus is human is going to accept. Now, you can keep making it. I'm sure it gets you applause from lots of people who believe that a fetus isn't human. But it won't convince anyone who believe that it IS. Or, rather, it will convince them that you are an arrogant jackass, and make them even more determined to (metaphorically speaking) break your knees and stomp you flat.

  • Michael Hihn||

    That is what tongues and sex toys are for.

    Please cite a basis for your claim that we forfeit our unalienable rights by HAVING SEX.

  • Rayson||

    If pregnancy is enslavement, then parenthood is as well. So if a mother can refuse to give blood to a fetus, then why can't a parent refuse their babies/kids/teens food and kicked them out of their house?

  • Michael Hihn||

    If pregnancy is enslavement,

    It's not.

    then parenthood is as well.

    We rarely see one strawman fallacy piled on top of an even worse one.

    So if a mother can refuse to give blood to a fetus, then why can't a parent refuse their babies/kids/teens food and kicked them out of their house?

    She can't because your underlying premise is wrong.

    And the mother is restricted MUCH earlier than you seem willing to admit -- when the child is still a fetus. It's called viability.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Anyone has the right to withdraw their tissue, at any time.

    A fetus is not tissue. And why do you defend partial-birth abortion?

    You can stop a kidney transplant on the operating table. Similarly, a mother can withdraw blood from the fetus. It is an unfortunate (tragic) side effect that the fetus dies.

    (laughing) How does a mother withdraw blood from a fetus?

    The fetus's "right to life" requires enslavement of the mother.

    It's only enslavement before the fetus is viable. After that, the right to life is constitutionally protected.

    Which is wrong, unless you are okay with forcing people at gunpoint to donate blood or organs.

    Strawman fallacy. On what authority do you reject the entire founding concept of equal, unalienable and/or God-given rights ... please no more nonsense about withdrawing blood from a fetus -- which I now see was stated that way to justify your strawman conclusion. Try again.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Whenever life begins, killing it at that point is murder.

    Only if you reject the entire founding concept of equal, unalienable and/or God-given rights. On what authority?

    I don't think you are going to solve anything with reframing the debate to something its not about.

    ... as you reject the ONLY principle the debate can be based upon.

    I am really militantly libertarian,

    But opposed to individual liberty as an EQUAL right.

    but I cannot condone abortion because there are severely unequal outcomes for one the two parties involved if we are wrong about when life begins.

    When life begins is totally irrelevant -- unless you falsely claim that Life trumps Liberty, which is disproven by the definition of unalienable and confirmed in the 5th and 14th Amendments. I have three sources. What have you got?

  • Hank Phillips||

    Somebody who likes arguing with these mystics might ask: is a woman an individual?

  • Father of Two||

    The moral question includes issues of rights of control AND responsibility. But the LEGAL question is at what point the child's right to life trumps the mother's right of choice. The Democrats' position - NEVER prior to birth - is every bit as extreme as Republicans who would say ALWAYS. Both seem to be unacceptable options for the vast majority of Americans. I suspect most Americans would support a compromise which provides that the baby's right predominates at around 20 weeks, give or take a week or two.

    But we'll never get there politically. Roe's legacy has made that outcome essentially impossible.

  • Michael Hihn||

    But the LEGAL question is at what point the child's right to life trumps the mother's right of choice.

    Umm, never. They're precisely equal. And the mother's right is called Liberty, just to clarify the equality.

    I suspect most Americans would support a compromise which provides that the baby's right predominates at around 20 weeks, give or take a week or two.

    How do we compromise on fundamental rights.

    But we'll never get there politically. Roe's legacy has made that outcome essentially impossible.

    It recognizes, and defends, BOTH equal rights, which is their constitutional duty. Your "solution" seems as principled as flipping a coin, and you admit it's a compromise.

    And this is not a democracy, we don't resolve fundamental constitutional rights politically (at the ballot box)

  • Flowingwords213||

    It's all quite simple really. The Republicans have found that rallying cries (especially ones that you don't have to actually do anything on) get people to vote. I feel like Gingrich and his ilk had a huge hand in the 90s with the expansion of it too.

    As a result, you get the circus that is the Republican primary now with each "candidate" trying to outdo the other with the most absurd statements. I agree that they are stretching too far and I'm not sure they'll ever really pull back. They've given such a voice to each type of voter (die hard right, extreme social conservative, etc.) that trying to corral all those people back under their tent looks extremely unlikely.

    Moreover, I don't know if it'll be the extreme right that pulls out of the party or the more center leaning ones.

  • Win Bear||

    It's all quite simple really. The Republicans have found that rallying cries (especially ones that you don't have to actually do anything on) get people to vote.

    There is a cost, though. While this may get out the pro-life vote, it's a real turn-off to many independents. I'm sure Republican strategists are trying to do the math, but I think they may be miscalculating.

    Of course, people like me might still vote for a pro-life candidate simply because there is no chance in hell he's going to be able to push through such legislation. On the other hand, I have grave doubts about the morality and rationality of anybody who takes a "pro-life" position.

  • meh130||

    I consider myself relatively legally pro-choice, in terms of what I believe the government should do.

    However, I cannot understand how the position to ban abortions after 20 weeks is somehow "extreme", or "anti-abortion", or "anti-choice".

    Human gestation is 40 weeks. 20 weeks is exactly the half-way point. Unrestricted abortion prior to 20 weeks, and restrictions after 20 weeks, seems the epitome of moderate compromise--it seems a modern day Judgement of Solomon.

    Now personally, I know and understand why 20 weeks is the battleground between the Pro-Life and Pro-Choice movements. But that is actually a different discussion than abortion, per-se, and needs to be discussed as such.

    If one views the right to abortion as sacrosanct and unchanging from conception to 40 weeks, then one should be willing to defend the idea of a 39th week abortion. If one discounts such an idea of a 39th week abortion as a fiction, then they should have no problem restricting it, and the idea of picking a point during gestation at which abortion can be restricted is not an unreasonable idea.

  • Berserkerscientist||

    This only logical division is when the baby can survive outside the womb and when it cannot. If a baby can survive without the mother, it is much more difficult to justify abortion.

  • B.P.||

    Which seems to be about 22 weeks in some cases.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Berserkerscientist
    If a baby can survive without the mother, it is much more difficult to justify abortion.

    Which is precisely the Court ruling.

  • Win Bear||

    No, that's not a "logical division" because with enough resources, a scraping from the inside of your cheek "can survive outside the womb" and grow up into an adult human being.

    Any logical division between non-person and person needs to be based on brain activity and development: before there is brain is sufficiently developed to be conscious, no person exists or has ever existed. There are different arguments to be made when that is, but using the same standards we use for determining brain death in adults is a reasonable and pretty safe basis (that kind of activity is necessary but not sufficient for consciousness).

    Only once personhood exists does survival outside the womb even become a consideration.

  • ace_m82||

    with enough resources, a scraping from the inside of your cheek "can survive outside the womb" and grow up into an adult human being.

    I'd love to see that actually happen (not kidding, for science).

    Also, your hand has no rights as it is a part of a living human being. The "embryo" is a living human being, not a part.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Any logical division between non-person and person needs to be based on brain activity and development: before there is brain is sufficiently developed to be conscious

    Why?

    Only once personhood exists does survival outside the womb even become a consideration

    Precisely backwards. Or you flunked human sexuality..
    Based on their common usage, you see to confuse human with personhood. Personhood is used by those who assert full rights for the fetus and defiance of individual rights.

  • Ron||

    is something not alive just because it can't survive in certain environments. leave most people in the wilderness alone in the middle of winter and they will die. Abortion at any age base on survivability, we would have a lot of empty hospitals. Is a fish not alive just because it can't survive out of water?

  • Michael Hihn||

    Moreover, I don't know if it'll be the extreme right that pulls out of the party or the more center leaning ones.

    Not all the extreme right are extreme social conservatives ... nor do all pro-lifers seek to impose their views through the force of law.

    Having clarified that, the "socially accepting" (libetarian) have been leaving the party in droves. That's why Rand Paul is so massive a failure; those folks aren't coming back to the same extreme social conservatism which drove them away!

    Goldwater predicted that the "Moral Majority" was a major threat to his party. Reagan was less combative (except defending gay school teachers) and simply ignored their political demands. What could be more libertarian than being a very public and devout Christian, but not seeking to impose your views by law?

    (Actually, most Christian conservatives like Reagan on that, but the True Believers are noisier and the leadership, like most leaderships, is power-tripping).

  • Michael Hihn||

    However, I cannot understand how the position to ban abortions after 20 weeks is somehow "extreme", or "anti-abortion", or "anti-choice".

    It's unconstitutional, and you may not know what is constitutional

    Human gestation is 40 weeks. 20 weeks is exactly the half-way point. Unrestricted abortion prior to 20 weeks, and restrictions after 20 weeks, seems the epitome of moderate compromise--it seems a modern day Judgement of Solomon

    it's arbitrary, and not based on equal rights. And Solomon 's solution was fucking stupid.

    You seem unaware that the current standard is viability outside the womb, including mechanical means. (NOT Roe v Wade). So you're saying a woman can be forced to carry a fetus which is incapable of living on its own.

    One can debate whether viability is the best standard to defend both equal rights. But 20 weeks is pure political power and ... TOTALLY unconstitutional ... but shows that the candidate "cares" -- about fundraising and power.

  • Win Bear||

    However, I cannot understand how the position to ban abortions after 20 weeks is somehow "extreme", or "anti-abortion", or "anti-choice".

    It's not extreme. It's not rational either, but it's a reasonable political compromise. Yet, neither side is willing to accept that compromise.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    The thing is, the Big Tent wasn't working. It didn't matter if a Republican was Pro-Choice within reason. If he (or she) wasn't down with a woman's right to abort right up to the kid's first birthday, the propaganda arm of the Democrat Party (aka, the Media) would tear him apart as a closet Pro-Life hypocrit. The the Pro-Choice idiots stepped on their clits, twice. They should have caught Kermit Gosnell long before he was exposed and Planned Parenthood should know better. Right now there simply is no percentage in a Republican being Pro-Choice.

    Let's be frank (hi, Frank, I'm Frank).

    When I read an article about how awful it is that the Republican Party has gone all extremist on an issue, my gut reaction is "Ooooh! Touched a nerve, did they?". That here is an issue that they arengetting traction on.

    Even when the article appears in Reason.

  • Robert||

    "A woman's right to abort right up to the kid's 1st birthday" is approximately my position. If I were to run as a legal infanticide candidate, other things being equal, do you think the Democrats would get behind me & defend that position as reasonable, or do you think it turns a corner such that they'd rather vote for an anti-abortion candidate?

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    I think that the Democrats' Propaganda Ministry will attack a Republican for NOT holding radical Left beliefs that no serious Democrat candidate would try to sell to the voters.

  • Father of Two||

    The Democratic leadership would support you, but most Democrats would be appalled.

  • Michael Hihn||

    The Democratic leadership would support you, but most Democrats would be appalled.

    You win the trophy! Mostly for lack of hysteria. Where do I ship it?

    It seems forgotten these days. but the Libertarian Party platform supported even partial-birth abortions 15 years ago. Not sure when it changed, but I spent two years on the Platform Committee fighting for enforcement if the fetus was viable (with the typical exceptions for the woman). To this day, fetal personhood is recognized, but not defended, at viability. Require a live birth at post-viability, and the Pro-Life leadership will lose 3/4 of its base. Shame on them for not even trying to do that. Politics trumps babies to those people.

  • Michael Hihn||

    The thing is, the Big Tent wasn't working

    Check Reagan's winning percentages, which was the last time there was a Big Tent.

    The the Pro-Choice idiots stepped on their clits, twice. They should have caught Kermit Gosnell long before he was exposed and Planned Parenthood should know better

    And you just stepped on your prick twice. (sorry, couldn't exist)

    It's not the Pro-Choicer's job to catch Gosnell. Murder is one of few legitimate government responsibilities. In this case, the relevant state - PA -- had intentionally stopped their oversight of abortion clinics 15 years earlier. The Congressional hearings established that there were reports of Gosnell's illegal abortions, but ignored.

    If you assume culpability by PP, then please never be on any jury if I'm charged with anything.

  • Agile Cyborg||

    Republicans make my ass bleed. I wish the title would have boasted The Death of Republicans, frankly. Practically none of them have the mental acuity to grasp the genius of protecting with warrior-like intensity the privacy and civil rights of people existing within an open society.

    To demand such a foreign position elicits the fucking Chris Christie broken eyeball stare with the fucking lips dribbling yesterday's ass munch. It's an odd request to ask of an army of mealy-mouthed politicians who've spent entire careers smashing their fists into the cock hole of the constitution to make piles of geriatrics and soccer moms roll into happy balls but in spite of their slaves, cocaine, pot, mistresses, alcoholism, religiosity, and general wantonness many of the founding fathers at least had a pinkie finger on the pulse of centralized tyranny and realized that an improved society required a footing based on distinct and codified regard for individual rights....

    A foundational concept that has been massively decimated by a political party with the goddamn term 'republic' in its motherfucking name.

  • Inigo "Chip" DuBois||

    100% agree with this, AC!

    Maybe instead of nervously looking at national polls, individual Republicans should have the courage of their own sincerely held opinions. If anything will be the death of the party -- a fate that I won't regret seeing for either of these two tired, played out parties -- it will be their solidarity in acting much like the caricatures their opponents allege. For that matter, the very same can be said for the Democrats, who also never fail to live up to their own class warfare and free shit stereotypes.

    The day I see an R truly repudiating all the SoCon and military b.s., and a Democrat who is dead serious about limiting government and mothballing at least a handful of lettered agencies, I will begin to have a little faith in the two party system once again. Right now, I'd like to see both of them go the way of the Whigs.

  • DenverJ||

    Starting early today, eh AC? Shrooms?

  • Don'tTreadOnMeChipper||

    "...spent entire careers smashing their fists into the cock hole of the constitution..."

    The imagery is sublime. AC rocks!

  • Res ipsa loquitur||

    This is such a worthless argument. Abortion is legal, it is the law of the land and isn't going anywhere.

    The only issue I have is why are taxpayers funding abortions ? Somehow the idea of not paying for an abortion = war on women and other crap.

    If you want an abortion, go pay for one yourself, but why should others foot the bill who disagree ?

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    At one time Slavery was legal, was the Law of the Land, and wasn't going anywhere. While the Pro-Choice side of the argument has not - yet - gotten as arrogant and stupid as the Old Plantation Elite (who started a war they lacked the industry to support), they do seem to be headed in that direction. The people in PA who didn't follow up on complaints about Gossnell did the cause of Abortion Rights no favors. Planned Parenthood should be aware that, as standard bearers for a contentious Cause, they have to be careful of the appearance they present (I'm not entirely clear that what they were filmed proposing to do is illegal, though it sure sounds that way). Apparently, they are convinced that their cause is so righteous that they can cut corners. The Anti-Saloon League thought the same way, and blew up spectacularly toward the end of Prohibition.

    Few debates are ever over, in any field, much less in Politics.

    The question I want answered, BTW, is "If it's so important to you that poor women get abortions, why are you spending money lobbying the State to pay for it with money collected by menaces from people who disagree with you, instead of just paying for the damn things yourself?"

  • Michael Hihn||

    The only issue I have is why are taxpayers funding abortions ?

    We aren't. Ignore the bullshitters.

  • Hyperbolical (wadair)||

    Abortion is legal, it is the law of the land and isn't going anywhere

    Well not entirely. Gonzales v Carhart in 2007 upheld a federal ban on Partial Birth Abortion.

    This is why I think PP is in trouble. They most likely continued to do what they were doing before the 2007 ruling only in legally twisted ways. This has recently been exposed. But they will likely get away with it.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    They probably won't get convcted of anything. They will almost certainly be "investigated", which is annoyng even when it's your friends doing a whitewash, and they will pay a political price.

  • Mickey Rat||

    The GOP did not have a plank on abortion in its platform until 1976?

    Gee, whatever could have happened between '72 and '76 that made abortion a national issue rather than a state issue and imposed a single extreme position on the entire country?

  • Hyperbolical (wadair)||

    Jimmy Carter was elected?

  • Mickey Rat||

    No, that is not it.

    (Pedantry: the GOP platform was in place before the election, naturally).

  • Hyperbolical (wadair)||

    Just playing the "You know who..." game.

  • Michael Hihn||

    The GOP did not have a plank on abortion in its platform until 1976?

    That doesn't sound right. (I was there)

    Gee, whatever could have happened between '72 and '76 that made abortion a national issue rather than a state issue and imposed a single extreme position on the entire country?

    Learn the 9th amendment. It's explicitly not a state issue.

    That's constitutionally. Intellectually, it's retarded to assume each state can define ANY fundamental rights on its own ... even wackier to define life itself state by state.

  • Eric||

    This article is about 30 years stale.
    Also, on the local level you can still find pro-choice Repubs and pro-life Dems.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    That's because at the local level, the National organizations that are so determined to stomp out all deviationist thinking don't necessarily have the mojo to affect much. this is, weirdly, even try on the coasts. The National Political Stage is a strange parallel dimension, almost completely separate from the real world. It touches places like San Francisco or the Peoples' Republic of Boston, but it seldom holds complete sway, even over a State like New Jersey.

  • Michael Hihn||

    This article is about 30 years stale.

    That would be the Reagan years, which is precisely backwards. Reagan had crushed the anti-gay Anita Bryant Crusade on his way to the White House. Goldwater was waging open war on the extreme socons. They had both defended gays.

    Falwell and Robertson tried to turn their followers against Reagan, and were totally ifnored. It was a much different time!

  • EMD||

    Bob Casey, call your office!

    From beyond the grave!

  • EMD||

    Sorry, didn't see the subhead, which takes this into account.

    I am pro-choice, but I really hate abortion. In a wealthy society, it seems so unnecessary.

  • ace_m82||

    Why do you hate abortion? What is your reasoning?

  • EMD||

    It's a personal one. I would never prohibit it for anyone who was in a situation where they felt it was the solution, but I will admit to not having a clear line as to whether or not it's ending life.

    I would rather focus on the prevention of unwanted pregnancies and find common ground there between the two sides.

  • ace_m82||

    Your feeling comes from there not being a clear line? So you think it may be something like killing a live human and therefore find it distasteful?

    It's possible your feeling may be trying to tell you something (like a conscience). It's possible it may not be.

  • Mickey Rat||

    The current legal regime surrounding abortion in the US is extreme end if the pro-aborton rights sprectrum, such that most people's position is more pro-life thsn the current state of law. Yet people like Dalmia write as if everyone who might call themselves "pro-choice" is in favor of the current standard (which allows death up to birth), and accuse tjose who oppose them of black and white thinking.

    How is this level of dishonesty tolerated in decent argument?

  • Michael Hihn||

    the current standard (which allows death up to birth)

    Bullshit.

    How is this level of dishonesty tolerated in decent argument?

    Funniest line of the month.

  • ashdex||

    The debate ignores the fact that there are these 50 little political subdivisions called states. Any degree of abortion legislation should be more appropriately reserved for the states. There are too many nuances for federal legislation.

  • The Elite Elite||

    Oh please. For all the Republicans' talk of protecting the unborn from being murdered during an election cycle, they do absolutely nothing about the issue once in office. During the start of Bush's presidency when the Republicans had complete control with a supposedly pro-life majority, exactly what did they do to put any kind of limits on abortion? Oh that's right, nothing. Another interesting note, in a column by Ron Paul a few weeks back at Townhall, he mentioned receiving pushback from other supposedly pro-life Republicans when he put forth legislation that simply cut off funding to any organization that performed abortions. Not banned abortion, but simply stopped taxpayer money from funding it. The fact of the matter is the Republican Party is pro-life in talk and pro-abortion in action.

  • Robert||

    They actually do some things, but they're very hemmed in by judicial precedent. However, it does seem they could accomplish the funding cut-off in some places if they really wanted.

    It's interesting to compare developments in the USA w those in other countries that aren't so judicially-bound on this issue.

  • Hidebehindyourcause||

    I guess it really comes down to your personal view on where life begins, and how much of this should be a woman's choice. There's other options to abortion such as adoption.

    I'm libertarian because the non-aggression principle really goes hand in hand with the value I put on life. So I'm personally pro-life.

    However I do agree with John McCain. I won't try to force my views on any women, it's just my personal take on it.

  • Robert||

    For me it has nothing to do with where life begins, but where awareness of one's own life begins. There's tons of biomass for which that issue is never in doubt, relatively little for which it is.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Is thete any other area where you woyld not want to.impode ypur view on whether someone has rights at all?

    The NAP is meaningless if anyone can decide if someone else is not worthy of rights.

  • Robert||

    This is the outcome of a decades-long process, and is equally true of Democratic politicians. 50 yrs. ago abortions in the USA were not a partisan issue. There's still diversity at the grass roots within the parties on the issue, but it slowly shook out to have the elected leadership of the parties & their nominees for gov't office to align thusly. It's not something that happened suddenly over, say, the past decade, but a fairly smooth change over about 45 yrs. Elections for party offices & nominations for public office over time exaggerate the magnitude of alignment of the rank & file, so that while it may be that, say, 1/3 of the members are 1 way & 2/3 the other, it makes sense for all politicians to play to the 2/3.

  • ace_m82||

    And there is a reason for this: Abortion is a difficult issue that does not admit a simple right or wrong answer.

    The vast majority of pro-"choice" people need to believe that, yes. However, I'd say the vast majority of anti-abortion people don't. (I have no stats here.)

    If you believe the definition of "live human" and therefore "murder" are muddy waters, then you should end up pro-choice. If you have a more firm definition of these terms, you usually end up anti-abortion (my experience). Pretty much every debate I've had on the issue, if it goes on long enough, comes down to the pro-choice person saying they aren't sure where the line is and me saying I do know. Also, the pro-choice person likes subjective definition and I like objective.

    An observation, not meant to be an attack... though I'm fairly certain it will be taken that way anyhow.

  • Berserkerscientist||

    Pro-life people believe it is okay to force a woman be a human incubator. Pro-choice people believe that women can withdraw sustenance to the fetus during pregnancy, hence the "choice" part. The line is when the fetus can survive on its own, outside the womb. That seems pretty "objective" to me.

  • ace_m82||

    Pro-life people believe it is okay to force a woman be a human incubator.

    Excepting in the case or rape, she volunteered to perhaps become a "human incubator". Pro-life people believe that tiny, live humans have the same rights as full-sized humans. You decided to create it, then you decided not to, but doing so kills that thing you created... Does that violate NAP? That's the question.

    Pro-choice people believe that women can withdraw sustenance to the fetus during pregnancy

    I would find that much easier to believe if they'd stop stabbing the tiny human in the brain.

    The line is when the fetus can survive on its own, outside the womb. That seems pretty "objective" to me.

    Excepting that it changes every year as new tech comes out.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    "I would find that much easier to believe if they'd stop stabbing the tiny human in the brain."

    He (she?) doesn't want to admit that there is a difference between failure to support and actively seeking to kill. He also doesn't want to admit that that the choice to have procreative sex should be a good deal more serious, if a fetus is human. He wants to assume the non-human status of agh fetus without having to prove his argument. He also wants to parade his Moral Superiority rather than have a real debate. He apparently cannot help but be disrespectful of people with whom he disagrees. He, and people like him, are a major reason that I (Pro-Abortion though I am) believe I will see Abortion outlawed in most parts of the Country in my lifetime.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Okay, so I took a look at the poll cited--and pro-choice people think this is good news?

    23% of people who self identify as pro-choice want abortion to be illegal except in a few circumstances--the same position as that held by 51% of self identified pro-lifers.

    And the same position held by a plurality of Americans--36%.

    But when you combine this with those Americans who want abortion illegal in all circumstances (19%) you get 55%

    55% of Americans want abortion illegal in all but a few circumstances.

    42% of Americans want abortion legal in most circumstances.

    What mental contortions did they undergo to call this good news for pro-choice people?

  • Mickey Rat||

    It is a fundametally dishonest rhetorical tactic.

  • MJBinAL||

    Typical for Shikha, she is a hard core progressive. Just look back at the pattern of her "journalistic" contributions. I get she has the right to her dishonest rhetoric. I don't get why her Huff Po material is featured on Reason.

  • NYer||

    "There is no place in today's GOP for a pro-choice Republican."

    Except in Massachusetts: Governor Charlie Baker (R-MA)

    Or Nevada: Gov. Brian Sandoval (R-MA)

    Maine: Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME)

    Illinois: Gov. Bruce Rauner and Sen. Mark Kirk

    Alaska: Sen. Lisa Murkowski

    Not to mention the numerous Republicans who support making birth control pills available over the counter or oppose total bans on abortion, or want to leave the issue to the states (Senators like Jeff Flake and Cory Gardner). Or Governors like Rick Snyder, Chris Christie, and Larry Hogan

    There are 54 Republican Senators and 31 Republican Governors. Considering the states these ladies and gentlemen represent is really that hard to believe the Republican Party is a big tent?

    Also everyone of the Republicans mentioned at the beginning of the article are running for President and the first caucuses and primaries include Iowa and South Carolina. Two states which are dominated by the Religious Right. If the influence of these two states were scaled back, we moved to a system in which the order of the states were chosen at random, or more states had open primaries like New Hampshire then perhaps we would see more diversity of thought on the abortion issue in Presidential primaries.

  • ace_m82||

    I wonder, how many pro-life Democrats there are left?

  • NYer||

    There is only two I can think of: Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia, and (allegedly) Senator Bob Casey of Pennsylvania.

    The Democrats have 44 Senators and 18 Governors. Except for holding the White House the Democrats are the minority party. I don't understand how the author of this article can think the Republicans are a shrinking a tent, while ignoring the the literal shrinking tent of the Democratic Party?

  • livelikearefugee||

    Probably many of you aren't old enough to remember when abortion was generally illegal in most states. Women finding themselves with unwanted pregnancies had 3 choices: 1. have the baby and give it up for adoption, 2. keep the baby and raise it in a society that shunned illegitimate children and their mothers or 3. find an illegal abortion provider.

    Making this decision was heartbreaking for most women. If you've known women who've given children up for adoption you know that they carry that grief for the rest of their lives. Raising a child as a single mom is tough on both mother and child and only wealthy celebrities can afford to do it without a lot of pain and suffering. Illegal abortion providers have existed for years and will exist again if abortion is outlawed or severely restricted. They kill women as well as fetuses. It's barbaric.

  • Ron||

    they do not all grieve for the rest of their lives, many come to love what has become.

  • livelikearefugee||

    I know 2 women who gave up children for adoption. Both still grieve after over 35 years. One has made contact with her son and that has helped but she missed out on 40 years of his life. The other has had contact rejected by the adoptive mother and still feels a lot of pain.

    Of course, this is a small sample, but it should make us all understand that this is an extremely difficult and painful choice to make. Young women, especially teenagers, have no idea of the continuing impact it can have on their lives.

  • Notorious UGCC||

    If a woman can grief for a lifetime about having her child adopted, wouldn't it be possible that she'd grieve if she'd had her child *aborted*?

  • Dan Bongard||

    This seems like an argument for raising your children yourself, not an argument for why abortion might be better than adoption. I doubt the woman who reconnected with her son came away thinking "I wish I'd had an abortion instead".

  • obadiahlynch||

    Some do, some don't. People are different.

  • Ron||

    read what I wrote not what you think I wrote. I wrote not all which means that yes many do

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    OK, you are oversimplifying this a tad. There were more choices.

    A woman could attempt to induce a miscarriage; this was scurrilously know as "Catholic Birth Control"

    A woman could, and often did, give the baby to a close family member. I know of two cases of this in my Wife's Paternal line, and think I remember hearing about a case in my Mother's family. Such informal "adoptions" were often not recorded with the authorities, on the grounds that is was none of their goddamned business. The birth mother might be shamed by her family, but far more often wasn't. Christians are, as a rule, a great deal better at forgiving than self-righteous atheistical Progressives are willing to admit.

  • reinadorothy||

    Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this - 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail,,,,,,,

    http://www.homejobs90.com

  • Connor||

    I'm gonna be honest, I have been of the fence with abortion for a long time. I also pride myself on not being swayed by things that are supposed to be emotionally manipulative, but after watching the most recent planned parenthood video leak.... and seeing that fetus still moving in that tray, whether it was just random, leftover electronic signals or not, and hearing the girl talk about cutting the head of it open.... I can't help but to view it as pure evil (I know picking a word like that isn't going to get me favors here). I have come to the conclusion that life begins at conception, or at least some point very soon after.
    I still stand by my belief that a woman who is raped should be allowed abortions due to the fact that the baby is an unwelcome invader in her body, but this concept of just corporatized abortion companies, selling abortions as just the last form of birth control.... I just can't help but think of it as wrong, and I could offer all the usual arguments about the natural rights of the baby vs the mother, but the main point is that there at least has to be some sort of clear definition of what is and isn't ok in regard to abortion cause this just is not ok.

    my .02

  • Notorious UGCC||

    I think you're not the only one to recoil from the latest revelations.

    This is why the "pro choice" side didn't want those videos released!

  • obadiahlynch||

    Given what you wrote I don't believe for ten seconds that you were ever 'on the fence'.

  • Connor||

    well that's just great to hear, because when I posted this, all I could think about was whether some random bitch online believed what I was saying, but since you have such in depth knowledge of who I am, or you happen to be such an in depth observer of the human psyche that you can know what I think just by one shirt online comment, I will defer to your superior knowledge.

    People like you are the self righteous internet motherfuckers that drive me crazy. Talk like you know it all behind your screen, but call me a liar in person..... I highly doubt it

  • Michael Hihn||

  • Ron||

    I used to be pro choice but through scientific research I found that it is not known where sentients begins, never mind wether a life can live outside of the womb on its own, it is alive within the womb. Is a fish not alive because it can't live outside of water? I find it amazing that many of the same people that think you can teach a child in the womb, which may be true, also believe it is not alive and can destroy it at will.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Ritten lack a true Creation Scientist™. The pastor will refund you the subscription fee to git in here with these godless heathens and convert them to the ways of tha Lawerd.

  • Michael Hihn||

    I used to be pro choice

    And I used to be a cocker spaniel.

    but through scientific research I found that it is not known where sentients begins, never mind whether a life can live outside of the womb

    Now spend 15 seconds with a dictionary.

    Unalienable rights cannot be taken away. Look it up. Then THINK.
    That means the woman's equal, unalienable and/or God-given right to life is precisely equal to the fetal child's unalienable right to Life!

    And how much time did you spend on science ... for an issue of individual rights?
    Would you research US History with a course on algebra?

  • gphx||

    A problem with fundamentalist (notice the subcategory) Christians is many don't believe Atheists or even Libertarians can have any values without a belief in the Bible. A second problem is fundamentalist candidates tend to prioritize the Bible ahead of the Constitution. At least prior to the election. Afterwards, they'd likely prioritize the Chamber of Commerce like Hillary, Jeb, or anyone else.

  • Ron||

    unfortunately for atheist we have seen what countries controlled by atheism has wrought please see what the USSR and China has done to its own people, isn't the number like 60 million of their own killed. china today is still repressing christians.

  • Dan Bongard||

    If you think really hard, you might come up with something the USSR, China, and numerous other genocidal regimes had in common other than atheism. :)

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    A firm belief that their elite had the right to murder millions?

    Of course the ruling elite in China has tended to return to that belief throughout recorded history. Mao merely put a new mask on it.

  • Michael Hihn||

    A firm belief that their elite had the right to murder millions?

    Do you mean the Jewish elite or the Christian elite?

    Mass moral atrocities were INVENTED by religion. The True Believers.

    http://reason.com/archives/201.....nt_5530387

  • Michael Hihn||

    unfortunately for atheists, we have seen what countries controlled by atheism has wrought please see what the USSR and China has done to its own people, …

    While you napped through World History and were being manipulated ... religion INVENTED moral atrocities, over a thousand years earlier. Google "Rhineland Massacre" also called the First Holocaust, where the Christian Crusades began by slaughtering thousands of Jews ... in Germany ... long before Hitler

    Ancient Jews were the first to commit mass genocide of an entire culture, to seize their land. They slaughtered the Canaanites. Thousands of years before Stalin and Hitler stole territory.

    In Deuteronomy, God commands his followers to "kill all the infidels" -- even to slaughtering your own brother, spouse, child or friend, if they dare follow another prophet. Long before Islam, which has no such command..

    Then the barbarities of the (un)Holy Inquisition ... and the Salem Witchcraft trials here.

    HOWEVER … I never blame today's Christians of Jews for any of that. I judge everyone on the content of their own character and actions. I'm not a self-righteous bigot like .....

    It’s bullshit to blame either religion or atheism. Hold accountable the moral perversions of leaders who teach their followers to hate. Their followers, the True Believers are the real scourge of human history. (See Mike Huckabee)

  • Hank Phillips||

    Those same creatures are absolutely incapable of reading explanations of biocentric virtue ethics. Their conditioned reflexes kick in and the pages slip from their fingers. The concept of a healthy, happy life as a standard of value is absolutely meaningless to those threatened with damnation and perpetual torture or rewards on the other side of death. Their values lie beyond death. They cannot value life at all, but they can be coached to pretend to to spread the meme that so pitifully enslaves them.

  • Michael Hihn||

    I'm a devout atheist. But that's a crock of pretentious (wordy) bullshit.
    By definition, bigotry.

  • Michael Hihn||

    That's true, but only their leadership and most rabid followers.
    The vast majority of them are not like that at all. I've worked with hundreds of them over the years, as a political activist. And as an atheist

    They all knew I was an atheist -- they always ask -- but didn't give a flying fig ... once they saw that I am non-religious, not anti-religious. Umm, that's what libertarians are, inside or outside a religion. We'll may try to persuade, but we're never bigots -- and if we are bigots we don't try to jam it up anyone's ass -- as we see among BOTH the religious and non-religious,. We don't want to impose our views on others. (See the immensely devout Ronald Reagan)

  • ||

    Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do...... ✹✹✹✹✹✹ www.online-jobs9.com

  • alice567||

    Start making cash right now... Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I've started this job and I've never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here...
    www.jobnet10.com

  • Moridin||

    "And there is a reason for this: Abortion is a difficult issue that does not admit a simple right or wrong answer."

    Wrong. Abortion is a difficult issue that does not admit a simple right or wrong answer that people can agree upon. For some of us, the answer is quite simple. Some of us can find the answer simple and still have a "difficult" and nuanced discussion about the issue.

    Not all pro-life people are toothless, uneducated, religious zealots.

  • Notorious UGCC||

    "this is a remarkable shift for a party that until 1976 didn't even mention abortion in its platform—and then only to acknowledge that the GOP was deeply divided between the pro-choice and pro-life camps."

    Let's take a look at the political context of the 1970s and 80s. Before the 70s, there were a lot of Democrats who were what we would now call "cultural conservatives." Then McGovern (as Presidential candidate and, before that, as head of a commission to revise party rules) greatly enhanced the power of the counter-cultural people, the ethnic grievance lobbies, and of course the feminists. And the new Democratic leaders proceeded to purge prolifers from their Party.

    This left a lot of people politically homeless. After a good bit of nudging, the Republicans decided to scoop up these alienated Democrats whom the Democratic Party had dumped in Republicans' laps. Of course, to lots of Republican leaders, this was simply a matter of votes - roping "Reagan Democrats" into their coalition.

    But people who were sincerely prolife - that is, who saw abortion as a violation of human rights, not just a useful campaign issue to use against Democrats - became active in the Republican Party. I don't think the sincere prolifers are a majority of the party or its leadership, but now they're in a position to make things difficult for a Republican candidate who won't even *pretend* to oppose abortion.

  • Notorious UGCC||

    So that's what a lot of Republican leaders do - *pretend* to oppose abortion, holding votes on the subject only when they know they'll lose, and doing nothing constructive when they actually have Congress and the President on their side. This way, they can wink and nudge at the "moderate" Republicans and assure them - "we have to hold these votes to fool the rubes, but really we're not going to endanger the right to abortion."

    That's on the national level - sadly for the choicers, the Republican leaders on the state level (eg, Texas, North Carolina) actually take this more seriously and work to pass prolife laws which actually have the effect of reducing abortions - working within the framework of federal court precedents. While the national leaders surely find their state counterparts embarrassing, they can't repudiate them.

  • Moridin||

    Exactly this. Has everyone forgotten that for four years under Bush II the repubs controlled the White House AND BOTH houses of Congress and they did not do a fucking thing to stop abortion. The party leadership at the time blocked all of the anti-abortion bills from making it to the floor for a vote.

    Lying. Cunts.

  • Notorious UGCC||

    Like I said, I distinguish between Repugs at the national level versus the statewide.

    And I think there are sincere prolifers even in Congress, they just aren't dominant.

    What prolifers need to do is vote the crypto-choicers out of the party, through primary campaigns.

  • Robert||

    Ron Paul I'm sure was sincerely anti-abortion, stemming from actual obstetric experience.

  • Hank Phillips||

    DemoGOP machine politicians are slick professionals out hustling marks. By running candidates and jeopardizing their hold on power we force them to change the laws more to our liking. Their cupidity is our strength if we only have sense enough to take proper advantage of it. The absolute dumbest thing we can do is to let the ku-kluxers turn us into superstitious idiots or let the socialists turn us into mindless slaves with no rights or freedom. To them what counts is someone else's money on the table within reach. To us the important thing is not having guns shoved in our faces, right?

  • Michael Hihn||

    ?Exactly this. Has everyone forgotten that for four years under Bush II the repubs controlled the White House AND BOTH houses of Congress

    Nobody can "forget" bullshit that never existed.

    The Senate was virtually tied throughout the Bush Presidency, and literally tied in 2 sessions. The 107th (2001-2003) when was Bush sworn in?
    110th (2007-2009) 2007 also saw Democrats take control of the House.

    http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0774721.html

    Lying. Cunts.

    Is that worse than a bullshitting cunt?

    So you missed the REAL lesson. As long as power is up for grabs, both parties avoid divisive proposals and rhetoric. It's not as good as a divided Congress at keeping them in check, but power doesn't always corrupt. :-)

    But liberty NEVER needs your attitude,

  • Hank Phillips||

    The Prohibition Party and Anti-Saloon League managed to put fanatical Methodists in control of Congress. That got us WWI, the Harrison Act, the Income Tax, prohibition itself (initially as a tax loophole), and finally the Crash once investors clearly could see the lunatics would cause a Depression by zealous enforcement. By then the Prohi and League had absolute control over the GOP, and dry killers shot citizens right and left for moonshine. These current televangelist-brainwashees are simply upholding a tradition they were ordered to perpetuate--or perpetually burn in Hell tortured by Satan. They have no choice whatsoever, any more than a herd of terrified cattle. We should have better sense. I clearly remember when libertarians had better sense and the courage of our convictions.

  • Robert||

    I think the World War would've happened w/o them, & indeed without anyone in the USA, which is why it was called the World War. Great Depression & stocks crash also not the fault of fanatic Methodists anywhere in the world.

  • Michael Hihn||

    The Prohibition Party and Anti-Saloon League managed to put fanatical Methodists in control of Congress. That got us WWI,

    Thanks. The lying cocksuckers have been blaming the Lusitania sinkling, and the ongoing sinking of American merchant ships.

  • Hank Phillips||

    I clearly remember my cohorts thinking McGovern would legalize marijuana. We had no conception about taxes, much like Will Rogers when he was a youngster. Today we know about looters who are fanatically devoted to robbery just as prohibitionists are fanatically devoted to nationalizing women's bodies into a breeding pool for another Hitlerjugend of pure and Positive Christianity. As adults we have to recognize that neither the religion of forcible redistribution nor the revealed faith of Christian altruism have any use for rights or freedom. Both have for centuries been dedicated to coercion, torture and war. So, like Will Rogers the grownup, now that we are ourselves tax-gouged, we owe it to ourselves and our children to face the facts of reality and take up the dropped banner of freedom. Cowardice, especially when outnumbered, is not an option.

  • Dan Bongard||

    I'm pro-choice, personally, but I have to say I'm puzzled at the objection to saying the fetuses were "killed". They're alive, and then they are rendered dead. How is that not "killing"?

  • Hank Phillips||

    An individual can remove tissue from his or her self, and it is killing. It is just that when surrounded by a lynch mob of mystical fanatics fleeing like rats from the Prohibition Party to the GOP, then from the GOP they scuttled to grab and cause us to drown with them, a sane person exercises some circumspection to avoid giving the parasites a handhold. If they were threatening to kill or arrest you for removing a wart, you would grasp the situation without needing an explanation. They too are capable of some circumspection, and have temporarily shelved their arguments for again banning condoms and beer.

  • Michael Hihn||

    An individual can remove tissue from his or her self, and it is killing

    So I can remove my own kidney, except that it's murder.

    What's your guess on how many people have done extraction surgery on themselves?

  • MJBinAL||

    Ah yes, here comes Shikha Dalmia with her latest half-backed entry.

    "For one thing, the GOP is desperately seeking a victory in the culture war."

    You don't have to agree with the position to understand that this position has been a litmus test issue ever since the Social Conservatives became essential to the GOP. But I know, you keep saying it will destroy the GOP, but the truth is that the GOP can't win without the base, and this part of the base stays home if ignored. It so happens that I agree with McCain on this one (it had to happen some time!) but that does not impact my ability to see political reality.

    "Living children"? "Killing"? Seriously? Such terms used to be reserved for late-term abortions, even in the pro-life camp."

    There you go again, dreaming your progressive dreams. The pro-life/social conservative camp has ALWAYS said, and I quote, "Life Begins At Conception". We have all seen and heard it so often it is cliche.

    "This is not a position that is in sync with the intuitions of the vast majority of people. Indeed, even those who self-identify as pro-life have a hard time with a blanket ban unless there are exceptions for rape, incest, and mother's health."

  • Michael Hihn||

    this position has been a litmus test issue ever since the Social Conservatives became essential to the GOP.

    Which was NEVER. Exreme socons have never never determined the nominee, and never will. The more extreme, the fewer supporters.

    But I know, you keep saying it will destroy the GOP,

    That was Goldwater,

    but the truth is that the GOP can't win without the base,

    Democrats, umm, no. Independents (like most Americans) are socially liberal. I assume you're an extreme socon in denial.

    … Such terms used to be reserved for late-term abortions, even in the pro-life camp."

    There you go again, dreaming your progressive dreams.

    Yep, in severe denial
    Candidates can ignore the socon leadership entirely, who don’t speak for their followers ... true since Reagan took their base away.

    The pro-life/social conservative camp has ALWAYS said, and I quote, "Life Begins At Conception".

    How old were you in 1973? It's irrelevant anyhow, since life alone does not equate wih human rights. The debate has always been when the fetus acquires defensible rights -- which is separate from the right to Life

    Extreme socons deny all fundamental (unalienable) rights are precisely co-equal. In this case, Life and Liberty. Extreme pro-choicers suffer equal denial regarding the fetal child.

  • MJBinAL||

    Indeed, polls show just the opposite, even most of those who favor legal abortion claim to want it "Safe, Legal, and Rare" Polls also show that even Social Conservatives want exceptions for the mother's health.

    The effectiveness of the Planned Parenthood expose videos is rooted in the fact that nearly no one (excepting extreme Progs like Shikha Dalmia) LIKES abortion. Nearly everyone hates it and pushes the reality of it from their mind. The video exposes how ugly it really is, and how much of a "profitable" business it is for Planned Parenthood.

    Once again, why is Shikha Dalmia published here? Isn't Huff Po paying enough?

  • Hank Phillips||

    The socialist looter statists are surely looking over here and seeing libertarian "intellectuals" cowed by frothing mystical bigots claiming to be defenders of life itself. The looters at least realize that these fanatics send US military force to bomb Mohammedans purely because they are not Christians--exactly a repeat of Germany in 1939. It is a reproach on the current LP leadership that totalitarians feel called upon to send missionaries to show us how to defend the rights of female individuals against zealot aggressors. I suggest letting the Huffy meddlers have Nick and that Christian girl so anxious over looter concern for rules of inference. The Indian is at least proving an asset.

  • Michael Hihn||

    The socialist looter statists are surely looking over here and seeing libertarian "intellectuals" cowed by frothing mystical bigots claiming to be defenders of life itself.

    Pro-life socialist looters! Who'd a known?

    It is a reproach on the current LP leadership that totalitarians feel called upon to send missionaries to show us how to defend the rights of female individuals against zealot aggressors.

    Can you defend your position without being a Bellowing Blowhard? (I'm trying to match your level of discourse).

    I suggest letting the Huffy meddlers have Nick and that Christian girl so anxious over looter concern for rules of inference.

    Your slimy tactics won't persuade anyone who doesn't already agree with you. Hence, a Bellowing Blowhard, playing to your own choir.

    And why are the militant AND extreme pro-lifers almost entirely bullies and aggressors?
    (Because they seek to impose their views by statist force. Same mentality)

  • Michael Hihn||

    Indeed, polls show just the opposite,

    You then show your ignorance of the polls ...

    even most of those who favor legal abortion claim to want it "Safe, Legal, and Rare" Shame on you, that;s not even a poll question. The highest ranked response is legal but with restrictions -- but they can't poll the restrictions which vary so much.

    Polls also show that even Social Conservatives want exceptions for the mother's health.

    Who tells all the candidates? And they'll accept more exceptions.

    The effectiveness of the Planned Parenthood expose videos is rooted in the fact that nearly no one (excepting extreme Progs like Shikha Dalmia) LIKES abortion. Then why so many fucking lies, if abortion alone is enough?

    The video exposes how ugly it really is, and how much of a "profitable" business it is for Planned Parenthood. Total bullshit. Not a shred of proof.

    Once again, why is Shikha Dalmia published here? Isn't Huff Po paying enough?

    (laughing) She's libertarian, a concept you clearly don't understand. But character assassination is your people's stock in trade. (Only the fanatics and zealots)

  • Rayson||

    I've been reading a lot of comment stating that laws banning abortion means the mother is being enslaved by the fetus. If that is the case, why eliminate the choice for post term abortion?

    Babies, kids and teens require a lot of time and energy, why not make it legal for the mother to terminate them? Or allow for simply abandoning them on the side of the road?

  • BulletGibson||

    *sigh*

    We don't allow people to drive without traffic control because your right to "drive how you want" is surpassed by another person's "right to life", which is at danger if all we drove without lights, signs etc., and no one has a problem with that. So...all this talk of the woman's rights are pretty stupid....and I mean RETARDSVILLE! What kind of MORON doesn't realize any "liberties" she is not allowed to exercise are surpassed by another person's right to life? DUHHH!

    Not one of you dumb asses thought of this? Really?

    Btw....it is another person/human. DNA says so...and it meets all the scientific definitions of life. Abortion is ending a human life. That's violence and violence has always been handled in the State courts. Not even a Federal matter so who gives a shit WHAT the presidential candidate thinks?

    *mumbles: ...fake ass libertarians.....

  • bacchys||

    Science doesn't speak to personhood, and DNA doesn't speak.

  • Notorious UGCC||

    Perhaps Ms. Dalmia can clarify: Is there *any* regulation of abortion which qualifies as "moderate"? Or does every prolife bill ever introduced qualify as "extremist"?

    We all know what "extremist" means in the vocabulary of a Planned Parenthood fundraising letter - anything which puts any limits whatsoever on abortion.

    "The anti-choice extremists are at it again - they don't think a doctor should have the right to perform abortions within an hour of drinking an entire bottle of vodka! Why are these fanatics trying to interfere with the doctor/bottle relationship?"

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    "We all know what "extremist" means in the vocabulary of a Planned Parenthood fundraising letter - anything which puts any limits whatsoever on abortion."

    We all know what "extremist" means in the vocabulary of a Planned Parenthood fundraising letter - anything which puts a kink in any of their revenue streams.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Banning condoms is not extremist at all to the anti-choice anti-life bombers. It's just that they can't get away with pushing it in the current political climate. It would be counterproductive, like getting caught shooting clinic doctors.

  • John_Engelman||

    The backlash against Roe v. Wade brought the Religious Right into existence. The religious right created the Republican ascendancy, which began with the Reagan administration.

    The leaders of the Republican Party never took the abortion issue seriously. Nevertheless, they need to pretend to to give lower income Evangelicals a reason to vote Republican.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Excuse me? I worked on the Reagan campaign because of some 30,000 Soviet hydrogen bombs pointed in my direction when all the other looter parties wanted to surrender to communism. The existence of the LP was strictly kept out of papers and off campus. The prohibitionist bigots were odious, but less so than 550 kiloton nuclear explosions. Communism and socialism are today rotting cadavers, and mystical prohibitionism has been headed that way since 1932. I am proud of the LP, but troubled that it already copies the spineless Goldwater plank on abortion. We should militantly defend the individual rights of women against all comers. Only after government has quit meddling in all other public health matters will it make sense to argue against funding the Center for Disease Control and Planned Parenthood. Let's keep our priorities and let the GOP and Prohibition party sink with theirs.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Some factual observations.
    The 14th Amendment starts: "Section 1. All persons born or naturalized..."
    The world population has increased by 52 million since January. Overpopulation results in mass death--population biology is a science, not a religion.
    The pushers of fanatical superstition made condoms illegal in the USA for half a century and would do it today if they could. Even today they try to ban contraceptives.
    The Prohibition Party and the GOP both serve as lunatic asylums where these irrational wretches, are considered an asset. They are here to infiltrate and undermine the LP.
    Their President, Bush the First, wants abortion re-banned AND pot "kingpins" executed.
    Crashing a libertarian discussion to call us murderers for not sending men with guns to force women to reproduce against their will is infiltration by the enemies life and freedom.

  • TimothyLane||

    So which is more extreme, the most pro-abortion GOP position (presumably Pataki's) and the most pro-life Democrat position? Or, to be precise, will any Democrat seriously running for President accept any restriction, however small, on abortion? Every candidate genuflects at the altar of Planned Parenthood, no matter what the (7 so far) videos show of their disgusting (and probably illegal) practice. Indeed, even those Democrats who claim to be moderate on the issue (such as Harry Reid) were willing to shut down the government rather than accept any restriction on taxpayer money going to Planned Parenthood. The GOP is clearly pro-life, but they're still less extreme than the party of unrestricted and unlimited abortions (a party that includes Catholics such as Nancy Pelosi and Caroline K. Schlossberg who cite their religion as why they're "pro-choice").

  • Hank Phillips||

    I recall how God's Own Party received libertarian visitors in the YAF newsletters of 1980. We were disgustingly different because we did not want to toss hand grenades into Planned Parenthood clinics. Now those same whack-job prohibitionists are humping our legs to get us to join their NSDAP lynch mob and elect anti-choice Crusaders to again lead the children to death battling Allah's Blackamoors. This is after being beaten by a Kenyan Mohammedan Blackamoor, if we can believe GOP politicians. Thanks, but we already have a political party, know right from wrong, have read the Bill of Rights. We've also read the Nazi Platform and the Communist Manifesto so we know where you get your policies. You, on the other hand, have not read Atlas Shrugged and will blink in bovine incomprehension wondering "who hoppen?"

  • Michael Hihn||

    I recall how God's Own Party received libertarian visitors in the YAF newsletters of 1980. We were disgustingly different because we did not want to toss hand grenades into Planned Parenthood clinics.

    MANY errors
    1) Common knowledge that YAF combined both conservatives and libertarians, both of which evolved out of Goldwaterism
    2) They began drifting in the way you describe. BUT ...
    3) The libertarians were purged from YAF in 1969, when they launched the LP.
    4) So why were you still reading YAF newsletters 11 years later?

    YAF spun off from Goldwater, who was at the time also conflicted between libertarians and conservatism -- which is why he, and YAF, are acknowledged as one source for both libertarianism and conservatism.

    But, as you (almost) imply, Goldwater grew to be quite publicly hostile to social conservatives, who he said were a major threat to his party. He famously said that "Christians should line up to kick Jerry Falwell in the ass" (paraphrased).

    The destruction of the GOP is apparent when we know that Goldwater and Reagan were among THE very strongest public supporters of homosexuals... in the late 1970s ... but they'd be burned in effigy by. today's GOP..

  • obadiahlynch||

    PP is not 'selling aborted fetuses'. Sheesh.

  • Robert||

    Do they rent them out, then? Or are they holding them until the market improves?

  • Michael Hihn||

    Do they rent them out, then? Or are they holding them until the market improves?

    They're providing them for research, and not a shred of evidence to the contrary/

  • Sean Bearly||

    So after I explain to my conservative Christian Republican friends that the reason I vote Libertarian is because my beliefs are more important to me than to have supported the lesser of two evils in order to win an election, I guess I should tell them to compromise their beliefs so they can win an election. Makes perfect sense.

  • Neithernor||

    Can Republicans deign to care a fig about anyone who has left the innocence of the womb? Apparently not. The recent fetus frenzy callously slighted every living, already born American who is struggling against the impossible conditions in the country today. I have been a free market capitalist since Reagan, but I am furious at the Republicans and will not vote for the hardhearted bastards ever again. How about my son? How about his future? He's twenty eight and has no idea that people can have dreams. What about him you sanctimonious power seeking Republican prigs whose only purpose in life is parading your moral purity. You are despicable.

  • Hank Phillips||

    My sentiments exactly. Once a child can no longer be brainwashed into reporting Mommy and Daddy's seeds and roaches in the ashtray to the DEA, it is of no use to God's Own Party. It is like girls born in China a century ago. Once those girls reached an age at which their feet could no longer be easily bound into crippling deformity, China's version of GOP Comprachicos had no further use for them. Christian Germany, busy designing swastika crucifixes, yawned in boredom at news of the Rape of Nanking by Japanese soldiers. Today's GOP is keenly interested in sending its agents to sow armed prohibitionism overseas, and to rain down bombs on fellow mystics in the shape of Allah's Mohammedan followers. That's True Christian™ peace and love.
    I am soooo thankful to have the LP to vote for.

  • obadiahlynch||

    Huh. Comments section seems to have eaten my comment; I'll try again.

    PP is not 'selling aborted fetuses'. Sheesh.

  • Michael Hihn||

    PP is not 'selling aborted fetuses'. Sheesh.

    They want validation, not proof. The fraud was revealed in the first minute, of the first tape, in large type. The video was shot a year ago, in a three-year project. What does that say?

    The "pro-life" group allowed multiple atrocities per day, knowingly, for 1-3 years. Pro-life leadership is more interested in political power and fundraising than in saving babies. Like every special interest group on the planet.

    PLUS … they could have banned late-term abortions 40 years ago, the day after Roe v Wade, Simple:

    The fetal child's viability is defined but not defended. If the fetus is viable, with normal exemptions for a woman's health ... why is an abortionist allowed within 100 yards of the operating room? (because pro-life leadership is a fucking fraud).

    This is entirely within Roe v Wade. For a viable fetus ... wait or it ... why not mandate an attempted life birth ... if the woman chooses to expel? This is not fucking rocket science.

    This says the woman always has a right to "expel" -- but there can be no separate right to kill a child capable of living on its own (mechanical assistance is part of the standard)
    How many babies did THEY kill, by ignoring this?

    Ironically, that makes me MORE pro-life than the noisiest and most militant extreme pro-lifers!
    And it’s an equal/unalienable rights approach. We call that libertarianism.

  • MSD62581||

    "But this is a remarkable shift for a party that until 1976 didn't even mention abortion in its platform"

    Wow. It's almost like there was a significant event in the 1970's which caused abortion to become a hot button federal issue. Not sure what that could have been.

  • Michael Hihn||

    GREAT irony!!! Could it have been Roe v Wade in 1973? Nahhh

  • josh||

    as the non-libertarian among us, abortion has always befuddled me. i've never really felt comfortable anywhere on the spectrum really...my best guess though, if i had to offer an opinion, is that i'm increasingly pro-life personally and somewhere in between "legal in most/legal in only a few" circumstances in regards to policy. i can't stand the two other options, at least rhetorically anyway. if you can't solve the problem, at least we can turn down the noise so we don't all go death.

  • Hank Phillips||

    The noise is all from the mystical bigots who wrote the Patriot Act, bomb Mohammedans, jail hippies and hunt foreigners. In fact, even Germany was sorta quiet until the National Socialist Positive Christianity backers gained power there. Next thing ya know they were striking off crucifixes with swastikas on them as the Cross of Honor for the German Mother.

  • ace_m82||

    Did you just claim that the NAZIs were Christian? Wow, just wow.

    In fact, even Russia was sorta quiet until the International Socialist Atheist backers gained power there.

    Turnabout is fair play, right? Calm down, pilgrim, not every bad thing on earth comes down to which religion one side happened to claim.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Me? Here is the National Socialist German Workers' Party Platform on religion:
    The Party, as such, stands for positive Christianity, but does not commit itself to any particular denomination. It combats the Jewish-materialistic spirit within and without us, and is convinced that our nation can achieve permanent health only from within on the basis of the principle: The common interest before self-interest.
    That is the platform of the party that got 90% of the vote in German elections until its altruist Fuehrer sacrificially joined Jesus in Heaven, much like the Right Reverend Jim Jones of People's Temple fame. The Soviet Socialist government no less religiously worshipped a looter bureaucracy. This was all covered under mystics of the mind and mystics of muscle before 1963, volkegnosse. Where you been, pilgrim?

  • ace_m82||

    Right from Wikipedia:

    |In 1937, Hans Kerrl, the Nazi Minister for Church Affairs, explained "Positive Christianity" as not "dependent upon the Apostle's Creed", nor in "faith in Christ as the son of God", upon which Christianity relied, but rather, as being represented by the Nazi Party: "The Fuehrer is the herald of a new revelation", he said.|

    So, calling it "Christianity" would be about the same as calling any government worship (party worship) "Christianity". The entire movement was an attempt to co-opt the religion for the government's use, one that mostly failed.

    Not to mention that anyone who puts government above God has broken the 1st and 2nd commandments. "Christian" means "little Christ", and though a man can call himself what he wants, he cannot make himself into it, or indeed it into himself. (I can call myself a bird but that doesn't mean I can fly.)

  • Michael Hihn||

    The Christian Taliban in one sentence.

    Not to mention that anyone who puts government above God has broken the 1st and 2nd commandments.

    Ever the shameless bullshitter.

    The first commandment says "no other gods" before me. So Sparky thinks government is a god!

    The second commandment forbids bowing down to craven images and worshiping another God. Sparky not only says government is a god, but it also has people worshiping craven images!

    Having lied about the Bible. Sparky --- aka chump -- then denies the first Amendment's separation of church and state. This causes the Christian Taliban to scream -- in unison -- "Separation does not appear in the Constution" --- as if it had to (snarfle)

    "Wall of separation" is what Jefferson said it meant, when asked by the Danbury Baptists. The Taliban NOBODY to support them/

    Biggest of all is the Treaty of Tripoli. Negotiated under Washington. Ratified UNANIMOUSLY by the Senate under Adams.

    "the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."

    So I have Jefferson, Adams. the entire Senate in our 9th year ... all saying that is the Law of the Land.

    So yes, our founding documents REQUIRE putting government above any god ... which need not be said unless some Christian Taliban says that government is a goid. Is our flag a craven image? (lol)

  • ace_m82||

    Government is their "god". Government is their idol.

    You mistake one thing, just because you broke on of God's commandments doesn't mean you should have government sicked on you (you haven't necessarily violated NAP).

    Of course, you don't know what NAP is, so this shouldn't be surprising.

  • Hank Phillips||

    I since the Swastika Crucifix of Honor for the German Mother was struck back in 1938, when all Germany, including Hitler, were pro-life and Americans tended to stay out of wars except to recover bank loans, I cannot fathom what went through that mystical altruistic mind. But just recently the Pope of Rome was given a solid gold crucifix with a hammer and sickle on it by the elected president of Bolivia. This Native Bolivian recently threw out of his country an American government agent, Liliana Ayalde, who is currently the US Ambassador to Brazil. This prohibitionist ambassador was recently posted to Paraguay, where the president was impeached after her arrival there. Judging by outcomes that is also her assignment in Brazil. The GOP of superstitious anti-choice prohibitionist warmongers is the reason the US government is hated all over Latin America.

  • bacchys||

    You touch upon the underlying belief for many extreme pro-lifers: sex is evil, and pregnancy is the punishment for having sex.

  • ace_m82||

    Ad Hominem.

  • Michael Hihn||

    the underlying belief for many extreme pro-lifers: sex is evil, and pregnancy is the punishment for having sex

    Close, but no balloon. :-)

    What they say is that aboriton is immoral because you CHOSE to have sex. In other words. we lose our unalienable rights by HAVING SEX!!!! In a sense, that's more fucking stupid than your version?

  • Hank Phillips||

    Let's not misunderstand. Positive Christianity adherents are in favor of freedom to them.
    Here is the politician who wrote the Partriot Act*
    http://www.ontheissues.org/Hou.....ortion.htm

    * spelling deliberate

  • DListon1||

    "But this is a remarkable shift for a party that until 1976 didn't even mention abortion in its platform" Seriously? That's because it wasn't a national issue until this little piece of Supreme Court hubris called Roe Vs. Wade made it one. Before it the States decided. I am moderately Pro-Choice and fact is the Democrats and Left who call themselves pro-choice are the extremist. But I agree the no allowance and no aboration for any reason is extreme.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Before it the States decided.

    Until challenged,which is how our Constitutional system operates. In this case we have a choice between the 9th and 14 Amendments, the 9th being more relevant.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online