Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

The Abortion Battle Ahead—and a Way Out

Support easier access to contraception.

embryoZoya Fedorova / Dreamstime.comIn the presidential campaign, no issue separated Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton more starkly than abortion. He promised to ban it after the 20-week mark of a pregnancy and appoint Supreme Court justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade. She vowed to protect "the right to safe and legal abortions" against all challenges.

With Republicans in control of Congress and most state governments, expect numerous battles on this front. Ohio Gov. John Kasich, a relative moderate in the GOP presidential primaries, just signed a bill largely banning the procedure after the 20th week of a pregnancy, with no exception for cases of rape or incest. Seventeen other states have similar laws, two of which have been struck down by federal courts.

But pro-life people shouldn't get their hopes too high. Trump would need at least one more Supreme Court vacancy (besides the one left by Antonin Scalia's death) to have any hope of reversing Roe—and his arrival in the White House will provide reason enough for every liberal justice to stay. Nor would the demise of Roe mean a nationwide ban on abortion. It would only allow states to make their own decisions.

In that event, it would most likely remain legal in some 20 states, including California, New York, Illinois, Florida and Washington. Women in states with abortion bans could travel to those places—or Canada—to end their pregnancies. Activist groups would help poor women do so.

Medicines that induce abortion would surely be available on the black market, as recreational drugs are. As in the days before Roe, some women would seek out medical professionals providing illegal abortions or even try to self-induce, despite the risks.

If the goal is to reduce the number of abortions, legal restrictions are of minimal value. By raising the cost and effort required for women to end their pregnancies, such laws would prevent some from doing so. But the reduction would most likely be small. Making much difference in abortion rates requires a different approach.

Abortion is an intractable issue because it involves an irreconcilable conflict between two supreme values: protection of life on one side and personal freedom and physical autonomy on the other. But it's not impossible to uphold both. Hillary Clinton was onto something when she said in 2008 that abortion should be "safe, legal and rare—and by 'rare,' I mean rare."

What is needed is a recognition by pro-choice people that there is something awful about destroying a fetus and a recognition by pro-life people that there is something terrible about depriving a woman of control of her body. Such understanding might impel the two sides to look for ways to prevent both horrors.

Katie Watson, a professor at Northwestern University's Feinberg School of Medicine, notes that "45 percent of pregnancies in the United States are unplanned—and 42 percent of unplanned pregnancies are terminated with abortions." One obvious way to bring down the abortion rate is to give women ready access to contraception.

This, alas, is where the Republican Party's concern for life collides with its contempt for Obamacare. The Affordable Care Act mandates that health insurance providers, including Medicaid, offer 18 different types of birth control, from the pill to sterilization, at no cost to the patient. Repealing that rule would almost certainly mean more pregnancies terminated.

We know contraception can curb abortion. Between 2008 and 2011, reports the Guttmacher Institute, the unintended pregnancy rate dropped by 12 percent—and the abortion rate fell by 13 percent.

Behind the declines was the growing use of long-acting contraceptives (IUDs and implants), which are exceptionally reliable. How reliable? "Comparable to tubal ligation," says Watson.

Republican politicians want not only to scrap Obamacare but also to cut off funds to Planned Parenthood—which provides birth control to some 3.5 million people each year. It's understandable that pro-life advocates don't want tax money used for abortions. But that's already forbidden.

The money from Washington pays for reproductive services and other health care, most of it to Medicaid recipients. The money it gets for these services, contrary to myth, doesn't subsidize abortions—any more than the money you spend on bread at the grocery subsidizes its wine sales. What it does is expand use of birth control.

Facilitating access to contraception promises to sharply curtail the loss of fetal life without forcing unwilling women into childbirth. Politicians can make abortion illegal. The better goal is to make it unnecessary.

© Copyright 2016 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

Photo Credit: Zoya Fedorova / Dreamstime.com

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.

  • BigW||

    This is why Republicans are looking to make the pill over the counter. That removes the socialized medicine aspect to Obamacares birth control mandates.

    Ironically it makes birth control cheaper too. Since the doctor visit for the prescription would no longer be needed, and being over the counter would drastically reduce the price too.

  • ||

    They'll fuck it up. Obamacare repeal (good) will be an excuse to not make the pill OTC.

  • Karen24||

    Are the Republicans really planning to do this? My impression here in Texas is that a significant number of Republicans would overturn Griswold v. Connecticut and ban birth control.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Leave the echo chamber for a bit.

  • BambiB||

    I just wish they'd fix the inherent defects in the law. I can think of two related to abortion. For example:

    1) A woman is on her way to the abortion clinic to have an abortion.

    Scenario A: En route, she's in a traffic accident in which the other driver is at fault. She miscarries and the fetus is stillborn. The driver is charged with, tried and convicted of vehicular homicide - a criminal offense.
    Scenario B: The woman reaches the abortion clinic without incident and the fetus is aborted. No one is charged with any crime.

    Note that in "A", the law explicitly recognizes the fetus as a "life", which in "B", it explicitly avoids the same recognition.

    It's the same woman. The same fetus. So which is it? Make this law consistent.

    The second area where the law needs to be fixed is the concomitance of rights and responsibilities. A woman who has a right to choose an abortion has a responsibility for the results of her choice. So if a woman decides to have a baby, she should bear 100% of the responsibility for her decision. That means no more child support payments. A woman has no more right to force a man to shoulder the responsibilities of being a father than a man has the right to force a woman to become a mother against her will (deny her an abortion). If she has the right to abortion, to unilaterally make that choice, then all consequences of her choice are hers - and hers alone.

  • BambiB||

    I just wish they'd fix the inherent defects in the law. I can think of two related to abortion. For example:

    1) A woman is on her way to the abortion clinic to have an abortion.

    Scenario A: En route, she's in a traffic accident in which the other driver is at fault. She miscarries and the fetus is stillborn. The driver is charged with, tried and convicted of vehicular homicide - a criminal offense.
    Scenario B: The woman reaches the abortion clinic without incident and the fetus is aborted. No one is charged with any crime.

    Note that in "A", the law explicitly recognizes the fetus as a "life", which in "B", it explicitly avoids the same recognition.

    It's the same woman. The same fetus. So which is it? Make this law consistent.

    The second area where the law needs to be fixed is the concomitance of rights and responsibilities. A woman who has a right to choose an abortion has a responsibility for the results of her choice. So if a woman decides to have a baby, she should bear 100% of the responsibility for her decision. That means no more child support payments. A woman has no more right to force a man to shoulder the responsibilities of being a father than a man has the right to force a woman to become a mother against her will (deny her an abortion). If she has the right to abortion, to unilaterally make that choice, then all consequences of her choice are hers - and hers alone.

  • Pat (PM)||

    My impression here in Texas is that a significant number of Republicans would overturn Griswold v. Connecticut and ban birth control.

    "Everybody I know voted for McGovern!"

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    No. Conservatives oppose 'Griswold' en masse. Someone making their own decisions instead of Gawd doing it for them pisses them off.

  • WTF||

    Pay your bet assnugget.

  • kbolino||

    Conservatives oppose 'Griswold' en masse

    If you don't know any actual conservatives and you haven't taken a step outside since 1970, I'm sure this is believable.

  • Trshmnstr, Grump Apprentice||

    My impression here in Texas is that a significant number of Republicans would overturn Griswold v. Connecticut and ban birth control.

    Do you hang out solely with Jehovah's Witnesses or something? I spend a lot of time with those icky Texas Republicans, and banning birth control never seems to come up. There are plenty who would flat out overturn Roe v. Wade, and even quite a few who would hold women criminally liable for obtaining abortions, but I've never met a person who was for banning birth control.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Birth control pills act as abortifacients.

  • Trshmnstr, Grump Apprentice||

    Birth control pills act as abortifacients.

    Ah, I see, in the bizarroland where birth control pills are all abortifacients, you must've actually paid your bet. Fuck off... your credibility here is so shot that it makes Tulpa look like a fucking Boy Scout in comparison.

  • Zunalter||

    Regardless of the unstoppable derp that spews from his mouth, one of the reasons birth control pills are as effective as they are, is that they have abortifacients in case the other pieces fail.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    The Wahhabi Christians (evangelicals, fundies, whatever) want to ban any abortifacient.

  • Set Us Up The Chipper||

    Pay up asshole.

  • TheJohnnyAppleseedOfCrack||

    What was the bet?

  • Karen24||

    Most of the people who think this are religious conservatives from my home town in East Texas. I'm glad to know they aren't typical. (Here in Austin Republicans are mostly concerned with the county budget and school taxes, concerns almost everyone else shares.)

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Austin Republicans are outnumbered by rural Republicans by quite a bit.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Finally! Proudly Austin has a woman the infiltrating bigots haven't alienated from the LP. Thank Bob! and thank Toni Nathan!

  • Zeb||

    I really don't think that banning birth control is really something most conservatives are into. Yeah, some religious people don't approve, but it's a much smaller number than those who don't like abortion being legal.

  • ||

    Meh. She did qualify that with "here in Texas" (heavily Catholic, and not the liberal NE sort). "Significant number" is pretty squishy, so like five percent or greater?

    Welcome aboard, Karen. Random vomiting is normal here, even if you're not having morning sickness.

    Commenter "Palin's Buttplug" is universally despised as a troll, plus he welshed on a bet.

  • Karen24||

    Thanks. PB was pretty obvious, even aside from the tacky handle.

    I used to comment here often back in the early Oughts, but left during the '08 Presidential campaign. Y'all are still very engaging and interesting.

  • Certified Public Asshat||

    Y'all are still very engaging and interesting.

    Alright Karen, what do you want from us?

  • Karen24||

    Let's see, world peace? Another season of "Firefly?" Flying cars?

    Let me get back to you.

  • dschwar||

    The correct answer is an edit button for comments, of course.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Regards to the Travis County Libertarian Party, and death to whoever stopped us from donating via PayPal. I'll be at the meetings in March, thrilled to be somewhere that Libertarian Parties and abortion, are not banned by superstitious goons with guns and truncheons.

  • ||

    Yeah, welcome aboard, Karen24! I sure hope you make out better than the first twenty-three did.

  • Karen24||

    The defective prototypes have been recycled. *beep*

  • Hank Phillips||

    Let's vote on this like the DomoGOP wants to force us to:
    All who believe the 14th Amendment starts with "All persons born" say REPEAL ALL ABORTION LAWS.
    All who believe the 14th Amendment says "All ova fertilized" say PROHIBIT ALL ABORTION.
    Canada examined this issue and repealed every single abortion law from Santa's Workshop to the Berlin Wall going up at the US border. Woman immigrants have outnumbered male immigrants into Canada since the mystics began shrieking for someone to put down their books and pick up a gun and help Robert Dear set things to rights.

  • Zunalter||

    Stop sniffing the glue over at ThinkProgress.

  • Just Say'n||

    And they've been denounced by Planned Parenthood for trying to do that. Look at Corey Gardner in Colorado who suggested that and Mark 'Uterus' Udall attacked him for the position. Me thinks that money directed toward their favorite special interest groups is a major reason why they oppose this.

    Also, and this cannot be stressed enough, FIRE STEVE CHAPMAN

  • Hugh Akston||

    If you want Steve Chapman to be fired, you might want to post a comment with his employer.

  • Just Say'n||

    There is no reason why an ostensibly 'libertarian' publication should be reprinting his drivel.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    CHAPMAN IS EXCAPING THE GOP PLANTATION! GIT HIM!

  • Just Say'n||

    Shouldn't you and Chapman be on the Slate site?

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

    [Turns on giant spotlight. Places silhouette of ghost fetus over spotlight. Point spotlight into night sky. Waits]

  • WTF||

    I'm pretty sure Fetus Man is not a superhero. I think.

  • $park¥ is totally a Swifty||

    He would have been if not for... well, you know.

  • WTF||

    Does laughing at that make me a bad person? Because I laughed.

  • ||

    Brilliant. He must be on vacation. Or maybe it's one of those mandatory-attendance holy days for him.

  • The Fusionist||

    Nice, who are you summoning?

  • Hank Phillips||

    Robert Lewis Dear, warrior for the babies.

  • colorblindkid||

    What's the deal with OTC birth control? Last time I checked, the Democrats had switched to opposing it while Republicans had switched to supporting it.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    There is no issue so basic and sensible that the two major parties will not completely switch their positions over time.

  • ||

    How else are you supposed to conserve the status quo *and* make progress?

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Better to ask; why are you supposed to preserve the status quo OR make 'progress'?

  • Rasilio||

    Democrats oppose it because insurance does not cover over the counter medications meaning they could not mandate it be provided for free.

    Republicans support it because insurance does not cover over the counter medications meaning the government cannot mandate it be provided for free.

  • kbolino||

    Republicans support it because insurance does not cover over the counter medications meaning the government cannot mandate it be provided for free by executive order alone.

    The government via Congress can mandate anything be provided for free. Interstate commerce!

  • classical liberal||

    Yeah...when they actually bother to cite a constitutional justification for the shit they want to do, rather than just laugh in your face.

  • ||

    Meh. The feminists also want tampons to be free, so they don't need the enabling framework of government-run healthcare to make that so.

    Feminists, who have long and loudly whined about patriarchal doctors as gatekeepers, are now in the embarrasing position of getting the logical results of their rhetoric fulfilled. Predictably, they have now pivoted to the position that evil conservatives are pushing OTC birth control pills because they want to "deny women access to healthcare."

  • TTanin||

    Because once it's OTC, insurance and/or Medicaid doesn't cover it. Dems hate the idea of someone having to pay for their BC.

  • Longtobefree||

    Perhaps, just maybe, if there was no government interference between a doctor and a patient, this issue would go away? (along with millions of words of federal guidelines, suggestions, fantasies, regulations, and laws)

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    There is no chance of this issue going away. A large number of people consider abortion to be infanticide. I think they are wrong, but their reasons for their belief are pretty much exactly as reasonable and supported by evidence as those of abosrtion supporters. In a sense, we are very lucky so FEW abortion opponents are moved to commit acts of violence.

  • ||

    are pretty much exactly as reasonable and supported by evidence as those of abosrtion supporters

    LOL. "Souls." That oh-so-sacred hooman DNA which they screech loudly about but can never be arsed to define. Etc.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I'm pretty sure we've sequenced 1,000s of human genomes and have successfully categorized by function around 75% of human genes.

    Jus' sayin'

  • ||

    Which is not exactly the same as defining human DNA. Basically, the fetus fanciers realized that "souls" was not an argument which would win-over anyone to their cause so they looked for a rhetorically equivalent term and landed upon "human DNA" which sounds all modern and scientific and all, and was an almost-clever attempt to dress up dogma as science.

    Whenever I've attempted to get a proper definition of "human DNA" out of them, they've referred me to "any biology textbook." I checked one of those, no definition. When called out on that they just hooted and gibbered.

    Other questions they will not answer: Do people with XXY and XYY chomosomes count as "human," and if so, why since "normal" (typical) humans are XX or XY. Would a human/chimp hybrid count as human, and why (not)? Running from questions like that is not the action of an informed person willing to engage in honest debate.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Cutting government funding to planned parenthood and contraception is not unreasonable at all. Telling women and men what to do with their bodies is not reasonable. Making birth control OTC is reasonable too.

    Lets see how these changes would work out. If Trump lets the religious special interests in his administration and Congress do more than cut funding and make birth control OTC, Trump will waste a bunch of time and political capital on the anti-abortion agenda. There are many many more important agendas to pursue.

  • simplybe||

    Why not just hold a national election on three issues. No abortions period. No abortions after 20 weeks and abortions on demand. Then let all women from 12 up vote on it. This is a woman's issue and men actually have no say in it. Better yet just let a woman and her doctor decided. Close down abortion only clinics and make it a private matter without sticking the government's nose and taxpayers money into it. DUH

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    This is a woman's issue and men actually have no say in it.

    Then male doctors should be able to elect to not perform the procedure. If it's solely a "woman's issue," then if a woman wants an abortion, then she needs to find a woman to do it.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    This is a womens's issue only so long as abortion is not murder. I happen to think it isn't, but I don't think I canpersuade anyone who thinks it is, and I doubt anyone else can either.

  • Trshmnstr, Grump Apprentice||

    This is a womens's issue only so long as abortion is not murder.

    Nope. It's a women's issue as soon as men aren't held accountable for their children. Until there's a "financial abortion" option for men (and even that wouldn't absolve him of all consequences), the man is still impacted by the decision whether or not to abort.

  • Just Say'n||

    Should only men be allowed to vote on war, since only they get drafted? Just wondering where this selective voting leads

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Then let all women from 12 up vote on it. This is a woman's issue and men actually have no say in it.

    Hey, I love that reasoning. Can we say no one but bankers should have any say in interest rates? Or maybe only farmers can have any say in agricultural policy? Maybe only gun owners should have any say on the issue of gun control? This could get fun.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Service Guarantees Citizenship

    Would You Like To Know More?

  • Robert||

    Only criminals should have any say on criminal law.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Better yet just let a woman and her doctor decided.

    "Libertarians" here don't want that.

  • Trshmnstr, Grump Apprentice||

    Eh, the "Libertarians" here just unpeople some people to justify their murder. (I can play your stupid game, too)

  • WTF||

    Libertarians here want you to pay your bet, fuckstain.

  • ||

    "a woman and her doctor"

    That's really the issue. If women were self-aborting on their own, there'd be no political issue. (As in fact there is none in those cases where they do.) The problem is that they need to contract an abortionist to do the job, and however you want to consider her relation to the abortion, the abortionist is clearly emitting behaviors that may be considered a political question.

  • Billy Bones||

    "This is a woman's issue and men actually have no say in it."

    I could not disagree more. This is an issue between the mother and the father of the fetus. I also do not believe we have enough protections for the father's rights on this issue. Suppose the father is vehemently pro-life, and the mother not, and the father wishes to take custody and raise the child on his own. Why does he get no say, what-so-ever? What if the father does not want the child and wishes for the mother to get an abortion, but she carries to birth. Why should the father be liable for child support when it was her decision ALONE to have the child?

    And this is why we need the government completely out of of the way on this issue. It is much too complicated and personal for decision to be made even at a state level.

  • John Titor||

    This is actually a pretty good example of how the abortion conversation causes people to just talk right past each other. Pro-abortion people want to frame it as solely as a woman's issue, but it's not like the anti-abortion people contextually see it that way, they see it in the sense that it's infanticide. It's like saying we should let women decide whether infant exposure is murder. It fundamentally ignores anti-abortion proponents' arguments in favour of vapid gender politics.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    These days, almost all,gender politics is vapid, amd what isn't vapid is often surreal.

  • Pat (PM)||

    Here's an even better compromise: Pay for your own shit like a responsible adult. Your cunt is not your neighbor's responsibility. If you can't afford 120 bucks a year to fuck with impunity then maybe your primary concern should be getting off your stupid, illiterate, lazy fucking ass and getting a job.

  • Hail Rataxes||

    100% agree. So tired of paying for state babysitting for my neighbors' kids on top of the refundable tax credits that pay them to make them.

  • John||

    I completely agree. But, if we are going to do that, then we also need to repeal all of the bullshit child welfare laws that require every kid to receive a gold plated childhood lest their parents are up on child neglect charges.

  • Libertymike||

    Pat, if one is stupid and illiterate, what type of job can the person possibly secure?

  • John||

    There are a few if they have a strong back. If they don't, then yeah it is a problem. One of the things about conservatives and libertarians both is that they nearly always are smart, moral, hard working and reasonably successful people. There is nothing wrong with that of course. But it does explain why such people would find freedom and small government and the risks and instability that come with such appealing. It rarely occurs to them that people who are not so smart or hard working or are sick or old or otherwise not so fortunate might think otherwise and find the stability and security, flawed as it may be, that comes with big government appealing.

    That is not to say that we should just yield to the demands of the less fortunate. We should not. But we shouldn't dismiss them out of hand as irrational or somehow morally defective either.

  • Marty Feldman's Eyes||

    One of the things about conservatives and libertarians both is that they nearly always are smart, moral, hard working and reasonably successful people

    [citation needed]

  • geo1113||

  • John||

    That people get pregnant and have abortions because of the lack of access to birth control in this country and not because they are too lazy or too reckless to use birth control at all or properly is an idea so stupid only someone Chapman could believe it. You give away birth control pills and that isn't going to ensure women remember to take one every day anymore than giving away condoms ensures people stop in the middle of passion to use one of those.

    We have abortions because people are short sighted and often prefer to avoid the consequences of their actions. Until you change human nature, you are not going to change that.

  • Libertymike||

    John, you are right, its the human nature, not the lack of access.

    Human nature is why I draft insanely comprehensive, contingency addressing, 40-50 page Wills.

    Why would a Testator provide for the disposition of any life insurance interests to which he may have an interest at the time of his death given that life insurance proceeds fall outside of probate? Because life insurance companies have, do, and will continue to make mistakes regarding the administration, handling, management, and record-keeping of life insurance policies within their charge, including losing the policies, beneficiary designations, changes of beneficiary designations, etc. Also because people are stupid. Some 25 year old, fresh from getting his MBA, gets a job and leaves blank the designated beneficiary line blank or the HR personnel fuck up by failing to send the life insurance docs to the life insurance company.

    It happens every day - just like passion overriding contraception.

  • John||

    Personal conflicts are nearly always about larger issues and not the object of the conflict. Fights over estates are the best examples of that. People will fight like depraved animals over money they never earned and don't even need. The conflicts are never about the money. They are always about some deeper emotional conflict between the parties. That is why divorce and estate litigation is by far the nastiness and most self defeating of all litigation. Once a conflict arises in such cases both parties are usually just fighting to harm the other side. And there is no winning or settling such conflicts.

  • Libertymike||

    Agreed - which is why people, to the maximum extent possible, should address issues, including remote contingencies, and make decisions regarding the same. IOW, take the matter out of the hands of the probate court judge.

    Trusts and Wills that are too vanilla beg for litigation.

  • Billy Bones||

    This is all 100% accurate, but one issue you neglect to mention is no BC is 100% effective. A condom could break. So even if we have unfettered access to BC does not mean the abortion crisis is solved.

  • John||

    Yes. Unless you are sterile, anytime you have sex you take the risk of it resulting in pregnancy. That is a risk people voluntarily assume and that should not be paid for by the rest of us.

  • John||

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/.....-t-working

    This is one of the funniest things I have ever read. It never occurred to these idiots that not everyone is like them and that the kids might find having a baby attractive. Wow, human beings like having babies. Who knew?

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    I have yet to read anyhting out of bloomberg.com that didn't strike me as the product of a writer suffering from severe brain damage.

    I think they have apolicy of hiring the bewildered.

  • John||

    It wasn't the journalist here as the people who thought up the idea in the first place. They went out and gave this lifelike baby robots to schools thinking making the kids take care of them would make them want to avoid getting pregnant. It turns out the robots had no effect on that and in fact probably made some girls want to get pregnant. These idiots were actually surprised that teenage girls might find taking care of a baby fun and something they want to do. Just what kind of a socially maladjusted half wit is surprised by that?

  • WTF||

    They never heard of maternal instinct.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    The kind of socially maladjusted halfwit who thinks that women are men with breasts. The "men and women aren't different at all" narrative prevents them from thinking straight about a lot of things. About as many things as the "women are too delicate for that" narrative screwed up for the 19th Century.

  • lap83||

    Maybe they should give the robot babies to the teenagers' parents who would have to take care of the real baby while their slightly older baby goes to school and/or works at McDonald's. Then give a lifelike child support bill to the 15 year old boyfriend.

    The parents have a better chance of influencing their daughter than the teachers do and maybe the boyfriend could be financially motivated to keep it in his pants?

  • TTanin||

    I would say that community culture is hard to override. I'll wager if you gave those robot babies to upper class kids, their teenage pregnancy rates would still be rock bottom.

  • An Innocent Man||

    The means and methods for preventing unwanted pregnancies have been well-known since at least 2010. It's not that hard to not get pregnant. The problem, though, is that the morons who can't figure out how not to get pregnant, are the retards having all of the kids. If Chapman thinks this is the fault of the Rs, then someone else is a retard, too.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Trump's SCOTUS "list" included only the most ardent Aborto-Freaks.

  • WTF||

    Pay your bet assnugget.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "The Affordable Care Act mandates that health insurance providers, including Medicaid, offer 18 different types of birth control, from the pill to sterilization, at no cost to the patient. Repealing that rule would almost certainly mean more pregnancies terminated."

    People looking to supervise other people's behavior through government largess? There is no alternative more effective than personal responsibility.

    People imagining that the government or the taxpayer (or their employer) is responsible for keeping them from getting pregnant is absurd.

    Statistics I've seen suggest that somewhere around a third of abortions occur to women under the age of 19.

    I'm sure a few well-supervised children sometimes get pregnant, too, but generally speaking, if your children are getting pregnant, chances are they're being insufficiently supervised.

    I know! You pay your taxes and send them to public schools, and they learn sex-ed and everything, but maybe taxpayers aren't really responsible for you not supervising your children properly--certainly not just because moral hazard led you to believe that supervising your children was the government's job.

    P.S. The taxpayers aren't really responsible for taking care of your elderly parents either.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    How many abortions happen after the fifth month of pregnancy?

  • Citizen X||

    Shreek's mom tried to abort him every couple weeks until shortly after his 12th birthday.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Does that explain why he tries to get romantic with the Hoover?

  • John||

    That is a good question. Assuming the abortion isn't actually necessary for the life of the mother, what possible justification other than letting people avoid taking responsibility for their action is there for an abortion?

  • Hail Rataxes||

    What's irresponsible about getting an abortion, John?

  • Zeb||

    The libertarian answer (assuming you are just talking about abortion in general and not only late term abortions) would be that it's nobody's business. Of course that assumes that it is morally acceptable at all. But assuming it is something that people have a right to do, then a free person needs no justification to do it.

    Some might argue that having an abortion is a way of taking responsibility for one's actions.

    Then there are the cases where the woman was raped. You can't really say she bears any responsibility for the pregnancy in that case.

  • John||

    The point is not about the law or whether people should be allowed to be irresponsible or avoid the consequences of their actions if they can. The point is that we shouldn't pretend that elective abortions done after a few months are anything other than what they are, women choosing to avoid the consequences of their actions. Whether abortion is murder or just a medical procedure is a different issue. Regardless of the answer to that question, the abortion itself is still an act of avoiding responsibility.

  • Zeb||

    Yes, I see what you mean.

    I agree that someone who dilly-dallies around for months before deciding to abort a pregnancy is probably avoiding responsibility or seriously deluding herself.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Or wrestling with intractable conflicts between what is sensible and what her instincts want.

    Nothing about thenabortion debate is simple.

  • Zeb||

    Indeed. But my answer to it is fairly simple. You have the right to control what goes on in your own body.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    It's a simple answer only if a fetus isn't human. If it is human, then it is in your body through no fault of its own, and you should not be allowed to muder it.

  • Zeb||

    It's a simple answer no matter what. Some people just happen to disagree.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    If people disagree, then it isn't simple, is it?

  • $park¥ is totally a Swifty||

    Zeb's point is simple regardless of the disagreement of others.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Well, I suppose one does have to make a distinction between 'simple', 'right', and 'workable'.

  • $park¥ is totally a Swifty||

    "I like chocolate" is a simple statement.

    Others could say "not everyone likes chocolate" or "chocolate is the devil's food" or "liking chocolate is morally reprehensible and anyone who actually eats chocolate should be punished".

    None of the things others might say makes the initial statement more complex.

  • You ARE a Prog (MJG)||

    It's quite workable, thanks to its simplicity.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    It isn't workable in a representative society if a large number of people think it's wrong or flat out evil. Being right isn't enough.

  • Hail Rataxes||

    Regardless of the answer to that question, the abortion itself is still an act of avoiding responsibility.

    But remember, folks, babies are totally not a punishment for sex.

  • John||

    Babies are a foreseeable consequence of having sex. Are foreseeable consequences punishments? Is getting fat a punishment for eating? I suppose you could see it that way but not if the word "punishment" means anything.

  • Trshmnstr, Grump Apprentice||

    Babies are a foreseeable consequence of having sex.

    I would go further than that. Getting punched in the face is a foreseeable consequence of making fun of somebody, but that doesn't mean that getting punched in the face isn't some sort of violation of your rights.

    Babies are a natural biological consequence of having sex.

  • Hail Rataxes||

    So does that mean if you work out so you can eat more without getting fat, you're not taking responsibility for what you eat?

  • John||

    No. You are accepting responsibility for your actions by making the sacrifice of working out. Having to work out more if you don't want to be fat is one of the consequences of eating more. You wouldn't have to choose between working out or getting fat if you choose to eat less.

  • Hail Rataxes||

    So then in what way is getting an abortion not accepting responsibility for pregnancy?

  • Set Us Up The Chipper||

    That's ridiculous

  • ||

    To one who go through life as an overgrown infant demanding to be took care of by a paternalistic oligarchy, all aversive consequences are "punishments" and "deserve" becomes something other than a descriptor of objective fact. Talk to some of these dopes some time. They really view foreseeable aversive consequences as "punishments" and even feel that some of these "punishments" are "undeserved". Somehow desert gets uncoupled from objective reality and one is able to imagine that suffering the foreseeable inevitable consequences of some course of action is undeserved and unfair. This kind of thinking creates all sorts of conceptual rupturing, such that it makes sense for a person to need "motivation" to act and where it makes sense for a grown man to "reward" or "punish" himself with favorable or aversive stimuli. It's all nonsense fantasy land bullcrap.

  • Trshmnstr, Grump Apprentice||

    babies are totally not a punishment for sex.

    Ah yes, sex is just fun playtime for adults... it certainly has no other purpose than that.

  • John||

    That is right Trshmnstr. And there are no risks associated with sex. Saying you are responsible if you fuck the wrong person and get VD is just being some prude and saying VD is punishment for sex or something.

  • Hail Rataxes||

    Your claim is that it would be "avoiding responsibility" to take penicillin instead of letting your nose fall off from syphilis. Try again.

  • John||

    Sure it is. Who said avoiding or mitigating the consequences of your actions is always bad? Having an abortion is getting a medical procedure to avoid one of the consequences of having sex just like taking penicillin is. The question is whether having an abortion is a medical procedure like taking penicillin or is it taking a human life.

    You are just begging and re-framing the same question here.

  • Hail Rataxes||

    Is "avoiding consequences" the same as "avoiding responsibility"?

  • John||

    It is if you are having someone else pay for it or harming someone.

  • Hail Rataxes||

    You know bacteria are alive, right?

  • Trshmnstr, Grump Apprentice||

    You know bacteria are alive, right?

    Yes, but the entire philosophical underpinning for rights isn't based on "innate bacterial dignity"

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Well, if a fetus isn't a human being, a change in the woman's circumstances such that she won't be able to easily support a child.

    I spend a lot of,time reminding pro-abortion people that their opponents thjnk abortion is murder, and that isn't just a debating tactic. But the other side needs to be reminded, almost as often, that the Pro-Choice people genuinely don't think a fetus is human.

    At least I hope they don't. There are some I have doubts about.

  • John||

    Abortion debates are nearly always the two sides talking past each other and avoiding the central issue of just when life begins.

    And I wouldn't say most pro abortion people think a fetus is a life and don't care. I would, however, say almost none of them can explain why it isn't a life and are willing to live with the full implications of their explanation if they even have one. I have yet to meet a pro abortion advocate who can explain why a fetus isn't a life but a newborn child is.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    I don't believe that most Pro-Choice people think a fetus is human and don't care, but every once in a while I run into one I'm to too sure of.

  • ||

    It would seem that the debatableness of the question means that the safe bet would be on not killing it unless there was a really exigent condition.

  • Zeb||

    I'm very much pro-choice (though I don't like to use the term since most pro-choice people are pretty selective about what choices they want people to be able to make). But I also find myself reminding people that pro-choice people really do think it's killing a human being and that that is a sincere belief and not some debating tactic to disguise that they really believe that all women should be barefoot and pregnant, or something.

  • Set Us Up The Chipper||

    I wonder how Progs can reconcile "pro choice" and single payer gov insurance?

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Simple; anything they say, ever, is directed towards a wonderful future in which they get to tell the rest of us how to live. Any lie, and cheat, any hypocrisy is good if it fowards that goal.

    Progs are just as revolting as the worst bible-thumping televangelist with three mistresses.

  • Rasilio||

    Very very few. Somewhere around 1% of abortions in the US are after the 5th month iirc. Of the ones that do happen after 20 weeks the overwhelming majority are the result of the discovery of severe developmental defects or the onset of serious health complications in the mother (typically preeclampsia).

    So while we can quibble with whether aborting because of severe birth defects is elective or in the case of health complications whether we should just deliver the baby through emergency C-section actual unquestionably elective abortions post 20 weeks make up at most maybe 1 out of every 8000 abortions in the US.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Thanks for the explanation.

  • Zeb||

    Chapman and abortion. Awesome.

  • John||

    Women only have abortions because the evil Republicans deprive them of access to birth control. Didn't you know that Zeb? It must be really pleasant to live in Chapman world where complex and intractable moral and social problems can be reduced to platitudes.

  • Zeb||

    Must be.

    I hope Republicans do push for OTC birth control. Should make for some good cognitive dissonance from the left. They are always talking about "access". What better access could you have than being able to walk into any pharmacy and buy what you want?

  • John||

    I am all for OTC birth control pills. I just have no illusions that will reduce the number of abortions.

  • Zeb||

    Probably not significantly, anyway. It's not like it's hard to get BC now if you want to.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Ah, but that will be the WRONG KIND of access.

    Keep in mind, the typical Progressive Liberal tends to consider the vast majority of his (her) fellow citizens to be simpleminded peasants desperately in need of guidance from The Elect.

  • John||

    Planned parenthood makes an enormous amount of money doing sham OBGYN exams and prescribing birth control pills to poor women. If you ever made birth control over the counter, there would longer be a need for medicaid and the states to pay Planned Parenthood to do such examinations of poor women. When Progressives say poor women need the government to pay for their birth control, they are really saying the government should pay planned parenthood to provide it. It is like many things all about the cash.

  • $park¥ is totally a Swifty||

    There has to be an addendum to that though: No place that sells OTC medicine can refuse to sell birth control. Because someone somewhere needs to be forced into it.

  • You ARE a Prog (MJG)||

    Plus, Republicans have most of the power, so they could actually get it passed, and it would be a great improvement.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Most people live somewhere similar.

  • Trshmnstr, Grump Apprentice||

    Abortion is an intractable issue because it involves an irreconcilable conflict between two supreme values: protection of life on one side and personal freedom and physical autonomy on the other. But it's not impossible to uphold both.

    This is flat out wrong. It's an intractable issue because it involves two sides who can't agree on whether or not there is a person on one side of the equation. If it were simply a weighing of the life (and personal freedom and physical autonomy on a permanent basis) of one person versus the personal freedom and physical autonomy (on a temporary basis) of a second person, the answer would be simple. Instead, one side thinks it's personal freedom and physical autonomy v. nothing, and the other side thinks it's a life v. the temporary personal freedom and physical autonomy of another.

    There's nothing co-equal about the right to life and the right to physical autonomy. Life is the basis of, and subsumes physical autonomy.

  • John||

    That is exactly right. There is nothing irreconcilable about my freedom and the value of another person's life. My freedom loses every single time. My freedom can never include the right to take someone else's life without justification or for my convenience or benefit.

    You would think everyone who made it past the third grade would understand that. But, there is always Chapman here to remind us that no, some people really are dumber than you think.

  • Rasilio||

    So you are saying in the parable of the Ant and the Grasshopper that the Grasshopper has the right to force the Ant to feed him?

    The Ant can share and both will be hungry and starving but they would survive, or the Ant can shut out the Grasshopper and thrive in comfort through the Winter while the Ant does of starvation. Sure the ant worked hard all summer long to stockpile enough food to comfortably feed his family and yeah the Grasshopper spent the summer partying but come winter we are measuring the Ant's comfort in having plenty of food to eat against the Grasshoppers life.

  • Trshmnstr, Grump Apprentice||

    So you are saying in the parable of the Ant and the Grasshopper that the Grasshopper has the right to force the Ant to feed him?

    Action v. inaction: the basis of positive "rights" v. negative rights. The Ant has no obligation to feed the Grasshopper, but the Ant also has no basis for killing the Grasshopper if he decides he doesn't like giving the Grasshopper a food ration anymore.

  • John||

    So you are saying in the parable of the Ant and the Grasshopper that the Grasshopper has the right to force the Ant to feed him?

    If the ant created the grasshopper or the ant's action somehow put the grasshopper in the position of needing food, yes. Your argument assumes neither side has any responsibility for the other's condition and need of care. And that is not true in the case of an unborn child. The child only exists and needs care because of the actions of the mother. So, yes, the mother is responsible for providing that just like I would be responsible for giving you food if my actions somehow caused you to be starving.

  • Rasilio||

    But that wasn't what you said, you actually said...

    "There is nothing irreconcilable about my freedom and the value of another person's life. My freedom loses every single time. My freedom can never include the right to take someone else's life without justification or for my convenience or benefit."

  • Trshmnstr, Grump Apprentice||

    My freedom can never include the right to take someone else's life without justification

    John is talking about what I mentioned above... action v. inaction. Letting somebody die is much different than taking their life.

  • Zeb||

    The broader debate in generally on the terms that you describe. But for some libertarians, it does come down to life vs. individual autonomy. Are you obliged to protect a life that is dependent on your body to stay alive?

  • John||

    Since your actions created that life, yes. The problem with the "its a parasite" argument is that the child didn't create itself or come from somewhere else and latch onto you. Your actions created the life and its creation was a foreseeable consequence of your actions.

    Think of it this way. If I am walking down the street and see you drowning, do I have a duty to risk my life to save you? No, I don't. If, however, you are drowning because I pushed in the water, then I do have a duty to save you because my actions created the situation. The same is true of a baby. Granted, that might leave open the possibility for abortion in cases of rape but not in cases of consensual sex.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    As I've mentioned before, that's the fatal flaw in Block's evictionism as the argument depends on beginning in media res. That Dr. Nasty still lost a debate to someone capable of such piss-poor argumentation doesn't speak highly of either individual.

  • Libertymike||

    HM, it was the Jacket who consistently violated the NIP - the Non-Interruption Principle - in his debate with WB.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Yes, the uncouth nature of Dr. Nasty is well known.

  • Libertymike||

    How do you deal with people who consistently or frequently violate the NIP when interacting with you?

    Although I have a booming, sonorous voice, and may raise it for emphasis, I assiduously adhere to the NIP and the proposition that interruptions are far less polite than a raised voice.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Ah. Dr. Nasty = Nick

  • Zeb||

    Well, it's an argument that people make. As you say, it is less simple than some make it out to be when you add the matter of responsibility for one's actions. But the answer still isn't completely obvious, I don't think.

  • John||

    The answer is only not obvious if you don't see the fetus as a life. If I do something stupid and get a tapeworm, no one is going to say that I have no right to get rid of it because the tape worn didn't ask to be born in my stomach. The entire point of the "its a parasite" argument was to somehow say that even if you consider the fetus a life, it is still okay to kill it because it is a parasite. Since you created the life, you can't kill it for being a parasite. It is only a parasite in any meaningful sense of the word if it is not a human life. The entire thing is just a fancy way of begging the larger question.

  • Set Us Up The Chipper||

    I think I am correct in saying that one characteristic of a parasite is that it is always a different species than the host. If that is always true, then a baby cannot be a parasite wrt the mother. QED.

  • lap83||

    They're basically saying that all humans start out as parasites. How uplifting.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Ah, but no being is truely human until they accept Marx as their personal savior......

    Sometimes I just want to run amok on a liberal campus with a supersoaker full of skunk-oil.

  • Lord_at_War||

    But the answer still isn't completely obvious, I don't think.

    But it is... I remember Richard Belzer on some HBO comedy show in 1981--- Reagan's "teen pregnancy prevention program" is basically 'Hey girls, suck more dick!'

    I cannot argue with the logic. There are innumerable ways for two humans to achieve sexual gratification together- there's only one that involves ejaculating into her vagina within the one week window per month surrounding her ovulation.

    "Don't start nothin, won't be nothin"...

  • Rasilio||

    You realize that you are creating a false dichotomy right?

    It is not just the options of "It's a parasite"/"It's a life". There are also those who don't care either way about metaphysical questions of when life begins and look at the issue from purely utilitarian positions and recognize that a world where abortion is banned is significantly worse than one where it is legal because the effort required to ban it requires setting up a police state and treating every woman who has a miscarriage as a crime scene. Then there are those who say the question of life is irrelevant, simply being alive or possessing human DNA is insufficient to resolve the question of under what conditions do we recognize human rights and find abortion to be ok because regardless of whether the fetus is human or alive it is not intellectually developed enough to make moral choices and therefore is not eligible to be granted human rights. These are just 2 of the other possible lines of thought on abortion that are outside the dichotomy you've set up here.

  • Trshmnstr, Grump Apprentice||

    a world where abortion is banned is significantly worse than one where it is legal because the effort required to ban it requires setting up a police state and treating every woman who has a miscarriage as a crime scene

    Yes, because old folks homes are just crawling with homicide investigators 24/7. Banning abortion doesn't require a police state any more than banning murder does.

  • Rasilio||

    They are not, unless the cause of death is unknown, in that case there is always a medical examaination to determine the cause.

    Since you want us to treat a 3 week old embryo as if it has all of the rights of an adult human then it stands to reason that should that 3 week old embryo die of unknown causes an official investigation to determine the cause of death and whether any criminal charges or civil sanction as a result.

  • Trshmnstr, Grump Apprentice||

    unless the cause of death is unknown, in that case there is always a medical examaination to determine the cause.

    How many of these cases are being referred out to a medical examiner for investigation and autopsy? Probably not many.

    link

    Nearly one million human death
    cases were referred by
    medical and law enforcement personnel to the Nation's
    ME/C offices in 2004, accounting for approximately 40% of
    all deaths in the United States that year.
    . . . Overall, ME/C offices in 2004 accepted about half of
    all referred cases for
    further investigation.

    So, we're looking at ~20% of deaths in the US being investigated by a ME.

    it stands to reason that should that 3 week old embryo die of unknown causes

    When 40-60% of pregnancies end in miscarriage, I'm thinking that, barring some sort of exigent circumstances, a miscarriage would fall into the 80% not being investigated by a ME.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    True. In that ANY law encourages a police state, which is why we make (should, anyway) make an effort to limit such laws to matters that are legitimately the community's business. I happen to think that murder is. I happen to think that abortion isn't murder, but (unlike a whole lot of my fellow Pro-Choiceers) I can see why somebody would disagree with that.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Observe that the mystical bigot asserts that objectively-defined laws against theft, fraud and violence are what "encourages a police state."
    The looters had better moles when I was a kid.
    Read the Constitution: "All persons born..."
    Read the Bible: "Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones." (Psalm 137:9)

  • Trshmnstr, Grump Apprentice||

    simply being alive or possessing human DNA is insufficient to resolve the question of under what conditions do we recognize human rights

    The entire basis for human rights flies out the window when "we" start defining the "conditions" when we "recognize" human rights. Rights are meaningless in a morally relative and/or utilitarian paradigm.

    not eligible to be granted human rights

    Whenever people try to move beyond life and humanity (innate human dignity) as the defining characteristic of personhood, they start sounding like 19th century eugenicists. Are we gonna start talking about sterilizing the blacks because they're sub-human now?

  • Rasilio||

    First, I am not invoking utilitarianism nor moral relativism. Second are you sure that it isn't you who is the one who sounds more like the eugenicist? I'm looking to expand the definition of rights beyond simply being human and alive, not restrict it further so that we have a framework for them in place when we eventually develop an actual AI or bump into an alien species

  • Trshmnstr, Grump Apprentice||

    Second are you sure that it isn't you who is the one who sounds more like the eugenicist?
    Eugenics (/juːˈdʒɛnɪks/; from Greek εὐγενής eugenes "well-born" from εὖ eu, "good, well" and γένος genos, "race, stock, kin")[2][3] is a set of beliefs and practices that aims at improving the genetic quality of the human population.

    Eugenics has nothing to do with sci-fi fantasies, and everything to do with humanity. So yes, by unpeopleing fetuses, you're the one resembling the eugenicists.

    expand the definition of rights beyond simply being human and alive, not restrict it further so that we have a framework for them in place when we eventually develop an actual AI or bump into an alien species

    The entire basis of the concept of "rights" is that humans have innate dignity. Without that innate dignity, they are no more worthy of "rights" than a rock. You presume an egalitarianism in talking about "rights," but you want to define your egalitarianism in a way that ignores where the concept of rights comes from in the first place.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    "Are we going to start talking about sterilizing blacks...?"

    Ever since the Progressive Left defended Taking no,action,againt Kermit Gossnell because he made sure minority women had access to abortions, I have wondered about this. How many abortion supporters are ostensibly Progressive Liberals who are frightened of Blacks, and want to kill 'excess' black babies?

  • Hank Phillips||

    Then there are those who have read as much as the entire first sentence of the 14th Amendment. When politicians are given power to order us killed, "the Constitution" is the operative phrase. Nobody gives a rat's ass who was in power or what judge believed there was a Jesus who never wrote a word nor had a word written about him for two centuries. There was a time when logicians analyzed political speech, but looter political speech and platforms bear no such content. Today. Inject "some" instead of "no" or "all" into the terms and syllogisms yield nothing. Politicians are trained in that just as their parties are trained to loot. "All persons born", however, does contain a universal and general affirmative. Good luck changing its meaning without amending the constitution. Has ANYONE here taken Government or worked in a court of law?

  • Trshmnstr, Grump Apprentice||

    Are you obliged to protect a life that is dependent on your body to stay alive?

    Yes, no question, especially in the context of pregnancy. Something that isn't caught in the NAP, but that is equally important to avoiding improper violation of rights is the NEP, the Non Escalation Principle. You can't punch somebody in the face just because they brushed up against your car in the parking lot. Similarly, you can't kill somebody just because they've restricted your personal autonomy for 40 weeks. (I'm completely ignoring the part where the mother is morally responsible for placing the fetus in that situation in all non-rape cases, and the part where the mother is biologically responsible for placing the fetus in that situation in all cases of pregnancy)

  • ThomasD||

    "Are you obliged to protect a life that is dependent on your body to stay alive?"

    You are perhaps not familiar with the concept called parenthood

  • $park¥ is totally a Swifty||

    How about this then, whether the fetus is a human life or not is irrelevant. I believe that I don't have the right to insert my wishes or preferences into the affairs of people whom I know nothing about. If a woman in CA decides to get an abortion it will have exactly zero effect on my life in MA.

  • John||

    If the guy down the street you have never met and don't even realize exists murders his wife that as zero effect on your life. Do you think we should not have laws against murder? Who are you to insert your wishes and beliefs on his life? Maybe she needed killing.

  • $park¥ is totally a Swifty||

    Does the murder of the wife affect my life? No? Then I have no reason to become involved. Do I think the guy should have killed his wife? No, there was probably a better solution to whatever the problem was. Not knowing anything about either of them or their relationship, it's not up to me to decide what happens.

  • Libertymike||

    That aborted fetus may have become an outstanding member of the H & R commentariat the wit and wisdom of which you would be deprived.

  • $park¥ is totally a Swifty||

    It also could grow up to be shreek.

  • Libertymike||

    Either way, it would have more than zero effect on your life.

  • $park¥ is totally a Swifty||

    That's quite an assumption.

  • Robert||

    We know gasoline can fuel vehicles. If only people had access to gasoline!

  • John||

    Here is the better example. We know wearing a seat belt prevents traffic deaths. If only we required every car to have a seat belt everyone would wear them and traffic deaths would be reduced. How did that work out? So well they ended up passing laws making it a crime not to wear your seat belt.

  • Robert||

    Ooo, that is a good one! I'd been fishing for lamer analogy involving water.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    I wish Lena Dunham had an abortion.

  • Eric||

    If the R's are stupid (which they are) they'll push this way too far. And galvanize the populace against them.

  • Kroneborge||

    1 million abortions a year isn't rare, it's mass genocide

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Isn't genocide 'mass' by definition?

    Quibble aside, the numbers are disturbing.

  • OldMexican Blankety Blank||

    Katie Watson, a professor at Northwestern University's Feinberg School of Medicine, notes that "45 percent of pregnancies in the United States are unplanned[...]


    Meaning that 45% of pregnancies in the United States happen because of a high midichlorian count...

    One obvious way to bring down the abortion rate is to give women ready access to contraception.


    Because contraceptives are locked in a box somewhere inside a vault under the Yucca mountain, you see...

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    This REALLY annoys me about the Pro-Choice crowd. And I'm nominally on their side.Women have had easy, legal access to birth control all of my adult life. Could it be easier? Probably, though I am unconvinced that it would make much difference.

  • John Galt II||

    How does contraception have any relevance at all?
    Don't forget, GOP goobers in Congress want to defund Planned Parenthood -- the sole source of medical care for millions of inner-city women ... who are only black ... and Title IX funding which severely reduced abortions among low-income women by providing contraception and family planning counseling.

    So, they're gonna INCREASE abortions ... in the name of God!

  • TTanin||

    Some people are stupid. It's really that simple.

  • Longtobefree||

    Outlaw alcoholic beverages.
    (makes as much sense as most of the other comments, and would reduce unplanned pregnancies)

  • Longtobefree||

    Outlaw alcoholic beverages.
    (makes as much sense as most of the other comments, and would reduce unplanned pregnancies)

  • John Galt II||

    would reduce unplanned pregnancies

    (makes as much sense as the other comments ,.. and has absolutely no relevance to the topic on this page).

  • The Fusionist||

    "Facilitating access to contraception promises to sharply curtail the loss of fetal life without forcing unwilling women into childbirth. Politicians can make abortion illegal. The better goal is to make it unnecessary."

    This was silly and boring back when it was a Democratic Leadership Council talking point, and it's silly and boring now.

  • John Galt II||

    "This was silly and boring back when it was a Democratic Leadership Council talking point, and it's silly and boring now."

    THAT is a refusal to deal with the issue.

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    25 years after we have both male and female contraception that is 100% effective, prevents disease transmission, and is completely unnoticeable to the participants, the democrats will have convinced the members of their party that the republicans were forcing abortions on people willy nilly, and only the democrats unwavering conviction is what ended the practice of abortion.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Oh, far less,than 25 years. Two presidential cycles, tops.

  • ace_m82||

    Literally, the only thing that matters here is "is it murder". If it's not murder, then anything to stop it would be aggression. If it is murder, then it's the very worst kind of aggression.

    And for those who say "government can't define this as murder because no-one knows what that word means", then government isn't able to define anything as murder, and government has no purpose.

    ...Which is fine with me because I'm an an-cap...

  • John Galt II||

    It's neither murder nor aggression, simply because the woman's unalienable right to life and the fetal child's unalienable right to life are precisely equal. That's what unalienable means. Google it.

    And for those who say "government can't define this as murder because no-one knows what that word means",

    Only true of the uneducated. Or do they no longer teach Jefferson and the founders?

    because I'm an an-cap...

    With no commitment to individual rights.

  • Hank Phillips||

    See? Communist anarchists committed to legalizing murder and institutionalizing warfare now dress up in objectivist drag and try to sucker libertarians into redefining ova as individuals. Alienable is indeed a term that means the thing cannot be sold, but in order to be legally competent to even consider selling or giving something away, one has to be born, hence a person born, and achieve an age at which one is competent to engage in contracts. This flood of infiltrating communist and other coercive mystics is a symptom of their fear of our spoiler votes made possible by the Constitution. We change the laws, despite these infiltrators. Roe v. Wade was written up about a month after the electoral vote for the pro-choice Nathan and Hospers slate, in the teeth of the Nixon anti-libertarian law and in the middle of anarchist wheedling for preemptive surrender to Soviet communism. HAH!

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    The thing is, all of this piffle is going to go away soon anyway. 'Abortion Rights' are doomed, not because the Pro-Life crowd are going to win, but because the Pro-Choice bunch are going to lose. They simply will not compromise on anything. They oppose Parental Notification, which pits them against all good parents and most of the bad ones. They won't give an inch (or, more relevantly, a hour) on partial birth abortion, which is political poison. They won't condemn a ghoul like Kermit Gosnell until far too late.

    I fully expect that, sometime soon, some Pro-Life activists will smuggle an underage girl across a state line to get around a Parental Notification law, amd the girl will die from complications or because the Abortionist was another Gosnell. And the Pro-Choice side will be so full of their own rightiousness that they won't recgnize a political disaster when they are in the middle of it. Maybe that won't sink them immediately, but they won't learn a goddamned thing from it either.

    Which is a pity. I happen to think abortion should be legal.

  • Hank Phillips||

    The looters on National Socialist Radio think repeal of the prohibition Amendment was "going too far." And that freedom was earned because dry killers were "too inflexible." But of course their shills and infiltrators were quick to claim they "thought beer should be legal." How would the chumps prove otherwise?
    "All persons born" can be changed to "All ova fertilized" by the same constitutional process for getting rid of citizen guns. BUT mystical bigotry has decayed by 20% in my lifetime. Even the papal bandana republics are slowly giving up religious superstition. So I have some folding money I am willing to bet on the outcome.

  • Headache||

    If I remember correctly Roe opinion allowed only first trimester abortions. That said, twenty weeks is into the second trimester. After 9 weeks one should be aware. Someone can drive Boston to LA in 1 week. 20 weeks seems reasonable to terminate. But, the real problem is "the people did not decide" the issue, and neither side of the issue want the people to decide.

  • John Galt II||

    Sorry, but trimesters have been obsolete as a standard for nearly a quarter century -- replaced with fetal viability in 1992 ... a fetus capable of living outside the womb, including mechanical assistance (currently only fetal incubators)

    Viability averages 22-24 weeks -- so 20 weeks is blatantly unconstitutional, political grandstanding. For libertarians -- what few remain -- it's all about conflicting rights, which ONLY the Supreme Court may resolve. Their moral obligation is to set a standard that best defends BOTH rights, Viability seems entirely proper, since the woman's unalienable right to liberty is precisely equal to the fetal child's unalienable right to life. That's what unalienable means. Our founders knew that, regardless of today's ignorance.

    The conflict comes from BOTH extremes want it all their way ... thereby pissing on the concept of equal, unalienable and/or God-given rights. Yes, the fetal child enjoys rights at conception ... but so did the woman. Simple enough, by libertarian core principles.. Likewise, the woman indeed has the right to expel a fetus at any time ... but there is no SEPARATE right to kill a viable fetus, so a live birth must be attempted, and abortionists banned from the room. If we defend equal rights then we defend .... equal rights, And reject both extremes on this.

    As the founders intended.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    "since the woman's unalienable right to liberty is precisely equal to the fetal child's unalienable right to life"

    Ok, why?

    Barring rape, a pregnant woman has engaged in activity that had a significant chance of resulting in pregnancy. And, contrary to a lot of fashionable blather, sex is not an overwhelming drive for most people, or we would pass strangers coupling in the streets. It is possible to refrain from playing hide-the-salami if becoming pregnant is a serious problem.

    I favor legal abortion, but saying that a woman's 'right' to not be inconvenienced by pregnancy is equal to the child's right to live (once you grant that a fetus is a human child) is sloppy thinking.

    I don't think a fetus is human. I have met too many adult supposed humans who weren't human to think that humanity is inborn that early. But that is the ONLY reason I think abortion should be legal, and I don't think I can prove my belief to anyone who disagrees with me.

    So, persuade me.

  • John Galt II||

    "since the woman's unalienable right to liberty is precisely equal to the fetal child's unalienable right to life"

    Ok, why?

    Already told ya. Google the definition of unalienable.

    Barring rape, a pregnant woman has engaged in activity that had a significant chance of resulting in pregnancy.

    How does that forfeit her unalienable right to liberty? Shoulda checked the definition.

    And, contrary to a lot of fashionable blather, sex is not an overwhelming drive for most people,

    "Nobody" actually says that. And it's not remotely relevant to the issue, Unalienable --- look it up.

    I favor legal abortion, but saying that a woman's 'right' to not be inconvenienced by pregnancy is equal to the child's right to live (once you grant that a fetus is a human child) is sloppy thinking.

    Yes. saying that is crazy as hell. Who said it?

    You REFUSE to check the facts .,... repeat a passle of memorized irrelevancies but I'M the sloppy thinker??

    So, persuade me.

    I told you where to see the proof. You REFUSE to look. I'll make it easier. Click or swipe this link ... the RESULTS of a google search for unalienable. I've done all the work, Just look.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    When you take a job - enter into a voluntary association - you unalienable right to free speech is restricted by the policies of your employer while you represent him. There are other examples of how voluntary behavior on your part can restrict of suspend your unalienable rights. Unalienable means that OTHERS cannot take rhem from you. You can always supend the, by your own actions. Your unalienable right to liberty ends when you commit a crime.

    How does this apply? If a woman engages in sex resulting in pregnancy, she has created a circumstance in which - IF A FETUS IS TO BE CONSIDERED HUMAN - her right to control her own body must balance against her lack of right to commit murder.

    Very few animals have a sex drive so powerful that they must engage in sex or die. The bald ape called 'human' is not one of them. Women (excepting victims of rape) choose to risk pregnancy. They may choose it the way a drunk driver chooses to gift wrap a bridge abutment, but it is a consequence of a choice they made.

  • Hank Phillips||

    This is the voice of the mentality that made light beer a federal felony in 1929, and completely destroyed the US economy trying to make it stick. The 14th Amendment begins with "All persons born..." not "All ova fertilized..."
    IF THINGS WERE DIFFERENT and there were no 2nd amendment, private guns would doubtless be banned. And without the 14th Amendment, coathangers would be killing women even faster than the current GLOBAL rate of one every nine minutes. These "pro-life" bigots are the ones banning clean needles to foster HIV outbreaks and dropping bombs on kids on the other side of the planet.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Persuade? Mystical bigots seek to have men with guns force women to bear and raise pinheads. This happens every single day. How about you try to coerce me in single combat instead if you advocate bullying and murdering women.
    If I were a papist or televangelist Landoverbaptist infiltrator I'd certainly come up with better lies and sophistry than this lot!

  • Hank Phillips||

    THIS Galtese impostor would have us compromise: repeal the second amendment and ban guns, but keep ammo legal; repeal the 14th Amendment and let the looters and their courts define rights and redefine individual every election.
    In the objectively perceptible world containing a 14th Amendment that says "All persons born" every woman is an individual--even when pregnant.

  • Hank Phillips||

    So Reason hires a reporter from a Republican paper to tell libertarians that the ethics is unsettlable? Every preemptive surrender communist was convinced that our nuclear weapons are anti-life (and the Soviets' nukes were normal and good). Remember that? The Second Amendment applies to nuclear weapons so that hogwash melted.
    The Constitution extends protection of rights to "All persons born..." Mystical bigots want that to read "All ova fertilized..." And there is precedent. Communists are even madder at the Second Amendment than before the Soviet collapse, and cannot understand "a free State" meaning uncoerced or "shall not be infringed" as must be preserved. Conservatives and the other looters are irrational and anti-logical. They hate the Non-aggression Principle and worship the initiation of harmful, coercive and deadly force. Both are as sane and qualified to lecture us on ethics as Saracen berserkers brainwashed with mohammedanism. Persons not yet born do not qualify for 14th Amendment protection. Those three words could not be clearer. Let the kristallnacht goons and sex prohibition fanatics repeal the 2nd and 14th Amendments if they don't like them--or move to Saudi Arabia.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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