Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Pro-Life Conservatives Can't Win By Dissing Mothers

They should tread carefully before scrapping reproductive rights now that the possibility of overturning Roe v. Wade is real

These are bittersweet times for pro-life conservatives.

On the one hand, once President Trump's Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed (and he will be), for the first time in 45 yearsAbortion RallyPacific Press/Sipa USA/Newscom conservatives will have enough strength on the bench to overturn Roe v. Wade. On the other hand, since Trump was elected, the pro-life movement's gains over the last decade or so in turning public opinion against abortion have evaporated into thin air. Poof!

This startling change suggests that conservatives can't hang a simple morality tale on abortion (Abortion = Murder!) in their quest to severely restrict reproductive rights. They will need to take the full complexity of this issue into account if they want to truly convince a majority of Americans of their cause's righteousness.

Whatever they do, they should resist the temptation to demonize women in an ill-fated effort to turn Americans against abortion.

Kavanaugh doesn't have a lengthy track record on this issue (which is why he was an ideal Supreme Court nominee), but it is safe to assume that, like the four other conservatives on the court, he would be no friend of Roe (which is widely reviled in conservative circles as judicial activism at its worst) or reproductive rights. He is a practicing Catholic whose legal hero is former Chief Justice William Rehnquist, one of Roe's two lonely dissenters. The only abortion case Kavanaugh has ever ruled on went against the woman. It involved a pregnant unaccompanied minor in government custody who requested a termination. Kavanaugh opined that the government wasn't obligated to provide "abortion on demand" and she could wait to get one once she was released to a sponsor or deported. No matter how much he protests during his confirmation hearings that he considers Roe to be settled law, the only question is whether he would vote to overrule it in one fell swoop or kill it incrementally.

But either way, Kavanaugh and the pro-life movement will get their wish. And then they will run into a buzzsaw of public opposition.

A roundup of several recent polls by the American Enterprise Institute, hardly a hub of radical feminism, found that 64 percent of Americans are opposed to overturning Roe, an 11-point increase since 2012, possibly because President Trump's harsh campaign rhetoric threatening to punish women spooked them. Furthermore, 29 percent believe that abortion should be legal under any circumstances (a 7 percent increase since 1975) and 18 percent that it should always be illegal (a 3 percent drop). This means 11 percent more Americans believe that abortion should be legal in all cases rather than illegal in all cases. Even the popularity of merely regulating abortion is declining, with 43 percent of respondents in one poll believing that women should be able to get an abortion for "any" reason — up from 36 percent in 1976. And of course, a steady majority of Americans continue to believe that abortion should be legal when the mother's health is endangered (87 percent), in instances of rape (75 percent), or cases of serious birth defects (71 percent).

None of this is to imply that Americans are breezily cool with abortion. Indeed, 5 percent more believe that it is morally wrong (48 percent) than morally acceptable (43 percent). Despite this, a clear majority still wants to leave the decision to women. This suggests that even those who believe abortion is wrong resist the extreme equation of abortion with murder that religious conservatives use to try and drive policy.

Think of it this way: If these 48 percent of Americans who believe abortion is morally wrong also thought abortion really was murder, then Americans in overwhelming numbers wouldn't feel in their bones that there was something deeply wrong about forcing victims of rape and incest to have the babies. If a plurality of Americans really believed abortion was murder, they would make peace with charging mothers who opt for abortion under any circumstance with homicide — as the brilliant conservative polemicist Kevin Williamson lost his job at The Atlantic for suggesting.

Now obviously, the vast majority of Americans do not believe this. It would mean penalizing victims for something that is clearly no fault of their own. But if abortion were murder, surely many Americans would think that forcing even the victim of a crime to have a baby, unjust as it might be, would be less bad than condoning something as horrible as murder.

Instead, the pro-life lobby itself has gone out of its way to depict mothers as victims needing help, not criminals requiring capital punishment, Williamson notwithstanding. But they may no longer view this as a sustainable strategy if, once Roe is overturned, pro-lifers insist on accomplishing their long-stated goal of banning abortions after 20 weeks as a prelude to a complete ban.

If this happens, the GOP will need to turn public opinion much harder against abortion. And to do that, they may well try to demonize women.

There are signs that this is already happening. The New York Times' Ross Douthat, one of the most nuanced conservative columnists around, recently wrote a piece depicting women terminating pregnancies with Down Syndrome babies as callous "extremists" acting out of "eugenicist" concerns—not traumatized mothers making a tragic call because they are worried about, say, their child's wellbeing when they are no longer around to take care of him or her.

Douthat's critique is flawed, and not just because of the sleight of hand involved in depicting such mothers as "eugenicists"—as if they were on a quest for designer babies for the sake of their own vanity. The deeper problem is that he ignores that mothers are the only ones who have a direct and vital interest on both sides here. Therefore they are best placed to balancing and maximizing their own and their child's wellbeing.

There is no other situation in life where this is the case. The state can regulate murder because in every murder, even one in self-defense, the perpetrator has an interest only in himself, not the person killed. So someone needs to ensure that the victim's interests are adequately represented. That is not the case with abortion. Distant legislators enforcing blanket rules based on political considerations are far more likely to lead to excesses in one direction or another.

This is not to claim that women never make the wrong call or that the cultural context underlying their decisions doesn't matter. It does. Indeed, societies that stigmatize out-of-wedlock births or prefer one gender to another can bias women's choices. But it is far better in such situations to try and change the cultural milieu rather than rely on the state's awesome power to abolish reproductive rights. Indeed, conservatives of all people ought to place their faith in mothers because their interests are immutable and reliable — as opposed to the state whose interests are mutable and unreliable. The worst atrocities against the unborn, after all, haven't resulted from the free choices of women but rather misguided state campaigns such as China's one-child policy for population control purposes.

If pro-life conservatives want fewer abortions, they need to change the cultural incentives of women, not try to demonize them by shoehorning the issue into a simplistic and inapposite "abortion is murder" framework to justify a ban. This will only intensify the culture wars—and risk a worse backlash.

This column originally appeared in The Week

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.

  • John||

    This is not to claim that women never make the wrong call or that the cultural context underlying their decisions doesn't matter. It does. Indeed, societies that stigmatize out-of-wedlock births or prefer one gender to another can bias women's choices. But it is far better in such situations to try and change the cultural milieu rather than rely on the state's awesome power to abolish reproductive rights. Indeed, conservatives of all people ought to place their faith in mothers because their interests are immutable and reliable — as opposed to the state whose interests are mutable and unreliable. The worst atrocities against the unborn, after all, haven't resulted from the free choices of women but rather misguided state campaigns such as China's one-child policy for population control purposes.

    By Dalmia's logic, we should legalize the murder of children of any age. Sure some women will get it wrong and kill for the wrong reasons. But most will get it right and they will choose better than the state. This article is new level of insanity by Dalmia. WTF?

  • DJK||

    You mean Dalmia doesn't engage in principled reasoning? She's just freaking out about her latest cause de jure? Color me shocked.

  • An Owl Named Dur||

    I love how she accuses pro-lifers for demonizing mothers. I know it's Shikma, but surly even she understands that a woman who aborts her fetus is not a mother. That's kinda the entire point of abortion.

  • ThomasD||

    She's still a mother. A mother who chose to kill her unborn child.

    But otherwise you are spot on, Dalmia fails to see the consequences of her own rhetoric.

  • The Last American Hero||

    3 year olds are a pain in the ass, and I have yet to meet one that could survive on its own.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Moochers

  • Tony||

    By Dalmia's logic, we should legalize the murder of children of any age

    Do you ever tire of being completely ridiculous?

  • Mickey Rat||

    Where is the limiting logic once you establish the idea that an otherwise healthy human can be killed for their own benefit?

  • SQRLSY One||

    Yes, war should be outlawed, war IS murder!!!

  • Mickey Rat||

    You need better reading comprehension.

    "Their benefit" is the person being killed.

    At the very least, one side in a war can at least claim self-defense or punishment for transgressions against them.

  • SQRLSY One||

    You've never heard of the young officer in Vietnam, saying that they had to destroy the village and the villagers, to save the village?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    At least Agile Cyborg's musings were fun to read. Yours have all the coherence of a homeless man yelling at his two other personalities.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Why should he? You don't.

  • Mystic1488||

    What's really holding back the pro-life cause isn't rudeness - how is there any harm in treating a murderer like a reprehensible animal? But what is holding back the pro-life cause is that the slaying of infants by mothers, for convenience, is less heinous than the mindful willful and more brutal cult act of the torturing of infant genitalia, in America of males only, and in the Islamic world also of females. Yet these ridiculous thots have the audacity to complain about church-of-weinstein prostitution rings branding them, adults willfully entering the profession.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    At this point in the abortion debate the progress of both sides is largely dependent on mistakes made by their opponents. I am slightly inclined to think that the Pro-Choice crowd are making more blunders. and this bothers me because I am in favor of abortion being legal. The Pro-life bunch may be rude, but they haven't made a blunder one half as bad as turning a blind eye to Kermit Gosnell in a long time.

    I'll tell you what else I see bouncing down the pike; with the spread of Parental Notification laws, it seems inevitable (given the personalities involved) that we will see minors snuck across State lines to evade such laws. Which will doubtless make the Pro-Choice crowd feel all heroic....right up to the moment the one such minor dies as a result of complications and the f*cking sky falls on Pro-Choice.

    The future of Abortion Rights is in your hands, people. Do TRY not to fumble them to death.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    We need to establish a legal standard for when personhood begins. Then things should fall into place.

  • ThomasD||

    This.

  • JTNash||

    Technically, we have one now … Only after the child is 100% out of the womb. It's wrong, but it is the current legal standard.

  • Oli||

    Only that a "legal standard" isn't a moral absolute, unless you're a communist.

  • FlameCCT||

    Perhaps we can use the European model, which IIUC is about 12 weeks/3 months.

  • Flinch||

    Logic? Dalmia? A rare meeting. But I doubt Kevin Williamson can be that brilliant, working at what some have called a "shrieking hive of retardation". Abortion is personal, and will never go away. But the disrespect is general [not specific] for right wing flavored statists: they too believe in the heavy hand of government supplanting the decisions of individuals. The important thing to note is that the left leaves Roe v Wade to hang unresolved - it's bad case law that needs statutory remedy. They refuse to provide that, as their need to maintain courts power to write law from the bench is preferred. Why do THEY hate women so much as to let them hang in limbo?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Your mother is so fat.....

  • Ken Shultz||

    . . . when I climbed on top of her, my ears popped!

  • Curly4||

    The question is if she was so fat why did you climb on top of her? Are you that hard up? A few dollars would have allowed you to chose someone that was not so fat.

  • Cloudbuster||

    The question is if she was so fat why did you climb on top of her?

    The time-honored answer is, "Because she was there!"

  • Flinch||

    I'm not certain, but yodeling might help prevent that...

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    . . . Neil DeGrasse Tyson demoted Jupiter to a dwarf planet!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    ...Shikha wrote an article about illegals trying to get into her.

  • ||

    ... she takes two IDs to the grocery store.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    .... Trump is using tariffs to get some Chinese belt restrictions loosened.

  • Curly4||

    Not if you listen to most of the news. Trump is trying to destroy the US and the world economy.

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    ... her diet plan is being federally funded and administrated by FEMA.

  • SQRLSY One||

    British Petroleum was exploring her scalp for oil deposits!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    ..because fat shaming is a crime nowhere tasty.

  • Thomas O.||

    ...her job at the movie theater is the SCREEN!

  • phillhamian||

    Getting take backs on a decision you regret will almost always win versus taking responsibility for your choices. If the creation of a new life is not incentive enough, than there is no argument to convince pro-abortion advocates of their error. This is merely a symptom of the narcissism infecting every inch of our culture and there are no take backs on that.

  • ||

    Getting take backs on a decision you regret will almost always win versus taking responsibility for your choices.

    It would only make sense that the due process clause of the 14th Am. would dictate that Roe v. Wade be overturned by a sorrowful woman who regrets her abortion rather than by a man who wants to take responsibility for his own, consensually conceived, child. If women aren't solely defined as the sole decision makers when it comes to human reproduction they might become victims of the patriarchy by making lots of money and building buildings and shit.

  • Curly4||

    But when it comes to the account where the man does not want a child and the woman does the man is still made to support that child for 18 years. But if the man wants the child the woman is not required to deliver it even if the man is willing to pay the costs.

  • buybuydandavis||

    My Body
    My Choice
    Your Responsibility

  • Azathoth!!||

    So I read this--

    Pro-Life Conservatives Should Understand that Mothers Are Better Guardians of the Unborn than the Government: New at Reason

    On an article about letting those 'better guardians' kill what they're guarding.

    Yeah.

    I'm pretty sure Reason's dead.

  • John||

    What a fucking crazy bitch.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Translation: Teedy Rosenfeld ordered women to labor against race suicide, I believe it, that settles it!

  • John||

    Translation; Hank Phillips is a lunatic who makes Hihn seem sane by comparison.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Hank can move up now. It appears, Hihn got the Libertopia boot.

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    Hihn's gone? I was on his list! He was the only real credibility I had!

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Reason actually kicked him?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Deleted his posts a couple days back.

    Hihnfections had no cure.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Left - Right = pi?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Left - right= buh bye.

  • Hank Phillips||

    The Canadian government--especially the Catholic-dominated Province of Quebec--agrees with Shikha. Soon after the objectivist-dominated LP got its plank interpreted as Roe v. Wade, ALL Canadian laws to send men with guns to force women to reproduce against their will were abolished. There are no such superstitious laws from sea to shining sea an inch away from Alaska, Washington, Montana, North Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, Vermont and Maine. The Canadian LP has no bootlicking "good faith" plank in its platform. That battle is won, but mystical conservatives are free to emigrate to Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran and other jurisdictions that enforce Comstock/Sharia Blue laws and strip women of individual rights.

  • phillhamian||

    Tell me more about when men with guns forced women en masse to have unprotected sex thereby forcing them to conceive a child (presumably with the men with guns?)

  • dave b.||

    The entire Caribbean plus Central and South America should suffice

  • ||

    Back when the Caribbean and C./S. Americas were under the control of the Canadian government?

    Jesus Christ you guys can't even stay intellectually honest or consistent across two comments and 45 min. No wonder the notion of being honestly committed and decisive for a couple weeks, 9 months, or even 18+ years is so unfathomably foreign to you.

  • ThomasD||

    Nothing says libertarian quite like the fear that, if women cannot freely abort the spawn of your loins, you will never get laid.

  • Giant Realistic Flying Tiger||

    You mean the Russian invasion of Nazi Germany?

    (Invasion probably isn't the right word, but you know what I mean.)

  • Tony||

    Pretty much every war ever.

    Also Christians banning sex ed and contraception along with abortion.

  • ||

    Canada abolished laws calling for war? Or did Hank point to one goalpost and you point to another?

  • ||

    On an article about letting those 'better guardians' kill what they're guarding.

    Based on the legal precept that men and women are equal in a case where a woman made a bad call, got pregnant, lied about being raped and then confessed to lying about being raped *before the trial*. After the trial, she became a born again Christian and protested abortion clinics.

    Roe v. Wade should be reversed under the legal precept of "This is such a fucked up mess it all needs to be torn out at the roots and reseeded, if not the earth salted and abandoned."

    Free people are not equal, equal people are not free.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    Should be over turned because the federal government is no where granted jurisdiction over this subject matter. Strict constructionism and 9th and 10th amendments, bitches.

  • Philadelphia Collins||

    No one can be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

  • shane_c||

    Those are rights. Rights protect you from the government, not from other people. Another person cannot infringe your right to bear arms for example, only govt can. You'll have to come up with another reason.

  • Cyronic||

    My right to life is only protected if it's the government trying to kill me?

    We absolutely have courts of laws to protect against the infringement of my rights by other people... that's sorta the main argument for the existence of government and a legal system in the first place: to enshrine and preserve our Natural Rights.

  • Thomas O.||

    Rights protect you from the government AND other people. Your right to free speech may provoke a negative reaction, but if that reaction breaks a law, that's on the person doing the reacting.

  • Vaelyn||

    And in fact Norma McCorvey--aka "Jane Roe" never had the abortion.

  • Curly4||

    With articles as this one there is NO REASON, just a means to publish click bate.

  • NashTiger||

    I didn't even have to guess who wrote it though. Some arguments have such incredibly stupid DNA, they are an easy match

  • Mr. JD||

    "Slave owners are better guardians of their slaves than the government."

    "And Michael Vick of his dogs!"

  • Eddy||

    "29 percent believe that abortion should be legal under any circumstances...43 percent of respondents in one poll believing that women should be able to get an abortion for "any" reason"

    Wait, which is it?

  • phillhamian||

    If public opinion were as strongly slanted in the way of abortion that Shikha states, why have any anxiety at all about turning the issue back to individual states?

  • esteve7||

    "Reproductive Rights" is another garbage term from the left. You lost me as soon as you mentioned it

  • Marty Feldman's Eyes||

    How else would you describe the concept of women having the right to make their own decisions about reproduction within their own bodies without other people sticking their noses where it has no damn business?

  • The Last American Hero||

    They chose a partner.

    They chose to have sex.

    They chose to not use protection.

    How many choices do they get?

  • Tony||

    "How many choices do they get?"

    What do you think this is, a libertarian board?

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    What if the woman was raped?

    What if the 'woman' was 12 years old?

    What if the woman was an incest victim?

    What if the woman used protection and became pregnant nevertheless.

    What if you were a libertarian or anything other than a superstition-driven, intolerant right-winger?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    So Rev. Shitbird, at what point does a fetus legally become a person?

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    When your betters decide it does, clinger.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Just what a Lefty would say.

    Good thing Hillary lost.

  • Cyronic||

    In other news, Rev. Kirkland admits that he's a filthy paternalist and elitist.

  • Marty Feldman's Eyes||

    Non-sequitur. Doesn't matter how many choices they have in those other ways, it should be a human right to make their own decisions about what is done or not done to their own bodies.

  • NashTiger||

    So the other body has no human rights?

  • Marty Feldman's Eyes||

    What other body?

  • Philadelphia Collins||

    The one they want to kill.

  • Marty Feldman's Eyes||

    Hard to kill something that doesn't exist until birth.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Yeah Marty it does. It's a living thinking person months before birth. I thought you pro abortion folks were all sciencey.

    I guess not.

  • ThomasD||

    It is biologically alive.

    It is biologically a complete human.

    It is biologically not the mother.

    Science!

  • Cyronic||

    Basic biology and logic would disagree with you, Marty.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Shikha does not realize that the key line in the Roe v. Wade decision was transcribed from the 1972 Libertarian Party platform. Austin attorney Libby Linebarger was making the case for pregnant women retaining individual rights when BLAM! A loyal elector cast an electoral vote for the John Hospers/Toni Nathan ticket (instead of Nixon). That vote could not be ignored, so La Suprema copied our plank, added an extra week of protection from antichoice lynch mobs and the last vestiges of the Comstock laws of 1872-3 crumbled. Canada promptly abolished ALL laws stripping pregnant women of individual rights. The Comstock laws banned condoms, diaphragms... even TALKING about birth control meant fines and imprisonment. The Prohibition and Republican parties promptly added demands for an Antichoice Amendment to their platforms, but that eventually fizzled. Now they infiltrate the LP to try to get us to betray women back into the involuntary labor of breeding cannon fodder to prevent "Race Suicide."

  • Paloma||

    I think Canada and China are the only two countries where abortion is legal in all circumstances.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Hank, fuck off.

  • ThomasD||

    Nah, be nice.

    Hank's purpose here is to promote libertarianism by giving the rest of us the opportunity to appear not insane.

  • Eddy||

    So Dalmia acknowledges (perhaps unwillingly) that prolifers aren't "demonizing" women - but they might do so in the future, and in that case, it would be awful (I think she means that she'd love it, because then prolifers would be doing what she wants them to do).

    Let's look to the current state of public opinion. The polls are confusing (see above), and it seems to depend on the question and how the questions are interpreted, but I'll grant that the voters want "abortion rights" for rape and incest, and they may be cool with some early abortions.

    But I'd love to see the responses to specific questions about whether they agree with the abortion status quo - minor girls can bypass parental consent, wives can get abortions without their husband being involved, federal funds go to organizations which provide abortions in pretty much most circumstances, the fetus can't even get a court-appointed guardian to represent its interest in not being aborted, late-term abortions are considered a constitutional right under certain (broadly-defined) circumstances, etc., etc.

    Vague questions about Roe aren't going to capture these nuances.

  • Eddy||

    The prolife movement has plenty of experience with pushing halfway measures and partial reforms, taking political realities into account. This seems to annoy the choicers, who really don't like being put in the position of defending late-term abortions, overriding parental wishes for teenage girls getting abortions, tax subsidies for abortionists (the money going into one pocket while the organization does its spending out of a different pocket), etc.

    Until the public gets much more enlightened, these halfway measures are practical prolife reforms which can get enacted in the here and now and maybe save a few babies, even while the public still wants to punish innocent children for the sins of their rapist fathers.

  • Eddy||

    (And executing the actual rapist would be considered cruel and unusual, of course)

  • Just Say'n||

    Manipulating data is the last refuge of a scoundrel. Shikha is getting desperate

  • Philadelphia Collins||

    I notice that Shikha has already been born.

  • The Last American Hero||

    Gosh, if only we had 50 or so laboratories of democracy to sort this stuff out...

  • Mark22||

    Shikha talks about "cultural incentives". Well, the "cultural incentive" against irresponsible pregnancy is to treat it as the moral failing that it is.

    The current situation, where we treat women as if they didn't have any agency and they are just passive victims of pregnancy, is absurd.

  • FlameCCT||

    So Dalmia acknowledges (perhaps unwillingly) that pro-choice is the leading cause of death for blacks...
    Eugenicist and racist Margaret Sanger would be proud of Dalmia.

  • Giant Realistic Flying Tiger||

    A Shikha article about abortion? I'll be back in an hour to read the comments.

  • Aloysious||

    You're going to miss all the fun.

  • Giant Realistic Flying Tiger||

    I am disappointed by the lack of comments. It seems that Shikha has lost her ability to infuriate.

  • lap83||

    It's Friday, everyone is going to express their disapproval by going out and trying to find someone to impregnate

  • JSinAZ||

    The link I clicked said "Reason Staff". I was conned.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    She overshot the mark and landed on absurdity. Since absurdity is the basis for much humor, this explains why I can't stop laughing.

  • DRM||

    It's a second posting of one that ran earlier in the week.

  • JeremyR||

    So by this logic, mothers should be able to kill their children at any time up to the point where they are able to completely take care of themselves?

    The whole premise of legal abortion is that there is a magical line where a baby is a fetus and not a person and thus does not deserve protection from being murdered.

    It's a farce.

    Hopefully the thing will eventually be resolved with technology, artificial wombs.

  • phillhamian||

    Presumably condoms are a less expensive option than artificial wombs, and I hear they're available at just about every drug store and gas station around the country.

  • Mark22||

    There are plenty of human beings that don't have legal protection against being murdered, so that's really not much of an argument.

    I think in the case of abortion, it's not a discussion that is even necessary: if we stopped misusing the "awesome power of the state" to subsidize and destigmatize the irresponsible sex and irresponsible pregnancies, abortions would largely disappear anyway.

    Current US abortion policies are not rooted in "women's reproductive rights", they are rooted in 20th century progressive ideas about eugenics.

  • mtrueman||

    "hey are rooted in 20th century progressive ideas about eugenics."

    If we insist on irresponsible sex and pregnancy, we should at least have responsible abortions.

  • Cyronic||

    Can't say that I agree that it would go away on its own. So long as there is demand for any option that absolves us of personal responsibility and consequences for our actions (an innate human trait, I think), the market will provide a way.

  • Rat on a train||

    So by this logic, mothers should be able to kill their children at any time up to the point where they are able to completely take care of themselves?
    Through the 75th trimester.

  • Robert||

    No magic line for me. I'm OK with anything being killed if its owner (which may be itself) doesn't mind dying.

  • Cyronic||

    So who's the owner, then? The mother "owns" the baby? Or does the baby own itself? The former has tremendous ethical implications, and the latter cannot be determined until the baby is born and reaches an age of comprehension of such things... at which point I would certainly 'hope' that the question is moot.

  • shane_c||

    A fertilized egg is different from a baby. And a law against killing a baby isn't the govt taking control of a woman's body.

  • lap83||

    Pro-life conservatives should take pity on pro-choice mothers, they just lost their unborn child.....seems to be the gist of this article

  • John||

    It is the kid who murders his parents asking for mercy because he is an orphan.

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    I don't even read abortion* articles anymore.

    *Shikha

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    Good grief that was mean.

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    Sorry, Shiki baby *kiss kiss*

  • Aloysious||

    ^ microaggression.

    You will be punished.

  • Amber Tony||

    Hello. I am Amber Tony. I pop up on your phone when one of the Tonys is reported missing. Yellow Tony is currently missing.

  • lap83||

    Can you provide any details about the outfit he was last seen wearing or vehicle info?

  • Hamster of Doom||

    Last seen wearing wellingtons, spanx, and a rubber nose while boarding a shrimping boat. We're all very concerned.

  • Amber Tony||

    That is correct.

    Update: Boat believed to captained by A. Kirkland, wanted in 3 states on several counts of aggravated sodomy, theft of a ride-on lawnmower, and use of a marital aid whilst operating unlicensed stolen groundskeeping equipment on a public highway. Believed to be very dangerous. Do not approach.

  • JSinAZ||

    So I look at the authors: "Reason Staff", and think it might be safe. And then I follow the link to the bait-and-switch, Shikha.

    It is almost always a waste of time to read her output; if only she would spend more time with making sure her fundamental assumptions don't make her look boneheaded maybe it would have some worth. For instance: if a pregnant women aborts, then she isn't a mother because of that pregnancy. Simple. And bad things said about that woman later aren't being said to a "mother" either.


    Can't Reason do better somehow?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Do they want to?

  • Hamster of Doom||

    HAHAHAHAHA!

    Whose headline was this? Oh em frakking gee, that is awwwwful.

    That was really not a nice thing to do to Dalmia, Culpable Editor. Troubles enough, she's got.

  • Mark22||

    Right now, abortions are subsidized, single motherhood is massively subsidized, men are excluded from making decisions about their own progeny, and the law protects women from discrimination based on their moral choices. The libertarian choice is clear: getting pregnant is a very serious choice and a very serious responsibility towards the fetus and women need to face any unpleasant consequences that entails on their own. That is, mandatory abortion coverage, anti-discrimination laws, and welfare payments to single mothers are all massive abuses of the "awesome power of the state"; get rid of those, and the problem of abortions takes care of itself, in a totally libertarian way, namely by making the "cultural incentives", that is, the consequences of an irresponsible pregnancy very upleasant, without any "abortion is murder" discussion.

    From a practical point of view, eliminating Roe v. Wade would likely just amount to restrictions as found in many other progressive nations: limit it to roughly the first trimester and forcing women to pay for it except in cases of rape, incest, or health.

  • The Last American Hero||

    We would have a range of options. It would still be legal in some form in all of the states.

    California would allow abortion, state funded, on demand, no notification, and the only licensing requirement for the doctor would be that you registered as a Democrat.

    Other states may allow up to 20 weeks, some up to 12. Others will vary on parental consent/notification. A few will only allow it in cases of life/incest/rape. Some will allow it but not fund it. Some may require you to watch 10 minutes of Hi-Def Ultrasound before signing the paperwork.

    Let the states sort it out.

  • ||

    A few will only allow it in cases of life/incest/rape.

    Interstate public transportation for the abortion purposes will be federally controlled and (likely) subsidized. "I want to have an abortion." will get you a free train or bus ticket to a state that offers it. PP will employ travel agents to plan your trip for you. There will be no religious exemption to the Commerce Clause.

  • Tony||

    If you don't believe that women who are raped and then abort the resulting pregnancy should go to prison for life (a worse punishment than her rapist, because she's a baby murderer), then you aren't being serious about this pro-life business and you should shut the fuck up,

  • Nick GiIlespie||

    So what about all the pro-life arguments that don't fit your crazy outrage straw man stereotype?

  • Tony||

    They are all fatally inconsistent. You could say Trump was dumb enough to take the argument to its logical conclusion when he said women should be punished for getting abortions, but you could also say that even someone as dumb as Trump can take this argument to its logical conclusion.

    Either it's a baby with the full rights of a baby or it's not. If it's not, then the debate stops being about protecting the rights of a human person and starts being about what's best medically and socially. And a rape baby is, of course, no less a baby than a consensual baby.

  • Ecoli||

    Tony, are you saying that a full term baby is not a person? How about 39 weeks? 38? 20? 12?

    Where would you draw the line?

    Abortion fanatics draw no line whatever. Are you one of them?

  • Tony||

    The 75th trimester.

  • Ecoli||

    Hahahahahaha!

    Good one!!

    75/3 = 25. Tell Dalmia. She is in your intellectual circle.

  • Tony||

    It goes up a trimester the closer I get to 40.

  • ||

    A trimester is 3 months. That's why 3 of them make a 9 month gestation period. Meaning there are 4 of them a year and the 75th trimester is 18.75 yrs. The 72nd trimester would be (72/4=) 18 yrs. exactly.

    I reiterate my stance that gay guys' opinions on pregnancy and abortion should be double-plus null and void.

  • Ecoli||

    I agree with your second paragraph. The first paragraph is lacking from a logical and mathematical perspective.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    He's right. Sorry, dude. Doctors don't have to make sense, they just have to speak authoritatively and in Latin.

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    That's the impass I suppose. I always felt that the pro-choice arguments ignore any of the actual science that doesn't agree 100% with the "settled science" they rely on; fetuses' awareness of pain, what is or isn't a human, etc.

  • ||

    And, again, he's lithely sliding around the fact that the rape exclusion obligingly ignores whether the baby is alive or not specifically to encompass a woman's right to self-ownership. If she doesn't want to carry a baby to term, she shouldn't get pregnant the exact same way that men who don't want to be punished with child support shouldn't impregnate anyone. The pro-choice stance is, in several ways and in this day and age, bankrupt to the core. In the late '50s when Roe didn't have access to birth control, it may've made (some more) sense but now that birth control is available to everyone women for free, it's just idiotic.

  • ||

    And a rape baby is, of course, no less a baby than a consensual baby.

    Something that's not a baby but was produced consensually is, by definition, owned mutually by the consenting parties according to any conditions of consent.

    Presumably, if courts can enslave men on behalf women through child support for ~18-yr.-terms then surely equal rights at least suggests women can be enslaved for 9 mos. since the ACA covers the costs anyway.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    The mother and the fetus are two separate human beings. How do we decide/determine their respective rughts and duties? It is a maxim of libertarianism that rights are negative in nature, that is no one has a right at someone else's expense unless agreed upon previously. If a woman was raped, she cannot be compelled to retain and support her rapist's fetus. (Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall exist within the united States.)

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    The fact that the baby is dependent on the mother to live for a limited period is certainly a big factor.

  • Cyronic||

    I suspect the water muddies somewhat when the only way for a woman NOT to retain and support her rapist's fetus is the summary execution of said fetus.

  • Mark22||

    Either it's a baby with the full rights of a baby or it's not. If it's not, then the debate stops being about protecting the rights of a human person and starts being about what's best medically and socially.

    Well, that's easy: medically and socially, it is obviously best to outlaw abortions. The only people who think otherwise are eugenicists, which, of course has been a key political position of progressives and leftists.

    In any case, the problem with abortions in the US is not so much that they are legal, it's that the burden of irresponsible sexual behavior is placed on society as a whole, whether it's for child support or abortions, and that businesses and insurers are prohibited from discriminating against single mothers.

    Eliminate the subsidies and protections for people who have irresponsible sex and the problem will largely go away.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Not sure why abortions are performed in any significant number anymore. The Day After pill should have eliminated 95% of them.

  • Tony||

    And I should add that the woman remains a human person with rights.

  • Mark22||

    Women don't just want the right to an abortion, they want society to pay for it and they want to be protected from its social and economic consequences.

  • Mark22||

    Women don't just want the right to an abortion, they want society to pay for it and they want to be protected from its social and economic consequences.

  • Tony||

    Damn those women having requests and shit.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Except they're not asking, they're demanding.

    "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle" up until the point the rent is due.

  • Mark22||

    Women have arranged for the state to forcibly remove the money to pay for their abortions out of my paycheck. And, yes, damn every woman or man who supports that.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Damn those babies, wanting to live and shit.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    This is a particularly good meeting of Libertarians For Big-Government Womb Management and Libertarians For State Micromanagement Of Certain Clinics.

    Faux libertarians sure do love them some superstition-laced authoritarianism in the service of right-wing goobery.

  • Mark22||

    This is a particularly good meeting of Libertarians For Big-Government Womb Management

    How does not wanting to pay for some woman's abortion amount to "womb management"?

  • ||

    Considering the 14th Am. as currently interpreted writes men wholly out of any mutually consensual reproductive acts, I don't see how it doesn't ban gay men from having an opinion in the matter whatsoever. I'm pretty sure what Tony just did is a hate crime in the first degree.

  • Cloudbuster||

    I do indeed think the mother is a baby murder and should suffer severe penalties. However, I also acknowledge that is not going to fly in this country at this time. Baby steps, so to speak.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    How did a superstitious right-wing authoritarian stumble onto a libertarian website?

  • Ecoli||

    Since women are MORE likely than men to be pro choice, I think Dalmia might want to stick to pimping food carts as the solution to what ails America.

    Other than that I am unimpressed.

  • Ecoli||

    I am pro choice. I think elective abortions should be allowed up till about 12 weeks of gestation. I also think that the vast majority of women who get an abortion are traumatized by the event.

  • MJM1969||

    So Shikha believes that vanity is a requirement of eugenics?

    I am pro-choice, I just believe that the entity most affected by that choice should be the one making it. And (except in the "life of the mother" cases) the entity facing a life or death consequence is the most impacted by the choice.

    In the vast majority of abortions, it does come down to the baby being an inconvenience-the mother will have to drop out of school, or she becomes a mother before she wanted to.

    At some point in the conversation, th he definition changed. Limiting the circumstances that would allow an abortion would not limit the girl or woman from choosing to have sex, it would only require her (and the father) to live with the consequences.

  • Mr. JD||

    By your argument, only slave-owners should have had a say regarding whether to free the slaves.

  • Cyronic||

    By his argument, the slaves themselves would be the most affected parties in your scenario.

  • MJM1969||

    Btw, my definition of "pro choice" is that a person should be allowed to choose to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't harm another person (including financial harm). This includes drug use, suicide, etc.
    Therefore, the proper term for those in favor of abortion should be "pro-abortion".

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    I believe people are entitled to believe as they wish, regardless of how silly their preferred flavor of superstition might be.

    Does that make the proper term for me "Catholic?"

  • Palatki||

    Actually, the proper term for you is wall-to-wall asshole.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    "I believe people are entitled to believe as they wish, regardless of how silly their preferred flavor of superstition might be."

    I feel the same way about progressives.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    That makes you a disaffected, inconsequential loser of the culture war, clinger.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Another spirited gathering of Libertarians For Big-Government Womb Management and State Micromanagement Of Certain Clinics.

    Spectrum-Inhabiting Incel Chapter.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    I'm frankly impressed with the ingenuity. Any rank amateur can go with calling people 'stupid', and generally does. The flair and sheer gusto in your approach speaks to craftsmanship. I remember when people cared about the quality of their work. This is making me feel downright nostalgic.

    Your technical skills (SPaG) are pristine, and brevity keep this lily from the heaviness of gilding. The only possible quibble is 'incel'. Push too far and the reader's sense of disbelief is triggered. It can spoil the flow.

    All in all, delightful. 9/10, and I regret that such dedication and sincere effort aren't more common.

  • damikesc||

    Abolitionists need to realize slave owners are better guardians of their slaves than the government, right?

  • Silence Dogoode||

    I have yet to figure out how killing a baby confers a "reproductive" right on the mother.

    There are only rare instances where a mother's life is truly endangered by having a child. The vast majority of abortions are for convenience or pressure from the family or the man who got the woman pregnant.

  • Silence Dogoode||

    I have yet to figure out how killing a baby confers a "reproductive" right on the mother.

    There are only rare instances where a mother's life is truly endangered by having a child. The vast majority of abortions are for convenience or pressure from the family or the man who got the woman pregnant.

  • Tony||

    Calling it a baby is rather begging the question.

  • SQRLSY One||

    This is how abortion confers reproductive rights to women:

    A woman has been deceived by a man. Lothario has lied to prospective single mom, told her he has a vasectomy (he has none), and that he has no other girlfriends (he has 5 others). Mom-to-be only finds out these things AFTER she is pregnant! She wants to save her reproductive services for a man who is true to his word, to preserve and protect GOOD fatherhood, and all that the anti-abortion fanatics want to do, is get in her way! Via the supposedly good graces of Government Almighty's coercion and violence!

    In summary, reproductive rights include women having "veto power" over scumbucket men, who have deceived them. These very real scenarios have somehow escaped your "vast majority"... I have personally met women who fall into this category.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    A woman has been deceived by a man. Lothario has lied to prospective single mom, told her he has a vasectomy (he has none), and that he has no other girlfriends (he has 5 others)

    Yeah, that's how it always goes down.

    "Don't worry, I'm on birth control."

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    A man without good prospects can get a crappy job, join the military or turn to crime. A woman has another option. She can get welfare and child support for 18 years if she plays her cards right. The idea that women don't exploit that incentive is just silly.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Whatever they do, they should resist the temptation to demonize women in an ill-fated effort to turn Americans against abortion."

    When Shikha gives the Right advice, they would be stupid to take it.

    Political arguments are won by morality. The Pro Lifers fail because they don't have the stomach to hold women accountable.

    The Left has won power by demonizing white men. It works.

  • Penny_Worth||

    The writer's logic in this article veers off the road, hitting balsa barriers, guard rails and finally flies off the cliff Veers: 1) Presuming Roe v. Wade needs to be overturned to have new restrictions on abortion. The Roe v. Wade allows science to reveal new information about when the fetus is viable, when pain is felt, to influence future decisions. Roe does *not* need to be overturned.. 2) That pro-lifers would start with Federal bans or restrictions on abortion. Many see the more libertarian approach of removing Federal funding as more viable.(Especially when 'Planned Parenthood' receives *over one-third* of its funding from government 'grants'.) 3) Presuming that just because some foolish conservative is speaking of a woman who has an abortion because of concerns for quality of life as a murderer that a majority of conservatives will follow that logic. Frankly, the pro-life movement has grown more mature than that. If anyone is interested in the 'coercion factor' ( it does not just affect statist governments like China - it happens due to social pressure in the USA), he or she may be interested in some statistics from the Elliot Institute: even respondents who claimed to be very "pro-choice", also have a majority who believe that abortion has a negative impact on women. Over one half of the abortions in America are unwanted or coerced in some way, according to some studies, often by a young woman's parents or significant other. http://theunchoice.org/coerced.htm

  • SQRLSY One||

    Your link gives this example of "coercion": "Our pastor assured us that abortion was ok." (This doesn't help the cause that the writers are obviously trying to make, citing something like this!)

    Also in general, being told that "little or no support" would be given to the child, if brought to term.

    I as a taxpayer do NOT want to support ten million welfare moms, with no dads in sight... I have enough troubles trying to take care of me and mine. So then I am guilty of coercion towards abortion?

  • SQRLSY One||

    If I am suicidal, and demand all of your money, to give me more reasons to live, and you refuse to give it to me... Are you coercing my suicide?

  • Penny_Worth||

    In answer to the suicide question: no. You are coercing me to (just as some parents and others do to young women) to support you or insisting I bribe you to save your life. My response to that would be I don't have enough money to convince you to stay alive. Most people who threaten suicide are dealing with issues that are far deeper than any that money alone can solve. This is the same problem those who are under severe coercion threat would face. I grant that the site offers some mild forms of coercion, but far more examples of more severe coercion were also offered. For example, parents who bring their daughter in after locking her in a room for two weeks, or the woman who brought her daughter at *gunpoint* in to the abortion clinic. (granted, I'm doing a bit of cherry - picking here, but you did also) For some of the more dramatic stories , you can go here: http://theunchoice.com/unchoicestories.htm

  • Penny_Worth||

    to continue with my answer, there are far more issues than money here. Who is coercing you to commit suicide for money would be one of my questions. More on coercion is here : http://theunchoice.com/forcedabortion.htm You'd be shocked how often this occurs.

  • Penny_Worth||

    To answer your last question, ah, no. (The exception to this would be those who support taxpayer-funded abortion without any opt - out) We even have the option to donate or not to the presidential campaign fund (up to a certain amount) stated on the tax form. More to the point, we are free to buy a wildlife preservation plate, hospice license plate, and can even select in some states a specific animal to aid . Federal funding of abortion removes any real choice in this matter, at least for those who are not 'pro-choice'. So, is it really pro-choice to require all to fund abortions? Now I would like as well to expand this choice to funding for unjust wars, so I am not being inconsistent. Also,both PP and Crisis Pregnancy Centers receive donations, so why not defund both groups of Federal funds, (or at least give us the check-box option we have in many states and for the presidential campaign) ?This would serve two libertarian causes: no coercion by government to support 'the other side of the argument', and restoring the smaller government ideals of the Founding Fathers. Then those who wanted to support a mothers' choice to carry her child to term could 'put their money where their mouth is' (as I do!) and others could if they chose to donate to PP. But neither group should be forced to support the other.

  • SQRLSY One||

    "Now I would like as well to expand this choice to funding for unjust wars..."

    A hearty Amen to that!!!

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Frankly, the pro-life movement has grown more mature than that.

    The pro-life movement's foundation is superstition. Gullibility. Immaturity.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    And yet they are more intelligent and mature than you , Arty.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    On average? No doubt. the average mother is a better guardian of her children's interests than the government.

    The mother intent on infanticide? Tougher case there, I think...

  • Harvard||

    Reason has come to recognize Shecky as an infection. However, due to contractual obligations, and because Gillespie is currently fucking her, they cannot refuse to publish her incoherent drivel. Their solution is to hereby attribute her authorship to Reason Staph.

  • SQRLSY One||

    For all of you anti-abortion men out there… And I'm quite certain that encompasses the majority of the anti-abortion commenters here…

    Have you ever tried loving kindness, gentleness, and support of single moms, to fight your perceived "social ills" here? Many young pregnant women, with iffy-at-the-very-best possibilities of support from dad-to-be or his family… They look around, and see stressed-out, poverty-striken single moms with little or no support, taking care of too many kids… With too few opportunites to socialize with fellow adults, without constantly also watching over screaming toddlers. And with poor prospects of finding a good man. Who wants a ready-made family?

    To alleviate these pressures, men with wives and girlfriends should be encouraging young men to get married into ready-made families, and single men should do the same. And married or otherwise committed men should be begging their wives and girlfriends for "time off" so that they can go socialize with single mothers, buy them diapers, and help wipe baby butts. If you believe in "persuasion not coercion", THESE are the HELPFUL things that you could be doing!

    But too many, instead, are asking (outright, or by inference, calling abortion "murder", and so on) for Government Almighty to "fix" these social ills with coercion backed up by violence. You're not helping!!! Please stop!!! If you can't or won't help, at least refrain from harm!

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    I'll come out in support of abortion all the way up to, and including, the point where the baby is traveling down the birth canal, as you do, if the man isn't forced by the courts to provide child support for those single mothers who do choose to have kids.

    If it's "her body, her choice" at all times, then it stands to reason that it should be "his wallet, his choice" at all times as well.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Point acknowledged, Sir! (I assume Sir).

    That one is an EXTREMELY hard row to hoe, socio-politically... I will make myself content to work the female side of things for now, with what little attention my 2 cents worth may gather...

    "Responsibility all around" (responsible behavior by all) is a good solution, but I do NOT see Government Almighty as being the proper authority to make sure of all things at all times, and certainly not in abortion matters or sexual behaviors!

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Have you ever tried loving kindness, gentleness, and support of single moms, to fight your perceived "social ills" here?"

    Is that what how the Left gained power over it's enemies?

    I'm pro choice, but it's silly to pretend that moral condemnation doesn't work.

  • Bruce Hall||

    It's odd that a person illegally in this country has more rights than a unborn child conceived and growing in this country.

  • SQRLSY One||

    It's all (or certainly almost all) arbitrary social conventions, all the way down. It was illegal to be a witch, or gay, or a non-Christian... Even a non-Catholic... In many places and times in olden days in Europe.

    (It was only OK to be a witch if you were nobility, and kept it out of sight, out of mind).

    Well anyway, expecting any kind of logical coherence in the many ways and byways of our laws and customs, is pretty much a fool's errand. Especially since your logic is my foolishness, and vice versa!

  • Mr. JD||

    He can get in-state tuition anywhere, as well.

  • MarkJ-||

    Quiz most any "pro life" person and you will quickly discover that they are not pro life, they are just anti reproductive choice. Many are also anti contraception of any kind.

    Choice, safe legal reproductive choice, is the issue. Some are fer it, some agin it.
    Since prehistory reproductive choice has always been the woman's prerogative, we are just talking about the law.

    Since most abortions are now chemical, this issue is a dying one.

    Oh, I suppose we can outlaw the chemicals but consider the massive failure we have with restricting drugs from South America, and Asia. All that would really be achieved is increasing the prison population.

    Any future this issue has is a social one, as it should have been from the get-go.

  • Ecoli||

    What is the difference between "reproductive choice" and contraception?

    What is "reproductive choice"? The ability to choose the sex of the baby? Choosing whether to have sex? Are you saying that pro life people oppose allowing women, or men, to refuse sex, or are you saying pro-lifers insist that women must have sex?

    I have not spoken to all pro-life people, but I have never heard one even use the term "reproductive choice", nor have I ever heard one oppose sex, or contraception.

    Maybe you and I just travel in different circles.

  • lap83||

    "Many are also anti contraception of any kind."

    Yeah, those prudish anti-choice Christians should stop blocking contraception from being available OTC.....oh, wait

  • JTNash||

    Yeah, and dancing, too! We hate dancing! < rolls eyes >

  • Modus Pwnens||

    Still trying to figure out how RvW gets overturned when John Roberts said during his confirmation hearing that he considers RvW settled law. Is one of the 4 Obama/Clinton justices expected to switch sides?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Need to flip another seat then. RBG could always blow away in a good breeze.

  • Tony||

    I'm trying to figure out why anyone is OK with 4 out of 9 justices being appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote.

  • lap83||

    The fact that you apparently think justices should be determined by popular vote is reason #3,829 why you win the award for "troll everyone most loves to hate"

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Too bad Artie got the award retired, and it rests forever right next to the water heater in his mom's basement.

  • Tony||

    So there's a reason justices should be appointed by presidents who are supported by only a minority of the country? Will any minority do, or is there a specific one that should hold all the power over the rest of us?

  • Cyronic||

    Probably for the same reason that presidents aren't elected by the popular vote in the first place.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Law is settled until it's not.

  • Seamus||

    Did Dalmia and her headline writer actually use the word "mother" for the woman who is carrying a parasitical lump of tissue? They should report to the nearest center for re-education.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    What do Trump fans think of the fact that LeBron James could have President Trump's wife -- any way he wants her -- for the asking -- or, if he preferred, with a snap of the finger?

    How gullible and dumb must one be to believe this guy could make America great again when he can't even stop his wife from making goo-goo eyes at someone -- right after that guy showed up the President on national television.

    LeBron and Melania could do wonders for the country by putting out a sex-tape selfie and watching the wingnuts' bigoted, half-educated, stale-thinking heads explode. After years of suffering, Melania deserves some fun.

  • Mark22||

    LeBron and Melania could do wonders for the country by putting out a sex-tape selfie and watching the wingnuts' bigoted, half-educated, stale-thinking heads explode.

    Geez, you'd think that the 2016 election had driven the point home that us "half educated, stale thinking, bigoted wing-nuts" couldn't care less who Trump has sex with. The only people obsessing about Trump and his female acquaintances are Democrats, who irrationally think that they somehow can impeach him over his sexcapades.

  • Garth Bigelow||

    The question to me is why was this ever a federal issue? What part of the constitution granted them reign over this? Overturning Roe v. Wade returns the decisions concerning abortion rightfully to the states. I would think this the only Libertarian position.

  • Mr. JD||

    Libertarianism is not anarchy.

  • Cyronic||

    That's one position. The other would be that all human lives have certain inalienable rights - the first being life - and that it is a legitimate role of government to defend that Natural Right.

    Pro-choice libertarian? Send it back to the states.
    Pro-life libertarian? Legitimate federal role.

  • Mr. JD||

    Abortion is murder, and libertarianism will never be more than a fringe movement as long as it continues to deny science in saying otherwise.

    The article scolds pro-lifers for being queasy about defending innocent life conceived in rape. It should scold libertarians for being queasy about defending rights.

  • SQRLSY One||

    "Science" says that abortion is murder? Citations please!!!

    My cancer cells, and the cockroaches scurrying about my house, are "innocent life" as well, ya gonna make a big deal about THEM? Who tells you what to make a big deal about, and what NOT to make a big deal about?

    Do please tell...

  • Mr. JD||

    You are being unserious. You know full well that it is human life that we value.

  • Mr. JD||

    You are being unserious. You know full well that it is human life that we value.

  • Cyronic||

    Your cancer cells are not a distinct and separate human lifeform. A fetus is (albeit dependent on its mother as an incubator for a time).

    A cockroach is not human and therefore a moot point when debating human rights. A fetus is.

    Both of these points are easily confirmed by DNA tests. Or is that not enough "science" for you?

  • JTNash||

    The author is creating a false dichotomy by assuming that pro-life conservatives are unwilling to have any compassion for women in challenging circumstances. That said, rape and incest account for just 1 or 2 percent of reasons given for abortions. The vast majority are performed as a means of birth control. As a pro-lifer, I am far more concerned about the casual discarding of an unborn person's life than forcing a rape victim into an even worse situation.

  • texexpatriate||

    Advocates for life will win over the long term if they will persist in using facts to document that in nearly all cases---although I believe absolutely that in all cases---abortion is murder. I can hear someone arguing with me already, "How about the mother's life? Huh! Huh!" My response is, How does that change anything?

  • Silence Dogoode||

    That's what "pro-choice" have been doing to babies since Roe v. Wade, dissing the fetus as not a person deserving human rights.

  • Liberty Lover||

    Politics is about hypocrisy, don't do as I do, do as I say.

  • afk05||

    If people put even 20% as much effort into making medical advancement to make sterility 100% reversible, there would be an opportunity to have drastically fewer, if any, unplanned pregnancies. Why don't we focus our efforts to where they could actually make a difference or have positive change? Banning abortions would only increase back alley procedures and add millions more mouths to feed and support, and likely more children being abused and neglected.

    As a fiscal conservative, I don't want more babies born needing assistance or government help. The vast majority of abortions are to lower class girls/women; the wealthy and upper class are not having children out of wedlock (except for a very small percentage). Conservatives want to cut welfare programs, and we don't believe in government assistance/enabling, but with an increase in wage inequality, we don't need more mouths to feed that are not wanted. Family values should include children who are wanted and cared for.

    Who pays for all of these unwanted children? How are these future children the winner in this scenario? The foster care system is a mess, we have an opioid crisis and more babies being born addicted to drugs to heroin-addicted parents, and with better fertility medical advances and technology, less people are adopting than ever before. Who is going to support more single mothers - mostly lower and low middle class - forced to have kids?

  • JTNash||

    You're saying that you are a-okay with killing unborn persons because you don't want to pay for them. Shall we also kill off current welfare recipients that you also find unworthy of your tax dollars?

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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