MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Tomi Lahren, Pro-Choice Conservative, Not 'Incoherent' on Abortion

"I'm for limited government, so stay out of my guns, and you can stay out of my body as well," said Lahren on The View last week.

The ViewThe ViewConservative starlet Tomi Lahren is facing a heap of backlash from her usual supporters after an appearance on ABC's The View in which she defended the decriminalized status of abortion. Lahren, who hosts a popular show (Tomi) for Glenn Beck network The Blaze and is a frequent guest on Fox News programs, said that as someone who "loves the Constitution" and believes in limited government she can't support the government "decid[ing] what women do with their bodies."

"I'm pro-choice," Lahren admitted, calling it hypocritical to profess support for small government yet want to ban abortion. "I'm for limited government, so stay out of my guns, and you can stay out of my body as well."

Contra Lahren's critics, this is a perfectly coherent position, and one that was once perfectly respectable within the mainstream conservative movement. There's only tension between believing abortion should be legal—which is all being "pro-choice" means—and the Constitution's prescription of "life, liberty, and property" protection for all if you believe that personhood begins at conception. But one needn't believe this, nor even be a Christian at all, in order to champion conservative political philosophy.

And even if one does believe that abortion is an immoral practice, it doesn't necessarily follow that one must wish it banned completely. There are plenty of pro-life Americans who believe a blanket ban on abortion is not the best way to end the practice, given how black markets work. They instead strive to end abortion through changing hearts and minds, advocating better pregnancy-prevention methods, working to expand adoption options, and things like that. Again, this might seem horrific to people who believe that aborting an eight-week old fetus is the exact same as murdering a 2- or 20- or 80-year-old, but that's a matter of moral or religious perspective. Many others who believe abortion is wrong are simultaneously able to hold that it's not the same degree of wrong as ending a life outside the womb, or that the competing rights of pregnant women make abortion morally justifiable in some circumstances.

These are all positions that can convey coherent internal logic and political/moral belief systems. You may think folks like Lahren—who says she is personally against abortion, even though simultaneously pro-choice—are wrong, and that abortion is always the gravest of transgressions or never so, but it's erroneous and unfair to brush aside their beliefs as simple stupidity, hypocrisy, opportunism, or cowardice. It's exactly this kind of reflexive dismissal of differing beliefs and moral gray areas that keeps us locked in the stupidest kind of culture war over abortion, one that manifests in it being the most important litmus test for acceptance into political movements on the right and left and results in a host of high-profile, symbolic battles that all lead back to the same status quo.

Anyway, a lot of conservatives have been calling for Lahren's head since her View appearance, insisting it's an embarrassment and an outrage that such a pro-choice harpy could be a public face of Republicanism. As with Milo Yiannopoulos—who said all sorts of horrible things about women, Muslims, transgender people, etc., but was only ousted from polite conservatism after joking about pedophilic priests—it's telling (if predictable) that tepidly pro-choice views are the dealbreaker for the right with Lahren, while things like calling Black Lives Matter activists "the new KKK," referring to the Middle East as a "sandbox" that needs to be bombed, and defending the shooting of unarmed black men by cops never really rustled Republican jimmies.

Photo Credit: The View/ABC

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||

    I don't think she was being incoherent. The problem is she accused pro-life conservatives of being hypocrites. That is just not true. If you start with the assumption that life begins at conception and an unborn child is a full human being entitled to full human rights, saying abortion should be illegal is no more being pro big government than saying any other murder should be legal. If Lauren doesn't share this assumption, that is her right and not an unreasonable position. She should not, however, accuse those who do believe this of being hypocrites who want to regulate women's health care as if murdering someone is just another medical procedure.

  • damikesc||

    John is right. Saying the government should stop what you feel is MURDER isn't hypocritical when you support limited government. Government has few, legitimate uses that all can agree with and preventing murder would fit.

  • John||

    That is perhaps the dumbest thing I have read this year. Certainly in a long time. Whether something is "murder" or not is a question first of all of what you consider to be a human life. And being a complete moral apparently, you no doubt understand that that is a question that defies easy or obvious answers.

    I mean Jesus Christ, where do you people come from?

  • damikesc||

    Agreeing with John is the dumbest thing John has read all year. Intriguing.

    Well, we can now say that John doesn't read what he writes. Not a shocker, really.

  • John||

    Yes, You are an idiot who doesn't understand the question much less are able to give an intelligent answer to it. You don't think or speak. You emote. A fetus is in many ways more fully human than someone like you. it at least might someday be a fully functioning human being. You in contrast, seem to have never made it past the animal stage.

  • damikesc||

    Is John a parody? Serious question.

    Was unaware that saying "Government has few, legitimate uses that all can agree with and preventing murder would fit." qualifies as "You don't think or speak. You emote.", but Sparkles here apparently knows best.

    I can see why people find you to be a moronic asshole.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Look, we've got a Government Almighty which feels entititled to make our charity choices for us, and micro-manages us a million ways to Sunday… And ***SOME*** so-called Libertarians can just NOT let go of their hard-ons about abortion!!!! Can we just PLEASE let this one SLIDE (on the side of liberty for adults), and solve the bigger issues first?!?!?
    I think the near-perfect analogy is this… Yes, techinically, killing a fartilized human egg smell is "killing a human life"… Maybe ditto for killing eggs and sperms!
    Well, technically, you pilfering a god-damned ACORN off of my property, is theft, just like cutting down a mature oak, in the middle of the night, for thousands, even tens of thousands, of dollar's worth of oak wood! Yes, these kinds of thefts are very real, for owners of mature hardwood trees!
    Are we going to punish the theft of an acorn, the same as the theft of a mature tree? And punish the murder of a born baby or adult, the same as snuffing an unwanted blastocyst? WHERE has sanity gone!?!?!

  • Citizen X - #6||

    This is why you never, under any circumstances, agree with John.

  • Michael Hihn||

    damikesc John is right.

    John: That is perhaps the dumbest thing I have read this year

    I finally agree with John!

  • damikesc||

    And I agree with you. If John says water is wet, he's probably wrong on that too.

  • gclancy51||

    As a relative newcomer to Reason John is quickly becoming my hero.

  • sarcasmic||

    Yep. It's a matter of premises.

  • Berserkerscientist||

    Abortion isn't murder, its eviction. Tragically, the evictee dies.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Arranged by the person who brought the evictee in under circumstances where she could not leave.

  • IceTrey||

    Ever heard of rape?

  • Diane Merriam||

    Neither rape nor incest justifies an exception to banning abortions if you believe that life begins at conception. That would be killing one person for the crime of another. Whenever I hear someone in the anti-abortion crowd make those exceptions, I know they're not arguing from a true personal moral belief that they've actually thought out.

  • John||

    That is idiotic. I mean almost as stupid as the statements above. The mother created the situation where the child is living inside of her. She, therefore, has the responsibility to carry the pregnancy through. Your point would make sense if children were parasites who latched onto unsuspecting people. Since they are human being created by the actions of the host, your point is completely absurd.

  • ernieyeball||

    "Since they are human being created by the actions of the host, your point is completely absurd."
    Must be immaculate conception if she did it all by herself.

  • Michael Hihn||

    That is idiotic

    Yes you are!

    The mother created the situation where the child is living inside of her.

    So what?

    She, therefore, has the responsibility to carry the pregnancy through

    (smirk) Why?

    This may be the 100th time I've asked you this. Her right to Liberty is unalienable. Absolute. Since conception.
    How does she lose an absolute right by having sex?

    I realize you folks are obsessed with people enjoying themselves.
    But taking away their God-given rights???????

  • ernieyeball||

    "God-given rights"
    Rights are not bestowed on humans by non existent supernatural gods.

  • Michael Hihn||

    I'm an atheist. He's not.
    I used "absolute" rights as my perspective.
    And "God-given" for "you folks (who are) obsessed with people enjoying themselves."

    Thanks for the opportunity to clarify, for any who may need it.

  • SQRLSY One||

    "The mother created the situation where the child is living inside of her."
    As I've previously remarked on these pages, a much-not-discussed aspect of this is the whole "empowerment of the sexes" thing. Some women get abused by scummy men and false promises… Some say the woman made the choice when she chose to sleep with some dude... Or when she was raped? How about that one? Or, she was flat-out LIED to? "Love ya, Babe, Love-ya-Love-ya, LOVE ya. NOW can I get in yer pants?"

    Dude get in her pants... Gets her pregnant. As soon as she is pregnant, the abuse begins! And THEN she finds out that he has 5 other girlfriends! Abortion is "veto power" against scumbucket men, is what it is. I for one do not want to take the side of scumbucket men, against women, in this case, when it means that that many more genes and social influences of scumbucket men will be passed on, against the wishes of women who "learned better", but too late... And yes, some women practice "entrapment" on the other side, as well; the abuse is a 2-way street…

  • SQRLSY One||

    Anyway, w/regards to the sexes abusing each other, I have "been to the mountain top" to see the Guru in the cave, and have learned MUCH wisdom, which I will now pass on to you… Hooray!

    Q: What is the difference between a woman who just can NOT find a man who treats her well, and so, she is constantly shuttling between abusive men? And a man who abuses women, by, for example yanking on the gazongas too hard?

    A: The first is a "jerks juggler", and the second is a "jugs jerker"!

    Can you say,
    "Jerks-jugglers juggle jugs-jerking jerks"?

  • RabbitHead||

    Well, being torn limb from limb during the eviction will do that to you.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Cut the hysteria. By what power do you deny a woman's unalienable right to Liberty?

  • YourMom||

    Does someone have the right to murder a trespassing baby?

  • Michael Hihn||

    Only that murder is excessive for trespass -- and the concept on intent is kinda wacky for a baby. There are no conflicting FUNDAMENTAL rights in your hypothesis. I think I know why you asked. If so, you'll understand my qualifications,

    My turn. What about a viable fetus -- and let's avoid any grey areas, assuming it can survive on its own without an incubator. What say you?

  • Trigger Warning||

    I fully support elective abortion in cases where you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the aborted would otherwise grow up to be Michael Hihn.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Great minds discuss ideas.
    Average minds discuss events.
    Small Minds discuss people.

    12-year-olds call names, to feel manly,
    to offset their tiny penises,
    and tiny hands.

    Others stand up, in self-defense, defiant toward aggression - confident of their manhood,
    or womanhood.

    Guess which ones run some tiny patch of the world. And which ones live a life filed with raging hatred.

    (posted in defense of cyber-bully aggression)

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    If I were to evict a person from my property under circumstances which caused that person to die, I would be tried for murder.

    I don't happen to think a fetus is human. But I don't delude myself into thinking that I can prove that, and I have doubts that anyone else can. I think that, in general, abortion should be legal. I also think that there is something skeevey going on with the way that upper middle class white Progressive women want to be sure that lower middle class and lower class brown women have access to abortion. I think that the best that can be said for the Progressive Left's response to the Kermit Gosnell case is that they behaved in a way that made it look an awful lot like they thought it was more important to make sure that black babies got aborted than that the black women survived the experience. And the "evicted' argument is a monumental tactical blunder. One does not evict a parasitic growth. One excises it. One evicts a human being. And if the fetus is human, the 'evicting' it is murder.

    Please, drop the 'evicting' argument.

  • Michael Hihn||

    If I were to evict a person from my property under circumstances which caused that person to die, I would be tried for murder.

    It's crackers to slip a rozzer, the dropsy in snide!!!

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Excuse me. What?!? I appeal to the commentariat; did that make ANY sense? Did he actually say something?

  • Michael Hihn||

    No. Neither did you.

    I were to evict a person from my property under circumstances which caused that person to die, I would be tried for murder.

    Could also be manslaughter
    And the analogy sucks, since there are no conflicting FUNDAMENTAL rights.

    But I don't delude myself into thinking that I can prove that, and I have doubts that anyone else can

    Why would they have to, since it would be irrelevant either way?

    And if the fetus is human, the 'evicting' it is murder.

    Only if you REFUSE to accept the woman's precisely equal right to Liberty, all unalienable rights being absolute.

    You requested clarification. I hope this is sufficient.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Ok, clarification received.

    IF - but only if - a fetus is human, I would have to judge that the fetus's right to live outweighs the mother's right to not be pregnant. Pregnancy only lasts so long. Death is permenant.

    But, as I said, I don't believe a fetus is human.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Point being, it doesn't matter since line current standard is viability - capable of living on it own.

  • Eric||

    "If you start with the assumption that life begins at conception and an unborn child is a full human being entitled to full human rights..."

    Hmmm. So what you're saying is that (among other things):

    - those who shoot up abortion clinics and murder the doctors are actually heroes, and should be pardoned once this law passes.
    - pregnant mothers who fail to get proper prenatal care are child abusers. And obviously should be charged as such.
    - pregnant sex is actually a threesome involving an underage, unconsenting participant. And thus any adult participating in said act should be charged as a pedophile.
    - ALL miscarriages should be investigated as potential homicides

  • Philadelphia Collins||

    I see you've already been born. Are you pro your life?

  • Michael Hihn||

    Your wacko premise was exposed here.

    http://reason.com/blog/2017/03.....nt_6800181

  • Michael Hihn||

    The problem is she accused pro-life conservatives of being hypocrites.

    You just proved it!

    If you start with the assumption that life begins at conception and an unborn child is a full human being entitled to full human rights,

    SO IS THE WOMAN!!!

    as if murdering someone is just another medical procedure.

    Pathetic phonies. Rights are "God-given" -- except when it's inconvenient to their statism. They SHIT on the Constitution while calling themselves "strict Constitutionalists." --- also only when it's con-veeeeeeeen-yent.

    ALL unalienable/fundamental rights are absolute. FULL STOP.
    The 9th Amendment (the one Ron Paul lies about) forbids ALL levels of government to "deny or disparage" ANY fundamental rights. FULL STOP

    Fundamental rights are defined as Life, Liberty, (Property or Pursuit of Happiness) .... PLUS OTHERS (duh)

    If they are ALL absolute then how can any ONE absolute right outrank any other? Am I going too fast? Abortion is one of several issues where EXTREMISTS seek to impose THEIR preferred right over another EQUAL right ... via government force. Some DEFY the Will of God ... in the Name of God!! THAT is hypocrisy!!

    When did the woman lose her right to Liberty? Does she EVER get it back? How many other rights were bestowed by some God, temporarily? And for how long?

    Abortion was common in all of human history, illegal only in the 19th century. Any questions?

  • Philadelphia Collins||

    So was slavery.

  • Michael Hihn||

    So was slavery.

    Nobody disputes that. Extreme pro-lifers dispute the very existence of abortion for many thousands of years. Just as many of them dispute that marriage was not a sacrament until the 15th century.

    Anything else?

  • Philadelphia Collins||

    So, if it exists long enough it's ok?

  • Michael Hihn||

    So, if it exists long enough it's ok?

    That's even wackier. Read again the context.

    ALL unalienable/fundamental rights are absolute. FULL STOP.
    The 9th Amendment (the one Ron Paul lies about) forbids ALL levels of government to "deny or disparage" ANY fundamental rights. FULL STOP

    Fundamental rights are defined as Life, Liberty, (Property or Pursuit of Happiness) .... PLUS OTHERS (duh)

    If they are ALL absolute then how can any ONE absolute right outrank any other? Am I going too fast? Abortion is one of several issues where EXTREMISTS seek to impose THEIR preferred right over another EQUAL right ... via government force. Some DEFY the Will of God ... in the Name of God!! THAT is hypocrisy!!

    When did the woman lose her right to Liberty? Does she EVER get it back? How many other rights were bestowed by some God, temporarily? And for how long?

  • IceTrey||

    Slavery is actually still legal in the US as a punishment for crimes.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Oh, it's IceTrey again,

  • SomeGuy||

    Also if contracted...It is called the military.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Hmmm, those negroes in Africa VOLUNTEERED to become slaves.
    Who knew?

  • SomeGuy||

    you appear to lack an understand of rights as usually hihn. Rights require an inaction. Not murdering/manslaughter someone.

    If 2 people have a right neither supersede the other. They negate each other. Because you have a right to happiness does not give you the right to take another's right to life.

    You both are shit out of luck until the problem passes, which means you both are stuck with each other until the 9 months is up and you give the child away.

  • Philadelphia Collins||

    If you don't have the right to continue living, you have no rights.
    What if the unborn individual is female?

  • SomeGuy||

    huh?

  • SomeGuy||

    not hypocritical...based on natural law with logic. rights can't trump other rights. They simply negate.

    Also the situation you chose is a small subset of abortions. Rape abortions are extremely small.

    They also happen because people let it happen and people don't have their natural right to self defense like open and carry. If i was going to be raped i would rather die than let it happen.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregnancy_from_rape

    there also appears if i skimmed correctly only 44 rape pregnancies a year. out of the million plus children aborted each year. Pretty sure you could find 44 people willing to adopt.

  • Michael Hihn||

    If 2 people have a right neither supersede the other.

    Then says exactly the opposite,

    They negate each other.

    You're still confused on the definition of unalienable.

    Because you have a right to happiness does not give you the right to take another's right to

    Happiness is not an unalienable right, so all the mind games are for naught,

    I guess you're fine with dictators, as long as they allow you to live.
    Slavery is fine.
    Our Founders were not so flippant.

  • Diane Merriam||

    The actual *legal* question is when does legally protected human life begin.

    I have trouble with the idea that a handful of undifferentiated cells is a unique human being just because they have a unique genetic pattern. But I also have a problem with the idea that there's some intrinsic difference between a baby five minutes before birth and five minutes after.

    The position I've worked out for myself is to use the same definition for the start of human life as at the end ... the presence or absence of higher brain function. The heart may still beat and the lungs may still breathe, but when everything but the minimal core of the brain is dead, so is the person. Those same brain waves begin to be equally measurable at about 20 to 22 weeks of gestation.

    Past that point, triage decisions (when the doctor knows he can't save both and has to make a choice) can still necessitate an abortion.

    Once we technologically are able to create a reliable artificial womb customs may change, but that's an issue to take up then.

  • aajax||

    How do you justify exceptions for rape and incest? If you don't make an exception for rape, are you willing to raise a child if your wife is raped by an Islamic terrorist, for example?

  • Michael Hihn||

    Great question! For those who claim an exception is even needed -- to a ban which has no moral basis.

  • IceTrey||

    Why should a brother and sister in their 30's who make a baby be allowed to get an abortion but no one else?

  • Michael Hihn||

    Umm, where did HE say it should be?

  • IceTrey||

    It's a general comment about the incest exception.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Thanks!

  • SomeGuy||

    its called adoption dumbass.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Adoption works.

  • SomeGuy||

    Exactly jon. I am completely against abortion because i see it as murdering/manslaughter of a human being.

    Also there is no reason for it. I am adopted and so are many of my family. There is plenty of reasons to not kill the unborn human.

    I do understand in the case of mother or child survives. I am fine with letting the parent choice their life over their child. I don't have a problem with that but i will still call that person a selfish miserable human being for choosing their life over their child. But that is my right to look at them as a shitty human being but i think its fair for them to choose their life over their child. I personally wouldn't but i understand human nature with wanting to survive.

  • MarioLanza||

    Exactly. This is a straw man. No one said she was incoherent on abortion. (She is a big flip-flopper.) But a big "take a jump in the lake" for calling me a hypocrite.

    The government preventing murder does not contradict small government conservativism/libertarianism.

    Now it is simply a matter of whether you believe it is or isn't murder. The "it's just a clump of cells." is obviously false. We are all "just a clump of cells." I can just hear Charles Manson: "Sharon Tate was just a clump of cells."

    Next, the slippery slope dispenses with pretty much all the other fluff. All people would push for the murder charge if someone stabbed you 39 week pregnant sister, injuring her but killing the baby. Then 38 weeks, then 37 weeks...

  • damikesc||

    "it's telling (if predictable) that tepidly pro-choice views are the dealbreaker for the right with Lahren, while things like calling Black Lives Matter activists "the new KKK," referring to the Middle East as a "sandbox" that needs to be bombed, and defending the shooting of unarmed black men by cops never really rustled Republican jimmies."

    I read that laughably terrible piece you linked. Where, exactly, did she defend shooting unarmed black men by cops?

    Otherwise, what PRECISELY is wrong? The BLM movement is inherently racist. The Middle East is a cat litter pan with only one country of any benefit.

  • Road to Smurfdom||

    I read that piece too. The author called Lahren a "racist" because she sides with the police in shootings involving black victims, but it seems obvious to me that she also have would have sided with the police in a shooting involving a white victim. So she's a racist for treating black people exactly the same way she would treat white people?

    Meanwhile all the victims ever mentioned in the discussion about police shootings are black because BLM are the ones who always start the conversation and BLM only cares about the victims of police shootings if they are black.

    So treating white people and black people differently is not racist, but treating white people and black people the same is racist.

  • Michael Hihn||

    TEPIDLY???????

  • WakaWaka||

    It says a lot about the people who suddenly think Tomi is so bright, even though just a few days ago they would have called her a 'dingbat' (rightly so).

    For some people, abortion is all that matters. Looking forward to the libertarian case for government funding Planned Parenthood

  • Domestic Dissident||

    Welfare-loving fake libertarian asshats like Nick Gillespie and Elizabeth Nolan Brown are already on the job.

  • aajax||

    A permanent military is welfare.

  • MarioLanza||

    Thanks for the red herring.

  • Diane Merriam||

    There is no Libertarian case for government funding Planned Parenthood or any other organization.

  • SIV||

    "...and being a feminist just means you believe in equality"

  • Free Society||

    Maybe at the beginning of the 20th century it meant that, but even then it was also shorthand for banning alcohol. "Feminism" has pretty much always been a movement purporting to promote one thing, but is pretty much always co-opted into promoting another. Back then it was co-opted by hardline SoCons, nowadays it's a front for Marxism.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Maybe it is, but the question becomes equality of opportunity or result?

  • Diane Merriam||

    Not even equality of opportunity, but equality under the law, which is all a government can provide.

  • Philadelphia Collins||

    I notice she's already been born.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

  • Michael Hihn||

    I notice she's already been born.

    You missed the rest of it!
    She was born with SEVERAL unalienable (absolute) rights, one of them being Liberty.
    I guess you missed that part. Or is it inconvenient to you?
    You also missed the Declaration of Independence. And our Constitution.
    But thanks for sharing your feeeeeee-lings.

  • Philadelphia Collins||

    The unborn has it's own DNA. It is a unique individual with one chance at life. Just like you. Are you pro your life?

  • Michael Hihn||

    The unborn has it's own DNA.

    So does the woman.

    It is a unique individual with one chance at life.

    Also true for the woman's Liberty.

    Are you pro your life?

    Describe how I would face a conflict between two absolute rights?

    My turn. Do you believe those questions are even remotely relevant to conflicting fundamental rights?

  • Philadelphia Collins||

    The woman has a right to her body. The individual growing inside of her has the same rights.

  • Michael Hihn||

    My turn. Do you believe those questions are even remotely relevant to conflicting fundamental rights?

    The woman has a right to her body. The individual growing inside of her has the same rights.

    Evasion,

  • Philadelphia Collins||

    How are fundamental rights in conflict? The right to privacy does not trump another's right to continue living.
    Do liberals have any solutions besides violence?

  • ace_m82||

    Arguing with Hihn is usually a waste of time, and I have the links to prove it. He thinks there is more to "rights" than the one right to do everything other than initiate force (the other way to say it is you only have the right to not have force initiated upon you). He thinks the judicial branch is supposed to "balance" rights. A "balanced" right is no right at all.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Fucking liar.

  • Michael Hihn||

    The right to privacy does not trump another's right to continue living.Learn what unalienable means.

    Do liberals have any solutions besides violence?

    Are conservatives always bigoted dumbfucks.

    1) This is a libertarians website
    2) Libertarians are fiscally conservative and socially liberal ... since 1969.
    3) Funniest of all, this is a link to the archive of my published political writing --especially the ones on taxes and healthcare.

    http://libertyissues.com/archive.htm

    You are now a proven bigot -- in addition to your mind games, evasions.
    Oh yeah, you keep changing your own point -- which is not quite a mind game.

    The woman has a right to her body. The individual growing inside of her has the same rights

    How are fundamental rights in conflict?

    Because you said so -- after you learn what unalienable means,

    The right to privacy does not trump another's right to continue living.

    One more time. They are equal -- both absolute -- neither can trump the other. You can keep refusing to accept unalienable - but the universe does not diappear when you close your eyes.

  • IceTrey||

    Roe v Wade ruled that a fetus is not a person therefore it has no rights.

  • Michael Hihn||

    As always, you're so full of shit it's pouring out of your ears.
    And Roe is no longer relevant, having been superseded by Casey v Planned Parenthood.
    How many of these one-line turds have you dropped? This is the fourth that I've seen.

  • Philadelphia Collins||

    Roe's baby was born. Should it be hunted and killed?

  • Michael Hihn||

    Roe's baby was born. Should it be hunted and killed?

    Does "fourth trimester" spell it out for you.

  • IceTrey||

    Fuck off and go back to sucking shit covered cocks you fucking faggot.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Fuck off and go back to sucking shit covered cocks you fucking faggot.

    As Christ weeps in mortal shame

  • SparktheRevolt||

    So we should charge mothers who have miscarriages with involuntary manslaughter, correct?

  • buybuydandavis||

    it's telling (if predictable) that tepidly pro-choice views are the dealbreaker for the right with Lahren

    Why shouldn't it be?

    Just what do you think it tells?

    It would be rather surprising that people who think abortion is murder would *not* consider over half a million murdered babies a year a deal breaker.

    Contra Lahren's critics you, this is a perfectly coherent position
  • WakaWaka||

    Is this any more hypocritical than someone being pro-life being a deal breaker for being a progressive? Of course not.

    I love the last part where she equates conservative publications defending Milo's right to speak and mocking his opponents with supporting Milo's positions. So now defending someone's speech is defending what they are saying? How un-libertarian of you.

  • Free Society||

    What's the point of defending his speech except inciting and baiting in Trump's America?

  • Hail Rataxes||

    So now defending someone's speech is defending what they are saying?

    It might seem that way if you suddenly stop defending it because it got too icky.

  • WakaWaka||

    Defending someone's speech and then not allowing them to speak at your event are two different things. No?

    Also, you're right that CPAC inviting Milo to speak at first was a tacit endorsement of his opinions. They insisted they were just defending his right to speak

  • Michael Hihn||

    Is this any more hypocritical than someone being pro-life being a deal breaker for being a progressive? Of course not.

    They are EQUALLY hypocritical ,,, and equally statist/fascist
    Why do you ask?

    I love the last part where she equates conservative publications defending Milo's right to speak and mocking his opponents with supporting Milo's positions

    That's not what she said. Have a 12-year-old explain it for you.

  • John||

    The same people who accuse pro life people of not really believing what they say because they are not out blowing up abortion clinics turn around and accuse them of being extremists for viewing support for abortion as a deal breaker for a politician. But its the pro life people who are the hypocrites.

  • damikesc||

    I'd agree, but agreeing with John is stupid. By default.

  • John||

    You are incapable of agreeing with anyone. Agreeing requires thought and you only are capable of emoting.

  • damikesc||

    ...says the guy emoting badly...

    You're aware that ALL you have is emotion, and it's really lame, terrible emotion. I oppose abortion, but if I knew your mom (hell, EVERYBODY knew your mom, let's be honest), I'd have said "Yeah, it's a sin, but that turd in your oven is a bigger one"

  • damikesc||

    I'll note that using public accomodation law to force private businesses to do things that the writers think are neat ISN'T a dealbreaker for the "libertarians" who write here.

  • WakaWaka||

    Because ENB is about as 'libertarian' as Harry Reid. The facade that she is anything other than just a Vox writer needs to end

  • Conchfritters||

    "Just another Vox writer?" I'm not going to say that ENB is as libertarian as Bob Barr, but her writing and opinions show a closer appreciation for freedom than anything I have read on Vox (not that I am a frequent visitor to that site).

  • WakaWaka||

    Bob Barr is a pretty low bar, no?

    Maybe Vox was too strong

  • Crusty Juggler - #2||

    Is anyone truly libertarian enough for a whineytarian?

  • WakaWaka||

    I don't know, are they? You seem to whine a lot about other commentators, so I'm asking

  • Michael Hihn||

    "Just another Vox writer?" I'm not going to say that ENB is as libertarian as Bob Barr,

    She's head and shoulders above Barr.

    There is a fairly large contingent of extreme socon goobers -- who came here via the phony libertarian, Ron Paul ... are TOTALLY ignorant of libertarianism since 1969 ... so assume that socially liberal (alone) is the same as liberal or progressive.

    Since 1969!! Like little kids trying to fathom quantum mechancs.
    And tribal bigots.

  • Michael Hihn||

    I'll note that using public accomodation law to force private businesses to do things that the writers think are neat ISN'T a dealbreaker for the "libertarians" who write here.

    And blatant falsehoods by hucksters in the commentariat.

  • damikesc||

    Hell, they've ENCOURAGED using public accomdation law to do specifically that.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Tell me where so I can clarify your confusion.

  • Diane Merriam||

    It's a "dealbreaker" to this Libertarian. An individual does not lose their rights simply because they are making an economic transaction as an action that they base their income off of. For good or bad, however one may think about the actions of another, that person's right to make those decision based on their own desires and beliefs is the same as anyone else's. No more and no less.

  • Rebel Scum||

    Tomi Lahren

    I'll be in my bunk.

  • Crusty Juggler - #2||

    Ew.

  • Not a True MJG||

    Honey, you can do better.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Why?

  • Free Society||

    and defending the shooting of unarmed black men by cops never really rustled Republican jimmies.

    Why should it? Such shootings should be evaluated on a case by case basis, as opposed to implying that unarmed+black= innocent victim in all circumstances. If people of ENB's persuasion could be made to understand the differential crimes rates between racial groups, I wouldn't say they'd abandon their lucrative race baiting trade, but maybe they'd be less transparently disingenuous about it.

  • Hail Rataxes||

    Someday, maybe we'll all join hands and be white nationalists together.

  • Free Society||

    Everyone is already aware that you're on Team Retard. No need to belabor the point.

  • wareagle||

    is there some large group defending such shootings? This just smacks of a gigantic over-reach in the name of false equivalence.

  • Jgalt1975||

    "Unarmed" should equal "innocent victim" in the vast majority of cases for police shootings. Very few police shootings of unarmed suspects involve credible claims that the person who was shot was trying to physically rush the officer at the time of the shooting. Instead, most seem to involve alleged "furtive movements," "sudden waistband grabbing," etc., except that when the victim is revealed to have no weapons at all, it raises the question of exactly why the victim would have been grabbing at their waistband in the first place, which in turn calls into question the truthfulness of the person who shot them (and thus has every motive to lie about the victim's conduct), etc....

  • ||

    "why would they be grabbing at their waistband " ?

    Duh. They have to hold their saggy pants up.

    Erebody knows that.

  • SomeGuy||

    he had an itch on his butt or grotch? my ass and balls itch a lot...sensitive skin.

  • MG58||

    If abortion is murder—as Lahren has apparently said—then it is not the libertarian view that it should be legal. I don't know many libertarians, even those who might be described as "extreme," that would say murder should not be outlawed. This is why Lahren is incoherent. She may not actually believe that abortion is murder and merely overstated her position as one is likely to do when being a viral media blowhard, but we can only judge her by her public statements.

    If one merely feels that abortion is a moral transgression that is not actually murder, then it is surely coherent to be against the practice but also against its prohibition. Many (most?) are against smoking, and are perhaps even in favor of some restrictions on the use and sale of tobacco, but fleetingly few favor banning it. It's obvious that, if abortion isn't murder, then the specter of forced childbirth is a sufficiently serious invasion of the government on personal liberty that a libertarian shouldn't favor a ban on abortion even if they feel it is morally repugnant, the result of bad decisionmaking, etc.

  • timbo||

    Forced childbirth would only imply forced intercourse and forced impregnation.

    There is a perfectly valid argument that a child is a living organism, thus human, almost immediately so it has rights.
    It did not have the right to help the mother and father prevent its inception.

    Only the mother and father had the right to prevent inception and thus had the individual responsibility to not create a living human if they did not want to be responsible for it.

    And I say this with a staunch record of not giving a shit about abortion. We need less parasitic wastes of space on earth and for that reason, I don't really care since most people getting abortions are the parasites.

    That thing is alive however, and has every right that the mother has. Since the mother is not being killed by the abortion, that baby has a stronger argument.

  • Berserkerscientist||

    What rights does a fetus have? I think it has a right to life, but does it have a right to use a woman's womb?

  • timbo||

    Hey, good points all. Abortion will never find common ground in libertarian circles because some think the mother has ultimate rights to her body. Some think a fetus is a living human and has rights to life.

    I think the baby is alive and has rights to life and that the mother has a responsibility to not conceive if she does not want the responsibility of raising a child.

    It is fair to have an opinion on both but I fall in the camp of only one human is losing life here which appears to be a bigger more sacred right then protecting a woman's right to make her body decisions or whatever it needs to be called.
    Is that not a fair rationality for one side of the argument?

  • TapDancingXenomorph||

    That's where I fall too -- barring some exceptions, including that I could tolerate abortion if done soon after the earliest date that a woman could learn that she was pregnant.

  • timbo||

    Or if two ugly people procreate.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    What if Hitler knocked up Lady Hitler? Would abortion be okay then?

  • Robert||

    Abortion will never find common ground in libertarian circles because some think the mother has ultimate rights to her body. Some think a fetus is a living human and has rights to life.


    And some are like me & think it's OK to kill something that doesn't mind being killed, as long as nobody owns it who does.

  • MG58||

    Definitely an interesting way to approach it.

  • timbo||

    I think the baby has the right to use the mother's womb because, were it not for the mother's decision, that baby would not be alive and thus need her sustenance to survive. Once a human is alive, who gets to dictate their rights to life and why?
    Its the mom's responsibility for her decision in my view.

  • Philadelphia Collins||

    Exactly

  • IceTrey||

    Ever heard of rape? Broken condom? The Pill failing?

  • Philadelphia Collins||

    Ever hear of taking responsibility for your actions?

  • IceTrey||

    The women is responsible for her rape? A little old fashioned.

  • Diane Merriam||

    Inconsistent. Not all pregnancies are the result of the mother making a choice. Yet if life begins at conception then, you can't kill the (now) baby for the sins of one of the parents.

    You can't have it both ways.

  • MG58||

    If I have a baby that has already been born, nobody makes me keep it. I have to make a reasonable effort to not let it die—leaving it in the dumpster is unacceptable—but government programs (and in a more limited state, private community programs) exist to take in unwanted children. In many locales, I can drop off the infant at the front door and then be relieved of all responsibility.

    But if there is a clump of cells inside me that can grow into a child after 6 or 7 more months in my body, a process that will indubitably harm me in minor ways and could realistically permanently maim or kill me if I'm unlucky, the tadpole-baby's interests trump mine. I am obligated to lend my body and perhaps my own life to it over the better part of a year. This is an attractive aspect of the viability standard: If I insist on not having the fetus at that point, I can have it removed from me right away and leave it to its own devices.

    There are even more easily-defensed cases that are kinks in today's system as well. If I find out after, say, 28 weeks that my fetus is technically alive but suffers from a condition that will causes its death almost immediately upon birth if not sooner...am I really required to act as its life support system? Do I again have to imperil my health in carrying a mortally harmed, but not dead, being inside me? Why would it be okay for me to give birth to it in this case, cutting off its only chance at life? Should the state really be deciding these things?

  • Bubba Jones||

    If it weren't murder, then why would it be wrong?

    I think the more pragmatic approach is that it is murder, but the state lacks the tools to prevent it.

    Thought experiment. If abortion is murder. And if a totalitarian government could prevent it, would that be an argument in favor of totalitarian government?

  • John||

    I think the more pragmatic approach is that it is murder, but the state lacks the tools to prevent it.

    Bingo.

  • MG58||

    I think that's a fair and pragmatic way to approach it without forsaking the idea that it's murder.

    As for why it would be wrong if it weren't murder, there could be many reasons. Why do some say pre-marital sex is wrong? Why do some say body modification (e.g., tattoos, piercings) is wrong? Not easily defended reasons from a utilitarian point of view, but for cultural and/or moral reasons.

  • Michael Hihn||

    This is why Lahren is incoherent.

    Why are you illiterate?

    She may not actually believe that abortion is murder

    She does not appear that easily manipulated by obvious nonsense.

  • Snort||

    Is someone that bullies doctors and a patients a 'conservative'? Is someone that has to see whats kind of sex is going on in a private bedroom between two consenting adults a conservative? Is someone that monitors your internet to make sure you don't visit a porn site a conservative? Is someone that forces you to submit to a DNA test to get a job or insurance a conservative? Is someone that wants to lift your child's skirt to see what equipment is there before letting them into a restroom a conservative? I guess it depends on your definition of 'conservative'.

  • John||

    Is someone that bullies doctors and a patients a 'conservative'?

    That would depend on the doctors and the patients now wouldn't it? How do you feel about female genital mutilation? Are the people who object to female children being subjected to that bullying doctors and patients? Sure looks to me like they are. But, in that case, perhaps the bully has a point, you know?

    Is someone that has to see whats kind of sex is going on in a private bedroom between two consenting adults a conservative?

    Depends on how you define conservative. Regardless, what the hell does that have to do with abortion?

    Is someone that monitors your internet to make sure you don't visit a porn site a conservative?

    Not necessarily. Both liberals and conservatives equally object to porn, though often for different reasons.

    Is someone that forces you to submit to a DNA test to get a job or insurance a conservative?

    No one forces you to do shit. If you don't want to do that, don't take the job or buy the insurance.

  • Michael Hihn||

    If you don't want to do that, don't take the job or buy the insurance.

    (lol) Read the question again!

  • Unreconstructed (Sans Flag)||

    Not always - the ones forcing doctors to ask if you have guns in your house certainly aren't!

  • TapDancingXenomorph||

    Well gee, if someone thinks a fetus is a full life with full rights, I'm not surprised that they're upset with her for defending what they see as murder.

    I defended her stance on DailyWire when I heard about it, pointing out (before her tweet to this effect) that she may not even be for abortion personally. I don't think she's that great at explaining her philosophy, but pro-life libertarians would agree with her that there are risks to strictly enforcing bans on all abortions.

    What I won't defend is her calling people who advocate for limited government and feel that abortion is murder hypocrites. That's completely asinine -- if there's but one thing that government should be allowed to do, it's to stop and/or punish people who unlawfully deprive others of their basic rights.

  • TapDancingXenomorph||

    I'm talking about individual instances, not the concept of any one crime -- and yes, sometimes would-be-murderers are caught and stopped before they can carry out their plans.

    An appropriate punishment? If the reason for performing it wasn't to protect the mother's life, I'd say you should treat it as any other murder. How do they charge someone who attacks a pregnant woman who wanted to keep her kid and ends up killing the child (but not the mother) in the process? I'd say that's probably an apt model for now.

  • Thomas O.||

    I'm personally fine with her opinion on abortion, but as a right-wing media darling, I've a feeling Tomi just jumped the shark.

  • John||

    She had to have known that. My guess is that she figured that she had hit her ceiling as a right-wing media darling and that to do any better she would have to become a right wing concern troll for the left wing media. This is just her auditioning for the part.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Appareny her contract with Blaze is up. She may be trying to find greener pastures.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Golly, how many people in a single thread can be so totally ignorant of limited government?
    Ronald Reagan may be puking in his grave.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Sure, belief in limited government requires believing in an unfettered right to take another life.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Sure, belief in limited government requires believing in an unfettered right to take another life.

    (laughing hysterically) Limited government means. Pay attention.
    1) Following the 9th Amendment which FORBIDS all levels of government to deny or disparage ANY fundamental rights, (you've already lost, and there's more!)

    2) Unalienable rights are ALL absolute -- thus neither can rank outrank any other. Check a dictionary.

    3) The 14th Amendment clarifies the 9th, forbidding STATES from what the 9th already prohibited, to clarify the bullshit of southern racists the KKK and (now) Ron Paul.

    4) Even the 14th shows Life and Liberty to be equal. Wipe the egg off your face. And there's more.

    5) It may be unfair to assume you're a Christo-Fascist, but the snowflakes scream that marriage is not in the Constitution.,,,, wait for it ... there is also no right to life in the Constitution (except as equal to BOTH Liberty and Property.) (smirk)

    It's sad in a way, if you are among those so shamefully exploited for your faith But it's been happening for thousands of years. Your faith and Islam the same.

  • CooterBrown||

    Are that dumb Hihn? Regan talked a mean game, I've even been known to quote him on occasion, but in practice... garbage.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Are that dumb Hihn?

    Smart enough to see you've made a TOTAL ass of yourself ,,, by supporting my argument. Ready?

    Regan talked a mean game, I've even been known to quote him on occasion, but in practice... garbage.

    (hahaha) That's WHY he'd puke in his grave -- he Never violated limited government, especially on Separation, That's WHY the Christo-Fascist preachers, Falwell and Robertson tried to get their followers to pressure him on (mostly) abortion -- as described elsewhere on this page. But the rank-and-file IGNORED their preachers, to stand instead with Reagan. At the time, Falwell and Robertson were publicly humiliated.

    Pay attention.

    Reagan was a VERY devout and public Christian, spoke strongly against abortion ... but did not help advance any bans, to impose those values. We call that ..... libertarianism. Also why he directly attacked the Christian right's attempt to ban gay public school teachers,

    Anything else?

  • ernieyeball||

    "If you start with the assumption that life begins at conception..."


    The sperm in a male human's body is human and it is alive.
    The eggs in a female human's body are human and they are alive.
    Human life begins BEFORE conception.

  • timbo||

    I hope you are sarc trolling for a response.

  • TapDancingXenomorph||

    Or it's that state senator with the joke bill about restricting vasectomies.

  • ernieyeball||

    You're right.
    Male human sperm is not human and it is dead.
    Female human eggs are not human and they are dead.
    Humans do not exist.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    I guess now we know that ernieyeball weeps after every wet dream.

  • ernieyeball||

    Had a vasectomy years ago. Those are tears of joy!

  • Michael Hihn||

    I hope you are sarc trolling for a response.

    Seems to have snared a lot of goobers.

    I'm still trying to figure out how a fetus can have full human rights at conception ... but then, if a woman, somehow lose those rights at puberty. I realize these people are obsessed against using sex for pleasure (as God intended) -- and they flunked biology 101, but ....

  • Mickey Rat||

    Before conception th here are not a complete human indivdual. They are parts of two other individuals.

    Why is this concept so difficult to grasp?

  • Mickey Rat||

    It is a complete individual human organism in an early stage of development. You either know this and are being disingenuous or you are scientifically ignorant.

  • Michael Hihn||

    The first part of your sentence contradicts the second part of your sentence.

    His CONCLUSION is kinda wacky, But your comment may be even wackier.

    You cannot be complete and also be in an early part of your development.

    He said a complete HUMAN.

    Check the definition of zygote. Now tell us how a "human" zygote can grow into a giraffe.
    Oooops.

  • Michael Hihn||

    It is a complete individual human organism in an early stage of development. You either know this and are being disingenuous or you are scientifically ignorant

    For TOTAL ignorance .... how does a woman lose her God-given rights are puberty? Or is it only during pregnancy? Tell us Mister Science.

  • timbo||

    Can you believe that Hillary Clinton and Sarah Jessica Parker are considered to be complete human beings?

  • timbo||

    SJP is 100% matriculated sloth

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Matriculated Sloth was my nickname in college.

  • jack sprat||

    She knows Ferris. Good enough for me.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Can you believe that Hillary Clinton and Sarah Jessica Parker are considered to be complete human beings?

    As much as Ron and Rand Paul are.
    Why do you presume that even raging hatred can change objective reality?
    Are you one of ..... those?

  • ernieyeball||

    "A zygote is a complete human being?"

    Who said that?

  • timbo||

    Clearly it is Hillary and sarah Jessica that consider themselves to be human and not zygotes

  • Michael Hihn||

    "A zygote is a complete human being?"

    Who said that?

    If we assume a human zygote .... anyone with an IQ higher than a rock.

  • Philadelphia Collins||

    Zygote has it's own DNA.

  • Michael Hihn||

    If we assume a human zygote .... anyone with an IQ higher than a rock.

    Zygote has it's own DNA.

    I'm glad you agree.

  • aajax||

    An innocent American child in Yemen is human and alive. Didn't stop our government from killing them for our convenience.

  • Michael Hihn||

    (chuckle) Bingo

  • Longtobefree||

    I guess I am now officially old.
    I remember a time when a medical procedure was a medical procedure, and discussed between a doctor and a patient. In the case of a procedure that was going to result in a child not being born, that was an involved and difficult discussion.
    Then it became a political discussion. And the medical implications went out the window.
    I wonder who would be in favor of allowing patients to elect any other surgical procedure with the same risks. Can anyone choose to have an uninjured arm or leg amputated? Can someone insist on a right to choose to have an appendix removed when it is healthy?
    Why is there air?
    Who is John Galt?

  • Michael Hihn||

    Why is there air?
    Who is John Galt?

    --------

    What are you talking about?

    I wonder who would be in favor of allowing patients to elect any other surgical procedure with the same risks.

    Anyone of a pro-liberty bent. And your "examples" have far greater risks. (also irrelevant)

  • Conchfritters||

    I remember in the 1970s, most evangelicals were not anti-abortion; they believed it was a personal issue, and the government shouldn't have any say in it; sort of close to Tommy's position. What really gets me, however, are people who are "pro-life" and full throated supporters of the death penalty. I am almost viscerally anti-Catholic, however I admire how they (some of them) protest outside a Planned Parenthood clinic, and can be found protesting outside a prison at midnight right as they execute a heinous murderer.

  • WakaWaka||

    Would you consider someone who is against the death penalty, but in favor of abortion a hypocrite? Your admitted anti-Catholicism is pretty ridiculous, by the way

  • Michael Hihn||

    Would you consider someone who is against the death penalty, but in favor of abortion a hypocrite?

    (laughing) (again) Are both positions based on a reverence for unalienable rights?

    Your admitted anti-Catholicism is pretty ridiculous, by the way

    You missed it again. He places individual human values above labels .... or tribes ... unlike hatred-obsessed bigots I can think of.

  • Conchfritters||

    No, I actually wouldn't consider someone who is against the death penalty but in favor of abortions a hypocrite - unless they also claimed they were "pro-life". With respect to being anti-Catholic, I guess that comes from being raised a Lutheran.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Me too. Lutheran. But spent most of my life trying to become totally judgemental.

    Now if we want to discuss the moral atrocities of the (un)Holy Inquisition -- which continued until roughly our civil war -- and inspired our founders to erect that wall of separation.

    Or how the First Holocaust was committed by CHRISTIAN Crusaders, slaughtering thousands of Jews --- IN GERMANY! (Rhineland Massacres) -- on their way to slaughtering and evicting Jews (Christ killers) from Jerusalem (who the Muslims allowed back in).

    But. I also don't blame today;s American for the slavery we abolished in less than 90 years.

  • Michael Hihn||

    I remember in the 1970s, most evangelicals were not anti-abortion; they believed it was a personal issue, and the government shouldn't have any say in it;

    So did Reagan, in the 8os.
    The ChristoFacsists (that Goldwater warned of) Falwell and Robertson, tried to get their followers to pressure Reagan, saying is was all talk and a phony. He was VERY public about his religion, but like most libertarians, never tried to impose his view by law. Falwell and Robertson were publicly humiliated when their own followers stood with Reagan instead!! SUCH FUN TO SEE.

    Having had many Evangelical supporters as an activist (and atheist) I NEVER assume the rank-and-file has ANY loyalty to their leaders. They'll support ChristoFascists ONLY because nobody else is defending their broader values, They supported Reagan for that, And me for the same reason (knowing I was atheist -- they always ask!)

    What really gets me, however, are people who are "pro-life" and full throated supporters of the death penalty.

    I LIKE you.

    I am almost viscerally anti-Catholic, however I admire how they (some of them) protest outside a Planned Parenthood clinic, and can be found protesting outside a prison at midnight right as they execute a heinous murderer.

    They will support you too,

  • aajax||

    Not only in favor of the death penalty, but very forgiving of non-judicial murder as well.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Meanwhile, Shep Smith has publicly humiliated Judge Napolitano's wacky claim that Fox News has information that Obama used British spies to tap Obama's phone. That is the ONLY possible way Trump's crazy delusion could have happened -- since Obama has NO power to order such surveillance within our own government.

    A stunning disappointment to me, since Judge Nap has long been an objective defender of liberty.

    Question: Now that the Judge has disgraced himself, will Reason continue to publish him ... further besmirching the reputation of a once fine source of journalism.

  • aajax||

    Have you heard an actual denial from the Brits? All I have heard is "ridiculous" and other names applied to the charge. No one has said, "We didn't do that."

  • Michael Hihn||

    Have you heard an actual denial from the Brits?

    Yes. I follow more than Fox News.
    And I'm an adult. Trump makes a bullshit claim, which must be PROVEN as bullshit???
    Nap said Fox received information. Fox denies it,

    All I have heard is "ridiculous" and other names applied to the charge. No one has said, "We didn't do that."

    YOU are ridiculous. (that was a denial, snowllake)

    http://www.itv.com/news/2017-0.....ats-claim/

  • IceTrey||

    You're such a dumb fuck. The FISA statute allows the President to order surveillance on anyone in the US with certification by the Attorney General. How many of these moronic comments are you going to make?

  • jack sprat||

    Really don't know much about her and probably don't care enough to find out. However....

    WOULD

  • timbo||

    She can say whatever the hell she wants.

    Its as though she got that job for her looks and not her intelligence.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Meow.
    She's smarter than you.

  • josh||

    No one should care if she's pro-choice, but it's adorable that she thinks the issue is intellectual, and not that conservative's only use for her is that she's cute and gives the other side hell. The moment she stops giving your average conservative an erection, she doesn't have a show.

  • Michael Hihn||

    No one should care if she's pro-choice, but it's adorable that she thinks the issue is intellectual,

    Thus revealing your own minimal intellect, and ....

    and not that conservative's only use for her is that she's cute and gives the other side hell. The moment she stops giving your average conservative an erection, she doesn't have a show.

    So you say conservative males are essentially penis-obsessed 17-year-olds

    Anybody else you can insult?

  • josh||

    "So you say conservative males are essentially penis-obsessed 17-year-olds"

    She was suspended for her opinion, so it seems less an insult that a very apt description in this case.

    "Thus revealing your own minimal intellect, and ..."

    Says the person who has a problem with insults.

    So...you're Michael Hihn, huh? I was hoping for better.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Now for the only really important question in all this: would?

  • YourMom||

    Abortion: One of many issues where the Right and the Left are completely incapable of subtle and complex thinking.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Bless you, Mom. It's an issue of precisely equal rights -- Life and Liberty both being unalienable (among others), which means absolute. But each extreme are total fascists, trying to impose government FORCE to deny equal rights and force theirs to the top.

    Goobers be goobers. On both the left and the right.
    Haters will hate.. Likewise.

    The pro-life extremists seem, to me, to also be shameful hypocrites. They say fundamental rights are bestowed by God ... so they (witlessly) defy the Clearly Expressed Will of God ... in the Name of God.

    They also defy the clear Will of Gd, piously intoning that the sole purpose of sex is procreation .. which God intended ONLY for the lower animals who .... ummmm .... must be in heat! God CREATED humans with the capacity to have joy in sex even when procreation is impossible! Silly God should have consulted with Santorum and Huckabee. Serves Him right.

    Crazy as he is, The Bern can't rain down hellfire and brimstone to manipulate his followers with,

    And among national politicians, Goldwater and Reagan were the first to AGGRESSIVELY defend homosexuals ... in the 70s ... 20 years before Clinton shamelessly signed both DOMA and DADT... and 40 years before Obama changed his mind, Trying to follow goobers is both amusing and horrifying.

  • Garnet||

    I get it. She's a libertarian, but there's no money or enhanced profile in that, so she went to work for a significant conservative media outlet until it suited her to go solo -- in the way that endears her to liberals. I don't disagree with anything substantive she says, that I know of, but she's self-serving and a fair-weather friend. Be wary of celebrating her.

  • Michael Hihn||

    I get it. She's a libertarian,

    Tells us, right at the top, that there's nothing here.

  • Baelzar||

    If only we laid eggs rather than gestating internally. Alas. Since we don't, you cannot control a free woman by claiming the fetus inside her has more rights than she does.

    God should've thought of this. Eggs next time!

  • Michael Hihn||

    you cannot control a free woman by claiming the fetus inside her has more rights than she does

    (laughing) You can't control a Christo-Fascsist by explaining -- even in detail -- that the two individuals have precisely EQUAL rights.

    They REFUSE to accept that unalienable rights are ALL absolute -- thus neither outranks any other,
    Their brains EXPLODE at the notion of "conflicting rights" -- and does high school still teach the ONLY way to resolve such rights?

    Nooooooo. Like pro-choice extremist goobers, they want to impose THEIR preferred right by government force. Hence, Christo-Fascist.

    Any questions?

  • damikesc||

    Those Christo-fascist abolitionists were the worst, weren't they? Imposing THEIR preferred rights by government force. Bastards!

  • IceTrey||

    A fetus is not a person you fucktard.

  • ace_m82||

    Hi Hihn, how are you doing?

    One question:

    I invite you on a boat trip, I say we should go out on the ocean and fish or something. You agree. I drive the boat out 100 miles into the ocean. I then say that I don't have as much food and water as I thought and I don't want to share; also, I only have the one fishing pole. So I dis-invite you and tell you to get off the boat or I'll remove you from my property. You say you can't possibly swim 100 miles and you'll drown. I tell you that sucks and kick you off my boat.

    Have I murdered you?

  • Michael Hihn||

    Still no -- same reason as the last two times.
    Still false equivalence,
    You keep running away from unalienable.

  • ace_m82||

    What was the reason again? I'm sure everyone would love to hear it.

    Unalienable? I believe that even the invited have unalienable rights.

  • Michael Hihn||

    (At least the 25th response to aggression by an obsessed stalker and cyber-bully. SEE how bad)

    Westboro Baptist Christo-Fascist

    What was the reason again? I'm sure everyone would love to hear it. Unalienable?

    Yes. Unalienable means absolute.

    I believe that even the invited have unalienable rights.

    They both do.. That's what equal means!!!
    REPEAT THE PROOF

    1) If two rights are BOTH absolute ... then NEITHER can be greater.
    2) THERE IS NO RIGHT TO LIFE IN THE CONSTITUTION

    Fifth Amendment: nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
    14th Amendment nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

    3) THE CONSTITUTION FORBIDS GOVERNMENT ANY POWER OVER FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

    9th Amendment
    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to DENY or DISPARAGE OTHERS RETAINED BY THE PEOPLE.

    He DEFIES the Constitution
    Denies the definitions
    of
    a) unalienable
    b) deny
    c) disparage

    Says EQUAL means .... wait for it .... ONLY ONE
    They've all have been brainwashed to BELIEVE they fight for a "Greater Good" -- a Collective, the State, a Master Race, a Party or a God, The militant self-righteous.

  • ace_m82||

    Westboro Baptist Christo-Fascist

    The Westboro Baptist "Church" is a money making operation, they make money off of suing for getting poor treatment (cause they're insufferable jerks). Rest assured, I have nothing to do with it.

    Also, it's quite odd to call an An-Cap a "fascist" or "collectivist". So now that we have that out of the way...

    Any reader will note you still haven't actually answered the question. Ever. At all. Why is that?

    All you do is cry "Aggression!!!!" and "Unalienable" and yes, we ALL know what that means, and "equal" may be implied by it, it is most certainly not spelled out.

    You see, in fact, there is only the one right, to do all but initiate force, the other way of saying it is that you have the right to not have force initiated upon you. That is where all "rights" come from, the one actual right.

    You claim that "rights" can come into conflict, which, by the above definition, is not possible. All "rights" (the one right) are unalienable. Even the rights of the guest on the boat and the unborn.

    Therefore, actually answer the question or simply recognize that you have been beaten in fair (I use the term loosely) debate. Your world-view is logically inconsistent, and you seem to have no ability or desire to change it, no matter how many times we point it out.

  • Michael Hihn||

    (For those following my blog link. As in the first 5, he CANNOT stop the harrassment ,, even when PROVEN a liar.)

    Any reader will note you still haven't actually answered the question. Ever. At all. Why is that?

    Just above, psycho

    Still no -- same reason as the last two times.
    Still false equivalence,
    You keep running away from unalienable.

    That IS harassment … And you're STILL chicken shit in unalienable.

    and "equal" may be implied by it, it is most certainly not spelled out.

    You replied to it!
    THERE IS NO RIGHT TO LIFE IN THE CONSTITUTION -- EXCEPT AS EQUAL TO LIBERTY .

    (but he's not harassing me)

    1) Two or more rights are absolute
    2) THAT MEANS THEY'RE EQUALLY ABSOLUTE!
    Who needs THAT spelled out? (sneer)

    9th Amendment
    "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to DENY or DISPARAGE OTHERS RETAINED BY THE PEOPLE."

    What are those rights (plural) that ALL levels of government are FORBIDDEN to "deny or disparage??? (blankout)

    The Authoritarian Mind
    Christo-Fascists and/or Rothbardians are driven by, and consumed by, raging hatred –brainwashed to believe they defend some greater good:.
    They defy the Will of God, in the name of God, and/or defend Fascism in the name of Liberty Like Jonestown, the Moonies or Davidians

  • Michael Hihn||

    Part 2 -- Facist Exposed

    it's quite odd to call an An-Cap a "fascist"

    REAL An-Caps don't impose their will through government force ... or DEFY the Constitution.

    (My emphasis -- lol)

    You claim that "rights" can come into conflict, which, by the above definition, is not possible.

    I use the Constitutional definition, Slick. You OVERRIDE it ... claiming to be an An-Cap -- a moral hypocrite (dumb enough to get caught!).

    Your world-view is logically inconsistent,

    IT'S THE FUCKING CONSTITUTION vs a SELF-RIGHTEOUS FRAUD, claiming to be an anarcho-capitalist - while imposing government force, DEFYING the "consent of the governed" ... for a principle that DEFENDS BIGOTRY by the state ... and empowers YOUR Authoritarian mind.

    In 1959, David Nolan replaced the moral atrocity of non-Aggression (which is a PRINCIPLE, NOT A RIGHT, chump)

    Non aggression JUSTIFIES homophobic bigotry and marriage inequality -- BECAUSE they do not require force. The fascists DEFEND THE DENIAL OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS -- also because that does not initiate force. They defend UNEQUAL rights.... A modern KKK.

    Fiscally conservative and socially liberal opposes BOTH active and passive denial of individual liberty.

    I baited him until he admitted his hypocrisy, and displayed his Authoritarian Mind.. A pathetic stalker and cyber-bully.

  • ace_m82||

    REAL An-Caps don't impose their will through government force ... or DEFY the Constitution.

    Right, then wrong. Right in that An-Caps don't use governmental force, and neither do I. I gave an example that was quite obviously murder and you denied it. I never said government should be used against it. Wrong in that An-Caps don't respect the Constitution because it created government. It's not a magical document, it's just less bad than all other governments that were created up to that point.

    Your world-view is logically inconsistent,

    IT'S THE FUCKING CONSTITUTION

    Only as interpreted by the logically inconsistent Supreme Court. And, apparently, you.

    In 1959, David Nolan replaced the moral atrocity of non-Aggression

    David Nolan was wrong. Humans do that pretty often. I've even been wrong from time to time.

    Non aggression JUSTIFIES homophobic bigotry and marriage inequality -- BECAUSE they do not require force.

    Stopping someone from marrying would require force, though bigotry wouldn't necessarily need it. But that's meaningless as NAP doesn't encompass all of morality (I'm a Christian, no kidding), It's just a good summation of the silver rule.

  • ace_m82||

    Fiscally conservative and socially liberal opposes BOTH active and passive denial of individual liberty.

    Thank you, thank you for bringing that up again, Hihn, because now (as turnabout is fair play) I have an excuse to link to this:

    https://reason.com/blog/2016/05/18/
    william-weld-taxation-is-theft

    (copy/paste necessary)

    Hihn quotes:

    "Fiscally and socially conservative is ... conservative
    Fiscal and socially liberal is ... liberal
    Libertarianism, fiscally conservative and socially liberal, is neither."

    "Socially liberal *IS* what liberal believe on social issues.
    Fiscally conservative *IS* what conservatives believe on fiscal issues."

    Me: Is it socially liberal to want to enslave bakers or to want gun control?
    Is it fiscally conservative to want to increase spending on immigration control and "defense"?

    Hihn: "No, which has no effect on the definition of libertarian."

    There are actually two fallacies in here, if you can see them both:

    #1, That "socially liberal" is part of the definition of libertarianism, but then what is socially liberal has no effect on the definition of libertarianism (same as with "fiscally conservative").
    #2, That "socially liberal" is what liberals believe on social issues, but that apparently doesn't include enslaving bakers or wanting gun control.

    And to this day, Hihn will still deny the two inherent logical inconsistencies.

  • ace_m82||

    Still no

    Oh, that was an answer. I didn't consider that. Wanna go on a boat ride?

    So, to recap, Hihn doesn't think it's murder to take someone 100 miles out to sea and kick them off your boat. Please, folks, don't take advice from him.

    That IS harassment

    It's not harassment, it's debate. Veritas liberabit vos.

    THERE IS NO RIGHT TO LIFE IN THE CONSTITUTION -- EXCEPT AS EQUAL TO LIBERTY .

    Once again, the "right" to life isn't in the Constitution, it's in the Declaration. But you think we are talking about what American law is, as interpreted by the (insane) supreme court. You may be doing so, I honestly have no idea, but I am not. I am talking about reality. And the reality is that you only have one right, the right to do all but initiate force. That cannot come into conflict with anyone else's right to do all but initiate force.

    Also, I'm not a fascist; I'm an An-Cap. That word, I do not think it means what you think it means...

  • ace_m82||

    Oh, and I just looked up the first time Lord_at_War (and later I) asked you that question. You didn't answer. You just claimed we, and I quote, "travel in packs, like wild dogs". So, I mean, that's not an answer.

    I don't have the link to the other time I asked. Maybe you "answered" it there.

  • damikesc||

    Why would opposing the unauthorized killing of people be a progressive stance anyway? Aren't they the ones going on and on about sustainability?

  • SparktheRevolt||

    She's an ignorant person who cannot engage in a philosophical discussion. She is also a Trumptard so there's an extreme amount of cognitive dissonance going on in her brain. In this instance, she may just have Broken Clock Syndrome on the Abortion issue. My hunch would also be that she may have had her one herself at some point (no judgment there, that's her right).

  • Michael Hihn||

    She's an ignorant person who cannot engage in a philosophical discussion

    Must be satire, since you babble incoherently, include several logical fallacies, and I peed my pants laughing when you said she's a Trumptard.

    Who's your model for philosophy, Elmer Fudd?

  • J1bby||

    *sigh* ...ok Hihn, enough word games. Let's have your exact stance on the issue of abortion. As you have stated there are 2 unalienable rights in direct conflict: Life and Liberty. They are absolute. This holds regardless of whether Federal, State, or Local gov is involved. The mother wants to abort, but doing so would violate the fetus's right to life. If she is prevented from doing so, her right to Liberty is violated.

    What solution do you advocate for this situation and why?

  • Michael Hihn||

    *sigh* ...ok Hihn, enough word games

    Did you sleep though this in high school?

    WORD GAMES?
    1) The constitution NEVER mentions Life as a right, except as equal to Liberty
    2) Unalienable means ABSOLUTE
    3) How can ANY absolute right outrank ANY OTHER such right?
    4) YOU assume dictatorships are okay, if you're allowed to live. The Founders, were a lot smarter than that.
    5) The 9th Amendment FORBIDS ALL LEVELS of government to deny or disparage EVERY right not mentioned in the Constitution.

    My turn. YOUR word games.
    1) LIST all rights government is may not deny or disparage in the 9th.
    2) List ALL OTHER unalienable rights ... along with Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness

    Conflicting rights can ONLY be resolved by the Judiciary -- as a check on the other two branches. Two SIMPLE examples
    1) No free speech right to yell fire in a crowded theater
    2) "Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.: WHY?

    That tip is the boundary that BEST defends BOTH rights. ONLY the Judiciary may adjudicate such boundaries, and MUST draw a line that BEST defends BOTH rights. EQUALLY.

    On abortion, BOTH extremes reject unalienable rights. The Authoritarian Mind EXPLODES at the notion that certain rights are absolute. They try to impose THEIR preference by government force. I do NOT mean YOU are authoritarian. It's the leaders you put your faith in. I just proved it.

  • afk05||

    Most people who are pro-life are pro-life until the child is born, and then they are anti-welfare. We cannot afford more children born into poverty, neglect, abuse or drug addiction, particularly when the same pro-lifers want to cut government funding for Medicaid, SCHIPS, CPS/DCS departments and other services that support the most vulnerable. An argument can be made that some children might genuinely be better off aborted than dying of neglect or abuse.

    Besides the said moral impact of abortion on both sides, which I GENUINELY acknowledge - I am not arguing against the moral dilemma of abortion as it is valid, but I'm also arguing FOR the moral dilemma of pro-life and the impact of those unwanted pregnancies on the quality of life of said fetuses/children, there is an economic dilemma of abortion as well that cannot be ignored.

  • ace_m82||

    We cannot afford

    Then don't pay for it, collectivist.

    there is an economic dilemma of abortion as well that cannot be ignored

    Yes, in that there is a big waiting list of couples waiting to adopt "unwanted" babies. I am currently on one, so don't you dare deny it!

    You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Most people who are pro-life are pro-life until the child is born, and then they are anti-welfare.
    We cannot afford more children born into poverty, neglect, abuse or drug addiction, particularly when the same pro-lifers want to cut government funding for Medicaid, SCHIPS, CPS/DCS departments and other services that support the most vulnerable


    Then don't pay for it, collectivist.

    An irrelevancy by the authoritarian and intolerant statist.

    there is an economic dilemma of abortion as well that cannot be ignored

    Yes, in that there is a big waiting list of couples waiting to adopt "unwanted" babies. I am currently on one, so don't you dare deny it!

    Only a TINY fraction of what would be needed, so don't you dare deny it!
    And that was evasion. Don't deny that either -- in your rush to statism.

    You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

    (snicker) Troll pasted in the wrong slogan -- after FAILING to challenge a single fact. Christo-Fascists are bullies by nature, like all statists.

  • ace_m82||

    An irrelevancy by the authoritarian and intolerant statist.

    I'm an An-Cap.

    Only a TINY fraction of what would be needed, so don't you dare deny it!

    Counterfactual. I am on a waiting list now, so you'd need to actually show that human behavior (the market) wouldn't change to adjust for (supposedly) more babies.

    And that was evasion.

    No, it was an answer to the question he didn't actually ask, the one he implied. The actual answer to the question would be "it's not a dilemma".

    Troll pasted in the wrong slogan

    I've never lived under a bridge. It isn't a slogan, it's a fact (about facts).

    Does it bother you that I can control my emotions and that you don't get under my skin?

  • afk05||

    The more important argument should be why we haven't forced the medical/pharmaceutical/device industries to develop much more effective temporary sterilization options. We need to find a way to provide a 100% reversible vasectomy or tubal, longer lasting IUD's and other birth control options that are not user-dependent and prone to failure and misuse. 50% of pregnancies are unplanned, which includes many pregnancies that occur despite prevention efforts. That is a staggering number that should really stop us in our tracks.

    Debating abortion gets us nowhere, when we need to be focusing our efforts on prevention. Otherwise we are spinning our wheels and putting lives at risk. There has been no impetus to put a major effort into revolutionizing the birth control industry, and fighting over abortion keeps us focused on the wrong thing - we need to solve the problem, not fight about it.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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