MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

By Firing Kevin Williamson,The Atlantic Shows It Can't Handle Real Ideological Diversity

Williamson's rhetoric is inflammatory, but his views on abortion are not beyond the pale.

Kevin Williamson has been fired from The Atlantic. Since leaving National Review in March, the conservative writer has managed to produce just one column at his new perch, in which he declared the death of the libertarian moment.

But the thing that cost him the gig was a remark he made on a podcast well before his firing and in a tweet (since deleted [UPDATE: Williamson notes that his account is deactivated, not that this specific tweet was deleted]):

And someone challenged me on my views on abortion, saying, "If you really thought it was a crime, you would support things like life in prison, no parole, for treating it as a homicide." And I do support that. In fact, as I wrote, what I had in mind was hanging.

Williamson expressed the view that abortion is murder and should be punished to the full extent of the law (although he also later indicated that he has mixed feelings about capital punishment). I do not share his view. But by declaring Williamson to be outside the Overton window of acceptable political discourse because he believes strongly that abortion is a serious, punishable crime, The Atlantic is essentially declaring that it cannot stomach real, mainstream conservatism as it actually exists in 21st century America.

Williamson uses colorful and sometimes rash language. He didn't have to detail the grisly form of punishment he would inflict on women who decide to terminate their pregnancies. He chose to do so because he enjoys provoking a reaction. But The Atlantic knew that about him before it hired him.

Editor Jeffrey Goldberg says he decided to fire Williamson only after learning that the tweet and podcast quote "represented his carefully considered views." But the underlying logic of Williamson's pro-life position is a view shared by roughly half or at least 40 percent of Americans.

It is, of course, the perfect right of The Atlantic's editors to publish whomever they wish. Reason staffers are all libertarian, under a big-tent understanding of that term (not to brag, but we are repping the pro-life view). That's written into our mission as a magazine. But if The Atlantic purports to capture a broad spectrum of American political views, Williamson's firing is a sign that it hasn't yet figured out how to do so. And the reader outcry against him (and his rightish heterodox kinfolk at The New York Times) is a sign of a market that has grown increasingly squeamish about a genuinely inclusive journalistic vision.

I have personally been the beneficiary of this doublethink on ideological diversity for years. When institutions recognize the need to have a nonliberal somewhere in their midst, they look across the landscape and discover that the closest thing to conservatism that they can tolerate is a relatively mild-mannered, young(ish), female, pro-choice libertarian. Which is to say, not a conservative at all.

The Atlantic publishes lots of interesting heterodox voices, of course. And I'd like to think I do provide ideological diversity in situations where I've been called in. But putting me on a panel is not nearly the same thing as giving the conservative side of the American political spectrum a hearing.

Photo Credit: Wikimedia

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.

  • Ken Shultz||

    KMW,

    Speaking of the death of the libertarian moment, any response to Justin Raimondo's "Libertarian Remnant" piece of a few weeks ago?

    http://www.chroniclesmagazine....../10843421/

    He kinda mentions you by name.

  • Just Say'n||

    Raimondo is the preeminent troll of Reason magazine. Nonetheless, he brings up some fair points in the article and I respect his consistent anti-war position. But, let's face it, the man is too disagreeable to get along with anyone beyond the resurrected corpse of Murray Rothbard.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    I kinda started ignoring Raimondo when he accepted the Obama admin's early assessments of the Libyan Embassy attack at face-value.

  • Just Say'n||

    Raimondo tweeted this: www.twitter.com/JustinRaimondo.....7513671680

    Allowing Raimondo to write at Reason (again) would be delicious. Foreign policy might get discussed again.

  • SIV||

    Neocon Matt Welch won't like that.

  • Mary Stack||

    Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.

  • MarioLanza||

    He probably had a sizable sign on bonus and being fired by SJW closed minded leftists won't hurt his career.

  • MarioLanza||

    And what did he get fired for? He said that he doesn't differentiate killing a pre-born baby with a post-born baby and that both should be treated as homicide.

    But the courts do this too - if the mom wants the child. This makes no sense. If everyone wants senile gramps at the nursing home to kick the bucket and a nurse at the nursing home finishes him off, that nurse is charged with murder.

    So for taking the logical position, the SJW-ers who can't handle the truth fired him.

  • R. K. Phillips||

    I'm gonna guess that a whole bunch of gramps and grannies meet their early demise, with nobody thinking much of it.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I'm not particularly conspiratorial, but it's quite a funny thing that they hired him and the only article he was allowed to write was dumping on libertarianism.

  • Just Say'n||

    It seemed like he was defending libertarianism and bemoaning the passing of any influence it might have

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I think he made some reasonable points as well. But my guess is the more salient projection from the Atlantic is someone they could conceivably claim in an ally to libertarians said that libertarianism was dead. It's just like how we get "Why I'm not a Libertarian Anymore" articles every couple of months. Even though when you read the article the author is often not libertarian minded in most interpretations of the philosophy.

  • TLBD||

    Around here we tell other people when they're not libertarian anymore!

  • Just Say'n||

    No true libertarian would admit that

  • Occam's Woodchipper||

    +1 True Scotsman

  • Occam's Woodchipper||

    +1 True Scotsman

  • ThomasD||

    For N number of libertarians there is N+1 sorts of true libertarianism.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Like every antichoice 5th-column infiltrator since the LP Overpopulation plank became Roe v. Wade. At least the Canadians appreciated Toni Nathan and John Hospers freeing them from "our" Comstock laws. Look at the GOP/Prohibition platforms. The next election after 1972 the mystics were pushing that Coathanger Abortion Amendment. Coincidence, not conspiracy, comrades.

  • Azathoth!!||

    It's 'Hail Satan', Michael

  • John||

    And I think it is fair to ask how they hired Kevin D. Williamson, the most notorious and controversial asshole on the right, and then were shocked to discover he had said something offensively stupid. If you have a problem with your writers saying offensive and stupid things, why did you hire him in the first place? It would be like hiring Willie Nelson and then firing him a week later after he failed a drug test.

  • Libertymike||

    Just thought I would let you know John that regarding the quality of Williamson's writing, John Derbyshire would beg to differ with your assessment.

    Honestly, I really can't offer an opinion because I have read only snippets from Williamson.

  • Bubba Jones||

    I like his writing a lot. I really liked his series on Appalachia and the welfare trap.

    Sometimes he says ridiculous things, but it's almost always in a tweet (I don't twit) or in a blog I don't read. Stick to his actual articles and it's 90% good.

    Yes, he can be snarky, but no one is forcing you to read every word he writes. I've even emailed him to suggest he cut the gratuitous snark because it detracts from his message. Obviously he didn't take my advice. But now I can say I TOLD YOU SO.

    lol

  • John||

    Bubba, if I worked on your car and were a good mechanic but occasionally got drunk and spit in your face and called your mother a whore, would you still want to give me your business?

    Williamson is a writer. The fact that he writes stupid stuff matters and takes away from whatever good he writes.

  • Bubba Jones||

    You missed the important part.

    "I TOLD YOU SO."

  • John||

    If you know I do it and hire me anyway, you can't complain when it happens. That is true.

  • John||

    I disagree with Derbyshire. To the extent that Williamson is not stupid, he is a basic rightwing writer who doesn't write anything that dozens of other rightwing writers could write and do so without all of the viciousness and stupidity.

  • Bubba Jones||

    I'm trying to find the offensively stupid part.

    If abortion is murder, then women should be punished.

    And if we believe in capital punishment, then women should be executed.

    And if we can't seem to get our act together with injections, why not hanging?

    The underlying disagreement is with the label of abortion as murder. Getting bent out of shape by the logical consequences of calling it murder is just "safe spaces" levels of ridiculous. On the contrary, they should be glad he said it, because it might force pro life people to reconsider the implications of their policy preferences.

    But lefties aren't that thoughtful.

  • John||

    No. The underlying disagreement here is thinking that all murders are equal and that anyone who commits such an act should automatically be hanged. Abortion is murder in a very real sense. But like every other act of murder, how it should be punished is a question of the circumstances. Williamson is either an unthinking moron or was just being a troll.

  • Bubba Jones||

    Which other premeditated murders of convenience do we normally ignore?

  • John||

    Those done in self defense. Those done under duress or with great justification. Suppose a girl kills her father while he sleeps after years of abuse and torture. That is first-degree murder. Are you going to hang her? We hang murderers around here, don't we?

    Or maybe it is the case that abortion is such a contentious and personal issue that we cannot as a society punish it like other murders? Ever think of that?

    Maybe these issues are complex and don't lend themselves to knee jerk uniform rules made to slander the other side as fanatics?

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    Not all homicides are murder nor are they prosecuted as such. None of these are not examples of first-degree murder (typically, unlawful homicide with malice aforethought, planning with a cool mind). Self-defense is a perfect defense to any charge of murder. Actual duress, justification and the "girl kills abuser" scenarios all would never be prosecuted as murder even if they were prosecuted at all.

  • Robespierre Josef Stalin Pot||

    So John, if my wife becomes pregnant with yet another child {shudder} and we proudly and defiantly and in a premeditated fashion abort the fuck out of that little shit what should the proper punishment be?

  • John||

    I don't know. Probably nothing. Not all crimes can be punished in the criminal justice system. It would be impossible to tell what was a miscarriage and what was an abortion short of some dope like you bragging about it. And trying would mean forcing every woman who has a miscarriage to explain it to the police.

    You being a leftist troll likely don't understand that and think that the solution to every situation where someone does something you don't like is to shoot them. I am not a leftist troll. So, I do not see how abortion could ever be made illegal in any just way even though I am fully aware that life begins at conception.

  • Robespierre Josef Stalin Pot||

    Ok, so you as a pro-lifer would apply exactly Zero punishment to a women seeking an purely elective abortion. Way to go, John! You feel the same way I do.

  • John||

    No. I feel the way I do for sound reasons. You feel the way you do because you are a depraved moron.

  • Robespierre Josef Stalin Pot||

    Sorry John, I misread your comment. You'd only put the women to death if she or her husband told people that she had an abortion. Did I read you right?

  • John||

    I do not think there is any way to ever criminalize abortion in any just way. So it should not be illegal. You are too stupid to have a conversation about this issue with.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    He's also completely disingenuous. A complete oxygen thief. Just like Tony.

  • Tony||

    Well that's an even dumber argument than most. We couldn't find out about it? Abortion is a rather complicated thing compared to, say, swiping some beer from the 7/11. What makes abortion among all crimes so unlikely to be discovered? Just do reconnaissance and raid known abortion clinics like we do drug dens.

  • John||

    Jesus Christ, you are fucking stupid Tony. If a woman has a miscarriage, there is no way to tell if it was a real miscarriage or an abortion. You are so fucking dumb and hateful, you don't even understand positions you should agree with.

  • Tony||

    If a woman has a miscarriage, that's the accidental death of a baby human, right? Pretty much exactly morally equivalent to if a 3 year-old drowned in a toilet? Why are there so few funerals for all the babies lost to miscarriage?

  • John||

    Sure Tony. That is the point. You couldn't tell who was guilty of murder and who just had a miscarriage. So, there would be no way to ever enforce the law. God you are just hideously dumb.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Amd abortion isn't quite murder until later into gestation. The standard ought to be suffic Ent brain development for self awareness. At that point the baby is definitely a person, and should have the same right to live as everyone else.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Howcum none of these force-initiating mystical sockpuppets chooses a handle like Nicolae Ceaușescu, Anthony Comstock or Robert Dear?

  • Hank Phillips||

    Tony, you just saw the Apocalypse sockpuppet refrain from authorizing a drone strike not because it is premeditated murder, but because of its uncertainty as to whether the imagined act of volitional self-control has actually occurred. And you feed these trolls as part of your instructions from the Altrurian Kremlin?

  • Robespierre Josef Stalin Pot||

    I never knew that policing pre-meditated first degree murder was going to be so hard!

  • John||

    I am sure you didn't. That is because you are retarded and have no idea how law enforcement or criminal law actually work. You are a mindless fanatic who thinks that every law is easy to enforce and anyone who does something you don't like deserves to be a criminal.

    I can't help you with being stupid. You and Tony are two of the dumbest people I have ever seen in my life. And you take pride being stupid. There is nothing I can for you.

  • Robespierre Josef Stalin Pot||

    You are a mindless fanatic who thinks that every law is easy to enforce and anyone who does something you don't like deserves to be a criminal.

    Actually, John, if you'll notice My position on abortion is that any law is going to be difficult to enforce and that I don't think that someone who does something I don't like should be a criminal. Exactly, opposite of what you claim above. That's ironic... don't ya think?

  • Longtobefree||

    Abortion could be made illegal by passing a law saying it is illegal.

  • MarioLanza||

    If a boyfriend smothers a 2 day old baby for crying too much, what should the punishment be? That is the relevant question.

  • Vernon Depner||

    The mother should be prosecuted for child endangerment.

  • R. K. Phillips||

    Why is abortion murder? Because a piece of tissue that has no consciousness is removed? Then we can never, ever "pull the plug" on anyone, could we?

  • epsilon given||

    First of all, that "tissue" may not have consciousness, but it has the potential of consciousness, and that potential is going to be achieved if nothing interferes with the normal growth process.

    Second, we generally don't pull the plug on conscious people until the doctor declares that there is no hope for regaining consciousness. That's what happened to my Dad: the doctor determined that he no longer had the brain structure to simply take a breath when there was too much carbon dioxide in his blood, and so he recommended pulling the plug.

    But that was a straightforward case. There are *lots* of situations where pulling the plug is *very* controversial, so you're essentially saying that because there are a handful of cases where pulling the plug isn't controversial, abortion should be 100% noncontroversial too. Which, when you think about it, is a silly thing to argue.

  • Eidde||

    "...because it might force pro life people to reconsider the implications of their policy preferences."

    Because it might give "prochoice" people an escape clause not to feel obliged to defend their position.

    Because the mainstream prolife movement is shockingly lenient toward women who hire abortionists. Therefore we should all go ahead and deny unborn human beings *any* legal protection and not impose penalties on *anyone,* even the abortionist, and we should all just go ahead and give tax subsidies to abortion.

    What a convenient attitude.

    I suppose we can imagine a future in which the culture of life is so strong that abortion has become unthinkable and so the penalties can be ratcheted up and up. But we're nowhere near that situation, and I trust the people who have been in the prolife trenches to make a few "illogical" concessions for the sake of human life, just as some abolitionists were willing to pay compensation to slaveowners, which was also illogical of course, and "unprincipled," and of course presumably showed that those abolitionists weren't *really* serious about opposing slavery.

  • Hank Phillips||

    If altruism impels mystics to use deadly force to coerce others, then perhaps altruism ought to be questioned. Here we have concerted action by pro-coercion infiltrators trying to define women as non-individuals so they can urge someone else to point guns at their physicians. Of this numerous and active class, Robert Dear and Michael Frederick Griffin at least had the guts to themselves commit the murders. If the Libertarian Party had been infiltrated to the point of canonizing these remnants of the Inquisition, we wouldn't have a hockey-stick of voting increase with Sarwark at the wheel. Reason would do well to learn from The Atlantic's wise example.

  • Lester224||

    I think he was trolling the anti-abortion movement. The "pro-lifers" call abortion (even 1st trimester??) "baby killing". Then they say "of course we wouldn't prosecute a woman or girl who got an abortion, just the doctors". Why? No reason except that it would make their position more unpalatable to the general public. The anti-abortion movement knows very well that a fetus is not a baby and pre-viability abortion is not the same thing as murder at all. They just won't admit it.

    However, he wasn't a skillful enough troll. He didn't word it hypothetically enough. The Atlantic was going to look bad if they kept him on.

  • livelikearefugee||

    Offensive, yes. Stupid, no.

  • GILMORE™||

    "it's quite a funny thing that they hired him and the only article he was allowed to write was dumping on libertarianism.""

    he outlived his usefulness, apparently.

  • Hank Phillips||

    "Right" is simply the polite term for National Socialists in all European languages. Those folks oughtta know...

  • John||

    Thinking women who get abortions should be hung is beyond the pale. That is not ideological diversity. That is just endorsing stupidity. And Williamson never writes or cares or knows his ass from a hole in the ground about criminal law or how homicides are handled (though in fairness he doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground about anything). For him to suddenly decide that all women who have abortions should get life in prison or be hanged because "that is how we deal with homicides (which is totally untrue) is absurd. If you want to write for a national publication with a somewhat large audience, you can't say unGodly stupid and offensive things and expect to keep your job. It is that simple.

    And it is a bit convenient for KMW to decide that Williamson's view is needed for "diversity" when that view does nothing but make the pro-life movement look like fanatical idiots. I am not really sure how saying that publications should allow totally fringe and stupid views that in no way reflect the opinion of 99% of the people on that side of an issue is embracing diverse views. It looks to me like it is just embracing whatever view embarrasses and discredits the other side in the name of "diversity".

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    make the pro-life movement look like fanatical idiots

    Because when a conservative is allowed to state their full position they always highlight their fanatical idiocy.

    See Todd Aiken and all the other nuts who can't keep their mouths shut.

  • John||

    Yes Shreek, you are a retard. We know that. Now go away and stop reminding us. Just let the adults talk for once.

  • TLBD||

    What about pro-life libertarians?

  • Hank Phillips||

    Do you mean mystical fanatic infiltrators or people like Robert Dear who actually believe pointing loaded guns at physicians to violate individual rights which were enforced by adding the LP Overpopulation plank to a Supreme Court decision is "the free exercise thereof"? Deliberate plotters or just criminally insane?

  • Mickey Rat||

    When a pro lifer is willing to settle for a compromise position, the radical pro-abortion rights crowd says they don't have the courage of their convictions. If they insist on full protections they are denounced as fanatics.

    Meanwhile the pro-aborts twist themselves in logical knots trying to justify abortion up to the moment of birth and actually manage to argue themselves out of the principle that human rights are an inherent quality.of human beings.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    manage to argue themselves out of the principle that human rights are an inherent quality.of human beings.

    Some of them do that explicitly and with intent. Many people view human rights as something that is given arbitrarily by those in power rather than something innate. This naturally leads to a situation where certain groups can and should be denied them if they don't meet certain qualities.

  • John||

    That is a great point BUCS. I hadn't thought it that way before. That is exactly what is behind a lot of the thinking on abortion.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Yes, but it is weird that they do that when abortion is usually justified as an innate right in itself.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I believe that's more a co-opting of the language of american political discourse. Even as things slide away from certain enlightenment views, much of our national discussion is still wrapped in the phrasing and vocabulary of enlightenment thinking.

    It's like when Milton Friedman said "We're all Keynesian now." People took that as him saying Keynes was correct, while Friedman said he meant that the field of economics is so inundated with Keynes that the very language is necessarily Keynesian.

    This is, of course, all just my observations and should be taken with a grain of salt.

  • MaxSvenson||

    "Many people view human rights as something that is given arbitrarily by those in power rather than something innate. "

    First, this is a logical fallacy. You oppose "arbitrary" to innate. You leave off the possibility (reality) that human rights are things debated, weighed, considered, agonized over, agreed upon by most people, etc.

    If human rights were innate, they wouldn't need to be codified in law, and human history would reflect a recognition of them.

    Human rights are a construct of human brains, they don't exist outside of there. They are carefully considered and can be debated.

    It is metaphysical to pretend human rights exist innately in nature. Nature cares nothing about human rights. If you want to make up a spiritual entity that declares human rights are innate, you've already lost the argument, because religions and spiritual teachings don't agree on what human rights actually are.

  • Mickey Rat||

    If that is the case then rights don't exist. There is nothing inherently wrong with suppressing speech, confiscating property, or enslaving another person. In fact, there are no privacy rights in the first place, which destroys the Roe argument that outlawing abortion is beyond the authority of governments to outlaw.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    "If you want to make up a spiritual entity that declares human rights are innate, you've already lost the argument, because religions and spiritual teachings don't agree on what human rights actually are"

    What a stunted view of time and space. That it just s happens to arbitrarily exists, and we are some random development of it. It is obvious to anyone with real intellect that the contrary is true. God, or whatever you choose to call it, must exist. As to the ultimate nature of God, that is open to question.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Correct Mickey. It's just more proof that it is ultimately impossible to coexist with progtards. They are ultimately an existential threat to humanity. We all need to accept that and ecide what must be done about them. If we wish to survive.

  • Tony||

    Williamson and Trump are the only people I've seen back up the pro-life sentiment with logic.

    And that's because the pro-life argument is so full of bullshit you could poke it with a stick and get bullshit all over you.

  • John||

    We don't lock up everyone who commits murder you fucking moron. It is bad enough that you are this stupid. But you just keep repeating the same tiresome idiotic points over and over again no matter how many times it is explained to you how stupid they are. You are the most relentlessly stupid person I have ever encountered.

  • Tony||

    We don't (attempt to) lock up everyone who commits first-degree murder of babies? Why the fuck not?

  • John||

    No we don't. Some people are crazy. Some people have the excuse of duress. Moreover, the fact that abortion is such a hard crime to prevent or prove makes it very unlikely you could ever punish anyone who had one.

    How dare you talk about babies like you care about them. You are a sick pervert who hates breeders. You do a happy dance every time you hear about an abortion. Your sarcasm in ridiculing those who are offended by the murder of children is a new low even for you.

  • Tony||

    I'm offended that those who are offended by the murder of children think there should be little or no consequence for murdering children. What kind of monsters are these people?

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Tony. You really are showcasing why you are an enemy of the human race. Go drink your Drano.

  • ace_m82||

    If government is not competent to define "murder", then why have a government at all?

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    If someone is aware of a murder (or prospective murder), the sole reasonable course for a responsible adult would be to alert the relevant law enforcement authority without delay.

    If someone does not have information about a murder that should be provided to the authorities, the sole reasonable course for a responsible person is to stop babbling about superstition-based nonsense while adults are attempting to conduct reasoned debate concerning public affairs.

  • ace_m82||

    If government is not competent to define "murder", then why have a government at all?

  • MaxSvenson||

    John is having an emotional reaction, not a well-reasoned one. And he resorts to juvenile insults

    This site is called REASON.

    Ironic

  • Just Say'n||

    Tony you are defending the side that looks at an ultrasound and says "that's not a person" and then argues that killing a nine month baby in utero is not immoral or murder. Who are the illogical persons here?

  • Tony||

    Man do you like to make up arguments on my behalf.

    I do not believe women who get abortions and their doctors should face criminal penalty of any kind because I don't think abortion should be illegal. Nothing more logical than that.

    Let's talk about where the line in the gestation sand is drawn. That's a fine political debate to have. But if abortion at some point is baby murder, we have to treat aborters as baby murderers, otherwise that's not really what it is and they should stop saying so.

  • Just Say'n||

    When abortion was illegal the woman was never jailed. The punishment was always brought against the doctor. Why would it be different now?

  • Tony||

    She is in fact at the very least an accessory to first-degree murder. I think quite clearly she's an active murderer, actually. That's if we're talking about murdering babies.

    The hilarious thing is, I know that this logic isn't difficult because Donald Trump was able to stupid his way through it. This is proof positive that pro-lifers are all a bunch of liars.

  • Just Say'n||

    You are really quite dumb. I'm sorry, but it's true. Every time you're proved wrong you keep moving the goal posts. Finish high school and come back with your hot takes

  • Tony||

    It's possible that I'm as stupid as Donald Trump and that's why I don't understand why pro-lifers believe a) abortion is equivalent to murdering babies and b) despite this, we shouldn't punish aborters that much.

    But instead of calling me stupid for not understanding logic that's apparently too esoteric for little old me, why not just explain it to me?

  • TLBD||

    Do you think war is murder Tony, and if so, should we execute all soldiers who kill?

    Tie together that logic, and perhaps you'll have your answer.

  • Tony||

    Traditionally, soldiers killing enemies in war is not considered murder.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Which is just mental gymnastics we do to justify the horrors of war.

  • Tony||

    I'm kind of a pacifist, so I agree. And not only am I against the death penalty, I'm against prison in most cases.

    I just want conservatives to be able to express their logically consistent beliefs freely.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    And I just want progressive to express their logically consistent beliefs freely. If they are against the death penalty and they value protecting the weak and innocent, then clearly they are opposed to abortion after viability. Right, Tony?

  • Tony||

    The weak and innocent in the abortion question to liberals are women. At worst we've chosen adult women's rights over those of a fetus before a certain point in gestation, when they come into conflict. It's gotta be one or the other!

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    That's awfully discriminatory. Actually it's the inconvenience of one versus the life of the other. Can I apply the same rules to your welfare state? Given that I still have a write a check to the government larger than your income (after witholdings), that's a standard I can get behind!

  • Lester224||

    Excuse me. Weak and innocent people are different than weak an innocent embryos and fetuses. Acorn not = tree. It is not logically inconsistent.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Given Trump's accomplishments. He is far more intelligent than you are. You probably equate intellect to how much of a slave one is to the progtard hive mind. I know a number of progs that do that.

    The fact is that you are a dull witted piece of garbage Tony. I say these tings so you will hopefully realize how worthless you are and act appropriately. I can only imagine the misery you inflict on those around you. The world will not miss you when you are gone.

  • Hank Phillips||

    So Michael, did you vote against John Hospers and Toni Nathan? Did you criticize in writing the 1972 Overpopulation plank? That's the issue that caused the GOP and Prohibition party to dress in sockpuppet hoods, light their Positive Christianity swastikas and come gunning for the Supreme Court and the LP both. They've tried the Coathanger Amendment gambit, the appeals to concern, altruism, creation pseudoscience--no argument is too farfetched if it points a pistol at a doctor. Meanwhile in Canada and at the Atlantic these NSDAP holdovers are impotent toothless wretches.

  • Azathoth!!||

    When abortion was illegal the woman was never jailed. The punishment was always brought against the doctor. Why would it be different now?

    Because hit men are just people standing around without customers.

    It is the woman who decides that pregnancy is an inconvenience that can simply not be borne.

    It is the woman who premeditatedly decides to destroy the fetus.

    If there is a crime committed here, it is the woman who decides to commit it.

    So, why shouldn't she be held responsible?

    Tony is right. If you are pro-life, the criminal is the pregnant woman. The doctor is the tool she uses to commit the crime.

    This is the logical conclusion. The pro-life movement is well aware of this and twists itself in knots to keep people from seeing the murderers for who they are.

  • MarkLastname||

    No, characteristically, you are making stuff up. Assisted suicide is not tresated like negligible homicide is not treated like aggravated murder is not treated like premeditated murder. There most certainly are gradations of homicide.

    I don't think a person has ever so arrogantly pretended to be smart while being so consistently stupid as you have in these comment sections.

  • TLBD||

    Murder is the worst crime because it takes away your future and does so in a violent way.

    Tell me how taking a vacuum powered wood chipper to a fetus is THAT much different?

    The stance isn't full of bullshit, it is a moral and just stance. I would say that the pro-choice side has some good arguments too.

    /shrug

    I'd rather be status quo on abortion and focus on actual government policies (or removal of) that will actually make a difference. Government isn't going to stop abortion, and it also isn't going to make it moral and acceptable to most people.

  • Tony||

    The bullshit is that they claim to think it's baby murder but don't have the nuts to actually say we should punish women who get abortions for baby murder. Because they know nobody would buy it, even if it's the only possible logical conclusion of their beliefs.

  • Just Say'n||

    Again. Your take is quite stupid. When it was illegal, women were never jailed for procuring an abortion- only the doctor. Why would it change now?

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    When abortion was illegal, was it because people thought it is murder? Or did that come with the rise of the pro-life movement after Roe v. Wade?

  • Kivlor||

    When it was illegal, it was because it was viewed as taking a human life.

  • Tony||

    It was illegal (briefly, historically speaking) because they didn't want white people to be outbred by brown people.

    I'm serious as fuck. Read about it.

    The "it's murder" stuff came up later as heartstrings-tugging bullshit propaganda.

  • Kivlor||

    Laws within Christendom regarding abortion date back to before the year of our lord 1100.

    In some nations to induce it before the quickening (fetal movement being felt) was a misdemeanor. In others it was no crime. Post-quickening abortions were viewed as less than homicide, but were considered to be the taking of a human life. This all fell under Common Law and is well documented Tony.

    English Common Law covered this in the US up until official codification in the 19th Century. This happened because 18th and 19th centuries saw a shift from viewing the quickening as the point of ensoulment due to drastically improved understanding of fetal development.

  • Kivlor||

    If you're actually interested in learning about our history, and the history of this subject, you can look to Henry de Bracton's "On the Laws and Customs of England" where as far back as 1200 AD we know that abortion was considered a form of homicide.

    PS the page I linked is the start of the discussion of homicide. The relevant part about abortion is on the next page, but I thought it best to start at the beginning for context.

  • Kivlor||

    Or we can look to theologians dating all the way back to St. Augustine (150 AD), and even before Christianity, as far back as Aristotle (300 BC).

    The philosophy and tradition about this is greater than you know Tony.

  • Tony||

    I know it well, actually, and I'm cool with the original common law rules over this newly invented "embryos are babies" shit.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    So why were Margaret Sanger and the other progressives so happy that it resulted in disproportionate abortion rates amongst non-whites?

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Skippy, Tony will ignore that question, as it conflicts with his progtarded propaganda regarding his bigotry.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    "I'm serious as fuck. Read about it."

    Yes, Im sure that trash like you have written insane leftist crap like that.

  • Zeb||

    Why would it change now?

    Why wouldn't it?

  • TLBD||

    I don't know what it is, being conditioned in this society where it happens every day. I also could not punish a woman who has been conditioned to believe it is acceptable.

    Logically, it is baby murder, especially after a certain point. I don't see any way around that. The parasite theory pushed here pretty often is weak. The pro-choice arguments seem hollow when the left believes your only inalienable right is to vacuum-powered-wood-chipper your baby out of the womb.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    After what point? That's really the crux of it, isn't it?

  • TLBD||

    There is a point when it is undeniable that it will be a future human being. Before that, there is still a chance that it won't. That chance changes with time on the micro scale and technology on the macro scale.

    At the same time, there is a chance that you'll die of a heart attack tomorrow, that doesn't mean I'd be justified in killing you.

    /shrug

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Viability. After that point it's really no different than an infant.

  • Tony||

    Late-term abortions are so rare that specifically making them illegal only means going after the women who really really need an abortion.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Viability starts at 22-24 wks. Fewer than 1% of firearm deaths are due to rifles of any sort, so you agree that they don't need to be banned, right?

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Viability is a sliding scale based on medical technology. I prefer a fixed scale based on sufficient neurological development where self awareness has taken place. Which is a few weeks earlier.

    Cogito Ergo, Sum.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    "Late term abortions are so rare that specifically making them illegal only means going after the women who really really need an abortion."

    Nope. You have no idea what you're talking about. For someone with no stake, and nothing but hatred for those that breed, you have a lot of opinions about it.

  • Zeb||

    Well, it is a parasite in a real sense. But so is a 6 month old, so that doesn't really answer the question.

  • MarkLastname||

    You're still being retarded.

    It is perfectly valid to argue, say, that killing a fetus is less severe than killing a fully developed person while still thinking killing a fetus should be illegal. For what ifts worth, I think killing a 6 year old is probably worse than killing an infant as the former is more self aware and appreciative of his depravation of life. Doesn't mean murdering infants should be legal.

  • epsilon given||

    I'm pro-choice only to the extent that I am an anarcho-capitalist, so while I believe whole-heartedly that abortion is murder, I am also convinced that murder should be legal -- or, at least, it should solely be a civil affair, addressed via private judges and private law enforcement agencies. (In this environment, fathers who don't want their child killed would actually have recourse.)

    Having said all that, I cannot be pro-choice based on the arguments presented by progressive people. They always sound to me too eerily like the justifications Nazis made for eradicating Jews, Gypsies, and the handicapped.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Again, no clue what Mike is imagining as the definition of a "right." The only absolute part is the way he repeats "not absolute" like an audio loop. Surely libertarians can do better'n that.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Williamson and Trump are the only people I've seen back up the pro-life sentiment with logic."

    We generally don't call for hanging for murder, but prosecuting women is perfectly logical if you think abortion is murder. This is one case where Trump caved to the establishment and prevailing hypocrisy.

    The illogic on all sides is failing to hold women responsible for both having babies and murdering them.

    A woman can choose to have sex, choose to bring the pregnancy to term, but can give up the baby for adoption without any legal responsibility thereafter.
    The man she got pregnant from cannot avoid legal responsibility for *her* choice to bring the baby to term.

    Woman's body
    Woman's choice
    Man's responsibility

    A man who can't support a baby a woman chooses to bring to term is a "deadbeat dad".
    A woman who can't support a baby she chooses to being to term is a "courageous single mom" and put on the dole with her baby.

    The problem is not with the pro life argument, the problem is with the more general "vaginas can't be held responsible for what comes out of them" argument.

  • Nige||

    I was worried there wouldn't be enough misogynistic resentment here about this, but you certainly sorted that out.

  • Azathoth!!||

    And yet you refuted none of it...............?

  • Nige||

    I can't refute misogynistic resentment, he'll need therapy to work through those issues. Not being facetious, here.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Well reasoned retort!

  • Trumptard||

    There is a logical train of thought that Williamson is following here. It goes like this:

    Is a fetus a human being (Y/N)?
    If yes, then is abortion, in certain circumstances, murder (Y/N)?
    If yes, should murder be punishable by death penalty (Y/N)?

    Right now, the law answers "No" to either #2 alone, or both, I am not sure which.

    I think a slim majority of people would say "Yes" to the first question. and it logically follows that killing a human being is murder if it is done intentionally, not in self-defense, is planned, etc. That just leaves the last question. What do we do with murderers? Do you think capital punishment is "beyond the pale" for murderers? A large percentage of people do not.

    Now is carrying this out, i.e., sentencing millions of women to the death penalty, a good thing? In my opinion, no way, and I do not think Williamson wants to carry it out either. He is just saying that he finds abortion abhorrent, and the same thing as murder. He was challenged on twitter and made a strong and, to some, offensive remark. But his point, even if he isn't 100% willing to follow through on it, is a point that many agree with, and is therefore a mainstream opinion.

  • Just Say'n||

    When abortion was illegal the woman was never jailed. The punishment was always brought against the doctor. Why would it be different now?

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Just because that's the way it was does not mean it was logically sound.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Why would women ever be held responsible?

  • SQRLSY One||

    The involved blastocyst or embroyo at hand here could ALSO be held responsible!

    I have the right to go out and get a job, earn some money, and use this money to buy some guns and ammo. Then when your generic thug or hitperson comes by to kill me, I can shoot him or her (do NOT be sexist here!) to disable or kill, in self-defense.

    Similarly, the involved blastocyst or embroyo at hand here had the right to go earn some money and become empowered to practice self-defense. Against aggressing abortion doctors, or others. But no, the blastocycst here (generically in these cases) was a deadbeat, and wouldn't even get off of his or her blobby, blastocysty butt to get a haircut to look decent for a job interview, even, let alone actually GOING to a job interview! Deadbeats get very-very little sympathy from me...

  • Libertymike||

    Blasto-cist, Blasto-cist,
    Blasto-cist, you exist,
    Cause the egg not resist,
    Blasto-cist, Blasto-cist,
    please do not try resist,
    when she give you her fist

  • Bubba Jones||

    He didn't ask The Atlantic to publish that view.

  • Joe_JP||

    Without endorsing all of this, yes ... this sort of Reason column is as kneejerk as one of their stereotypical targets.

  • Rhywun||

    The Atlantic is essentially declaring that it cannot stomach real, mainstream conservatism as it actually exists in 21st century America.

    *looks around for "shocked" face*

  • John||

    No one on the right believes that all women who have abortions should be hanged. Calling Williamson mainstream is just a clever way for KMW to call conservatives fanatical nuts.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Ask some folks on the right what should happen to people who kill babies.

    yeah.

  • John||

    And they will say it depends. As Venneman of all people points out below, when Trump tried to claim that women who get abortions should go to jail, the outcry on the Right was such even Trump had to walk back on it.

    Pro tip, when Venneman is stomping on your argument, stop making the argument.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Trumpty got shut down for telling America what conservatives really think.

    The right knows they need to pass the law first - then enforce it.

  • John||

    Yes, Shreek you are an idiot who claims to really know what people think. For the 100th time, the voices in your head are not real.

  • Lester224||

    Yes because there was an outcry because the pro-life movement is full of hypocrites who don't really believe that abortion is murder. They just want to punish the whores.

  • Paloma||

    William F Buckley Jr made the argument that abortion should NOT be looked upon the same as murder, even though he, as a Catholic, thought it was sinful. It is similar to the ending of life support for those who are unconscious and have no chance of regaining consciousness.

  • Paloma||

    William F Buckley Jr made the argument that abortion should NOT be looked upon the same as murder, even though he, as a Catholic, thought it was sinful. It is similar to the ending of life support for those who are unconscious and have no chance of regaining consciousness.

  • Rhywun||

    You have a fair point that such a view is not "mainstream" even for conservatives. I'm merely commenting on the literal reading of KMW's comment - if it wasn't abortion, they would've likely found something else to fire him for by week 2.

  • Bubba Jones||

    I think that when we discuss "compromise" on the matter of abortion, we should recognize that the natural pro life position is "hang the killer."

    So, when we allow unlimited abortions up to 20 weeks, we are already making one hell of a compromise. Don't get pissed when we ban it after that.

  • John||

    we should recognize that the natural pro life position is "hang the killer."

    No. We shouldn't discuss issues using the moronic assumptions that one side uses to slander the other.

  • Tony||

    You can't compromise on murder. That's like saying it's okay to kill an adult as long as he's homeless and smelly. Or it's okay if he has a billion dollars or more. Whatever.

    So I encourage pro-lifers to be completely open and logical in their position and loudly call for life imprisonment or the death penalty for the horrible baby murderers.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Idiot, we compromise on murder all the time. That's why we have different murder charges, manslaughter, both voluntary and involuntary, and other related homocide crimes. But you come in and pretend none of that exists to make some quarter witted college freshman progtard argument.

    Go fuck yourselves Tony, you oxygen thief.

  • MarkLastname||

    Standard Tony comment: completely make up false premise, then run with it like the wind!

  • buybuydandavis||

    Much like Reason and their TDS

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Aborto-Freaks like Williamson should be allowed to state their hideous views in full daylight.

  • Just Say'n||

    Agreed. The pro-choice movement has become reprehensible and extreme

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Democrats don't have a litmus test like the GOP does.

    See Senator Bob Casey (who has a rational view on the topic without being a slobbering anti-choice nutcase).

  • Just Say'n||

    Are you for real right now? Who are you "newly woke" Matt Welch with this bad take?

    www.cnn.com/2018/03/19/politic.....index.html

    There are two pro-choice Republicans in the Senate. There exactly zero self-avowed pro-life Democrats in the Senate

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Who are the two pro-choice Republicans in the Senate?

    Senator Bob Casey is pro-life so I know you don't know what you are talking about.

    There exactly zero self-avowed pro-life Democrats in the Senate

  • TLBD||

    Pretty sure Susan Collins is pro-choice.

  • Just Say'n||

    Caey, unlike his father, does not self identify as "pro-life". Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins both self identify as "pro-choice".

  • Just Say'n||

    Just like "newly woke" Matt Welch's hot take about how Alabama voters were going to elect Moore because Republicans only care about abortion, you look like a god damn fool. Democrats are actively campaigning to oust other Democrats that are not sufficiently extreme on abortion, like the story that I linked to. Republicans really are the big tent when it comes to abortion now.

  • Libertymike||

    PB - Tiger finished his round 1 over.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Democrats don't have a litmus test when it comes to funding planned parenthood? Pull the other one.

  • Bubba Jones||

    That last remaining pro-life Dem in the House is getting primaried.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    "Democrats don't have a litmus test like the GOP does."

    Of course not. The progressive hierarchy are exclusively maniacs and sociopaths. Neither of whom have deeply held principles. If the GOP became completely 'pro-choice' tomorrow and Schumer and Pelosi knew they could somehow seize total control by becoming totally anti abortion, they would do it without a second thought.

    That what they care about, power and satisfying their greed. Advancing some kind of principle based agenda is meaningless to them, unless it advances those goals.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    The pro-choice movement has become reprehensible and extreme

    What do you think of the nanny-staters who advance absolutist, superstition-based arguments against abortion?

  • Elias Fakaname||

    How about scientific arguments based on the cognition of the infant? There is sufficient Neurological development to prove that by sixteen weeks.

    Or did I just use a bunch of big words you can't understand?

  • JP88||

    "superstition-based arguments against abortion"

    The crazy thing is, as science gets better, it is giving the anti-abortion side of the argument more evidence that fetuses are not just a collection of unfeeling cells. For example, a fetus has pain receptors throughout its body at 8 weeks.

  • markm23||

    A cow also has pain receptors throughout it's body, and a nervous system much better integrated than an 8 week or even a 20 week fetus - but no one who wants to ever win an election claims that hamburgers are murder. I contend that you aren't human until you are working at a higher mental level than a puppy.

  • Just Say'n||

    "But putting me on a panel is not nearly the same thing as giving the conservative side of the American political spectrum a hearing."

    It's only a matter of time before libertarian positions are also viewed as unacceptable. Anyone who doesn't believe that is fooling themselves

  • John||

    Who thinks that they are acceptable now? If Williamson had said the CRA should be repealed and everyone should be free to refuse to serve gays if they don't want to, he would have been fired even more quickly than he was.

  • Just Say'n||

    "If Williamson had said the CRA should be repealed and everyone should be free to refuse to serve gays if they don't want to, he would have been fired even more quickly than he was."

    Well that's an example of a true libertarian. Yes, they are not welcome. I meant, more so, a "Reason" libertarian

  • TLBD||

    You mean a neo-liberal?

  • Just Say'n||

    I mean libertarians that are more in the Gary Johnson mold. Call them what you like

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    You mean dedicated public servants?

  • Just Say'n||

    We all know what I'm talking about. I'm talking about libertarians who would never advocate overturning CRA laws or even advocate against expanding CRA laws. Those libertarians are already persona non grata. I'm referring to the more mild and less intellectually consistent variety.

  • Kivlor||

    If by libertarian, you mean cosmotarian, no, they constantly shift their positions based on what's going to get them into a cocktail party with the right people. So they'll always be acceptable.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    ...(although he also later indicated that he has mixed feelings about capital punishment).

    (As all good pro-life people do.)

  • ||

    He didn't have to detail the grisly form of punishment he would inflict on women who decide to terminate their pregnancies.

    He should have detailed the grisly form of punishment women who have elective abortions inflict on their unborn children. I mean, their lumps of fetal tissue. Much more palatable.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I do not share his view.

    THIS IRRELEVANT-TO-THE-STORY PIECE OF INFORMATION TOOK UP VALUABLE SECONDS OF MY INFORMATION-CONSUMING DAY. Now I know where the Soaves on staff get their bad habits!

  • Alan Vanneman||

    "The Atlantic is essentially declaring that it cannot stomach real, mainstream conservatism as it actually exists in 21st century America."

    If you ask "mainstream conservatives" if they think women who get abortions are guilty of homicide, they say "of course not" and insist you're being ridiculous. When Trump suggested that women who get abortions should get some sort of criminal punishment (far short of hanging), the outcry from the right forced him to walk it back, something Trump rarely does. I'm generally not impressed by Williamson. A year ago he claimed that, as a result of the repeal of "Stop n' Frisk, New York was "descending into pre-Giuliani chaos." Well, not quite. I think Goldberg was, rather desperately, seeking an alliance of anti-Trump conservatives, and, rather stupidly, tried to overlook Williamson's "hang 'em high" line.

  • Rhywun||

    He's a slightly more literate and male version of Anne Coulter, AFAICT.

  • John||

    I wouldn't even say that. Coulter can be really funny. Williamson is never funny. He is a humorless and even nastier version of Coulter.

  • MarkLastname||

    The fact that you defend Coulter while bitching about Williamson kind of gives away the fact that you really hate him because of his apostasy regarding your beloved president.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    What?! Ann Coulter wrote a bunch of best-selling books. Williamson is a professional blogger.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Have you read Coulter's books? You don't have to agree with her, but she is very well researched, and quite literate.

  • JeremyR||

    No, they don't think the women are guilty, they think the doctors performing the abortion itself are guilty.

  • Tony||

    I was just having this conversation with John. Fuck. How can the only possible logical conclusion of the belief that abortion should be illegal be outside the Overton window? If abortion is baby murder, you have to charge aborters with first-degree baby murder. By keeping this only possible logical conclusion out of the conversion, the abortion freaks get away with their bullshit.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Yet when they knock up their mistress those anti-choice GOP assholes are the first ones to drive her to the abortion clinic.

  • Tony||

    The GOP's longtime slogan isn't "Hypocritin' for Jesus" for nothing.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Sp when you and PB get together, which one is the sloppy bottom?

  • MarkLastname||

    Making stuff up is easier than arguing it seems.

  • SQRLSY One||

    "If abortion is baby murder, you have to charge aborters with first-degree baby murder."

    No, Tony, man, you blew your abortion analogy! Abortion is like this:
    You're drunk off of your bleeding ass, driving down the road and shit, minding your own business and shit. Maybe you shouldn't have dropped that acid, either, but the cops haven't caught you, and, innocent till proven guilty, right? So you keep on driving… Your drunken ass is bleeding and shit, by the way, 'cause you've got some wicked hemorrhoids, and shit!
    Then some space aliens swoop in on your car, and abduct you, and shit. They start anally probing you. For some strange reason, the little green men have a conscience attack, they start worrying about fucking up your health, and shit, what with your giant bleeding hemorrhoids. So they cease and desist, yank their probes out of your ass, and probe your nose instead, and shit. They don't even bother to clean the bloody shit off of the probes, and shit!
    But then a mucus vampire circles around you and swoops in like a vulture!

  • SQRLSY One||

    See, a mucus vampire, well, they've got some sort of magical nose for this kind of thing, and somehow he catches on to what's going down, and he wants to suck your mucus, and shit. So he shows up, to get in on the action.
    But when the mucus vampire sees all your blood and shit mixed up with your mucus and shit, he gets all disgusted and shit. The blood, he can handle… Some of his best friends are blood vampires. He's a tolerant and broad-minded vampire, and shit, you know. But REAL shit, in his mucus??! Now THAT is TOO MUCH shit, and shit!
    So he says, "Dudes, getting blood and shit into your mucus and shit, that's like getting chocolate into your peanut butter and jelly and shit! That's like getting your stupid and your evil all mixed up into your philosophy! This is some seriously fucked up bloody-snot shit! I'm outta here!" And the mucus vampire is SOOO sickened, he barfs all over you! Then he wraps his cloak around him like Batman folding up his bat-wings around himself, turns into a bat-shit crazy bat, and shit, and flies away, all disgusted.
    The little green men, being kinda autistic, take everything literally. They are also HORNY little green men, already excited by anally and nasally probing you, and, upon hearing the mucus vampire talking about "…seriously fucked up bloody-snot shit…", get all carried away, and shoot their little-green-men jism all over your bloody-snot shit!

  • SQRLSY One||

    Now if we sit back and think about this, your shit bacteria get all fucked up, 'cause they were expecting a decent burial in your toilet, and they don't get one. Your nasal bacteria and viruses were expecting to LIVE, or, at least, a traditional, honorable drying-out session in your booger rag, and they don't get that, either. Your little green men sperm cells get REALLY screwed over, 'cause they were expecting at least SOME long odds (but a real fighting chance) at some little green woman's egg cell. Your red blood cells don't matter, 'cause they have no cell nucleus, let alone a nervous system, or any kind of independent life. Your white blood cells? Well, yes, they have a nucleus, and their own genes. But they're WHITE, dammit! You cracker muthafuckers!!! WHITE means you're a RACIST, and WHO CARES about the rights of racist honkeys?!?!
    Ergo, we must conclude, this whole thing is an abortion all around! Since abortions are, by definition, abortions, they need to be outlawed!

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    You are one of my favorite posters to read. Which is not to say one of my favorite posters, but there is a joy to reading your posts.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Thanks & shit, BUCS and shit!!!

    -SQRLSY One and shit

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    And may all your flutes be legal.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    So,e advice: when anyone gives you shot, just say "no BUCS, no Buck Rogers". Doesn't matter what you're talking about, and context is irrelevant. If they argue back, add an expletive and a couple of exclamation points.

  • Tony||

    I'm not sure I follow the analogy completely.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Go bring some diamonds to Lucy in the Sky, and mayhap you will understand, my friend!

  • SQRLSY One||

    Try this, and shit... It's the best I can do, and shit...

    http://www.churchofsqrls.com/ ...

  • Vaelyn||

    Whatever happened to Agile Cyborg, anyway?

  • Joe_JP||

    It almost is like the fact strong pro-lifers so rarely actually say that suggests there position is less strict than their own rhetoric seems to require.

    WHEN abortion was largely illegal -- with exceptions -- women nearly never were actually arrested. They sometimes were pressured to testify, but it is hard to find [over the years, reading a lot on this subject, I saw mention of a few -- things are different to some degree overseas] examples of women who performed them arrested. Sarah Weddington said just that during oral argument -- Texas had a strict law but it wasn't a crime for the woman. This doesn't mean abortion was legal. It meant the women themselves should not be arrested.

    And, even if you do arrest them, that is quite different than saying they should be executed. I really question the outrage here would be quite the same if he said he would criminalize abortion and penalize women as aiders and abettors with some limited sentence. There are also potentially prudential reasons to not prosecute women here.

  • Joe_JP||

    " performed them" should be "have them performed"

  • Tony||

    Obviously my issue is with the emotional appeal of the rhetoric "abortion is the murder of babies." They can't believe that's literally true for the reasons I've given. And if it's not literally true, it means abortion is a perhaps deplorable act for some reason that isn't "because it's murder." But then I'd have to wonder what that reason is. Are we calling fetuses half-people? No, they don't even want to half-punish women for half-murder. They want to let them get away with it. And the reason is because they want to still have some people on their side, and they don't want them thinking about it too much.

    The fact is this is and always has been about policing women's sex lives so that the Church gets as many little Churchlings pumped out as possible. But they can't say that either because it would violate the constitution.

  • Kivlor||

    I'd actually argue that the reason for it is the natural inclination to go easy on women that seems to pervade all of society.

  • Nardz||

    Abortion is homicide.
    Not all homicides are murder.
    There is a legal distinction that seems to have completely passed you by.
    The pro-life position may be considered hypocritical if one doesn't support a charge of first degree murder for the practitioner or patient, but not necessarily.

    I'm pro-abortion, yet acknowledge that it's homicide.

    But let's reverse the charge of hypocrisy. Do you believe in welfare? Universal healthcare? Non-discrimination laws?
    If so, why?
    Because the arguments for those positions are almost entirely inconsistent with the pro-abortion position.

    Either you value human life in absolute terms, or relatively. If you value it absolutely, abortion must be considered a crime. If you value it relatively, the basis for the social policies cited above disintegrates.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    The only justification for any of Tony's policies is that he wants it.

  • Tony||

    It's homicide, the killing of a human being, only because you've chosen to define your terms that way. I might say it's not the killing of a human being because something doesn't become human until the third trimester of gestation in another human. It's all just words.

    I honestly have no idea what your logic is on social welfare. Like, if people are aborted they can't pay taxes?

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    So you've just stated that the definition of being human is whatever is convenient for you. Can I play? I can say that someone convicted of a capital crime is no longer human and therefore can be put to death. It's all just words after all.

  • Tony||

    More of life than you think is all just words.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    So you now admit that your entire philosophy is not self-consistent and is just moral relativism. See, isn't freely expressing your ideas great?

  • Tony||

    It's based on exactly the same premise yours is: what maximizes human well-being best?

    You just define human well-being in a stupidly limited way.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    So you think killing people maximizes their well-being? I guess you are living up to your progressive ideals. Well done!

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    So you think killing people maximizes their well being? I guess you are living up to your progressive ideals. Well done!

  • Tony||

    Begging the question again.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    No, your lack of response begged the question.

  • Tony||

    If you are pro-abortion you don't think abortion is the killing of people.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    And we're back to the moral relativism. Don't you ever get dizzy?

  • Tony||

    No we're back to semantics.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    No, we're back to convenience.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Tony, you lack any scientific knowledge. Learn to obey.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Readers will observe that an ordure-flinging contest between a Soviet Socialist and a National Socialist is described as a "conversation" on a libertarian website so heavily overrun with both that the smell of skunk has driven others away. Every libertarian vote ever cast was a vote to NOT let mystical bigots point guns at women or doctors because women and doctors are individuals exercising individual rights: the moral claim to freedom of action. Even the Supreme Court justices got that right, and Canada's Parliament is enforcing it to the hilt.
    Ask yourself if the masked sockpuppets infiltrating here to overturn that would hesitate to attack Canada? Robert Dear knew attacking the clinic was wrong, yet killed a cop trying. Canada has nuclear weapons, by the way.

  • Johnny B||

    The Atlantic hired Williamson because of his never-Trump views. Same reason that NYT hired Brett Stephenson. They might have looked at his replies to commenters at the NR. He was basically telling people who disagreed with him that they were stupid (he might have been right, but that is besides the point). That convinced me that he is a thin-skinned jerk. So I won't shed any tears on his behalf because the Atlantic's writers are thin-skinned jerks themselves.

  • Sebastian Cremmington||

    NRO comments were shut down because the commenters were so awful. The commenters were given the power to moderate and they would ban anyone that had a slightly different opinion than their "hive mind".

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    And the reader outcry against him (and his rightish heterodox kinfolk at The New York Times) is a sign of a market that has grown increasingly squeamish about a genuinely inclusive journalistic vision.

    Then why are we even still discussing this? The market has spoken. News consumers don't want to be confronted; they want to be comforted. Comfort me, Reason.

  • Nige||

    They were confronted. It was the other side who backed down. Because they sucked. Now they need comfort because they lost and their ideas suck.

  • JeremyR||

    Let me just point out that he almost certainly meant it toward the doctor performing the abortion, not the woman who chose to have one, who almost all anti-abortion people consider to be a victim.

  • Kodachrome||

    He was talking explicitly about women who had had abortions. Not that there's any moral difference between executing doctors who perform abortion and executing women who get one, apart from in the numbers involved.

  • ||

    Of course, the Twitter interaction is gone now, but he claimed that abortions should be treated like homicides, someone asked if he meant treating abortive pregnant women as felons and punishing them to the full extent of the law, to which he replied with a punishment arguably beyond the full extent of the law.

    Honestly, I agree that it's a part of conservatism that exists, I have considerable difficulty with identifying it as mainstream.

  • Kodachrome||

    If a Black columnist repeatedly advocated murdering roughly 1/3 of all White people, would they get hired? Would you write a defense of them on the grounds of "ideological diversity"?

  • John||

    That is a good point. If a black writer for National Review had written the things about the white working class that Williamson did, would he have kept his job? I seriously doubt it. Williamson likely runs in the same circles as KMW. He is a respectable white person of the right class and thus should get a pass here when those who are not don't.

  • Bubba Jones||

    You found his writing disrespectful of the white working class?

    We must have been reading different things.

  • John||

    He wrote an entire article saying the white working class were parasites whose communities deserved to die and were likely so degraded that no political party should accept their support.

  • Tony||

    So like you people talk about black working class communities all the time.

  • John||

    I never say anything like that. Go fuck yourself Tony. You and shreek are the only racists who post on here.

  • Sebastian Cremmington||

    Isn't that why the Atlantic hired him?

  • MarkLastname||

    No he didn't, but whatever.

  • Trumptard||

    What did he say wrong about the white working class? That they should move like their ancestors did to find new work, and not wait for government to fix their problems? What is there to disagree with here?

  • John||

    Yes, it is their job to lose their livelihoods and be poor so his fat ass could enjoy his cheap consumer goods from China. It is one thing to say one group's economic interests should not win the day. But that is not what Williamson did. What he did was to say that 1/5 or more of the country's economic interests are morally illegitimate such that they have no right to any representation or any say in their own government. This from a guy who has never worked a real job in his life. Fat lazy fuck.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    That is not what he said.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    What he said was just another iteration of "move to the city and learn to code" that we constantly hear from the same urbanite bugmen who loudly brag about their own rootlessness when they're not drowning their social dislocation in alcohol and anti-depressants.

  • MoeLarryAndJesus||

    If "real mainstream conservatism" now wants millions of women to be hanged for having abortions, it is no more mainstream than some lunatic screaming on the sidewalk about killing homosexuals.

  • Longtobefree||

    Being a homosexual does not stop a beating heart, abortion does.

  • Nige||

    Tell that to a gay person who just met their true love.

  • ThomasD||

    What about tomorrow night when they meet their next true love?

  • Elias Fakaname||

    In the restroom stall at the bus station, or in the lark after dark?

  • Nige||

    Try Tinder, dude, you can hook up in a nice bar or restaurant.

  • Nige||

    Are you nursing a grudge against someone? Ouch. See? Heart broken, here.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Jeffrey Goldberg is a craven coward. That is all.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Williamson to be outside the Overton window of acceptable political discourse

    All I can say is the "Overton Window" is really more the Overton Porthole... and I might even say the "Overton Peephole" any more.

  • LynchPin1477||

    He didn't have to detail the grisly form of punishment

    I wouldn't call what he said detailed or particularly grisly.

  • buybuydandavis||

    I eagerly look forward to the upcoming Reason article supporting hanging for illegal aliens.

  • John||

    Reason never said a word when NR fired John Derbyshire. I don't see how his views are any less offensive than Williamson's.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    Derb wasn't an NR employee. Also I learned recently that he was scheduled to speak at American Renaissance when he published the Taki's Mag article.

  • John||

    Thanks. I always thought he was.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    NR published him regularly and he wrote for the group blog, but he technically was never on staff.

  • Tony||

    Forgive the old reference, but I just rewatched this series.

    When President Roslin capitulated to outlawing abortion in the fleet in order to help ensure the survival of the human species, was this actually a wise move? Babies use resources without contributing much labor, and they decrease their parents' ability to do labor, so shouldn't they have waited until they settled down somewhere with abundant resources? At which point, of course, the question would be moot, since there would be more than enough people to keep the species going.

    Or was the move strictly political to prevent the Gemenons from stirring more shit up?

  • Elias Fakaname||

    I don't know but it would have been a good move to shoot you out an airlock.

  • UVaGrad||

    But the underlying logic of Williamson's position is a view shared by roughly half or at least 40 percent of Americans.

    But he didn't lose his job for thinking that abortion should be illegal. He lost his job for saying that women who get abortions should be hanged.

    Whatever the merits of firing Williamson may be, this effort to make "they should be hanged" look like perfectly mainstream thoughts about the legality of abortion only serves to make pro-life folks look like extremists.

  • Just Say'n||

    Keep telling yourself that it was the one flippant remark that got him fired and not just an excuse for the Atlantic. All you have to do is pretend like this isn't the exact same campaign that tried to get Bret Stephens and Bari Weiss fired from the NYT.

    This "both sides" crap is ringing more hollow every day. It's one god damn side

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    It's not always about you, Katherine

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    Reason staffers are all libertarian, under a big-tent understanding of that term

    LOL

    But if The Atlantic purports to capture a broad spectrum of American political views, Williamson's firing is a sign that it hasn't yet figured out how to do so

    Since when did The Atlantic "purport to capture a broad spectrum of American political views" rather than establishment WASP, and now Jewish, Acela corridor views?

    The Atlantic publishes lots of interesting heterodox voices

    You deserved to be hanged for those hyperlinks.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "The Atlantic is essentially declaring that it cannot stomach real, mainstream conservatism as it actually exists in 21st century America."

    Hanging women for abortion is not mainstream conservatism
    For that matter, punishing them *in any way* for abortion is not mainstream conservatism

    And that's the whole point of hiring Williamson - to discredit conservatism with a fringe, bomb throwing conservative as the token conservative
    He was someone for their readers to point and jeer at

  • Hank Phillips||

    Well... Reason has a pet papist who wants service pistols pointed at doctors. Reason even pays Nick do the same as Williamson. When commies decide to debate Reason, guess who they want on the opposing team?

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Ah, Hank.! Our resident infanticide enthusiast!

  • MaxSvenson||

    "Editor Jeffrey Goldberg says he decided to fire Williamson only after learning that the tweet and podcast quote 'represented his carefully considered views.' But the underlying logic of Williamson's position is a view shared by roughly half or at least 40 percent of Americans."

    The polls do not say 1/2 or 40% of anti-abortion people support hanging as the punishment for a woman who seeks an abortion. So this is an extremely disingenuous argument.

    In fact, most republican politicians will say the doctor should be punished, not the woman having the abortion.

    This piece is a big fat fail.

  • Tony||

    Because they don't care enough about baby lives to say the politically incorrect thing? How sincere are these people really?

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    If you oppose the death penalty for criminals and want to protect the weak, why are you in favor of killing them before they travel down the birth canal?

    How sincere are you, Tony?

  • Tony||

    Because I don't think government should force women to push large things through their hoohas against their will doesn't mean you get to beg the question.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Can the government force them to care for infants after they are born?

    This should be fun.

  • Tony||

    They become responsible for the life of their offspring sometime during pregnancy. Just not at the beginning of it, for practical and moral reasons.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Now, now. You're starting to veer off the plantation, Tony. When do they become responsible? You claimed that the government can't force them to give birth and now you claim that the become responsible "sometime during pregnancy." Now I may just be a hick with lotsa letters after his name, but I'm pretty sure that pregnancy ends only after that large object goes through the "hooha." (c-section excepted)

  • Tony||

    I'm not arguing for legal abortion up to birth. Nobody is, at least in this country.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Your progressives are. Your candidate did:

    Q: What about the issue of late-term, partial-birth abortions?

    CLINTON: Roe v. Wade very clearly sets out that there can be regulations on abortion so long as the life and the health of the mother are taken into account. The kinds of cases that fall at the end of pregnancy are often the most heartbreaking, painful decisions for families to make. I have met with women who toward the end of their pregnancy get the worst news one could get: that their health is in jeopardy if they continue to carry to term or that something terrible has just been discovered about the pregnancy. I do not think the United States government should be stepping in and making those most personal of decisions. So you can regulate if you are doing so with the life and the health of the mother taken into account.

    Keep freely expressing yourself, Tony.

  • Tony||

    That is a conservative pro-choice position. Can't you read? Life and health are exceptions, which I thought was assumed in this discussion. My mistake, you're just trying to hope I trip up in my words, even as you know that my position is logical and morally tenable. Because lots of things are just words after all.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Clearly you cannot read, Tony. Where is the limit in that statement? The only limit that Hillary recognized was for the "life and health" of the mother. I know you're frustrated that your position is so easily shown to be inconsistent, but have a little bit of honesty and just admit it.

  • Tony||

    She's endorsing not the part of Roe that forbids banning abortion but the part that permits restricting it. "Life and health" is the bare minimum for pro-choicers and acceptable to most pro-lifers.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    I do not think the United States government should be stepping in and making those most personal of decisions.
    Q: You've been quoted as saying that the fetus has no constitutional rights. You also voted against a ban on late-term, partial-birth abortions. Why?

    A: Because Roe v. Wade very clearly sets out that there can be regulations on abortion so long as the life and the health of the mother are taken into account. And when I voted as a senator, I did not think that that was the case.

    Ouch, that's gonna hurt.

  • Tony||

    She's saying that she voted against it because it didn't protect life and health. Are you doing this on purpose? For future reference, I have Google and eyes.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Unfortunately you don't have a brain. Where is she advocating for the welfare of the fetus? She voted against a late term ban.

    Clinton, Sept. 20: I think that the kind of late-term abortions that take place are because of medical necessity. And, therefore, I would hate to see the government interfering with that decision.

    A spokesman for Clinton's campaign told us that she meant that many late-term abortions — not all or even most — are because of medical reasons. But that's not what she said. Her statement left the impression that the majority, if not all, late-term abortions are medically necessary. The available evidence does not support that assertion.

    Poor Tony.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Tony, observe that this other masquerador does not speak of the LP platform with or without cojones. Can't you guys fake wrestle over at the Atlantic comments section?

  • Eidde||

    Peter Singer in his own words:

    "You have been quoted as saying: "Killing a defective infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Sometimes it is not wrong at all." Is that quote accurate?

    "It is accurate, but can be misleading if read without an understanding of what I mean by the term "person" (which is discussed in Practical Ethics, from which that quotation is taken). I use the term "person" to refer to a being who is capable of anticipating the future, of having wants and desires for the future. As I have already said when comparing the death of a normal human to that of a mouse, there are reasons why it is generally a greater wrong to kill such a being than it is to kill a being that has no sense of existing over time. Newborn human babies have no sense of their own existence over time. Bentham pointed out that infanticide does not make anyone fearful that they will be killed, because by the time one learns of it, one is no longer an infant. So killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person. That doesn't mean that it is not almost always a terrible thing to do. It is, but that is because most infants are loved and cherished by their parents, and to kill an infant is usually to do a great wrong to its parents.

  • Eidde||

    "Sometimes, perhaps because the baby has a serious disability, parents think it better that their newborn infant should die. Many doctors will accept their wishes, to the extent of not giving the baby life-supporting medical treatment. That will often ensure that the baby dies. My view is different from this, only to the extent that if a decision is taken, by the parents and doctors, that it is better that a baby should die, I believe it should be possible to carry out that decision, not only by withholding or withdrawing life-support – which can lead to the baby dying slowly from dehydration or from an infection - but also by taking active steps to end the baby's life swiftly and humanely."

  • Tony||

    That's exactly the sort of logical consistency I'm asking of pro-lifers!

  • Eidde||

    You said nobody in this country was arguing for abortion up to birth. In fact there are people arguing for it *after* birth.

  • Tony||

    Fine, nobody who's going to be elected to a policymaking position.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    That statement came from Hillary. Good that you finally admit that she wasn't elected. We won't hear about that ever again, right?

  • Tony||

    I think you really do think Clinton is saying the opposite of what she's saying. Get your quotes and interpretations from some trash rightwing bullshit website or what?

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Didn't follow the link, Tony? It was actually On the Issues.

    Funny how you haven't provided any support for your position. At this point I'm starting to wonder if English is your native tongue.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Newspeak IS English! The INGSOC accent makes it quaint.

  • Tony||

    I'm interpreting her words for you, and you can look up the context yourself if you like. She's responding in her usual Clintonian way of making sure she assures the unwashed rubes that she's not the fire-breathing babykiller she might be thought as a New York senator voting against the partial birth abortion bill. It just didn't pass constitutional muster, oh well!

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Physician, heal thyself!

  • Hank Phillips||

    Doesn't Tony calling doctor-killers pro-life seem a bit ungrammatical? That 1976 ku-klux reaction to the LP-driven Roe v. Wade decision searched in Atlas Shrugged, found Anti-Life and figgered it must be what the Rooshian author wuz advocating. Pro-lifers want potheads put to death too.

  • MarkLastname||

    Haha, that's precisely what the progressive mainstream argues for. God you're dense.

  • colorblindkid||

    How is his argument about the logical conclusion to the pro-life argument any different than animal rights people? If killing an animal is murder, if animals have the same rights as people, shouldn't we execute anybody who kills any animal? Should we execute every hunter? Every rancher?

    The logic is exactly the same. The arguments are exactly the same. Go look at op-eds and comment sections anext time there's a story about a trophy hunter killing something or a dog dying from being left in a hot car. You will find plenty of calls for executions and torture. Go talk to animal testing opponents who consider testing mice to be murder, yet think crushing the skull of a fetus (which is larger than a mouse) is totally fair game.

  • ThomasD||

    That's different because shut up.

  • Nige||

    When oh when will all these media outlets stop giving platforms to animal rights activists who think killing an animal is actual murder?

  • Hank Phillips||

    Where can I find that "mission as a magazine" written down?

  • Sebastian Cremmington||

    Being pro-choice is an indefensible position but because I have been part of several miscarriages abortion is not something I vote on. Honestly if two people can't figure out how to use birth control in 2018 then they probably shouldn't be passing on their genes.

  • Eidde||

    I somehow knew before I searched that there would be an online article about some of the famous bastards of history.

    Which of them would you have killed, assuming (which is plausible) that their parents were being a tad careless about birth control (or would have used it if it existed)?

  • Hank Phillips||

    Three facts evaded above:
    1. The 14th Amendment begins with "All persons born..." ku-klux objections notwithstanding.
    2. The 1972 LP plank read: "We further support the repeal of all laws restricting voluntary birth control or voluntary termination of pregnancies during their first hundred days."
    3. Roe v. Wade decision some 45 days after the votes counted states: "(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician. …"
    Not one of these overarching legal facts was mentioned. Ethically each woman is an individual and cannot be coerced into involuntary labor or servitude, especially to please mentally-damaged believers in invisible ghosts. Canada has criminal laws backed by service pistols against pointing a gun at a doctor. All coercive mystics are anti-life but their mental illness is fast becoming extinct: https://preview.tinyurl.com/y8xzttkr

  • Eidde||

    "Amendment XIV

    "Section 1.

    "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

    I'm not claiming that unborn human beings are citizens of the United States - they don't have to be in order to enjoy the rights of personhood, such, as, say equal protection of the laws and due process of law.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Here we have the mystical sockpuppet correcting the supreme court after the fact. This began with the Prohibition Party platform of 1976, and every mohammedan-style sharia party has since demanded a coathanger abortion amendment just as the other socialists demand repeal of the Second Amendment and enactment of Krystallnacht gun laws. And in fact, the jurisprudence--law courts to your Dixiecrats--has ruled pregnant women individuals, rights and all. You can always move to Brazil or Turkey.

  • Eidde||

    Funny you mentioned Dixiecrats, since down in Dixie the powers that be sure loved the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision.

  • Hank Phillips||

    The Dred Scott decision exactly interpreted the 1852 Constitution, but the informing verbiage was vacated by the 13th and 14th Amendments. After the LP got that electoral vote, the 14th Amendment could no longer be ignored--not even in George Wallace territory.

  • Tony||

    Roger Taney was a strong Jacksonian Democrat and supporter of individual liberty against government power, especially the individual liberty to own slaves.

  • Sebastian Cremmington||

    One of Lincoln's top advisers was also Jackson's top adviser. Lincoln and Jackson had essentially the same position on slavery.

  • Rocker1||

    The unborn have a problem; they have to have a woman to physiologically support their little selves or they will die. When one is dependent on a "machine", the risk are great that the machine will stop working (for whatever reason). So stop equating the unborn as equal to women, they are not. The woman's already born rights are in play and take presidence over the unborn.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Evaded above:
    1. The 14th Amendment begins: "All persons born..."
    2. The 1972 LP platform stated: "We further support the repeal of all laws restricting voluntary birth control or voluntary termination of pregnancies during their first hundred days."
    3. On Jan 22 1973, Roe v. Wade began with: "(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician. …" This is the same thing the LP platform said, reworded slightly. Canadians soon repealed all laws coercing pregnant woman and physician choices, and anyone pointing a gun at a doctor is arrested like Robert Dear. The superstition that spawns such anti-life intent when another million are added to the population every three days is happily dying out. https://preview.tinyurl.com/y8xzttkr

  • Eidde||

    An adult citizen of Zaire or France is a person, albeit not a citizen of the U. S. So let's say that an unborn human is a noncitizen person, like the Zairean or French person.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Robert Dear is certain to agree with whatever conclusion of this sockpuppet that says it is cool to shoot at doctors. Plus there are hundreds of mystical websites with believers in Rapture and Resurrection parroting to each other 24/7. Yet none of them bother to learn resurrection and increase the population to 15 or 20 billion starving beggars voluntarily. It's always got to be with somebody else pointing a gun per their glossolalia and Revelation.

  • Eidde||

    Robert Dear murdered a human being. Surprisingly, mainstream prolifers don't regard Robert Dear as prolife.

    The Malthusian panic of the 1970s, when Roe was decided, has abated somewhat.

    There are more people today, and there are still plenty of poor people, but as Reason has documented, poverty has remarkably lessened in the world, not thanks to the Roe justices, but thanks to Science.

  • Philyo||

    KMW,

    You've got it wrong. Atlantic got it right. Atlantic does have control over it's editorial policies and Kevin Williamson is beyond the pale. What they did was say we don't accommodate hateful incendiary speech. It doesn't matter if it comes from the left or the right. Diverse views can be covered in many ways. But not everything can or should be supported or published under the guise of "diversity". There is a line for things hateful and incendiary.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Haven't read much Ta-Nehisi Coates, have you?

  • MarkLastname||

    Hatred of white people and shameless support for political violence against innocent people is perfectly within the leftist Overton window, donchaknow?

  • Nige||

    There's probably a name for the sort of window that stretches from Williamson calling for women to be hanged and what Coates does and allows them to be treated as equivalent. The Racist Window? Is that a good name for it, d'ya think?

  • ThomasD||

    It is telling that people characterize Williams' statement as "calling for women to be hanged," as if there was no further distinction made by him.

    It's more telling when people who should know better repeat it.

  • Nige||

    Don't think there are many men in the category of 'people who have had abortions.'
    'People who have exercised individual freedom and control over their bodily autonomy' wouldn't do it because libertarians clearly believe that category should not include women.

  • ThomasD||

    Whatever lies you tell yourself, I hope they help. But don't think for a minute I believe that you truly equate 'calling for women to be hanged' with 'calling for people who have had an abortion' to be hanged.'

    You know what you were doing.

  • Nige||

    Certainly, the specific motivation behind his calls for a brutal murderous tyranical purge of women are not irrelevant.

  • Mark22||

    What they did was say we don't accommodate hateful incendiary speech.

    You must be kidding.

  • livelikearefugee||

    Williamson's personal story is that he was adopted as an infant. His birthmother was talked out of having an abortion and putting the baby up for adoption.

    I'm just marginally pro-choice but, yeah, I can see how Williamson could be a bit touchy on the subject.

  • DajjaI||

    Wow I'm pretty shocked by this but this is the first article on abortion I remember seeing here (I've been haunting these pages for a few years now) and now I understand why.

  • SIV||

    I hope National Review doesn't give Kevin Williamson his job back. CNN should hire him and Eichenwald for a Crossfire reboot.

  • SIV||

    Reason could hire Williamson! That's just what this website needs,a "libertarian" NeverTrump voice.

  • SIV||

    The Atlantic publishes lots of interesting heterodox voices

    Lol!

    Friedersdorf and Frum.

    Troll me harder, baby!

  • Dick Puller, Attorney at Law||

    On the one hand, it was pretty shitty of the Atlantic to can Williamson.

    On the other hand, Williamson is an asshole. Fuck him.

  • DavidS-T||

    "But the underlying logic of Williamson's position is a view shared by roughly half or at least 40 percent of Americans." Note the weasel words "underlying logic" which might lead a casual reader to think that 40 or 50 percent of Americans agree with WIlliamson. Sorry, the polls you cite do *not* ask whether women who have had abortions should be hanged. And no mainstream pro-life organization has advocated it. You may say pro-lifers *should* agree with Williamson's position, that it is the "logical consequence" of the pro-life position, etc.; but the fact is that most of them do not agree with it, and until they do, it is ridiculous to say that Williamson's firing means that "real" conservatives are not tolerated by the Atlantic. (It may indeed be true that they aren't; but the firing of someone who advocates hanging women who have had an abortion doesn't *prove* it.)

  • DajjaI||

    I wonder if Williamson sees A Handmaid's Tale as dystopian or utopian.

  • Vernon Depner||

    That would, of course, depend on who he gets to be in that world.

  • Mark22||

    He's hoping to be the handmaid.

  • ||

    Saying that those who disagree with you and seek to act in their conscience deserve to be killed is a serious matter. Deciding that sort of ugliness are beyond the pale is not unreasonable. Kevin Williamson has much to reflect on, right now.❤️

  • ThomasD||

    John Brown called and left you a message.

  • ||

    Yeah, he did hate folks who hated liberty, didn't he? He might have murdered Kevin Williamson.

    And it is exactly those ugly, murderous ways that made him no hero of mine.

    I wouldn't hire him, either.

    Even as if fight to the death for his right to speak his mind.❤️

  • ||

    Yeah, he did hate folks who hated liberty, didn't he? He might have murdered Kevin Williamson.

    And it is exactly those ugly, murderous ways that made him no hero of mine.

    I wouldn't hire him, either.

    Even as I would fight to the death for his right to speak his mind.❤️

  • ||

    I should say that if Kevin Williamson was joking, as I've seen argued, then this was a terrible decision. And the likelihood of that being the case after I read that gave me much pause. And should give me pause, no matter what his intent was.

    In all likelihood, I would have just talked with him to get a sense of his intent. And the truth is if I knew Kevin, personally, I probably wouldn't have fired him even if he was serious. My instincts are to discuss and argue such matters.

    But I also think it's reasonable, if he was serious, for for people to decide killing people you disagree with for exercising their consciences on matters of abortion is beyond the pale. And very much clarified the stakes in this debate. Something I'm not sure Kevin intended, but I very much appreciate him doing.

    If Kevin Williamson seriously thinks people who disagree with him about abortion and have one should be killed, he has some serious reflection to do about why folks would believe that beyond the pale. Because it very much is. Clarifying that fact may be one of the most valuable things this whole debate has offered.❤️

  • ||

    Saying that those who disagree with you and seek to act on their conscience deserve to be killed is a serious matter. Deciding that sort of ugliness is beyond the pale is not unreasonable. Kevin Williamson has much to reflect on, right now.❤️

  • Mickey Rat||

    What a well tossed word salad!

  • ace_m82||

    If justice is repayment, then "an eye for an eye" (or a dollar for a dollar, or a life for a life) is legitimate.

    If the little one is a living, full, non-brain dead human with rights, and you kill it, then you've taken a life.

    Then, just in the case of justice, killing a murderer is reasonable.

    The problem is proving it beyond a reasonable doubt, which is likely near impossible.

    If anyone has a different concept of what justice is, then give it to me.

    Also, if government is incompetent to define "murder", then what's the use of government anyway?

  • ace_m82||

    "Authoritarian right-winger REJECTS the moral foundation of equal, unalienable and/or God-Given Rights ... thus rejects the core of individual liberty."

    You just called an An-Cap "Authoritarian". You don't do words good. Second, "rights" (the one right to do all but initiate force) cannot come into conflict, definitionally.

    "1) Check the definition of unalienable
    2) Read the Declaration of Inedpendence
    3) Were Jefferson and the Founders illiterate?"

    I don't care what they said. The author of that was a (well-known) hypocrite. Man is often incorrect.

    "Should governments be allowed..."

    No. Governments are twice initiations of force, once when they tax, and again when they attempt to enforce a monopoly on force.

    "Do you even KNOW 200 years of judicial precedent, on conflicting rights?"

    Stare decisis is evil. Tell me more about Dred Scott, Korematsu, Plessy v Ferguson, Wockard v Filburn, et al!

    Hihn's history of defending literal Nazis:

    www.reason.com/blog/2018/01/17.....nt_7100385

    "Don't like it? EMIGRATE."

    "See .. government DEFENDS rights."

    www.reason.com/blog/2018/02/21.....nt_7150853

    As the Nazis were elected in 1933, they didn't violate rights. Also, the Jews were free to leave!

    Me: Were the Jews in Germany in the 1940s free to leave?
    Hihn: ANOTHER MASSIVE FUCKUP!!! Of course they could,,.,.and many did. YOU THINK HITLER WANTED THEM TO STAY!!

  • Lester224||

    A fetus is pretty "brain-dead" up to 25 weeks, when you first get some EEG activity. Not that I'm advocating we move the present 24 week limit up to 25..

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Of course they can handle real intellectual diversity. Firing him was "handling" it.

    Handle it? They've got it down for the count. It doesn't stand a chance against them.

  • Mark22||

    Well, looks like libertarianism managed to cling to life just a tad longer than Williamson clung to the Atlantic.

  • Mark22||

    No, what died was the libertarian party, because it was run by idiots like you.

  • Vernon Depner||

    Williamson's rhetoric has the value of pointing out the dishonesty of pro-lifers. The peaceful and moderate nature of nearly all anti-abortion rhetoric and activism clearly shows that they don't believe what they say, and are well aware of the difference between a fetus and a baby, and between abortion and murder. If the pro-lifers truly came to believe that abortion was the murder of babies, hoards of them would descend on all the abortion clinics immediately and destroy them. At the very least, their peacefulness is a confession of moral cowardice.

  • colorblindkid||

    Every single one of those arguments also applied to animal rights people and environmentalists who want animals to have the same rights as people. Identical logic.

  • Lester224||

    Of course. They are just as wrong. However, cows do have a lot more cognitive function than pre-viability fetuses.

  • ThomasD||

    Williamson's statement on abortion is akin to what Steven's recently said about repealing the Second Amendment - it makes explicit what was once implicit.

    You'd think the 'smart set' at the Atlantic could have taken on a middling mind like Williamson and ran with it. I suspect that's what Goldberg originally intended. Only changing his mind when he realized the payout was long odds getting longer.

  • Vernon Depner||

    No, that's apples and oranges. What Stevens said was what gun control advocates really believe but are rarely honest enough to say out loud. Very few pro-lifers would agree with Williamson, and are actually much more moderate than their rhetoric.

  • ThomasD||

    Very few pro-lifers believe that abortion is the taking of an innocent human life?

    Now I will grant that, like the gun banners, many only go so far as to think 'we'll just pass a law against it, and that will be the end of the problem' not considering what will inevitably follow.

    Williamson went there. But whether explciit or implicit, we would all go there by necessity.

  • Mark22||

    Very few pro-lifers believe that abortion is the taking of an innocent human life?

    Where does it follow that "the taking of an innocent human life" is punishable by death in each and every case?

    Obama took lots of innocent human lives and wasn't punished by death.

    The simple fact is that there are many forms of killing of another human being that are not punishable by death, or punishable at all. The US Constitution only protects a limited subset of human beings, and that's OK.

  • ThomasD||

    "Where does it follow that "the taking of an innocent human life" is punishable by death in each and every case?"

    It doesn't.

    But nobody - not even Williamson - says it does. He just says it does in the case of mothers killing their own child (which is rather heinous in that context.)

    More boradly speaking in places where the death penalty gets popular support I tend to think those same supporters would agree with the proposition that murdering a defenseless infant would warrant the ultimate punishment.

    Just don't get caught up thinking that my argument is the normative one.

  • Mark22||

    More boradly speaking in places where the death penalty gets popular support I tend to think those same supporters would agree with the proposition that murdering a defenseless infant would warrant the ultimate punishment.

    An infant, yes. A fetus, probably not.

  • Vernon Depner||

    "Very few pro-lifers believe that abortion is the taking of an innocent human life?"

    Very few pro-lifers would advocate prosecuting women who terminate pregnancies as if they had murdered babies. That's because they know the difference between abortion and murdering a baby, despite their rhetoric. As I said above, their behavior reveals this—the idea of being moderate and compromising about one's opposition to murdering babies is absurd.

  • Azathoth!!||

    That's because they know the difference between abortion and murdering a baby, despite their rhetoric

    No. Their rhetoric tends to never state what Williamson said. They avoid the logical progression of events like the plague.

    Because leftists would ignore the 'have abortions' part of 'women who have abortions should be hanged'--as so many are doing in this thread.

    The fact remains that a person who commits premeditated murder should be punished when caught--and one of the punishments on the table for that particular crime is death. There can be lesser sentences, but there should be a sentence.

    Pro-lifers all know that this is lurking in the back of their stance, they know how it'll be used if it comes out--as with Williamson.

  • ThomasD||

    Not sure exactly how you know this to be the case. Do you have data or is this in the realm of belief?

    Not that that matters, as it still misses the point of my argument entirely.

  • ThomasD||

    My reply was to Vernon.

  • Vernon Depner||

    "Not sure exactly how you know this to be the case."

    I've already explained that twice.

    "it still misses the point of my argument"

    Then I don't know what you're trying to say.

  • NoVaNick||

    I don't know why this self-proclaimed "Libertarian" was hired by The Atlantic in the first place. That said, if it were one of their many prog hack writers who called for the death penalty for climate change deniers or oil company CEOs, they would probably be looking at a promotion.

  • ThomasD||

    He was supposed to be their cat's paw, but his presence proved too much a bother for the powers that be.

  • ||

    The Atlantic are intellectual cowards.

    And they most certainly lean left because they've published pure left-wing junk in the past.

    Calderone. Your definition of 'well-reasoned debate' is vague and horseshit.

    Heck, even pompous.

  • Benitacanova||

    We need to talk about Kevin. He sucks.

  • 1980-f||

    When is reason.com going to hire (a) a card-carrying Nazi and (b) a member of the Democratic Socialists of America? And I've searched in vain on the site for any support for the legalisation of child porn, as some supposedly serious people would like to happen. All views need to be taken on board and disseminated, right?

  • Vernon Depner||

    You put the words "child porn" and "disseminated" uncomfortably close together.

  • Mark22||

    And Nazis are on the right.

    You should know, given that you are one of them.

  • NOVA Lawyer||

    "But the underlying logic of Williamson's pro-life position is a view shared by roughly half or at least 40 percent of Americans."

    Importantly, the "roughly half" link shows a poll where roughly of Americans label themselves as "pro-life", but only 18% believe it should be illegal in all cases. I suspect only a small fraction of that 18% would support the death penalty for abortion in any cases, much less as the norm.

    Similarly, the 40% number reflects the 40% who believe it should be illegal in all or most cases rather than legal in all or most cases. This doesn't really come close to mirroring the "underlying logic" of Williamson's position. Williamson appears to believe that abortion is morally, and should be legally, indistinguishable from murder. That is a fringe position (which her stats underline rather than undercut) that likely isn't even meant to be taken seriously.

    Katherine Mangu-Ward has been dishonest with her readers.

  • Mark22||

    Reason has been a blatant suckup to the far right for a quarter century,

    Since you're our resident fascist, that would mean that they suck up to you. Do they?

  • The Metonymy||

    So, is pre-natal health care and fetal medicine quackery? How about the science of genetics, which can readily identify fetal tissue as human?

    Abortion ultimately is a utilitarian argument, with no real place in libertarian NAP-oriented thought. A woman's body does not treat a fetus as an invasive object as it would a bacterial infection or cancer or something else that doesn't belong in there. In fact, instead of attacking the fetus with antibodies, a woman's body actually caters to the existence and sustenance of the fetus within her.

    Abortion is murder in the same way taxation is theft. No amount of obfuscating semantics is going to stop abortion from being murder, or taxation from being theft.

    So, if abortion is murder, then at the very least, government should not allow the existence of businesses that perform abortions.

  • Vernon Depner||

    If abortion is murder, then at the very least, government should vigorously prosecute anyone involved. That so very few "pro-lifers" call for that is one of the reasons we know they're lying when they say they consider abortion murder.

  • The Metonymy||

    >That so few people vote for libertarian candidates means libertarians are lying?

    Calling pro-lifers names doesn't change the fact that abortion is murder.

  • The Metonymy||

    I'd venture that a pro-lifer is more likely to adopt a "prosecute abortion as murder" stance (in their pursuit of less abortions) than the pro-choice position of pre-natal health care and genetics is bunk if you want them to be.

  • The Metonymy||

    Murder-for-hire is already illegal. The argument really turns on how tall a human has to be to become a murder victim.

  • Lester224||

    How tall? How about whether or not they have the EEG of a brain-dead person or not?

  • Azathoth!!||

    Michael, humans, of whatever sex, don't get to go around killing other humans--even if that human is going to be a temporary inconvenience.

    Particularly if the person who wants to do the killing is the reason why the other needs to be a temporary inconvenience.

  • Lester224||

    A 12 week old fetus has human DNA but is not a person. It is a parasitic fetus with less cognitive function than a frog. Killing it is not murder of a person any more than killing a tadpole is killing a frog. Tadpole not equal to frog. Fetus not equal to baby. Get it? At some point a pre-viability fetus becomes close to a baby in brain function but that point is not at 12 weeks or 16 weeks or pre-implantation like the kooks who want to outlaw IUDs theorize.

    The pro-lifers who want to make it illegal at 16 weeks really just want to punish those irresponsible whores or force others to follow their religion. Otherwise they'd be storming the fertility clinics and crying over the discarded embryos.

  • Azathoth!!||

    And, I guess someone needs to say this to you, Michael.

    "Amendment" is not synonymous with 'right'

  • The Metonymy||

    I want to live where the government is a voluntary association lol.

  • The Metonymy||

    Non sequitur, ad hominem, ad hominem, non sequitur, bifurcation fallacy, ad hominem, ad hominem, non sequitur, appeal to authority, non sequitur, all in that order.

    Michael Hihn, I'm almost positive you have something intelligible to say. Why you chose not to do so is of course your own choice.

  • ace_m82||

    www.reason.com/blog/2018/02/21.....nt_7150853

    Hihn says, as the Nazis were elected in 1933, they didn't violate rights. Also, the Jews were free to leave!

    Me: Were the Jews in Germany in the 1940s free to leave?
    Hihn: ANOTHER MASSIVE FUCKUP!!! Of course they could,,.,.and many did. YOU THINK HITLER WANTED THEM TO STAY!!

  • ace_m82||

  • The Metonymy||

    Wow.

    At least he seems to want to sound intelligent. Perhaps there's hope he'll learn how someday.

  • NOVA Lawyer||

    Metonymy,

    Pre-natal health care, fetal medicine, and the science of genetics don't get you where you think they do.

    Removing a kidney is not murder, but people use medicine to treat their kidneys and the science of genetics readily identifies a human kidney as human tissue. You have to show more than that to prove that an 8-cell blastocyst has or should have the same medical, moral, philosophical, and/or legal standing as normally developed, healthy 20-year old person. And is it really your position that an 8-cell blastocyst is medically, morally and/or philosophically indistinguishable from a 20-year health human?

    Failing to recognize that there are shades of gray in this area is either incredibly obtuse or dishonest. I was going to add a third category for religious belief, but even the honest and intelligent religious believer should be able to recognize that there is more than a little room for debate as to where the line should be drawn (even if they have firm religious convictions that the line should be at conception).

  • The Metonymy||

    You're asking me to participate in a game that I don't want to play. Leave the goalposts where they belong.

    If you want to split hairs on the the difference between killing a human and murdering a human, you're still addressing the ending of human life, and coming up with a dubious Singerian ethic on which humans are okay to kill, and which humans are okay to murder.

    Even your "healthy 20 year old" distinction is problematic. Does this particular human have a greater right to life than a not-so-healthy 20 year old? Say a 20 year old that would die without kidney dialysis? A 20 year old paraplegic that must be spoon or tube fed? A 20 year old with cerebral palsy that requires assisted living? A 20 year old that developed cervical cancer from having so many abortions?

    Gray area? There is no gray area. Either human life is human life, or we need to shut down the pre-natal health care industry as quackery.

  • The Metonymy||

    The only justifiable use of force is in self-defense.

    Show me the pro-abortion adherent that believes destroying fetal human life is self-defense, and I'll show you a fucking kook.

  • Vernon Depner||

    Show me the pro-lifer who can't understand the argument that abortion is self-defense, and I'll show you someone who considers a pregnant women to be inferior to a fetus.

  • Lester224||

    Yay!

  • The Metonymy||

    Legally, the distinction between killing and murder is "malice aforethought."

    I don't think a woman who hires a physician to kill her developing baby can pass that test, hence the effort to dehumanize the human to be killed.

    For every nasty ass Kermit Gosnell in the world, there are millions of women who have had abortions that suffer depression, PTSD, and suicidal tendencies as their own biochemistry condemns them - their bodies essentially telling them that killing their baby in the womb was wrong.

    Abortion clinics treat the PTSD issues they cause for profit worse than the goddamned military, that is to say they don't treat them at all. Care about women? GTFOH.

    The "justa clumpa cells" argument is bunk.

  • Lester224||

    This is complete and utter hogwash. Women who get abortions are overwhelmingly just relieved.

  • The Metonymy||

    Michael Hihn,

    Let's see if you are honest. You're an imbecile, right?

    Answer correctly and I'll continue discussion with you.

  • AttyFAM#1||

    Calling for the murder of women is beyond the bounds of decent debate on the issue of abortion. The Atlantic has no obligation as a private entity to provide a platform for extremist views, and this is not just an extremist view, it is a brutal, bloodthirsty, anti-woman attack. I notice that almost all of the commenters who support Williamson fail to mention what he is really saying. I think that they cannot face it.

    Question: How is it "pro-life" to call for the murder of women?

  • The Metonymy||

    I believe Kevin Williamson was attempting to provoke thought, and provoked something else instead.

  • The Metonymy||

    Very few murderers get the death penalty, after all.

  • Lester224||

    Then you agree. String all them whores up! Or at least make more room in the prisons. While you're at it buy some headstones for all the 12-week-old fetuses and 4-week old embryos. We need investigators for all those suspicious miscarriages.... Lots of stuff we have to do to get these murderers.

  • Rocker1||

    Oh, the poor babies! All of these supposedly fabulous writers have come to the rescue of Kevin Williamson, post his firing from the Atlantic magazine. How sad; a sexism writer with a hate for women is being defended and excused for his hate and grossly offensive comments. Shame on all of you. You are so upset by hangman Williamson's firing and or temporary silencing, but you have not dealt with the women at the end of this hangman's rope. And the women at the end of his rope don't get a second or a third chance. They don't get to take advantage of the equality that men have with regard to their bodies, their lives, their life's direction, their choice of medical care, etc. But then again, why am I surprised? Most of the writers just don't get it about forced childbearing and the ties to slavery of women and torture as well as denial of liberty, choice and equality. Stop making excuses for such a Nazi and hater of women, it isn't becoming.

  • ace_m82||

    you have not dealt with the women at the end of this hangman's rope. And the women at the end of his rope don't get a second or a third chance

    If, indeed, they are guilty of murder, then pray tell why they should get more than one chance (murder)?

  • The Metonymy||

    Can we at least hang a few women for aborting their babies before your next panic attack?

  • The Metonymy||

    Until the number of abortions exceeds the number of pregnancies resulting in live births by at least one, I'd suggest dialing back on the farcical hubris of speaking for all women.

  • The Metonymy||

    As a side note, calling an opponent of abortion, of all things, a "Nazi," is just so much this:

    https://goo.gl/images/J6kQgQ

  • Hank Phillips||

    Maybe after this scolding from KMW they'll hire David Duke or Robert Dear to replace whatzisface...

  • Mike Gates||

    Advertisers. The Atlantic was worried one of their income streams would dry up. This is a challenge that anyone who wants to staff with "a broad spectrum of American political views" will have to face.

  • The Metonymy||

    No one is subscribing to the Atlantic with an EBT card.

  • Lester224||

    So...only people who use EBT cards are pro-choice? Defies logic. You have to know that there are lots of rich liberals who subscribe to the Atlantic. You have to know that advertisers like the $$ of the rich liberals who subscribe to the Atlantic.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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