MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Rand Paul: 'We Do Need a Pro-Life Justice, and I've Always Been in Favor of That'

The Kentucky Republican was asked if Trump should nominate a justice who thinks "an unborn child with a beating heart is a person."

Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call/NewscomBill Clark/CQ Roll Call/NewscomSen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.) wants retiring Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy's replacement to oppose abortion.

CNSNews.com asked Paul on Friday whether he wants President Donald Trump to nominate a judge who thinks "an unborn child with a beating heart is a 'person' entitled to equal protection of the law under the 14th Amendment." Fetuses generally develop beating hearts roughly three weeks after fertilization.

"I think we do need a pro-life justice, and I've always been in favor of that," Paul responded.

Though Kennedy was nominated to the Supreme Court by President Ronald Reagan, a conservative, he was considered a swing vote. In the landmark case Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), he joined the plurality opinion upholding Roe v. Wade (1973), the case that legalized abortion at the federal level.

With Kennedy gone, many people are predicting that Roe v. Wade could be overturned. Trump said while running for president that he would nominate "pro-life" justices to the Court, but it's not exactly clear how pro-life they have to be.

In an interview with Fox News host Maria Bartiromo on Sunday Morning Futures, Trump said his nominee to replace Kennedy will be "conservative," but he said he "probably" won't ask his pick whether he or she supports overturning Roe v. Wade. Overturning that 1973 ruling would not make abortion illegal, but it would allow individual states to ban the procedure.

It's not entirely clear how current conservatives on the Court would vote on the issue of overturning Roe v. Wade. Chief Justice John Roberts, for example, wrote a brief as a Department of Justice employee in 1990 that supported overturning the ruling. But during his 2006 confirmation hearing before the Senate, he said the ruling was "settled as a precedent of the Court."

Similarly, Justice Neil Gorsuch, who Trump nominated to the Court last year, is widely seen as a pro-life conservative. But during his Senate confirmation hearing, he said he accepts Roe v. Wade as "the law of the land."

So whether or not Trump appoints another pro-life justice to the Court, Roe v. Wade might remain in place. Even Leonard Leo of the conservative Federalist Society, who is advising Trump on his Court pick, has noted the importance of precedent. "I don't think at the end of the day it's about Roe v. Wade," Leo said on Fox News Sunday. "It's about having judges on the Court who are going to interpret the Constitution the way it's written, and part of interpreting the Constitution is taking into account major precedents."

Trump has said he will announce his Supreme Court nominee on July 9.

Photo Credit: Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call/Newscom

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||

    So Rand Paul is pro-life like his father was?

    And Trump said something about appointing a pro-life judge, but the judge might not be as pro-life as we think--and Roe v. Wade may or may not be overturned anyway?

    Okay. Got it.

    Thanks, I guess.

  • BambiB||

    Abortion should be illegal except when the person involved is on welfare - in which case it should be mandatory.

  • Nardz||

    +

  • NashTiger||

    Keep your Non-Agression Principles out of my Uterus!

  • Just Say'n||

    This is the point where people who attacked libertarians for not backing Gary Johnson over "one issue" ("Bake the Cake") come out and say that Rand Paul is not a libertarian because of "one issue" (not endorsing the extreme pro-choice position).

    This will be fun

  • Just Say'n||

    Same could be said for Johnson, except he's not in the Senate and even if he were he most definitely would not be the most libertarian leaning of the members

  • 100% Satisfaction Guaranteed||

    I think the Prez run squashes any comparisons. Or, should.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Do you find it frustrating that no matter how elaborate your strawmen get, you can still just push them over?

  • Just Say'n||

    Oh, is that a straw man or an accurate prediction?

    David Boaz, strawman: www.twitter.com/David_Boaz/sta.....3895335942

  • 100% Satisfaction Guaranteed||

    It can be both.

  • Eddy||

    "David Boaz

    "@David_Boaz
    Follow Follow @David_Boaz
    More
    Replying to @JohnStossel
    Oh, come on. They weren't libertarian because of one issue? No candidate ever agreed with me on 100% of the issues."

    Talk about straw men.

    A "purity test" would be asking an LP candidate to advocate a politically non-viable position in the interest of "purism." For example, if Johnson said "I would keep Social Security with some modifications to make it more solvent," a purity-tester would say that Johnson should advocate for abolishing Social Security root and branch. Such a position wouldn't get any political traction and would kill any chance of Johnson being anything but a marginal candidate.

    But if an LP candidate says "we need more regulation of hate speech on the Internet," then that would go beyond "flunking a purity test" - it would be conceding defeat on an issue where there's actually mainstream support (Internet freedom).

    The cake thing is similar. There's a lively debate about compulsory cakes, and the LP conceded the issue by advocating an expansion of the "public accommodation" laws to add new suspect classes, including politics.

    There's the difference.

    That and foisting Weld on the party.

  • Just Say'n||

    "That and foisting Weld on the party."

    Weld is such a bad nominee that he is going to make Bob Barr look palatable in hindsight

  • SusanM||

    I think that making the previous candidates look better in hindsight is pretty much the first qualification for selecting the next one.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Hopefully folks will come out and say he's not a libertarian/Libertarian because that's what he's said.

    I mean really, trying to claim that he is a libertarian/libertarian should be the controversial position, as to do so you first have to call him a lying liar that lies a lot.

  • ||

    Look - we have to take what we can get, and if pretending Rand is libertarian is all we can get, don't take that from us!

  • Just Say'n||

    Now do Gary Johnson

  • ||

    Hey - even the LP was willing to pretend Gary is libertarian. That's gotta count for something!

  • EscherEnigma||

    Gary Johnson was twice selected by the Libertarian National Convention to represent the party as the Libertarian Party's nominee for US President in the general election. So according to the Libertarian Party, he is a Libertarian. Regardless of how you feel about the man, he is quite clearly a Libertarian (member of the Libertarian political party).

    Libertarians (meaning here proponents of the philosophy of libertarianism, not meaning the political party) are a much fuzzier group and can not be as neatly defined. Gary Johnson has claimed to be a libertarian, but many libertarians have claimed he is not. That's a matter of brand-control for libertarians (the philosophy) and not something myself, being a non-libertarian, should get involved in.

  • Just Say'n||

    Which is the exact same argument that defenders of Rand Paul would say, except they would add that the Libertarian Party is no more 'libertarian' than the other two parties.

    You can't complain about purity tests and then impose them on the other guy, because you really really care about the issue that the other guy opposes

  • Just Say'n||

    Which is not to say that this is what you are doing, Escher. I am just saying that some people do selective purity tests that always seem to hinge on their pet issue.

  • EscherEnigma||

    I'm not complaining about "purity tests".

    I'm pointing out political parties have defined processes for defining who is "in" or "out", and that philosophical associations have much less well-defined processes for doing the same.

    So it's trivially easy to determine who is or isn't a Republican or Libertarian, especially for people seeking or achieving higher office.

    If you want to determine who is or isn't some philosophical association, then the first step is probably to see what they call themselves and what they deny they are.

    In Rand Paul's case, he has said he is a social conservative and is not a libertarian. You can call him a liar if you want, but I won't be joining you. Similarly, Gary Johnson has said that he is a libertarian. Again, you can call him a liar if you want, but I won't be joining you.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Grumble/mumble, didn't see the clarification until after the response.

  • IceTrey||

    I disagree, you either follow the NAP or you don't.

  • MichaelL||

    Funny that providing safety, for a life in the womb, is not the same as for those just born or older! Who to advocate for that life but a Libertarian?! It is my understanding that there is a great schism to the determination of whether pro-life is not also Libertarian. As a physician, I don't see Roe vs Wade being overturned. I did not participate in any abortion and never would have done so. Yet, it is not Biblical to think of infants the same as adults. (Conservatives?) Man has added things to interpretation of scripture (penalty for killing infant in the womb?) to put the procedure into controversy. Anyone, who used abortion services, is a hypocrite, if they want to turnover Roe vs Wade. But, morning after pills and first month extractions are not the same as later pregnancy terminations. It is seen in the gruesomeness of the later procedures.

  • ||

    Yay, an abortion thread!

    I've never understood why pro-lifers obsess over this. My hard atheism certainly makes it hard to relate. But why such an obsession? Is it because saving souls will elevate their status in the eyes of the Lord? Is it just the act of preventing "evil" that they're hanging their hat on to elevate their status? And if it's not about elevating status, what is it? Why is this particular "evil" so motivating?

    It's easy to understand the moral argument of why it's wrong to terminate the unborn. One doesn't have to agree with it to understand it. It's hard to understand the obsession.

  • Just Say'n||

    Judging by the reactions over Kennedy's replacement, I think it's more fair to say that the pro-choice side obsesses over this issue

  • ||

    But that's easy to understand. If to don't believe that unborn life is sacred, then you certainly have an incentive to prevent government interference/penalization in your management of unborn life.

    On the pro-life side, there will never be a personal impact, unless one accounts for interactions with the Lord. So what is it about that relationship with the Lord that cautions pro-lifers such consternation?

  • Just Say'n||

    You wrongly assume that the only basis for a pro-life position is religious and spiritual. Anyone who has ever looked at a modern ultrasound would find the pro-choice position more based in the supernatural than anything conforming with reality

  • ||

    I don't see how that follows. Just because one can observe something is a moral wrong doesn't mean that there's a natural incentive to invest in efforts to prevent it. The incentive for the prevention of a moral wrong may simply be because it makes you feel better. But I don't really think that's what it is for pro-lifers who are looking to make it illegal. I think there's something more to it.

  • Just Say'n||

    "Just because one can observe something is a moral wrong doesn't mean that there's a natural incentive to invest in efforts to prevent it."

    I think you're confusing the two positions here. Only the pro-choice side asks for government largess to fund its position. To my knowledge all pro-life advocacy and their clinics are funded privately. The pro-choice side has tried to use the state to shut down such clinics.

    "But I don't really think that's what it is for pro-lifers who are looking to make it illegal. I think there's something more to it."

    That's a straw man. Even if Roe were overturned, abortion would not be made illegal. Most of the pro-life side has just been pushing for a twenty week abortion ban, which would still give the US one of the more liberal abortion laws in the world. Our current abortion policy is far more liberal than any other industrialized nation in the world other than China, Vietnam, and Cuba.

  • ||

    Only the pro-choice side asks for government largess to fund its position.

    So, the object of the anti-abortion crowd is not to have the state enforce laws against abortion?

  • ||

    Most of the pro-life side has just been pushing for a twenty week abortion ban

    You're falling into the trap of collectivizing only one side. You're seeing all pro-choice people as having common goals and methods, and then only paying attention to those on the pro-life side whose position you find palatable.

    One could just as easily declare that most on the pro-choice side would be fine with a ban on abortion after 20-weeks (which is true enough) while the pro-life side wants a total ban on any preventative measure whatsoever (which a lot do).

  • Just Say'n||

    "But I don't really think that's what it is for pro-lifers who are looking to make it illegal. I think there's something more to it."

    I was responding to this point, which I thought was collectivizing all pro-life people. But, I may have misread it

  • ||

    I was responding to this point, which I thought was collectivizing all pro-life people. But, I may have misread it

    No, I don't think you did. I think MP is indulging in a little atheist-elitism and refusing to understand that some people actually see it as murder, which is what would answer his questions.

    My experience has been that most people, on "either" side, agree that a ban from about 20 weeks forward is not unreasonable. But I also firmly believe that neither major party is interested in compromise on this issue, as it's much too useful as a wedge you can use to scream "Them's just don't understand what's right! They's-a gotta be stopped!"

    Both sides have been convinced that they stand poised at the brink of a slippery slope that leads nowhere but Total Disaster, and the two major parties very much want it that way.

  • Just Say'n||

    "My experience has been that most people, on "either" side, agree that a ban from about 20 weeks forward is not unreasonable. But I also firmly believe that neither major party is interested in compromise on this issue, as it's much too useful as a wedge you can use to scream "Them's just don't understand what's right! They's-a gotta be stopped!"

    Exactly this. There is a lot more consensus on this issue than the extremists on both sides are willing to accept.

  • damikesc||

    One could just as easily declare that most on the pro-choice side would be fine with a ban on abortion after 20-weeks (which is true enough) while the pro-life side wants a total ban on any preventative measure whatsoever (which a lot do).

    Pro choicers tend to lose their collective shit when people ask for a 20 week abortion ban, Its support in the pro choice community seems exceptionally lacking from my experience.

  • ||

    Its support in the pro choice community seems exceptionally lacking from my experience.

    I'm betting your experience is limited to political media and partisan debates.

  • damikesc||

    I'm saying based on every single time a ban for all abortions beyond 20 weeks has been proposed. Never seen a single pro-choicer say "You know, that is understandable"

  • ||

    I'm saying based on every single time a ban for all abortions beyond 20 weeks has been proposed. Never seen a single pro-choicer say "You know, that is understandable"

    And I'm saying this may well reflect a lack of direct experience with pro-choicers who weren't staking a position in a specifically partisan context.

    I my direct experience I don't hear a lot of pro-lifers say "it's murder after 20 weeks, but before 20 weeks, meh." But I encounter that position on these boards enough (if you don't go full partisan attack dog on people) that I suspect it's fairly widespread (as is also shown by polls I've seen on both sides).

  • Just Say'n||

    I never said that. But, what I am saying is that we need to stop pretending like only the pro-life side is using government to their benefit. Many abortions, and even more going forward, are funded by taxpayers; Planned Parenthood is a massive recipient of federal tax dollars, and there was just a Supreme Court case where California tried to force pro-life pregnancy centers to advertise for abortion providers.

    The pro-choice side is just as much pro-state as the pro-life side. Maybe even more so

  • ||

    we need to stop pretending like only the pro-life side is using government to their benefit

    I don't think "we" are pretending anything. The pro-life side tends to be very critical of the fact that Planned Parenthood gets money from the government. This isn't a quiet, fringe thing. It's been at the center of public discussion on this issue for years.

    I don't actually know of any pro-choice arguments that go "we shouldn't have to fund all those free-loading non-abortion clinics." It's more "the fundies shouldn't use the power of government to impose their backward religion on us." The closest there is the argument that "Pregnancy Crisis Centers" should be made to identify themselves as places that don't offer abortion services," which was found unconstitutional by a SC that's not exactly stacked ultra-liberal.

    The pro-choice side is just as much pro-state as the pro-life side.

    Perhaps. Me, once I find that an argument relies on state coercion, I move on without necessarily weighing it to the micro-gram against a different flavor of statism.

  • I can't even||

    I believe the objective of overturning Roe v. Wade would be the return that decision to the States and the People.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Well, a lot of pro-lifers are men, and I would bet that even those pro-lifers who are women? Very few of them have found themselves in the following shoes: Lothario endlessly says "Love ya, babe, Love-ya- Love-ya- Love-ya, NOW can I get down your pants?" After she falls for him and he gets her pregnant, the abuse (from him) begins, and she finds out that he has 7 other "Love-ya" babes on the side, 4 of them also pregnant by him! So as I have said before, abortion is "veto power" against scum-bucket men. If these behavioral genes get passed on and on, humans will evolve into something like elephant seals, where the men most skilled at lying, and fighting off the other men, get a harem of 40 babes, and the rest of the men get nothing! So abortion is empowering women to fight off this sort of thing… And reserve their baby-making powers for men who are less lying scum, and will actually make good fathers to the children.

    So, they want to "capitally punish" the "offenders", while they have never been in the above-described shoes! Self-righteousness, basically…

  • SQRLSY One||

    Or maybe some of the anti-abotion men fantasize and lust after being the elephant-seal-like men who can gather the harem of 40, under the new scheme of things?

  • Just Say'n||

    You do realize that according to polling more women identify as pro-life than men, right?

  • damikesc||

    In his eyes, those women can be discounted because of a lack of wokeness.

    If one finds abortion to be murder --- why would they support it if the woman chose to fuck a dude and got knocked up?

    I oppose theft. I do not care if you really need something.

  • SQRLSY One||

    I am glad that you oppose theft. Theft by deception is also theft; I hope you can see that! When a severely lying Lothario-type dude (as described above) appropriates the baby-making powers of a deceived young woman, that, too, is theft! Abortion is anti-theft, when a deceived woman no long wants to rent out her womb to a deceptive scumbag, prospective god-awful supposed "father"!

    Those who are anti-abortion unmarried men should be out there desperately courting women who have already been deceived by scumbucket men, and volunteering to raise these unborn children (who are NOT there biological offspring), to fend off a HUGE root cause of abortion, and to put their money where their mouth is! And married anti-abortion men? Check with your wives; see if they mind you donating all your spare time and money to helping out these future unmarried moms!

  • damikesc||

    I am glad that you oppose theft. Theft by deception is also theft; I hope you can see that! When a severely lying Lothario-type dude (as described above) appropriates the baby-making powers of a deceived young woman, that, too, is theft!

    No matter what he says, if she allows him to shoot a load in her vagina --- that is 100% on her. I don't care if he claims he is sterile. Still on her. If you don't know the guy, don't fuck him.

    Abortion is anti-theft, when a deceived woman no long wants to rent out her womb to a deceptive scumbag, prospective god-awful supposed "father"!

    And I view abortion as a murder of the only innocent person involved in the entire affair. Murder trumps theft.

    Those who are anti-abortion unmarried men should be out there desperately courting women who have already been deceived by scumbucket men, and volunteering to raise these unborn children (who are NOT there biological offspring), to fend off a HUGE root cause of abortion, and to put their money where their mouth is!
  • ||

    So as I have said before, abortion is "veto power" against scum-bucket men.

    If infidelity were a genetically-transmitted trait, your argument makes perfect sense. If it's not, you're effectively enabling/perpetuating this cycle of women incapably surrendering themselves to lotharios who are going to take advantage of them.

    Also, keep in mind that between 30-50% of people walking the Earth today are the result of unintended pregnancies. So, it's quite possible that a girl has a mother with a boyfriend who stepped out of the picture and is thankful for the both the life and the lesson her mother was able to give to her.

  • ||

    No, I don't think you did. I think MP is indulging in a little atheist-elitism and refusing to understand that some people actually see it as murder, which is what would answer his questions.

    You have to get to the heart of why Murder is an act that should be criminal. From an individualist perspective, it's easy to see how you're protecting yourself from harm. Infanticide is a bit trickier to defend on these grounds because there's a lack of "self" until a certain age. Abortion is trickier still.

    But you can't simply claim that Murder is "evil", or at least you can't and expect that I'm going to respect that point of view. You have to have a basis for that. I'm arguing that at the unborn level, there is very little externality effect to an abortion. So I remain curious why those seeking to prevent the deaths of the unborn are so dedicated to that task.

  • damikesc||

    I find people who are adamant that they be allowed to murder babies, even as they are halfway out of the birth canal, are dramatically more extreme in their concerns.

  • damikesc||

    I find people who are adamant that they be allowed to murder babies, even as they are halfway out of the birth canal, are dramatically more extreme in their concerns.

  • damikesc||

    You have to get to the heart of why Murder is an act that should be criminal. From an individualist perspective, it's easy to see how you're protecting yourself from harm. Infanticide is a bit trickier to defend on these grounds because there's a lack of "self" until a certain age. Abortion is trickier still.

    But you can't simply claim that Murder is "evil", or at least you can't and expect that I'm going to respect that point of view. You have to have a basis for that. I'm arguing that at the unborn level, there is very little externality effect to an abortion. So I remain curious why those seeking to prevent the deaths of the unborn are so dedicated to that task.

    Now do slavery.

  • ||

    Now do slavery.

    His argument hinges on "lack of self," which wouldn't apply to slavery. I think what MP is getting at is that the infant doesn't have an awareness level adequate to really call it an independent being with rights in quite the same way that an adult human is.

    There's logic there that I don't even necessarily disagree with, but I think he's being disingenuous when he says he just doesn't understand why some people are concerned about it.

  • ||

    But you can't simply claim that Murder is "evil"

    Murder can be subject to mitigating circumstances. All of which are hard to imagine where a baby is concerned.

    Stick "newborn baby" in place of "fetus" and all of your arguments still apply. Is it de facto wrong to murder newborn babies? Maybe you don't think so, but I'll bet you do.

    Is it understandable that most people would be against murdering newborn babies? I think so.

    Is it understandable that those who view abortion as being exactly the same as murdering newborn babies are dedicated to stopping that legal and government-subsidized practice? I think so. I'll bet you do, too, deep down.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Is it understandable that those who view abortion as being exactly the same as murdering newborn babies are dedicated to stopping that legal and government-subsidized practice? I think so. I'll bet you do, too, deep down.


    Sure. It's also understandable that if someone sincerely beliefs that sodomites go to hell, that that person should support sodomy laws. Or if they think that miscegenation is against God's wish, that they should support segregation. Or if they think animals are moral equivalents to humans, that "meat is murder". And so-on.

    It's quite possible to understand a great positions predicated on the person having certain beliefs. But "understand" is quite different from "respect".

  • ||

    But "understand" is quite different from "respect".

    Yes - and MP is claiming "I don't understand" rather than "I don't respect." I'm skeptical that he actually doesn't understand.

  • ||

    Is it de facto wrong to murder newborn babies?

    It's not wrong simply because it's wrong. It's wrong because...

    But that's not my point. Just because you believe something is wrong, you still generally need an incentive to be motivated to go out and right that wrong. What's the incentive for pro-lifers? Is it all simply FEELZ (oh my, that's just so so so wrong)? Or is it religious obligation (I need to correct this wrong to gain favor with the Lord)? Or...?

  • ||

    Is it all simply FEELZ (oh my, that's just so so so wrong)?

    If they believe that it is literal baby-murder, yes - this is clearly a big part of it.

    Or is it religious obligation (I need to correct this wrong to gain favor with the Lord)?

    It's a not-uncommon belief among Christians that standing by and doing nothing in the face of evil when you could take action to stop it is contributing to that evil, and thus yes, you would have a religious obligation to do something about it.

  • ||

    a religious obligation

    That's the crux of my question. I don't understand such a thing. "My religion tells me to" is a rather vague and ill-formed line of thinking. Religion tells you to do a lot. So why is abortion the hill that so so many elect to die on (pun intended)?

  • ||

    I think you're coming from the position of a committed atheist and making a point of not putting yourself in the shoes of a believer.

    Yes, there is a problem between "Divine Command" and "Higher Morality" such that either something is right or wrong merely because God said so or God himself is following a higher moral code that even He can't change.

    If the first, then "don't eat pork" is on the same moral plane as "don't murder babies." If they're not on the same moral plane, then God is not omnipotent (i.e. he is following an even "higher" authority).

    But most people aren't thinking in terms of these abstractions, since if God is, indeed, omnipotent and omniscient then nothing happens contrary to God's will and you really should never oppose anything that happens no matter how heinous it may seem from your perspective.

    Most people believe in God and believe that God cares about murdering babies more than he cares about eating pork. It may not be perfectly logically consistent, but it's completely normal and not, IMHO, something to express surprise at.

  • ||

    Most people believe in God and believe that God cares about murdering babies more than he cares about eating pork

    That's observationally true. But that doesn't mean I get it. It's really not derived from the text. Even if you just start with the 10 Commandments, there's no relativistic weight given to them. They're all facially equally evil. And each committed theist can still pick and choose what to get worked up about.

    To me, it's almost like how the anthropomorphism of pets leads to these irrational animal cruelty laws, which make no sense in light of our carnivorous ways. They too are just FEELZ.

    So in the abortion case, are you claiming it's a consistent set of messaging by Church leaders telling their flock how wrong it is? Or is it just FEELZ since everyone can connect to the notion of a baby?

  • ||

    the anthropomorphism of pets leads to these irrational animal cruelty laws, which make no sense in light of our carnivorous ways.

    They make perfect sense. I know a number of hunters and ranchers who when they eat meat eat what they kill with their own two hands. I don't know many people who really care about animal cruelty as much as those people do.

    Personally, I'm a vegetarian, and I had a meat-loving former rancher relative standing with a bloody knife over an enormous pile of brisket he was getting ready to roast ask me why I didn't eat meat because he just couldn't understand it. I said mostly I have a problem with how animals are treated on factory farms.

    His response? "Well, you've got a point there . . ."

    Or is it just FEELZ since everyone can connect to the notion of a baby?

    Probably mostly this. Maybe not for you, but for most people.

    To just declare that all 10 commandments sit on equal footing betrays a total lack of familiarity with theology. You'd be surprise at how many atheist "gotchas" were actually anticipated a few years ago.

    IOW, this discussion is farther along than you think it is.

  • damikesc||

    Same reason why the leading forces in abolition were Christian "extremists". The whole "what you do to the least of my flock you also do to me" mentality.

    Square is correct. Not confronting evil is condoning it.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Not confronting evil is condoning it.


    And that perspective is why Christians fail at "live and let live" so consistently.

    They want people to leave them alone, but see it as a religious duty to go bother other people.

  • Cy||

    It's like illegal immigration but for conservatives. It doesn't really make any sense and they're not going to do anything about it. But it makes them feel good to take the "moral" stance.

  • ||

    Illegal immigration at least has a potential to impact bystanders. Depending on whose statistics you believe, you can buy into "dey took ur jobz!" or "welfare immigrants" or whatever, whereby the illegal immigrants are burdening bystanders.

    What's the burden that abortion places on bystanders?

  • Just Say'n||

    What's the burden that slavery places on bystanders? Or droning wedding parties overseas?

  • ||

    Slavery is the power to enslave. From a bystander perspective, when you grant the state this power, you become susceptible to a number of other power grabs, because you have no moral ground to object to this type of state power.

    Droning wedding parties make you susceptible to such a drone strike if you choose to travel to such a wedding.

  • Just Say'n||

    What I'm trying to say is not that you're wrong, but that pro-life people view abortion as the equivalent to the state giving people the authority to murder. And while I disagree that abortion should be banned outright, I don't think that their position is necessarily wrong.

  • Tony||

    Unless they're willing to send women who get abortions to prison for life, then they don't think it's actually murder.

  • Just Say'n||

    Such an asinine talking point. We don't send everyone to jail or prosecute everyone for murder. You think you caught pro-lifers in some sort of logical trap, but all you've done is make yourself look stupid.

  • damikesc||

    Slavery is the power to enslave. From a bystander perspective, when you grant the state this power, you become susceptible to a number of other power grabs, because you have no moral ground to object to this type of state power.

    But the state allowing a baby to get murdered doesn't grant the state power to murder others?

    Why? There is no moral argument to oppose it, right?

  • EscherEnigma||

    But the state allowing a baby to get murdered doesn't grant the state power to murder others?
    Nope. Because it already has that. Death penalty, police being largely immune from prosecution, wars and "non-war military actions", and so-on.

    The power of the state to murder is not dependent on the right to abortion.

  • ||

    But the state allowing a baby to get murdered doesn't grant the state power to murder others?

    The state is not the actor in the abortion. The individual is the actor. So there's nothing for the State to allow. All the State can do is defend rights. Sure, it can then defend the rights of the unborn, if you ascribe the unborn rights. What's the incentive to ascribe those rights?

  • damikesc||

    The state is not the actor in the abortion. The individual is the actor. So there's nothing for the State to allow. All the State can do is defend rights. Sure, it can then defend the rights of the unborn, if you ascribe the unborn rights. What's the incentive to ascribe those rights?

    The state did not own slaves. Individuals owned slaves. Why should the state have expended such energy, effort, and blood to stop it.

  • Cathy L||

    Bystanders have to pay to protect the "property" of slaveholders and to drone-murder people.

  • Just Say'n||

    Bystanders in California and Illinois, to name a few states, have to pay for abortions through their tax dollars

  • ||

    Bystanders in California and Illinois, to name a few states, have to pay for abortions through their tax dollars

    Technically, these payments are just to cover the cost of the failure of subsidized birth control (and personal responsibility).

  • ||

    I actually wonder what's going to happen to this line of thinking now that SCOTUS has found that funds paid to a union are fungible for purposes of deciding whether or not they were used for political advocacy. The argument that people aren't necessarily being forced to fund abortion and birth control through Planned Parenthood sort of went out the window along with that.

  • damikesc||

    I actually wonder what's going to happen to this line of thinking now that SCOTUS has found that funds paid to a union are fungible for purposes of deciding whether or not they were used for political advocacy. The argument that people aren't necessarily being forced to fund abortion and birth control through Planned Parenthood sort of went out the window along with that.

    No, the belief is enhanced by that. Every penny I am forced to give them is used to fund abortion all the more.

    If the funds were truly fungible, they'd have kept the requirement that the political advocacy funds can be requested back by the worker. They clearly didn't. They felt that ALL monies were, ultimately, going to be used for political advocacy, directly or indirectly.

  • ||

    Every penny I am forced to give them is used to fund abortion all the more.

    That's what I'm saying. SCOTUS decided that the union can't take my money and say "it's okay - we're only going to use your money for paperclips, and we're going to use your co-worker's money to pay off congress critters."

    That blows apart the argument that your tax money is only going to fund Planned Parenthood's politically-neutral medical services, and that the funding won't mean anything to the abortion and birth control side of the operation.

  • Just Say'n||

    I'm not trying to trash your response here, Cathy. I'm just stating that for pro-life people tax payer funded abortion is as offensive as taxpayer funded drone strikes on wedding parties. Both are murders to them.

    And before someone responds "oh yeah, well why don't they ever attack drone strikes overseas", there are probably more than a few pro-life anti-war people out there (such as Dorthy Day, for an example) considering that the Catholic Church is the primary financial backer of the pro-life movement and they have a generally negative view of America's overseas interventions.

  • ||

    pro-life people tax payer funded abortion

    This isn't remotely relevant to the Roe v. Wade discussion. The right to make a choice regarding an abortion creates no obligation for anyone to fund it. Public funding for abortion is an entirely different discussion from the right to have the procedure.

  • Just Say'n||

    It is just as relevant to the discussion as it is to say that the pro-life side wishes to outlaw all abortions. If we are to caricature one position than why not the other?

  • ||

    State induced obligations on bystanders (i.e. taxes) are only political decisions. They're not inherent rights based obligations. Thus, taxes are not part of a discussion of incentives to uphold a particular moral code.

  • Just Say'n||

    This is the comment that I was responding to: "Bystanders have to pay to protect the "property" of slaveholders and to drone-murder people."

    And now you're moving goal posts

  • lap83||

    "It doesn't really make any sense"

    What really makes sense is saying an unborn child's life is totally up to the X donors' choosing until it's born and the Y donor has to pick up the tab

  • Cy||

    For the record. I am pro-choice.

    This is actually a very hard subject for me. My parents heavily considered aborting me account of their financial/family situation at the time. I'm glad they didn't. It is an interesting thought exercise to muse about the "what if" for my siblings if the resources used on me were dispersed among them.

    Fast forward a bit in life, I had a child out of wedlock (there's an old word.) The mother still collects child support and apparently told my daughter that I wanted her mother to have abortion. Which is not only incredibly false, it was really painful to have my daughter say something like that to me.

    Currently, our laws pertaining to child support and custody are a tragedy. I do think we're moving more in the right direction. It's jsut going painfully slow.

    In regards to being pro choice; 16 years after roe v wade the crime rate across the nation plummeted. It doesn't take a genius to figure out why.

  • Cy||

    There's no easy, fair or moral way to approach abortion. I think anyone who says otherwise is being extremely short sighted and disingenuous. It's one of those things that falls under the "Nature doesn't care about what's fair or what's right, but the law still has to deal with it."

    Should government pick up the tab for abortions? No.

    Should someone be able to tell a woman she has to carry a baby to term? No.

    Does it suck? Hell yes it does.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Cy, you've captured my opinion on the matter pretty well.

  • ||

    In regards to being pro choice; 16 years after roe v wade the crime rate across the nation plummeted. It doesn't take a genius to figure out why.

    Skyrocketing incarceration rates? I only ask because our abortion rates are about where they were in '73 and our incarceration rates are as high as they've ever been. Like the correlation between abortion rate and incarceration rate or crime rate is between 'negatively correlated' and 'not at all correlated'.

  • Cy||

    Violent crime has dropped dramatically since roe v wade. We've come up with a lot more reasons to incarcerate people since 1973 and we do incarcerate them. Our shitty judicial system, law enforcement and "for profit prisons" is a whole different ball of fucking tyranny.

  • Just Say'n||

    There is very little evidence to show any decline in crime due to Roe v. Wade. Actually, studies have shown that the elimination of lead in gasoline has probably had a bigger impact on the decline in violent crime than anything related to abortion.

  • Just Say'n||

    "In regards to being pro choice; 16 years after roe v wade the crime rate across the nation plummeted. It doesn't take a genius to figure out why."

    This is an argument first proposed by Steven Leavitt in Freakonomics and it has been disputed several times. It's a shaky argument than disregards increased policing, an improving economy, and multiple other factors that might explain the decline in the crime rate.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    Speaking for myself, I don't have a problem with a woman getting an abortion. But she should pay for it out of her own God-damned pocket, unless she can get one of these billionaire lefty pricks like George Soros or Jeff Bezos to pay for it.

    The taxpayers have absolutely no business being forced to subsidize these optional, unnecessary procedures.

  • Cy||

    The problem with forcing her to pay for it is she's already broke.

  • DajjaI||

    Because it creates a fragile, dependent class that is easily exploited for labor and sex. It's the same reason we bomb Central America and then pretend to hate immigrants.

  • Longtobefree||

    Please cite the last US bomb attack in Central America.

  • ||

    It's easy to understand the moral argument of why it's wrong to terminate the unborn. One doesn't have to agree with it to understand it. It's hard to understand the obsession.

    You're confusing to moral arguments. There's the murder aspect of the moral argument, but there's also the moral hazard of people/women not taking responsibility for their actions. Not to say that the government should be involved one way or the other, but your advances of "I'm an atheist." don't make sense with regard to actions that are both morally and economically detrimental (at varying points, to both sides). A $500-1,000 abortion, even if privately funded, *should* be less preferable to $1 condoms, $3 birth control pills, and $50 morning after pills.

  • ||

    Ahem... confusing two moral arguments

  • Eddy||

    Have you sat down to talk to a pro-lifer about their "obsession"? That may be more fruitful than asking people on the Internet.

  • Bubba Jones||

    Are you asking why someone might passionately object to 3 Million murders a year?

    What could possibly be more objectionable?

  • Joe_JP||

    "Pro-life" can mean a lot of things. He means "anti-abortion choice," right?

    He wants to give the government power over a basic matter of individual liberty, one that is split basically by differences of moral belief. But, he's a member of the Republican Party, so supporting the conservative position is not surprising.

  • ||

    "Pro-life" can mean a lot of things. He means "anti-abortion choice," right?

    And "pro-choice" can mean a lot of things, but people only mean something pretty specific when they say it. A lot of people, out of a desire to not poison the discussion from the very first few beats, will just let the two sides have their self-descriptors.

  • Just Say'n||

    Yes. I agree. Pro-choice could mean multiple positions and so could pro-life.

    Thank you for pointing out when I collectivized the positions earlier in the thread. That wasn't my intention.

    Also, "not poison the discussion from the very first few beats" is probably not the best analogy for an abortion discussion. J/k

  • ||

    "not poison the discussion from the very first few beats" is probably not the best analogy for an abortion discussion

    I wondered why I tasted sock all of a sudden . . . ; )

  • Radioactive||

    go for the Thanos solution, abort every other baby...no appeal, no court cases, just scrape and wipe. we'll do that for 1 year and retake the poll.

  • damikesc||

    It seems he supports allowing states to decide.

    Which is the height of libertarianism

  • Just Say'n||

    That's the height of "federalism", not "libertarianism"

  • damikesc||

    Libertarian thought, i believe, is heavily supportive of federalism.

  • ||

    But not to the point where states aren't limited by the same principles.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Not really. Like everyone else, Libertarians are only opportunistically federalist and will quickly abandon any federalist impulse when it clashes with other objectives.

  • Tony||

    Whats state-level oppressions like Jim Crow, forcing women to give birth against their will, drug and alcohol law insanity, and zoning laws compared to the federal income tax. It all makes perfect sense and small-government rhetoric is not a plutocratic sham at all.

  • ||

    It all makes perfect sense and small-government rhetoric is not a plutocratic sham at all.

    Yup. Every single person who's ever advocated for the government to back off a little bit is really just a plutocratic conspirator. You've called it, with your ever-sharp and valuable contributions to discussion among these benighted boards.

  • Brian||

    One big difference is that the federal income tax effects the extreme majority of all working people in the US, while the others, not so much.

    It's really a depth vs. breadth thing.

  • Tony||

    I think it's a "We don't actually give a crap about freedom, we're just here to whore for billionaires" thing.

  • Brian||

    And, yes, a, poor person would say that, wouldn't they?

  • ||

    I think it's a "We don't actually give a crap about freedom, we're just here to whore for billionaires" thing

    Which is way easier than confronting the actual argument being made, amirite?

  • Tony||

    What have I been doing for years if not confronting the arguments? And my conclusion is that they are not arguments at all but a set of inconsistent policy preferences that "just so happen" to always benefit people with more property and do very little for people with less property, as if how much money you have is all that matters.

  • ||

    What have I been doing for years if not confronting the arguments?

    I'm sure you have no idea.

  • David Emami||

    Each state decides on its standard for when life legally ends. As of the 1980s, they've all adopted a federal "uniform law", but historically they've had different criteria, and could do so again. It seems quite reasonable to me that if the individual states can specify when life legally ends, they're the ones who should be specifying when it legally begins.

  • David Emami||

    I have some sympathy for your view, but "a government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have" applies to liberty as well as goodies. Neither "DC wins" nor "the states win" is libertarian per se. Both are decision-making mechanisms, and the question is which will produce more-libertarian results overall. There's a case to be made for either way. States win can get you Jim Crow, as you pointed out. But DC wins can get you Dredd Scott and the Fugitive Slave Act. Is using the federal government to stop individual states from violating rights within their boundaries worth the risk of giving it the power to violate rights across the entire US? There is no correct libertarian answer to this question.

    A better mechanism would be to give the federal government the power to nullify state laws but not to enforce its own on them. That is, if Alabama passes a new Jim Crow, DC can strike it from the books. But if DC passes a new Fugitive Slave Act (or drug law or 55 MPH speed limit or whatnto), each state can just ignore it if it doesn't agree.

  • David Emami||

    How, exactly, is allowing government less power "statism"? And since when do libertarians trust the government not to abuse its power, or to act competently?

    I'm certainly not saying "fuck the Constitution" any more than those who proposed the 14th Amendment were saying it. I am suggesting a mechanism that might improve it: the Federal government may tell any State government "you may not do this" (fx. enforce segregation laws, prevent minorities from voting) but cannot tell them "you must do this" (fx. help capture fugitive slaves, arrest people for selling drugs).

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    #TrumpFuhror will continue as advertised.

  • Just Say'n||

    You misspelled "Fuhrer"

  • ||

    You misspelled "Fuhrer"

    Mrs. Casual does this all the time. I have it right here in my portmanteau-to-English dictionary:

    Fuhror - n. - A leader who's rise to power causes an outpouring of public anger or excitement. A combination of Führer and furor.

  • Just Say'n||

    I had no idea that was a word.

    "Of course you wouldn't know, you have educated bitter clinger"

    - the good Reverend

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    You and Longtobefree are both correct.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Of course I replied to the wrong comment. Sorry 'bout that!

  • Longtobefree||

    No, he misspelled furor.

  • esteve7||

    Hey, we don't want to come for your abortions. We just want common sense abortion control

  • perlchpr||

    OK, I've got a compromise position. Any woman can have an abortion at any time during her pregnancy, right after she shows the doctor her concealed carry permit.

  • Tony||

    How incredibly odd for a small-government advocate to favor 5 robed philosopher kings forcing women to give birth against their will. Bet he'd be singing a different tune if the issue of the day were the right to compost.

  • Just Say'n||

    "How incredibly odd for a small-government advocate to favor 5 robed philosopher kings forcing women to give birth against their will."

    In his opinion, I'm sure he feels that Roe was imposed by five robed philosophers forcing an electorate to accept something that they consider to be murder.

    Everyone can play the same game, Tony

  • Tony||

    If they consider it murder then surely they favor punishing women and doctors who participate in abortions as we do first-degree murderers.

  • Just Say'n||

    This is such a stupid talking point. It's so god damn annoying and disingenuous. You think you've highlighted some inconsistency, but all you've shown is your naivety. We don't always punish murder. There are extenuating circumstances where people who have murdered will either complete community service or undergo counseling.

  • Tony||

    Planning well in advance to terminate the life of an innocent baby is usually considered not just murder, but one of the worst forms of murder.

    Is it a fucking baby or isn't it? Is it murder or not?

  • Just Say'n||

    Women have avoided prosecution for murdering their child after birth, because of extenuating circumstances. You're really not contributing anything to this conversation other than pimping progressive talking points

  • Tony||

    I think if Christianists want to force millions of women to give birth against their will then they should do better than this mealy-mouthed horseshit that tries to have it both ways.

    They call it murder. It is thus without question first-degree murder of a baby. What's extenuating? The baby is in the womb, the very difference that pro-choice people insist makes it NOT murder?

  • Ecoli||

    Maybe the tax-payer should simply pay to sterilize them? Problem solved. Women who don't want to give birth will no longer be able to give birth.

  • Tony||

    Maybe everyone who inhabits the modern world needs to get it out of their stupid brains that it's their job to tell women what to do with their bodies.

  • Ecoli||

    You seem triggered, Tony.

    I somewhat agree with you on this. I am pro-choice, but I think it should be (it actually is, although SCOTUS overstepped their authority) a state's rights issue. Roe was a disastrous legal decision that resulted in a desirable (to some) policy. There is nothing in the constitution that supports the Roe decision. There is nothing in the constitution that gives the feds any say whatever in the matter.

    Where we diverge, I suspect, is that I think elective abortions should be limited to the first 12 weeks of gestation. I admit that is an arbitrary cut off point. After 12 weeks, IMHO, the fetus is a person and deserves the right to live, and deserves the protection of the law against being assaulted or murdered.

  • damikesc||

    If they consider it murder then surely they favor punishing women and doctors who participate in abortions as we do first-degree murderers.
  • damikesc||

    God this site.

    I do not support criminal prosecution. However, I do find it funny that progressives adore regulations on everything under the sun...EXCEPT abortion providers. They seem to deeply hate regs on them.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Yes, 100% yes. I am opposed to all abortion regs because to me banning abortion is one of those things which cannot be enforced in anything close to a consistent fair manner.

    But the pro-abortion folk take it all out of proportion. It is especially telling how they are all in favor of ignoring the clear language of the First and Second Amendments, yet dream up some fundamental right to abortion out of penumbras of the right to privacy, itself unenumerated except as a side effect of the Fourth Amendment. Their hypocrisy makes me at times hope the Supreme Court does outlaw abortion, because (a) I am tired of their whining and hypocrisy, and (b) I believe such a ban is unenforceable and will have no practical effect beyond making that clear to the anti-abortion people.

  • Tony||

    Well that's a fucking childish way to make laws other people have to follow.

    How about the Christian mental case freaks leave the rest of us the hell alone? Nobody wants to actually treat abortion like murder, so their stupid rhetoric along those lines is completely irrelevant.

  • Brian||

    We would, but then, what would it be like if we told everyone to leave everyone else alone?

    So, sorry, non-starter. Society says: deal with Christfags.

  • Brian||

    We would, but then, what would it be like if we told everyone to leave everyone else alone?

    So, sorry, non-starter. Society says: deal with Christfags.

  • Tony||

    Then they need to come to the table with a coherent argument. Are we banning abortion because it's baby murder, or do they just want to hang onto the last remnants of their dominion over what women do with their pussies?

  • Brian||

    Says who? I'm sorry, where is the "rational argument" clause in the constitution/

  • Tony||

    Says the basic principles of rational thought that allegedly informed the creation of the constitution and the democratic system it establishes.

  • Brian||

    Oh, so you're an originalist now?

  • ||

    Are we banning abortion

    Mostly the current conversation going on is whether those who are personally appalled by abortion should be forced to pay for other people to have abortions.

    Let's address the "should we ban abortion" question if it actually comes up. We're pretty far from there at the moment.

    Disclaimer: I am 100% pro-choice.

  • Tony||

    They already don't have to pay for it. That's yet another bullshit distraction from their very active efforts to make it effectively banned as we speak. Why can't Christians ever tell the fucking truth about anything? It's almost like they can't sell their stupid ideas on the merits.

  • Brian||

    Sometimes Christfags are the price we pay to live in modern society.

  • Tony||

    I think we could do quite well without them.

  • Brian||

    Now you're a Nazi or something.

  • ||

    They already don't have to pay for it.

    Planned Parenthood isn't taxpayer funded? Money isn't fungible?

    Why can't Christians ever tell the fucking truth about anything?

    I don't know, as I am not a Christian. But it has not been my experience that Christians can't ever tell the truth about anything. Which is in sharp contrast to a certain Progressive from OK that I know.

    It's almost like they can't sell their stupid ideas on the merits.

    Hmmm.

  • damikesc||

    I'd ask what business, Tony, is this of yours in the first place?

    your belief that Christians just want to run the lives of women is kinda funny. It's also odd because Christians have way less interest in running women's lives than feminists do.

  • Tony||

    If I wanted a dispatch from planet FOX News retard crazyland I would have buzzed for one.

  • Brian||

    Now now, news people are the best people.

  • damikesc||

    Tony, given your lack of knowledge about religion and pussy, your opinion couldnt be less relevant if possible.

  • perlchpr||

    Some of them do, yes. Were you hoping to Poe's Law things here?

  • Ecoli||

    You want to compost dead babies?

  • Bubba Jones||

    The philosopher kings didn't get her pregnant.

  • Eddy||

    If you're looking for "moderation" on the abortion issue - a curious choice of an issue to be moderate about, IMHO, but there it is - then the position of the "right-wing extremist" Justices is the moderate position.

    They say the states can either ban abortion, or legalize and promote it, at their discretion.

    Strictly speaking, a "prolife justice" would say that the states *cannot* legalize abortion - that would be to declare people outlaws without due process. And there's the equal protection argument too.

    With their aversion to "judicial activism," the so-called extremist right-wing justices have chosen the "centrist" position - comparable to Stephen Douglas' popular-sovereignty doctrine that legislatures can either legalize or ban slavery, at their option.

  • Just Say'n||

    This is actually true. Overturning Roe would actually be the "moderate" position. I don't necessarily agree with the concept that some states should be allowed to permanently ban abortion in the first twenty weeks of pregnancy, but this would be the compromise position.

  • Bubba Jones||

    IIRC 20 weeks seems to be the consensus in the western world.

  • Intelligent Mr Toad||

    Right-to-lifers Rand and Ron Paul are why I left the libertarian movement.

    If the meaning of "libertarian" does not include "pro-choice on abortion", then "libertarian" does not have any meaning at all.

    Any forceful measures which a woman should be allowed to use in order to prevent someone from stealing an organ from her body for use as a transplant, she should also be allowed to use in order to secure her right to get an abortion if she wants one.

    The NAP should not protect an unwelcome occupant of your body, just as it does not protect an unwelcome occupant of your home. In fact your sovereignty over your body is STRONGER than your sovereignty over your home.
  • Just Say'n||

    Now do Gary Johnson and "bake the cake" or does "choice" end where progressives say it does?

  • Intelligent Mr Toad||

    Bakers can't be choosers.

  • damikesc||

    The NAP should not protect an unwelcome occupant of your body, just as it does not protect an unwelcome occupant of your home.

    Unless rape is involved, your entire point is asinine. If you take in a roommate and later regret it, you do not get to kill said roommate.

    Women know what sex leads to. It's not some mystery.

  • Tony||

    How does rape take away the rights of the baby?

  • damikesc||

    If a woman is actively seeking to not be pregnant, forcing her to carry a child caused by an assault is a moral wrong.

    Now, if she decides to wait 8 months before deciding "Hey, I was raped!", then tough shit for her. That's why no pro-lifer is requesting more than a 20 week ban, Because 5 months seems more than adequate to give women that option.

    Now, please, use the attempt to moderate a position as a means of attacking said position.

  • Tony||

    So they only want to ban abortions that women get when they are medically necessary and their life is in danger. That makes sense. So moderate.

    But just because the child was conceived in rape doesn't mean it doesn't have the same rights as other unborn children. I mean, that's obvious.

    All I ask is that if you insist on giving yourself rhetorical back-slap of calling abortion murder, then you must deal with the implications of that.

  • damikesc||

    Pro lifers are the ONLY ones willing to compromise, Tony.

    And it is not working

    I do not blame them if they become less willing.

  • Tony||

    Willing to compromise on the murder of babies? What kind of monsters are they?

  • damikesc||

    Again, your argument is that trying to find a common ground is a sign of evil.

    So, don't whine if pro-lifers demand an outright ban with no carve-outs. It's the only way to prove they are serious to you.

  • EscherEnigma||

    That's why no pro-lifer is requesting more than a 20 week ban [...]


    So are you intentionally misleading or do you actually believe that?

    Pro-life activists have tried for "personhood" laws and amendments on multiple occasions, and pushed for regulations/laws that would shutter the only abortion clinic in some states.

    While you personally may consider yourself "pro-life" and not be interested in more then a 20-week ban, you should not confuse your personal stance with the actions of pro-life activists in the states where they have been most successful, in which they have been quite proud about how close they are to banning abortion in those states.

  • damikesc||

    Where is the legislation for an outright ban?

    I have not seen any state even attempt one.

  • Bubba Jones||

    20 weeks would only allow 95% of current abortions.

  • IceTrey||

    The SC ruled in Roe that a fetus has no rights.

  • Intelligent Mr Toad||

    Any real libertarian would say you can order the roommate to leave, and enforce your order with lethal force, if necessary.

  • lap83||

    WTF? Only a lunatic would try to kill their roommate if they suddenly decided they should be an ex roommate

  • perlchpr||

    Really? So, if your roommate stopped paying rent, and started eating all your food, and sleeping in your bed, and you decided to kick them out, and they simply... refused to go...

    There would never come a point at which you would progress to the use of lethal force in any fashion, up to and including never calling the police on them?

  • IceTrey||

    Contraceptives fail. So if a woman is on the pill, uses a diaphragm and the guy wears a condom but she gets pregnant you're saying she should have known better?

  • Bubba Jones||

    Contraceptives don't fail. People fail to use them correctly.

    Women forget to take the pill. Men forget to put on the condom. Those get tallied as failures of the contraceptive.

    And the number of abortions past 20 weeks subsequent to failed contraception is approximately zero.

  • IceTrey||

    A condom has never broken?

  • ||

    Right-to-lifers Rand and Ron Paul are why I left the libertarian movement.

    You left the libertarian movement because a couple of Republicans support (a moderate version of) the Party Line on abortion?

    Seems like an odd choice. What did you decide on instead?

  • Tony||

    Not wanting the government's cold hands up every woman's cooch is a pretty legitimate hypocrisy to call out for a small-government philosophy.

  • ||

    You just can't not miss the point, can you?

  • Tony||

    Lots of basic rights issues seem to be negotiable for an allegedly rigid moral-political system.

  • ||

    At the risk of being added to your Terrorist List, did you and Tony-retard notice that all I was saying was that it's a little silly to abandon the libertarian movement because of what a couple of Republicans said?

    It must be hard to get around with those knees jerking constantly. . .

  • ||

    How is that relevant to your ignorance of what "unalienable" means?

    Don't believe I used that word.

    You changed the subject from the libertarian movement to the party,

    No I didn't.

    Tony seems to because he talked about "a pretty legitimate hypocrisy to call out for a small-government philosophy" --- a movement not a party -- which you ignored entirely ... while calling HIM a retard

    No, Tony was just doing his knee-jerk thing. He wasn't responding to me at all. I was just saying it's silly to abandon your principles because someone else who claims to share them says or does something you disagree with.

    Clear now?

    Clear as mud, buddy, clear as mud.

    If not, why do you deny that Ron and Rand are within the libertarian movement?

    I didn't.

  • Brian||

    Remember, kids:

    No one is coming for your guns.

    But we are the only ones standing between the women you love and botched coat hanger abortions.

  • Eddy||

    "Hello, I am Officer Noone. Open the door or I break it down, clinger!"

  • Eddy||

    "break it down with my tank, that is. The Nobdy Tank."

  • Ecoli||

    Live and let live.

  • IceTrey||

    The SC ruled in Roe that a fetus is not a person in regard to the 14th and has no rights.

  • IceTrey||

    "All this, together with our observation, supra, that throughout the major portion of the 19th century prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn. This is in accord with the results reached in those few cases where the issue has been squarely presented."
    Roe found that the State has a compelling interest to protect potential life not that the fetus had any right to life. Casey did not change this either.

  • IceTrey||

    I have.

  • IceTrey||

    "If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion [410 U.S. 113, 164] during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother."

    It says nothing of fetal rights only State rights. If you're going to argue at least understand the argument.

  • IceTrey||

    "In American political discourse, states' rights are political powers held for the state governments rather than the federal government according to the United States Constitution, reflecting especially the enumerated powers of Congress and the Tenth Amendment. The enumerated powers that are listed in the Constitution include exclusive federal powers, as well as concurrent powers that are shared with the states, and all of those powers are contrasted with the reserved powers—also called states' rights—that only the states possess."

  • IceTrey||

    It's called Wikipedia. I like how you know more than the SC, whose exact words from Roe prove you wrong, and all the people who contribute to Wikipedia. I seriously think you have some kind of narcissistic personality disorder.

  • WillPaine||

    Mr. Paul; what I do know of most of what I have heard (not a lot; perhaps enough), I am a fan; but, and I also am totally against abortion; and I am certain such is not my choice to make for another; death and life are too important to be left to someone else; such is for each to know, yes?

  • Bubba Jones||

    Was it Kagan or Sotomayor who called Heller "settles precedent" and then voted against McDonald?

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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