Is Abortion a Constitutional Right? Josh Blackman on Alito's Draft

The constitutional scholar on abortion, Sam Alito, and the future of federalism


HD Download

What's the best way from a libertarian perspective to think about abortion rights and Supreme Court Associate Justice Samuel Alito's arguments for overturning Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey? I spoke with constitutional scholar Josh Blackman, a professor at South Texas College of Law Houston, an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, and a blogger at The Volokh Conspiracy

Blackman is an unabashed admirer of Alito's draft, writing that it "meticulously dissects, and forcefully responds to, every conceivable position in favor of retaining Roe and Casey.I'm not convinced of that. In a wide-ranging conversation about the history of abortion, the changing nature of the Supreme Court, federalism, and partisan politics, we dive deep into whether returning decisions about abortion to the states will increase or decrease individual liberty.

Photo: Chris Riha/ZUMA Press Wire
Narrated by Nick Gillespie; edited by Regan Taylor and Adam Czarnecki

NEXT: Gov. Polis Wants You...To Be in Charge of Your Own Life

HD Download

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.

  1. When two rights conflict, the general rule of thumb is that the aggressor in the rights conflict loses their conflicting right. So if someone tries to beat you, you have the right to defend yourself with lethal force. Even though the right to life is a greater right than the right to not be assaulted.

    Agressor of course, requires someone to take an action. Something unconscious people can't do.

    1. What "people"???
      Wow; This is getting richer by the day.. As predicted.

      1. You'll have to explain in more detail what you are comparing about in my post. The rights conflict in abortion is fairly straightforward in favor of the child, as it is physically incapable of aggressing on the mother. So the only real question is when a child gets rights.

        1. Given the particulars of birthing a child, there's an argument the child commits an assault on the mother.

          this gets a bit murkier when the woman played a role in her pregnancy, but in the case of a sexual assault i'm firmly behind the position that even if you agree the fetus has personhood immediately upon conception, then terminating that pregnancy is a justifiable homicide. forcing a woman to carry to term and birth a rape baby is barbaric.

          1. You can't commit an assault without taking an action. Complete inaction is the definition of non-agression. If you throw a punch and break your knuckle on my face, I have not committed an aggression against you, even though you have been harmed.

            Also if you play a plinko machine that has a possible resuls of hitting your thumb with a hammer unless you shoot a random stranger on the street. The stranger did not agress against you, and you are not justified in shooting them. Even if the machine will break your kneecap, you are not justified in shooting them.

          2. The number of abortions related to sexual assault and incest are so small as to be almost meaningless in the discussion. The vast majority of rape victims who become impregnated don't seek abortions.

            1. Sounds like you are conceding the point that abortions in case of sexual assault and incest are justified.

              1. Not morally justified, however, I do not think they should be illegal.

              2. Only by the same logic that you are conceding the point that abortions are not justified except in cases of sexual assault or incest. Try something that wouldn't get you laughed off a HS freshman debate stage.

                1. That does not follow at all. It is you that should be laughed out of the discussion.

        2. "'rule of thumb" is just some inconsequential person trying to legitimize their unfounded ridiculous opinion. It's not a real thing.

          1. The concept I am describing is the NAP (Non-agression Principle). It is quite literally the entire underpinning of libertarian thought on rights, and even non-libertarian ideologies that aren't purely utilitarian accept it as the default position unless justified in some way.

            If you disagree with the the philosophy behind the NAP, please give your arguements for why when rights are in conflict the aggressor should have their rights respected over the person being agressed against. Please also make sure to give your philisophical underpinnings for why a right that cannot exist without being alive is greater than the right to not being murdered, as you do not accept the aggression principle that justifies people defending themselves with deadly force.

            1. I agree with the NAP. Your argument fails because a fetus isn't a person and has no rights. In a conflict of rights with only one person, that person (the pregnant woman) wins.

              1. If that is your position, then you are responding to the wrong person, because Leizi was responding to this comment "You'll have to explain in more detail what you are complaining about in my post. The rights conflict in abortion is fairly straightforward in favor of the child, as it is physically incapable of aggressing on the mother. So the only real question is when a child gets rights."

                You've just agreed I was right.

                1. Under what definition of person is a fetus not a person? Nelson just insists it is not and when he is pushed he insists more. I find it difficult to find a valid argument as to why a fetus isn't a person.

                  1. Under any number of definitions, such as that the fetus can't live on its own without the use of someone else's body, that the fetus does not have a developed frontal cortex, that the fetus is not capable of sentience, and so on. Do you understand that this is a subjective value judgment? Personhood is a legal concept. Legal concepts are a matter of consensus.

                    I would love to see you come up with a functional definition that qualifies a fetus as a person and does not qualify some species of intelligent animals, such that personhood doesn't rely on human DNA to quality but instead relies on some inherent behavioral trait.

                    1. There is no such thing technically as a frontal cortex. You are referring to either the frontal lobe or the prefrontal cortex. By your reference to sentience and thought, you are referring to the prefrontal cortex,which deals with upper brain functions such as emotions and reasoning. The frontal lobe is sometimes referred to as the frontal cortex, Ho
                      however this is a misuse of the word, as it isn't a cortex but a lobe. A 40 week old infant also doesn't have a fully developed prefrontal cortex nor does it qualify under any of your other stipulations except sentience, which I address below (just so we are clear, baby formula is made from cows milk, plant based milks can't support a human infant, so they rely even when on formula for support from another living being). Both the frontal lobe (which deals with movement) and the prefrontal cortex begin developing within days of conception. As for fetus here is the definition of fetus:
                      In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier embryo.

                      So your statement is not even close to being correct scientifically.

                      As for denying DNA, that is a stupid statement, without any reason or logic to it other than to deny the fact that the fetus is alive and has unique DNA and that DNA is clearly human. Trying to determine the what is human by excluding genetics is the ultimate in intellectual dishonesty and you've only done it because I've proven you wrong on this point in the past. It's the tactics of a weasel.

                      You don't understand the basic science of what you are even discussing. You have the terminology and anatomy all wrong.

                      As for sentience, it's defined based upon the ability to feel emotions and is a spectrum, not a definitive classification. Almost all mammals have some form of sentience. Fetus as early as 16 weeks will react to there mother's voice, will calm to soft music, will demonstrate REM patterns. This all suggests that they have some feelings. So ergo they are sentient under the correct definition of sentience.

                      Additionally, to summarize, the formation of the prefrontal cortex is not a set point but starts with the formation of neural germ cells, which starts before implantation. The prefrontal cortex continues to develop, and shows increased activity at around 24 weeks (this is not a constant but an average), however it is forming before that time and shows activity before that time, this is the period when that activity greatly increases. Additionally, the prefrontal cortex continues to develop and mature well into your twenties (average age at full maturity is now believed to be 25 years of age).

                      But by all means continue to argue science, because I actually enjoy teaching and correcting people when they make such obvious and uneducated remarks and believe that they are educated.

                    2. And just so you are clear, here are the stages of development for the concepta from conception through birth, using the correct terminology. Zygote, embryo, fetus, infant. It's a zygote through the first two weeks, an embryo from week 2 to week 8, a fetus from week 8, to birth, and then an infant. The word baby is not a technical term, nor is it a recognized period of development.

                    3. You're missing the entire point that argues that there is no difference between a human and a person. These are not individually distinguishable other than in a legal context, which simply happens to draw an arbitrary line at the birth canal. Otherwise, there is no difference between the child 5 minutes before and after birth.

                      In fact, according to your definitions, identical twins where one child had to be delivered by C-section at 8 months is untouchable whereas the life of the other twin is subject to the whims of other humans.

                      Throughout history, the only time anyone tries to make the distinction between human and person is when the one arguing is advocating for a right to deprive their subject of life or liberty. You follow the logic for "the Jewish question" and slavery to a T.

                    4. A two hour old infant can't live on its own without the use of someone else's body. Just saying.

          2. I am going to wager you only adopt this point of view for issues that you favor. And unsurprisingly, you are wrong, a rule of thumb is indeed a 'real thing.'

          3. LOL! "Rule of thumb" by that or any other name is not only a real thing, it's the entire basis of common law, tort, and criminal law. It's also used extensively in a wide variety of other fields such as accountancy or business management where typical [but not absolute] processes and procedures are put in place. In most cases however, such rules of thumb are typically referred to as standards or principles that are the basis but for which there may be exceptions so long as they can be logically justified.

            Rule of thumb, you can't fire a weapon in city. One doesn't need to accept this as an absolute however, and certain circumstances such as accidental discharge or self-defense are reasonable exceptions.

        3. Ooh ooh I know! Child gets rights when they turn 18. Parents get to determine the rest until then - including the right to live.

          1. As of now, a child gets rights after live birth. But that's just legally. Morally it is a murkier issue, but the overwhelming consensus is that a fertilized egg is not a child and has no rights.

            1. Overwhelming consensus is also that there isn't a difference between a 8 month old fetus and a 1 month premature infant too. Even the people who support abortion on demand can't actually defend it except by saying we just have to trust that it's rare (despite the fact that people do commit every other type of murder under the sun).

              1. Overwhelming consensus is also that there isn't a difference between a 8 month old fetus and a 1 month premature infant too.

                That's simply not true. There is no such consensus.

                1. Explain what the difference is? Because even by your scientifically inaccurate reply to me above, the only difference is where they reside. Biologically they are both capable of the same functions.

                2. Not true, former. As a math equation it would be -9+8 = 0-1. I believe you read Illocust's post wrong.

              2. I don't support abortion on demand, so I can't speak to that. But saying that a fetus at 8 months is the same as a baby born 1 month premature is math, and nothing more.

                The argument that a fertilized egg is exactly the same as an 8 month fetus is ridiculous on its face.

                You keep operating as if the foundational condition of the anti-abortion position is true, which isn't the case. It is an opinion held by a small minority of people. So if you aren't saying "I believe it is murder" you are being honest. If you are saying "it is murder" you are beimg dishonest and arguing in bad faith.

            2. No, the overwhelming consensus is not that it isn't a person. You keep stating this with no supporting evidence. Just because you insist something is so, does not make it so. There is nothing magical about the birth canal that imparts personhood. It's an illogical argument made from a point of confirmation bias, created to justify your beliefs.

              And don't state the courts and laws state it is, because nothing of the sort has been decided and there is no law stating one must be born to be a person. And don't use the 14A, because it doesn't address this either, unless you totally torture the first sentence to mean what you want it to mean. The 14A in fact, if you read the last clause of the first portion, states that even non-citizens have certain rights they can't be denied, including the right to life. Since the first clause deals with citizenship at birth, the last clause implies that rights are not restricted only to citizens and naturalized persons.

              1. "No, the overwhelming consensus is not that it isn't a person."

                A small minority of people believe that life (meaning a person with rights, not merely biology) starts at conception. If you hold a different belief (as 85% of people do), you reject the idea that a fertilized egg is a person. 85% is an overwhelming consensus.

                "There is nothing magical about the birth canal that imparts personhood."

                Legally, there is. Look up 1 USC 8 and get back to me. That's not to say that morally it is the same. That is a decision for each person. My line is about 24 weeks, when the brain becomes capable of regulating the body. But there are different lines for other people and they should follow their own conscience.

                "And don't state the courts and laws state it is, because nothing of the sort has been decided and there is no law stating one must be born to be a person."

                Yes, there is. 1 USC 8. Look it up.

                "the last clause implies that rights are not restricted only to citizens and naturalized persons."

                True. But a fetus isn't a person in US law.

                1. Actually a great number admit it. The minority are those that deny it.

                  You keep stating the brain is capable of sustaining life. But that isn't a set criteria and the brain continues to develop once the baby leaves the uterus.

                  Section C:

                  (c)Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.

                  So even that doesn't definitively state that this definition exclusively applies to infants born alive.

                  1. Yes, that section basically says that if a new law is passed, this one won't counter it.

                    So what does it actually say about "the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”"? It says they "shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development."

                    But wait! What does "born alive" mean? There has to be a ridiculous semantic argument to be made there, right? Nope, "born alive" is pretty clearly defined.

                    Unfortunately for those who want to play semantic games, this is a very clear, very simple-to-understand statute: A) A person, child, human being, or individual in US law must be born alive. B) Born alive is clearly defined. And C) if you pass a law saying that those words apply to a fetus, this law won't counteract that one.

                    The only way it can be read otherwise is to assert that the law was written to invalidate itself, which is patently ridiculous and confirmation bias of the highest order.

                    As of right now, those four words refer only to a homo sapien who has been born alive. So yes, the law says that to be a person, you have to be born alive.

                    If it's any consolation, it includes a failed abortion of a viable fetus that breathes/has a heartbeat/pulsation of the umbilical cord/definite movement of voluntary muscles. Which is why homocide laws apply in those cases.

                  2. "Actually a great number admit it. The minority are those that deny it."

                    Admit that life (meaning rights) begin at conception? That is absolutely a minority position. Most people believe that aboertion should be legal, with differing levels of restrictions. Only ~15% believe that abortion should be banned. It isn't until 20 weeks that "should be illegal" is even in the running, but it takes the lead at about 26 weeks (or the third trimester, depending on how the poll words it).

                    "But that isn't a set criteria"

                    It absolutely is. It's a binary issue; either the brain is capable of sustaining the body or it is not. At that point in development it is the only factor left to reach viability. But, of course, it's a big one. Because if the brain Is sufficiently developed, you get a fetus born at 20 weeks who survives (making it a baby). If not, you get most of the other fetuses that lose the mother's womb (for whatever reason) between 20 and 24 weeks. An unviable fetus with no ability to survive.

        4. "The rights conflict in abortion is fairly straightforward in favor of the child"

          This requires facts never put into evidence, namely that a fertilized egg is a person (or a child or a baby or a human being). No one has ever made a compelling case for it, which is why almost no one accepts it.

          1. Read the second half of the post Nelson.

            Though I suppose everyone who thinks they disagree with me actually agreeing with me, shows how solid my arguement is in a libertarian forum.

          2. The word baby and fetus are scientifically synonyms and until recently recognized as such. The word human means any member of the extant hominid species classified as homo Sapiens, not only those born, and is determined by genetics. So, scientifically speaking, you are just wrong.

            1. "The word baby and fetus are scientifically synonyms and until recently recognized as such."

              No, it isn't. Colloquially it is used as a synonym, but scientifically here it is:

              Embryo [em´bre-o] a new organism in the earliest stage of development. In humans this is defined as the developing organism from the fourth day after fertilization to the end of the eighth week. After that the unborn baby is usually referred to as the fetus.
              Fetus (fē′təs) n. pl. fe·tuses. 1. The unborn young of a viviparous vertebrate having a basic structural resemblance to the adult animal. 2. In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier embryo.
              Baby [ba´be] infant.
              Infant[ in´fant] a human child from birth (see newborn infant) to the end of the first year of life.

              If you'd like to be honest, you'll stop saying that scientifically baby and fetus are synonyms. Because they aren't.

              1. Yes. It is. Because the technical term, medically and scientifically for after birth is infant, not baby. Baby is a colloquial term. It has no scientific meaning. Infant does. Don't lecture me about the science, because you obviously don't know.

                1. Then why do you keep saying that baby, infant, and fetus are synonyms, scientifically? You did it in the comments for this article:

                  May.9.2022 at 5:54 pm
                  Flag Comment Mute User
                  The word baby and fetus are scientifically synonyms and until recently recognized as such.

                  Then you contradicted yourself:

                  And just so you are clear, here are the stages of development for the concepta from conception through birth, using the correct terminology. Zygote, embryo, fetus, infant. It's a zygote through the first two weeks, an embryo from week 2 to week 8, a fetus from week 8, to birth, and then an infant. The word baby is not a technical term, nor is it a recognized period of development.

                  Your second post is what I have said all along and what you, several times, have pushed back against. There is no such thing as an unborn baby, there is only a fetus, scientifically.

                  You should really sit down with yourself and get your story straight. Contradicting yourself is emberassing. Contradicting yourself while lecturing others about how ignorant they are is worse. Doing all that while claiming the mantle of "science-iest science guy who knows all the science" is a good example of having egg on your face. A whole omlette's worth of egg.

          3. As to the word person, if we let the government decide who is and isn't a person we really start heading down a dangerous path. Be that as it may, you have never once made a compelling case that personhood is solely applicable only to those born.

            1. In fact, there are several court cases where people have been convicted of homicide, manslaughter, endangerment, abuse etc against the fetus, thus implying from a legal standpoint, under some circumstances the fetus is considered legally a person.

              1. "Under some circumstances" is the key here. You want to make it under all circumstances, and a majority of Americans disagree with you.

                1. No, this implies that there is no definitive legal ruling that a fetus doesn't have rights.

              2. Another false claim. There are fetal homicide laws, but they are dependant on what happens to the mother.

                I have never seen a case that makes a fetus a person for a homicide charge. If you have one handy, let me know. A separate statute is necessary because there is a difference between a fetus and a person.

                1. Not even according to the law you quoted. It is a definitive definition according to section C of the code you cited.

            2. I'll post it again so you're sure to see it. 1 USC 8 defines a person in US law. Look it up.

              1. And didn't read the whole thing, or you would have read section C, which states this is not a definitive term.

    2. When two rights conflict...

      Two rights never conflict. When it appears that they do, you are mistaken about one of the parties having a "right".

  2. Getting tired of this subject.

    1. 4 articles this morning on it.

      Zero mention of the DoJs Office of Environmental Justice.

      Good job, Reason.

      1. They really need to address it and present details about what it is, what its powers are, and what it will allowed to do if it finds "disinformation" posted by Americans. If it has any sort of enforcement powers it is a dangerous concept.

        And it's DHS, not DoJ, so there would be even less oversight and transparency.

        1. I think the DoJs Office of Environmental Justice a different thug club and only recently announced.

          1. https://twitter.com/JacobMBliss/status/1523791294275133440?t=CCa4QZyMibSHj1HdBSEu1A&s=19

            EPA Senior Adviser for Environmental Justice Wants ‘Environmental Reparations’ to Heal Relationship with Nature


        2. You’re thinking of the Disinformation Board. Cronut was talking about the new Office of Environmental Justice at the DOJ.

          1. Great, so there's another Big Brother board being formed. Jesus, that's disgusting.

        3. The person who seems least informed is you, you insist fact free that your position is unassailable and undebatable. Also, you don't even know what the OP was posting about.

          1. Gee, I'm sorry that I made a mistake about the board he was referring to. I thought that he was referring to the Disinformation board that was announced the pther day.It doesn't change my opposition to it.

            And maybe you should start from the assumption that a simple mistake was made.

            1. Except you felt the need to correct him rather than inquire. You don't get an excuse for that. And like above, when you try to correct me on fetus and baby, you were wrong. Because baby isn't a scientific term. Infant is, not baby. You mistakingly conflated the two in a bad attempt at a gotcha.

    2. I don't mind discussion about abortion, but this is just recycling the same shit in different ways.

      Blackman and Root both made their responses a week ago, and all we have been getting is articles rehashing the same statements. "Oh look this guy commented on Root's points. Let's have a video to talk about the podcast where we discussed Damon's stuff!"

    3. Not too tired to post a comment about it, though.

  3. at best it's a privilege. now do the ministry of truth

  4. so it's to be wall to wall abortion 24/7 eh?

  5. I couldn't care less about abortion. And I doubt repealing Roe v. Wade will prevent a single one. But you can still put me down in favor of anything that immiserates liberals.

    Hopefully the court will continue overturning these yanked-out-of-the-suppository-repository "rights" previous courts have rammed down our throats.

    1. Nobody fucking cares - that’s the thing. It’s a goddamn shiny thing for us to look at instead of revolting over the fucking inflation and bullshit propaganda campaign over Russia and Ukraine, which will causeww3.

  6. Why are lesbians the most vocal abortion defenders? Asking for a friend.

    1. I think the ones that become lesbians out of anger, politics or fashion, rather than same-sex attraction, are invariably anti-human.

      1. I feel sorry for the lesbians that end up in relationships with those mentally ill women.

        1. The rate of abuse in lesbo relationship is staggeringly high

    2. I know when I'm looking for sage, reliable wisdom on life, how to live it, how to regard it, and how to craft law around it, I look to people who have obvious evidence of self-harm and/or cutting scars on their arms.

      1. Yeah, there's a very strong thread running through all of this, but I'm nervous to pull on it.

    3. They have the least use for the suggestion that perhaps men maybe should be in charge of the bodies of women?

      1. I mean the police preventing you from shooting random people on the street is technically society controlling how you use your body, but most people understand that the right to control your body does not extend to killing innocent people. The kid is a bystander with no control over the situation or ability to take any actions to control the situation. You can't kill them without cause, and about the only cause that justifies killing someone who has taken no action against you is to save your own life from an immediate threat. Mind you that's a justification that is subject to legal review everytime.

        1. Women seeking abortions have cause. The 'other person' is unwanted and won't leave on its own accord. That it requires doctors in lieu of police to remove the trespasser is a mere particular of the situation.

          The idea that a fertilized egg is a person with rights is certainly not "deeply rooted in US tradition" or any other tradition. It's an absurdity invented out of thin air in order to lend the anti-abortion movement some measure of a chain of logic. The motive has never stopped being about their desire to use the state to force women to live a certain lifestyle.

          1. "The 'other person' is unwanted and won't leave on its own accord."

            What if you helped put them there and it's guaranteed they'll move out in less than 9 months?

            1. Search Walter Block and evictionism if you want a really weird, but internally consistent, answer.

              1. It's not even close to being akin to eviction. That's a piss poor analogy, the same as the stupidity of the slavery analogy.

                1. Most evictions don't result in death either.

                  1. Before viability it does.

                    I don't find the property rights argument in abortion convincing (or necessary), but Block, as a well-known libertarian, has made an internally consistent argument for it. There's a Soho debate on it. It's worth a look if you want to hear something other than the typical positions.

                2. Evictionism is a property-rights-based argument. It is absolutely like eviction. Which is probably why the theory is called "evictionism".

              2. Why is evictionism weird? Why would pro-lifers object to it?

                1. It's a stupid analogy and anyone making it lacks the ability to have an honest debate. Not am I strictly speaking a pro lifer. I do however, expect that arguments are logical, intellectually honest and scientifically correct, which you fail on all three. You laughingly imply I am the one that lacks scientific knowledge but your entire post above was scientific gobblygook. It was not the correct terminology. It wasn't correct scientifically, and it wasn't intellectually honest nor logically defensible or consistent. I have a feeling you belong to the I fucking love science crowd, and find it rather amusing that you believe this imparts some greater knowledge than someone with years of education and experience. You can't even get basic thing correct, including basic terms correct. Your one citation you provided the other day didn't actually support or prove the point you thought it did. It was a paper on increased prefrontal cortex during the 24th week (on average) that most human fetus experience, however, that doesn't prove that prior to 24 weeks that the prefrontal cortex isn't developing (because that starts within days, prior to implantation) nor does it show the prefrontal cortex is mature. It just shows a spike in activity, using current methods of measurements. Like a number of people who claim to "follow the science" without an actual strong science background or education, you have over interrupted the results of the paper, and then used those results to support a preformed and desired result. This is what we call confirmation bias. It's actually fairly common, and generally indicates someone who is trying to justify a political position with science, but doesn't actually understand the science. In your case you are trying to find a scientific rationale to support your supposition that a fetus is not a living person. So, you create a parameter that you define as a living person, then pick scientific factoids that you believe support these parameters, however, that is a mistaken process. One of the things you learn quickly in university level biologies is that almost all biological concepts are not distinct catagories but are instead a spectrum. You learn in developmental biology, that developmental milestones are not set in stone but a gradual increase in development, e.g. the development of limbs is not a singular event but a process, involving multiple signals over time.

                  Another thing I would like to make clear, just so we can have a fact based debate, the placenta is an organ, that is developed by the zygote, and maintained by the embryo and fetus. I just want to clarify this. Because you mentioned the other day the fetus can't survive except through the placenta. That is true, but it's like saying you can't survive without your lungs or kidney. It's not as definitive a point as you believe it is.

                  1. "It's a stupid analogy and anyone making it lacks the ability to have an honest debate."

                    It isn't an analogy, it is a property-rights-based, libertarian theory. I didn't put it out there as a belief I hold, but this thread is discussing the tenets of it, so I thought it would add to the discussion.

                    "I do however, expect that arguments are logical, intellectually honest and scientifically correct"

                    I am always all three. I'm not the one claiming that viability is a loose standard (illogical, given the clear definition of viability), that women are frequently unable to determine the age of their pregnancies (an almost non-existant situation, so not intellectually honest) that baby and fetus are, scientifically, synonyms (proven false above, so not scientifically correct). You may not agree with me, but my positions are based in logic, data, and accuracy. A difference of opinion is not the same as illogical, doshonest, and factually deficient.

                    "It was not the correct terminology. It wasn't correct scientifically, and it wasn't intellectually honest nor logically defensible or consistent."

                    You'll have to be more specific as to which post, although I am confident that I was being honest, logical, and consistent. I disagree with you on when life/personhood begins. That's not an error, it os a difference of opinion.

                    "So, you create a parameter that you define as a living person, then pick scientific factoids that you believe support these parameters, however, that is a mistaken process."

                    No, I use the legal definition of a living person, a moral definition when discussing my moral beliefs about when life begins, and a biological definition when discussing biology. Conflating those three things is dishonest.

                    "I have a feeling you belong to the I fucking love science crowd"

                    I do love science, but I'm not worried about using the wrong word if the concept is sound. I have never said anything about the prefrontal cortex because I am not a biologist and I have no idea what the role of the prefrontal cortex is. What I have said, repeatedly, is that before roughly 24 weeks the brain is incapable of regulating the body in a way that can sustain life. I say that because that is what the articles I have read about unviable fetuses point to as the reason that a fetus before roughly 24 weeks doesn't survive if the mother does. So, for example, the earliest fetus that has sur ived was at 20 weeks and a few days. It survived because it developed faster than normal and had the requisite brain activity to sustain its body. If you know of another reason that a fetus before 20 weeks fails, let me know. I'll check it out and re-evaluate.

                    "This is what we call confirmation bias."

                    I'm aware of what conformation bias is and I work hard to counter it. I am not someone who is pro-choice therefore I will find arguments that support my belief. I actually disagree with many pro-choice arguments (like 'self-defense' and 'property rights' arguments). I have a very specific, individual belief because I am constantly evaluating what I know. I'm not the one making thin-edge arguments to try to delegitimize overwhelmingly common situations (like your "you can't trust a woman to know how old her pregnancy is" dispute). Statistically insignificant anecdotes aren't valid counters.

                    "developmental milestones are not set in stone"

                    I agree with this as much as I agree with the statement that, biologically, life begins at conception: 100%. However, that isn't a counterargument to viability as a defined standard for life (as a moral belief).

                    "Because you mentioned the other day the fetus can't survive except through the placenta."

                    That must have been spmeone else. The only relevance I see to the placenta is that if it is severed before viability, the fetus will fail. It's important for those who believe that the fact that a fetus is dependent on the mother is a significant issue (in "property rights", or "self-defence" theories), but I don't think those are the best arguments for legalized abortion so I wouldn't worry about the placenta in my arguments.

                    I just want to point out that I don't think you are being knowingly dishonest. I think you are reaching on some points (like the "difficulties" in dating a pregnancy) or aren't aware of some laws (like 1 USC 8 that defines a person, child, baby, and human being) or are mistaking colloquial usage of "baby" in discussions between scientists as a scientific definition. It is possible to be wrong without being dishonest.

                    The strangest part is that you aren't an anti-abortionist, just like I'm not an abortion-until-birth advocate. You seem to be saying that you support/believe in 15 weeks (or maybe the forst trimester only), if I'm reading your posts correctly. I believe in 20-24 weeks. To be honest, we have more in common than either of us do with the fringes of the pro-life or pro-choice movements.

          2. Won't versuses can't. I can't shoot an unconscious person on my lawn just because they won't wake up, even though I can shoot trespassers. I especially can't shoot them if I took direct action that resulted in them being unconscious on my lawn instead of off living they're own life. I even further can't shoot them if there are non-lethal options readily available to me.

            I want this person gone is not justifiable cause for killing another person. Killing humans beings takes greater justification than desire. It requires them having taken an action against you or another person or preserving your own life. A baby is physically incapable of taking action against you, so that eliminate 99% of the justifiable causes for killing another human being.

            Which is why the real question in abortion, is when someone develops human rights.

            1. This is why I think analogizing to property rights and other such things is stupid. Reproduction is a specific things humans do, and unlike most things rights can't be exactly parallel between men and women. It deserves its own legal framework.

              Abortion should be legal and liberal because it frees women up to participate as full citizens in society. Also because the state has not demonstrated its inherent superior ability to police wombs over women and their doctors.

              1. So mother's can't fully participate in society? What do you define as participating in society?

                1. You carry a child to term against your will, then raise that child to 18, and then you can tell me whether you feel your liberty to participate in society has been hindered in any substantial way.

                  1. So mother's aren't full members of society and raise their offspring completely by themselves? Seems accurate. Geesh, did you think this through before you posted it? I mean if you did, that really says a lot about your lack of critical thinking.

          3. Which one do you think is created out of thinner air: a constitutional right mentioned nowhere in the constitution or that a child inutero is alive? (Hint: one goes back in history to Mesopotamia when they scribed on clay tablets in cuneiform).

            1. I don't particularly care, since most everything we spend time thinking about was invented out of thin air. Anyone reaching into the disgusting depths of history looking for an excuse to use the state to force women to do things with their body is surely going to find one.

              1. No one is forcing the woman to do anything, but they are stating that if you choose to have intercourse and become pregnant, that the fetus is a person as well and has rights just like the mother has rights.

                1. And if she's raped? The fetus doesn't carry its rapist father's guilt.

                  1. Less than 1% of abortions are performed from unwanted pregnancies from rape. Why do you bring up the extreme ends of the distribution curve to excuse the average?

                    Always so dishonest and bad faith with you. It makes you you wonder if you really believe this nonsense that you spout or if you’re really that high in disagreeableness that you just love to argue with anyone to the right of you.

                    1. So do you concede that abortions in case of rape are justified? You guys keep avoiding this point, because you know very well that this crumbles your whole house of cards argument. If abortion is murder, then it is not justified even in cases of rape. Yet, this is a crazy position that very few people will defend. Therefore, the whole argument that abortion is murder is not consistent. Because abortion is not murder, and deep down you know that's true.

                    2. It's more of a starting point. It's your position that fetuses are to be recognized as full rights-bearing children. We do not say it's OK to kill the children of rapists. Your views have implications, man, and if you're not willing to address them, you're not winning any arguments.

                      It's monstrous enough that you want the state to force women to give birth to unwanted children. I'm just curious if you are equally as OK with murdering the children of rapists for their fathers' crimes.

                    3. No, that isn't even close to what he stated, he said they were such an extreme case that bringing them up is not intellectually honest. You both lack critical thinking of you believe that's a gotcha.

                    4. And no one is avoiding the point. They are telling you that it is such a rare event basing your entire argument on it is a logical fallacy.

            2. I think the right to bodily autonomy (or privacy or personal medical decisions) is more of a Constitutional right than a theory that assumes that a zygote is a person.

          4. Well yeah, that’s what all patriarchal religions insist on. Especially Mormonism - the most toxic shit show of a religion ever.

            1. New KAR handle?

          5. "The 'other person' is unwanted and won't leave on its own accord."

            Then the woman should not have admitted it to begin with.

      2. Excuse me, but men can get abortions. Don’t you even woke?

      3. Politicalesbians are the type inclined to believe that heterosexual penetrative acts are violently patriarchal in nature and that motherhood is a form of slavery.

  7. we dive deep into whether returning decisions about abortion to the states will increase or decrease individual liberty.

    Outcome based libertarianism again, I see?

    1. They've been doing this - starting from a preferred outcome and working back towards a supporting principle - that I think they do not even realize they are doing it.

    2. Removing decision-making from the individual and placing it in the hands of the state is definitely going in the wrong direction from a libertarian perspective.

      1. Removing it from a strong central power to a smaller, local power on the other hand is not. Please use the correct terminology, rather than continuing your long history of confirmation biased statements.

        1. Not necessarily. The libertarian concern is with individual rights. If the federal government protects individuals from oppression by the states, then it is just to give the federal government the power to do so.

          1. But in this case the debate is over whose right exists and how those rights are balanced. You try to ignore that fact using really bad science, I mean not even close to being correct, not even utilizing the correct terms. And not even knowing the basics of what sentience or fetus are. Or what the prefrontal cortex is. Or even the fact that it is still developing even after birth and then trying to exclude DNA from a discussion on species classification, which is just absurd. Just so your clear, defining what is human is species classification. In case you didn't understand that, which is entirely possible based upon all the things you got wrong above in your laughable lecture on science. God, it was like watching a cricket player trying to explain baseball having never played it.

            1. "But in this case the debate is over whose right exists and how those rights are balanced."

              You don't get to skip over the part where you provide logical support for your foundational assertion: that life (legally personhood) starts at conception.

              After you have established that, then you can go to the next step. But you don't get to force everyone to accept an unsupported opinion as fact, especially since without it your theory collapses.

        2. But Roe didn't place any requirements on an individual as to what they must do. It asserted the right of an individual to make the choice for themselves. It was protective of individual rights, not restrictive of them.

          Claiming that the Roe decision didn't put any obligation on individuals isn't confirmation bias. It is a fact.

          By overturning Roe and sending it back to the states, the protections on individual liberty have been removed.

          Considering trigger laws and the statements of culturally conservative lawmakers, as soon as the decision becomes final a woman's individual liberty will be constrained. Agreed?

          Roe, whether it was a legally justified decision or not, was a decision that protected individual liberty. That's a good thing.

          What will come as soon as Roe is officially overturned is a restriction on liberty by the State. That is a bad thing.

          The 'return it to the states from the Federal government' construct ignores the fact that Roe protected rights and states will now restrict them.

    3. Indeed. So utilitarian.

  8. Yes it is because abortion is a question of property rights, who owns the uterus? Obviously it's the woman. Forcing the woman to use it against her will violates that right. A fetus survives solely on the goodwill of the woman and that's all there is to it.

    1. Too bad they didn't argue that in RvW, otherwise it might have some actual solid ground to stand on.

      Oh wait, the SC doesn't believe in property rights, at least not when it comes to actual property. Or the food/drugs you grow on your own land.

      1. Or if the state or your employer can force you to take a vaccine or wear a mask.

        1. Millions of people refused to get the vaccine and they are still walking around free. You can always choose to reject the vaccine.

          1. You can always choose abstinence, morning after pill and or contraceptives. See how stupid that argument is?

            1. What if the contraceptive fails? Is abortion justified in such cases?

              1. Morally no. But I'm support abortion up to the 15th week. So asking me that is pointless. But morally no it isn't. Just because it isn't morally correct I don't think legally it should be banned, but I do recognize that there are conflicting rights so I support a ban after 15 weeks. With that being stated, if the contraception fails, again a rare occurrence, and you can't decide before 15 weeks to fucking bad. You still chose to have sex, understanding the possible results, so it doesn't resolve you of the consequences of your activity. And the father should be responsible for helping raise the child, and paying for prenatal care. It's called personal responsibility. You chose to have sex, you chose to use contraception, despite knowing that it doesn't completely eliminate the possibility of pregnancy. Morally, it doesn't resolve you of the consequences of your actions. Practically however, I don't support complete bans on abortion, so I don't think this is the gotcha you thought it was.

                1. Could you support the idea of a legal compromise that defines life (personhood) as starting at the earliest point a fetus has ever survived (as of now, a little over 20 weeks)?

                  Not as a moral position, but as a legal one.

      2. It's OK, Trey doesn't believe in property rights either. Or, he'll use property rights as an argument to undermine voluntary contracts and vice versa. Revealing that he's just, yet another, nihilist douchebag for whom reality means nothing if he's not torturing people with the emptiness of his own soul.

        1. Why does the existential dilemma have to be so damn bleak? Yes we're alone in the universe. Yes life is meaningless death is inevitable but is that necessarily so depressing?

          1. Again, all opinion. It's no more a correct basis for exerting your morality than an ultra Orthodox Christian exerting their morality on others.

            1. And no footing on which to refute or justify your own existence. If you're life is meaningless and death is inevitable, no one should have any moral qualms about killing you. So weak, spineless, and lazy, you can't even be appreciative of them saving you the trouble.

            2. And no footing on which to refute or justify your own existence.

              Your own existence or literally anything else.

              At least the ultra Orthodox Christian values something. You may disagree with the what, when, why, or how. You may disagree that some values are hypocritical or oxymoronic. But, arguing from a complete lack of values, you've got even less reason or justification and greater hypocrisy in claiming any superiority.

    2. Possession is nine-tenths of the law and the penalty for squatting should never be your death.
      With the exception of rape, every single expectant mother knowingly engaged in an action who's single biological purpose is putting people into wombs.

      Because of that you can easily argue that the uterus is just as much the fetus's, and there's an implicit rental agreement due to her choice to engage in an activity created for exactly that result.

      If I own an empty apartment block and get my jollies issuing rental agreements, I shouldn't get to kill a tenant if they actually move in.

      1. You know contraception isn't 100% right? She's on the pill, using a diaphragm and he's using a condom but she still gets pregnant. None of that matters and she can't even take the morning after pill because a zygote has full human rights?

        1. "You know contraception isn't 100% right? "

          So do 99% of the women out there, so why do you think this is a defense?

          1. You don't think taking contraception is knowingly engaging in NOT getting pregnant?

            1. Here's a hint, the morning after pill and the abortion pills also aren't 100% effective. So not sure what your point is.

              1. His point is that this is a terrible argument for you to make, because then you are admitting that abortion is justified if a contraceptive fails.

                1. No that doesn't even logically follow. He stated contraception fails. It does. That doesn't logically lead to the idea that abortion is then justified. That is a really sorry fucking argument. Let me guess you are a college freshman in a some sort of liberal arts study. God, the mental gymnastics it takes to try and take the idea that contraception fail

                  1. And then draw a straight line to abortion is justified is just mind boggling.

                    Here is my stance. Abortion should be legal up to the 15th week (I'm not set on this date, and can be convinced slightly). Morally it is never justified except in extremely rare circumstances with direct impacts on the mother's health and then only until the third trimester, in which case it is actually safer and quicker to induce labor or perform a cesarian. Do you understand or are these concepts to difficult for you?

        2. The odds of getting pregnant when multiple types of birth control are used is so astronomical that you look like a goddamn moron invoking it.

          Oh, and not one person here has argued against Plan B. Fuck, most of us have argued that it should be OTC.

          None of which addresses ML scenario that if I force someone to live in my apartment I don't then get to kill them when they become an inconvenience to me.

          1. The odds aren't zero. I'm sure there are plenty of people who oppose Plan B. Forcing someone to live in your apartment is illegal.

            1. "Let's craft policy on life and death based on statistical anomalies."

            2. The failure of hormonal birth control to prevent fertilization is almost always the failure of a woman to take the pill consistently. The chances of accidentally conceiving while taking BC responsibly as prescribed are extremely low.

        3. Still doesn't change the fact that:
          1. there's only one actual purpose to fucking, and everyone's aware of it, and
          2. if you're using condoms and the pill and still get pregnant you're a statistical freak that good policy should never be determined on.

          Also, nice emoting but yeah, people have human rights.

          1. 1) Yes, pleasure, personal connection, and passion. Secondarily (and a very small percentage of total sexual encounters), reproduction.
            2) No one has to justify their abortion to you. The default is liberty; if you want to have the state infringe, you'd better have a good reason and a strong case. Which anti-abortionists don't.

            1. Your definition of liberty not everyone's. You seem to ignore that your position isn't everyone's nor even close to being the overwhelming majority. That people run the complete spectrum (with close to normal distribution) from abortion banned completely to abortion up to crowning.

              1. Liberty is being able to make decisions for yourself without the state intervening (assuming NAP).

                That's what women are losing, to be replaced by the state inserting themselves into personal medical decisions, standing between a woman and her doctor, and denying bodily autonomy. That's a pretty damning list of liberty-restricting activity we are about to witness.

            2. Your problem is that you don't understand basic statistics or polling and believe that you are in the majority, but you really aren't, you are just part of the spectrum.

              1. I agree that I am just part of the spectrum. And the more granular you get on the various beliefs, the more everyone's individual opinions will differentiate.

                Which is why polls keep it pretty simple. In general there are four categories about legality (depending on the polling organization): completely illegal, legal with many restrictions, legal with few restrictions, completely legal. Some include examples the "many" or "few" (for example, asking if it should be legal only for rape, incest, and life of the mother or if it should be legal for terminal diseases or if it should be legal if the fetus has Down's Syndrome). And several ask about trimesters or viability (after defining viability). Because they don't have a shared script or even linguistic consistency, it is like comparing Macintosh to Jazz to Granny Smith, not apples to oranges, but it is possible to draw conclusions.

                And those conclusions show the "always legal" position with the least support, the "always illegal" with a little more, the "many restrictions" with a little more, and the "few restrictions" with the most support. For better or for worse, almost all of these ongoing surveys (several have been going since Roe was decided) ask registered voters, so there is a self-selection issue, but it also trends more educated and employed (or retired) than a general population survey.

                You and I are in the same cohort, since you have said you support 15 weeks with a possibility of being convinced of later. That is into the second trimester, which is where I am as well (20-24 weeks in my case). And that is the largest one when asking about trimesters.

                We are probably in different cohorts when asking about restrictions, although I haven't seen you modify your position with a lot of exceptions so we may both be in the "legal with few restrictions" (third-trimester abortions is always one of the restrictions because it serves to differentiate "always legal" from "legal with few restrictions").

                We definitely have very different beliefs about where the moral and scientific line should be, but from a pollong perspective we are closer to each other than either extreme.

            3. "pleasure, personal connection, and passion"

              Those three things are incentives to do it. Not one of them is the actual purpose. Calling the reproduction "secondarily" is stupid and anti-scientific and ignores 1.5 billion years of sex.

              Damn it. Why the fuck are pro-choicers always so invariably dishonest? Not one of you thinks through your stupid fucking answers.

              No one has to justify their abortion to you

              "No one has to justify raping a stranger, no one has to justify beating Grandma to death"
              I get that you have no actual defense, but would it hurt you to think before typing that drivel?

        4. Someone else wrongfully (or purposefully) conflating morning after pill to abortion and the abortion pill. Why are pro choicers so intellectually dishonest? Really, I don't want to ban all abortions but the pro choice pushers are so intellectually dishonest I often find myself siding with the most extreme pro lifers.

          1. "Why are pro choicers so intellectually dishonest?"

            Because they have neither the balls nor integrity to say that they don't believe human life is an absolute value, thus homicide isn't intrinsically wrong.

      2. Sex does not have a "single biological purpose." Educate yourself before you speak. We're going to stupid ourselves into the Handmaid's Tale if you people keep up with this "logic."

        A rape baby was not granted permission to rent the uterus. Yet the laws these assholes are passing are not allowing for exceptions for rape. They're explicitly putting the supposed personhood rights of a clump of inanimate cells over the bodily autonomy of an adult woman. Not because it makes sense, but because they want the state to control the bodies of women.

        1. So by making rape illegal are we controlling the bodies of men?

        2. "Sex does not have a "single biological purpose." Educate yourself before you speak.

          This is where Tony demonstrates that he didn't graduate middle school science and he suffers from magical thinking.

          I'll tell you what, Tony. If you can tell me one other valid scientific reason for the evolution of sexual reproduction besides... you know... reproduction, I'll post "Tony was right and I'm an idiot" from now on.

          "Yet the laws these assholes are passing are not allowing for exceptions for rape."

          That's a flat out lie.

          1. We see how you have moved the goalposts.

            Sex has a number of reasons to exist in human interpersonal relationships.

            But now you only want to consider the evolutionary reasons because you realize that anyone who says they only have sex to reproduce is clearly lying.

            Sex is important for a lot more reasons than reproduction. If you want to look like an idiot, take the converse position.

            But provide a warning first because some people have cardiopulmonary conditions and you wouldn't want someone to die laughing at you, right?

            1. Sex has one single biological purpose. All the other purposes are sociological. Learn the difference.

              1. There's no such thing as a "biological purpose," and even if there were, I'll not have fat old Christian goons deciding what they are.

                1. Yes there very much is. Sexual intercourse was an evolutionary trait that developed for a very specific biological purpose. For someone who follows the science you really don't understand science. And faith has nothing to do with this. It's a biological fact that sexual intercourse evolved for one single purpose, and that purpose is for reproduction, and the exchange of DNA during reproduction. Sex for recreation is a purely sociological phenomena that is practiced by only a few higher mammals (humans, a few other great apes, and dolphins). Ninety nine point nine infinity percent of mammals, reptiles and birds practice sexual intercourse only for the purpose of reproduction. This doesn't mean sex is morally only for reproduction. Because morals are not biologically determined but sociologically determined. As for most religions, including most Christians, the idea that sex morally is only for reproduction is an extreme outlier position. Even the Catholic church recognizes that sex within marriage has other purposes, sociologically, than reproduction. So, it's not from a Christian standpoint that you are being told this, it's from a biologists standpoint.

                  Now the idea of sex for recreation is not a biological concept, it's a sociological concept. You need to learn the difference. From a biological standpoint sexual intercourse is resource heavy (it takes a lot of calories and time that could be utilized for other functions of life, it also increases the risk of the life of both partners from biological contaminates). As such, unless it impacts some benefits, evolution would not favor it, however, it does impart benefits. It allows the recombination of DNA, which produces stronger offspring. So, despite it inherent risks and costs, it produces more benefits. Thus, sexual intercourse evolved for reproductive purposes. This isn't even controversial from a biological stand point. What you are arguing is sex imparts other benefits, but those benefits don't actually improve the chance of survival or passing on your genes to the next generation. As thus, those reasons are not biological reasons but sociological. These benefits are enjoyment and partnership. These are sociological needs not biological needs.

                  1. I can't emphasize this enough: there is no purpose in biology. Purpose is, in your terms, a sociological construct.

                    We are highly motivated to fuck, yes, because without that impulse our ancestors would have gone extinct. But there isn't any inherent virtue to not being extinct. It's just the way the cookie crumbled.

                    Most people most of the time have sex for reasons other than producing a child. That means, ipso facto, that people use sex for other reasons; hence, its "purposes" are numerous.

                    Life is what we make of it.

                    1. "Purpose is, in your terms, a sociological construct."

                      This is a very anti-science belief. Akin to creationism for the woke.

                    2. I'm fascinated to hear your quirky philosophical worldview of biological teleology, I'm sure.

                    3. No purpose is not a sociological concept. The purpose of breathing is to exchange gases. The purpose of photosynthesis is to create sugars. The purpose of eating is to derive nutrients. The purpose of sex is for reproduction. Yes, biological functions do have definable purposes. You seem to be under the mistaken belief that that implies some higher power. Which it doesn't.

                      Google biological purpose. You will find that biologists use the term purpose to describe why a trait evolved and what it function is, biologically speaking. The argument against biological purpose seems to be one made on a philosophical basis and appears to be made from the mistaken belief that biologists are stating that it's a conscious decision or process. That isn't even close to the reality. When I as a biologist (or any other biologists) state it is a biological purpose I am stating what the function is and why it evolved and how it works. I am not implying some conscious decisions or design.

                    4. purpose
                      1. The object toward which one strives or for which something exists; an aim or goal: synonym: intention.
                      2. Determination; resolution.
                      3. In biology, the result which a structure tends to secure, without any reference to an intelligent agent.

                      When I state purpose in reference to biology I am specifically using the third definition. So, yes biology does have a purpose.

                  2. In Tony’s defense, he doesn’t think we should be propagating the species.

                  3. There is no purpose in biology. Anyone that claims any teleology in biology is laughed out of the room by other biologists.

                    1. There is always a purpose in biology. What you are stating seems to be that there isn't a conscious purpose. Which is debatable but theology not biology. The purpose of breathing is to exchange gases. The purpose of eating is to take in nutrients.

                      You seem to be under the mistaken belief that I am stating that there is some devine purpose. That isn't even close to what I stated. I stated that biological function serve a distinct and definable purpose and evolved to fulfill those purposes. That isn't theology that is biology. You don't even fucking understand the debate obviously.

                      This has nothing to do with theology. The fact that you conflate purpose with theology shows a complete lack of knowledge. And just FYI, many biologists believe in a higher power. But this has nothing to do with a higher power. It has to do with what is the purpose of a biological function. Why did it evolve and persist. If you don't understand the difference it is entirely because you don't have any knowledge about what you are talking about.

                    2. Google biological purpose and see why you are wrong. When I and other biologists state something is a biological purpose we are not stating that it derives from a conscious process or design, instead we are referring to the function of that trait, why it evolved and what that trait does.

                      Since you automatically assume that this means a belief in a higher being, or some conscious decision, it demonstrates again why you are too scientifically illiterate to try and debate science.

                      1. The object toward which one strives or for which something exists; an aim or goal: synonym: intention.
                      2. Determination; resolution.
                      3. In biology, the result which a structure tends to secure, without any reference to an intelligent agent.

                      I am specifically referring to the third definition.

                    3. Fuck. How often can you get basic science definition incorrect before you get to embarrassed to continue to debate science with me?

                2. "There's no such thing as a "biological purpose," and even if there were, I'll not have fat old Christian goons deciding what they are."

                  Tony manages to shit on both science and religion in one of the most pig-ignorant sputterings he has ever posted.

                  Everything you do has a biological purpose even if you're not doing it right or you're broken, Tony. Yes, you sticking your dick in men's asses has no purpose, but your compulsion to do so is a warped and broken form of a 1.6 billion year old mating imperative that does have a biological purpose.

                  Same with eating, sweating, shitting, breathing and exercising. All have a biological purpose.

                  1. To a rough approximation, you can talk about function in biology, but scientists constantly being delightfully surprised by the ways organs and behaviors are discovered to perform multiple, often very subtle, "functions." And as humans we are uniquely suited to coming up with our own ideas about what we want to do with ourselves.

                    You can say it's good for humans to continue as a species and thus fucking is good, and that's probably a pretty popular, if still arbitrary, moral position. But we all know that fucking to purposefully reproduce occupies a minuscule proportion of the time we spend fucking, so by that very fact there's more to sex than reproduction, no matter how much your freakishly provincial superstitions might want us to keep our hands out of our pants.

                    1. purpose
                      1. The object toward which one strives or for which something exists; an aim or goal: synonym: intention.
                      2. Determination; resolution.
                      3. In biology, the result which a structure tends to secure, without any reference to an intelligent agent.

                      In biology function is purpose see definition three as to why you are completely fucking wrong.

                    2. The biological function of sex is for reproduction that is the only reason it evolved. We have found that we enjoy sex, and because we are indeterminate breeders, e.g. we don't have a breeding cycle, we can have sexual desire any time of the year, not related to a season. So we can have sex for other reasons than it's strict function. But in biology, function is a synonym for purpose. See the fucking definition I just quoted.

              2. One biological purpose? Yes. One purpose? Absolutely not. You don't get to decide which aspects of something should be considered and which should be ignored. Every part of sex is relevant.

          2. So every time you fuck you're planning on a baby?

            1. That isn't a good argument. You are confusing the difference between biological reason and sociological reason. Just because something is not biologically necessary doesn't make it less important. Sociological reasons are important they just aren't biological reasons. You don't seem to be able to grasp this rather simple scientific principle.

              1. Nothing is biologically necessary, and even if it were, the question is whether fat, old Christian goons ought to be sending the police after us for not doing what they declare is biologically necessary.

                1. Nothing is biologically necessary,..

                  Eating and reproduction come to mind.

                  1. Only if you value living and creating more humans.

                    I value the state not inserting itself into women's orifices unless absolutely necessary.

                    These are just some things people value.

                    1. purpose
                      1. The object toward which one strives or for which something exists; an aim or goal: synonym: intention.
                      2. Determination; resolution.
                      3. In biology, the result which a structure tends to secure, without any reference to an intelligent agent.

                      For the continuation of the species it is biologically necessary. It may not be for the individual, although most people have active sex drives (which evolved for the purpose of promoting reproduction as did making sex enjoyable, birds on the other hand don't enjoy sex and the male bird basically raped the female bird in order to reproduce, especially ducks, it's extremely painful but the drive to reproduce is so strong they continue to reproduce).

                      In biology, the continuation of the species is the primary purpose of living. Just because someone chooses to not reproduce or are incapable doesn't change this fact. What it does is insure your genes don't get passed on, and someone else's do.

                      One of the biggest problems zoologists have had with supporting wild pandas is pandas have an extremely low sex drive. They basically have no real desire to have sex, in the wild or in captivity.

                      This has complicated efforts largely in saving pandas. Even in areas with adequate bamboo reproduction is rare, which makes saving the species extremely difficult. This is widely discussed, we discussed this in first year biology at the university. From an evolutionary standpoint this low libido doesn't spell evolutionary success long term for pandas even with adequate habitat. Mammals that don't reproduce go extinct. It's simple. Your personal choices don't change the underlying conditions.

                2. “Nothing is biologically necessary,…”

                  Yet here you are breathing every second much to our chagrin.

              2. Tony doesn’t grasp a lot of scientific principles.

        3. Some people think the government should protect the marginalized and unheard. Who is more marginalized and unheard than unborn babies, who are never listened to, and who are literally murdered millions of times a year? That’s genocide, and makes pro-abortion supporters fascists who deserve nothing but punishment and to be cast out of society one way or the other.

          Am I doing leftthink right?

          1. There is no such thing as an unborn baby. It's like claiming you killed a ghost while riding a unicorn, waving Excalibur, and shooting laser beams out of your eyes. It's a fantasy.

            1. What is your proof there is no such thing as an unborn baby? Insisting it isn't proof.

              1. A baby/infant is, by definition, a child that has been born. If you want to use the correct term call it a fetus or, before that, a zygote.

                Calling a fetus an unborn baby is an appeal to emotion. And, not accidentally, a stepping stone to unsubstantiated accusations of infanticide. It's a propaganda tactic, not something to be taken seriously. But I will push back on it every time someone makes the claim.

            2. Baby is not a technical term. It has no scientific usage. You are conflating baby to infant, which aren't the same thing.

              1. I thought you said, several times, that baby and fetus were, scientifically, synonymous. In fact I'm sure of it because I called you out on it.

          2. You're doing that annoying thing where right-wing reactionaries appropriate progressive language in a fascist quest to oppress everyone.

            1. Can you give examples of this? And it's fascist to protect what one considers an innocent person?

              1. Perhaps the most egregious example is when they claim that Martin Luther King Jr. would have been on their side on black civil rights.

                It's a clever trick, enabled by the fact that fascism has no ideology but power.

                1. Actually fascism has a very distinct ideology, that the collective is more important than the individual. That you can own businesses but the state can tell you what you can do with those businesses and how they operate. Additionally, the idea that MLK would be on their side is an idea based upon his writings. Since neither side can definitively prove otherwise, it's not actually a fact nor a good example to use. When they state that, they are stating it based upon rejection of ideas such as white guilt, white privilege or that whites need to pay for what their forefathers did, or that all whites are racist. Based upon, especially his early writings and speeches, it's logical to make the deduction that he would reject the same ideas that the Republicans are rejecting. The idea that a person is guilty simply because of their skin color or that they should be treated differently because of their skin color. In fact, the argument of the left that people should be judged on their skin color and treated differently because of skin color is the same arguments that the opponents of MLK made. The difference is you believe whites should have to sacrifice and give up some rights or have some rights curtailed, whereas the segregationists believed that it was the blacks who should have lesser rights. In fact it is telling most early 20th century progressives were diehard segregationists, and you are now pushing a new form of race segregation.

                  Finally, since you've admitted in the past you don't really know what the word fascists means, but you apply it to people who disagree with you (which is surprisingly similar to what Goebbels did with labels) we will take your citation for what it is, pure tribalists bullshit and demonization of anyone who disagrees with you. Which is hardly what a defender of individual liberty would do.

                  1. Tony only believes that some whites should have to sacrifice. Like all progressives before him.

            2. It’s totally not fascist when progressives do it.

                1. Wrong. Fascism was a progressive movement. I know that's not popular, but it's the truth. Nazism grew out of progressivism. It's right wing in the European definition of right vs left, which is different than American definition of right v left. But the progressive movement wasn't restricted to right vs left at the time. There were right and left wing progressives. Especially in Europe. Nazism was derived from socialism, which has always been a progressive movement. The final solution was based upon eugenics which was a progressive ideology and was widely rejected by conservative Christians. Segregation was also widely supported by progressives, and was labeled progressive as it was supposedly based on "science" and evolution, the idea that some races were naturally inferior was widely accepted in progressive thinking. Once again, your lack of knowledge is astounding.

                  1. At some point it will stop being astounding, but I’m interested to see the depths to which his ignorance can delve.

                    1. Yes it does. The article goes a long ways to try and pretend that Nazism is not fascism which at it roots was derived from socialism. The original name was German Workers Party. Which was a socialist party. Hitler added in the word socialist and then added in the anti-Semitism. But it still functioned as fascism, which was a form of nationalist socialism as opposed to globalist socialism, which includes communism. The author spent a lot of time focused on the anti-semitism but didn't explain the governmental functions or the economics of Nazi Germany, which were entirely fascists, and was extremely anti-capitalist.

                      Both Mussolini and Hitler started out as socialists. Look it up. Mussolini, found socialism lacking, as did Hitler, so they designed an anti-capitalist form of nationalists government that borrowed heavily from socialists philosophy but rejected the idea of collectivism of the people, instead substituting the power of a central strong government.

                      In many ways Nazism and Leninism and Stalinism had many similarities, with the exception of racial superiority. Which Mussolini also didn't necessarily support either. Korean, Venezuelan and Cuban socialism are also very similar in a number of ways, minus the racial superiority. In addition, one article tried to state the difference between socialism and fascism is that fascists seize power while socialism is elected, but Hitler was appointed chancellor and was elected (albeit he did ban other parties,which is also typical of many other socialists and communists countries) by a 90% majority.

                    2. Mussolini was also appointed prime minister and then banned other parties, again which is standard practice in most socialists and communists countries. The author ignores all these facts and focused entirely on the anti-semitism in order to obscure the history. This is a very common tactic used by the left. It's also not consistent with history, or with basic facts. Nazism was at it's base a fascists society, that added in the idea of racial superiority (which interestingly enough the communists Kims in charge of North Korea also do). Neither Mussolini or Hitler gained power via revolution, both used legal methods to achieve their original positions. Both started as socialists. Both adopted many of the tenets of socialism while rejecting class struggle as the basis, substituting nationalism in it's place. While Hitler banned individual unions, he did create the German Labor Front, which represented the "natural leaders of the factories, the workers". Originally the Nazi Party focused on anti-capitalism, anti-big business and anti-bourgeois policies. They did tone this down later, to some degree, but it's original message,and it's practices continued to include elements of all three of these socialist tenets. Denying the links to socialism by focusing solely on the racial superiority side is intellectually dishonest and a clear ploy to obscure the facts in order to shape the debate.

                  2. Well, you can call things whatever you want. I assure you that I do not support nationalistic fervor of any kind, a totalitarian state, or the genocide of anyone. If anyone around me starts supporting those things, I'll unequivocally disassociate myself. What about you?

                    1. You 100% support a totalitarian state and have stated on these boards that you would be gleeful when your side lined your political enemies against the wall because they didn't subscribe to your version of Gaia worship.

                    2. Nationalism within reason is itself not an evil. It's when nationalism is taken to extremes that it becomes a problem.
                      năsh′ə-nə-lĭz″əm, năsh′nə-
                      1. Devotion, especially excessive or undiscriminating devotion, to the interests or culture of a particular nation-state.
                      2. The belief that nations will benefit from acting independently rather than collectively, emphasizing national rather than international goals.
                      3. The belief that a particular cultural or ethnic group constitutes a distinct people deserving of political self-determination.

                      Only under the extreme circumstances of the first definition, is nationalism inherently a bad thing. The second definition is hardly inherently bad. Definition three could be a bad thing if taken literally. So it really depends on what kind of nationalism we are discussing.

                2. Definition game arguments only work on people with aspbergers.

        4. "clump of inanimate cells"

          Who needs to educate himself?

          1. Yeah, they are very animate from very early on. The quickening, is when the movement is strong enough to be felt, that doesn't mean it isn't moving prior to that.

      3. Sure you could argue that a woman gets what she deserves for engaging in sexual activity for presumably pleasure, and I guess that men get off scott free because there is nothing but pleasure for them and none of the pesky issues.

        Any argument that centers around blaming a woman for pregnancy and thus requiring her to carry that pregnancy regardless of her own interests is inherently flawed because contrary to the misogynist view of the world, pregnancy and the act of becoming pregnant can not biologically be lain soley at the feet of women. The argument is "she had sex which she knew results in pregnancy sometimes, so now she must accept all burdens attendant to her poor moral choice". But this is idealogically weak. No such consequences follow the individual who enjoyed the sex equally and made equivalent poor moral choices.

        I actually understand and respect the position that life begins at birth, but I have zero respect for the garbage argument that pregnancy is the FAULT of the woman which is the only weak ass argument mothers lament seems to have.

        1. The argument is "she had sex which she knew results in pregnancy sometimes, so now she must accept all burdens attendant to her poor moral choice".

          Now do, "I'm sorry guy I had sex with, I'm keeping this baby."

          1. Different issue, same conclusion. It's the woman's choice because it's her body. Obviously men have fewer options, but that should make them more careful than women. Which, of course, is exactly what happens ...

            1. And the other body inside her? Now, not only are they not humans, they aren't even a body. Until the pass through the birth canal. Yeah, good thing you aren't an ethics professor, or involved in determine ethics. You sound on the cusp of being a eugenicists. Frankly speaking, the more you state, the more I believe that I am wrong to support any access to abortions.

            2. She already made her choice and there's two bodies involved. If she can preserve her physical integrity without killing someone, then you'd be right.
              But you don't get to respect just one person's body.

        2. How the hell does your argument square with forced child support?

          Now, I have little pity for men that stick their dicks in anything that gets a rise out of them.

          But I feel the same about women.

          Sex has consequences. As for me, I’m teaching my daughter not to spread her legs for a loser whose child she’d be embarrassed to have and my boys are being taught to avoid murderous sluts and reckless grifters.

          1. Well that doesn't sound like a 'blame women first' or 'women are manipulative' or misogynistic worldview or anything.

            1. Ahh the misogynist argument. Gotcha. Now you've gone the full emotional gambit. Good work there.

              1. Every argument he's made has been poorly thought out and emotional with no biological basis, but somehow these guys insist that they're not the religious dogmatists.

            2. No, it doesn’t sound like that at all. Jesus H Science.

            3. Any man in favor of abortion is a creep that hates women and is looking for consequence free sex.

              How’s that for ad hominem attacks?

        3. I see your 'garbage' and return your strawman. People are not arguing that the woman is the only person responsible for pregnancy, they are reacting to rhetoric like you are posting. Rhetoric from people who view the issue only through the lens that any outcome or argument they dislike is misogynist. As for your assertion that 'No such consequences follow the individual who enjoyed the sex equally and made equivalent poor moral choices,' it is risible to the point of being award-worthy.

          1. In California, men are required to pay child support even in situations where they were raped, so yeah, they are actually talking out of their ass.

    3. A fetus survives solely on the goodwill of the woman and that's all there is to it.

      Up until?

      1. The water breaks.

        1. Good thing newborn babies are independent, rational agents who don't need rely on anybody's mercy and kindness to survive.

        2. What if it's C-section?

    4. You may own the boat, but if you drag my unconscious self onto said boat and sail 5 miles out from shore. You lost the right to evict me from said boat until I won't drown leaving it.

        1. I'm so glad you accept my position and agree that for consensual sex the only important question is when a baby becomes a person with rights. As the baby cannot agress on the mother, as only the mother is capable of taking an action to effect the situation.

          If you do not agree with my premise in the case of consensual sex, now would be the time to explain why when rights are in conflict the aggressor should have their rights respected over the person being agressed against.

          1. You have to be born to he a baby so a baby becomes a person with rights when it's born.

            1. That's as laughable a position as claiming chickens have human rights. Human rights are innate, they are not granted by other people's actions. A one month pre-mature infant has the same human rights as an 8 month old fetus. They are identical developmentally and physically.

            2. You're so right. Pregnant women who don't intend to exercise their rights to destroy the children in their wombs need to stop using language like "baby bump." It just lends credibility to the outdated, patriarchal, pro-life superstition that babies are babies even before they take a magical journey through a birthing person's vaginal canal.

            3. At least Tony admits that he thinks natural rights are bullshit.

            4. Redefining words I see. The word fetus is a technical term, however, the word baby is not. It's a word in common usage, and has historically meant up to and including in utero. It's only recently that people, usually for political purposes, have tried to use the word baby in a scientific meaning. Baby actually doesn't have a medical or scientific definition.

      1. When you get a Pre Roe v Wade zygote to board a boat you might have a point.

        1. So you agree the only important question in abortion is when a baby starts to have human rights. Thank you. I'm glad we could see eye to eye.

    5. So a woman, 8 months pregnant, is beaten in a robbery. She survives but the fetus dies. Is that a property crime or a murder?

      A pregnant woman goes to the free clinic to check on the health of her fetus. She tells the doctor that she is drinking two quarts of vodka every day. The child will almost certainly suffer from severe mental retardation and other birth defects. Is that fetus her property to do with as she pleases?

      1. I think you got your answer above in a reply to my question. And that answer will disturb you.

        1. I have to be logically consistent. I'm totally anti abortion. Late term abortion is horrifying and I don't know how women can do it but that doesn't mean it should be illegal. Laws should be objective and our personal feelings should hold no weight.

          1. I'm not sure 'logical consistency' is apropos in every situation.

            1. It is if you want to be objective.

            2. What I mean by this is... by... 'logical consistency' one might argue that if you're for the death penalty than you must be for abortion, and vice-versa.

              I don't believe the 'dry, detached logical consistency' applies easily in abortion cases because that "clump of cells" isn't just a 'clump of cells' at some point in the gestation.

              As someone who supports abortion rights, I'm really...really uncomfortable with shoving an icepick in the skull of fully formed baby, merely because it exists inside the mother's womb.

              1. It could be that the logical consistency is missing a critical premise.

                The problem with modern society is that moral premises that have existed for a millennium or that were foundational to the rise of our civilization have been massively eroded and they are only upheld in religious institutions haphazardly. We still have some coded in law, but there’s no guarantee that will persist forever.

          2. If it isn't homicidal, then why would you even consider it wrong?

            1. It's the confusion between homicide, which can be justifiable, and murder, which is never justified. Most people mistakingly conflate the two.

      2. Also, I have to conclude that IceTrey is not a Democrat, because I just read a "fact check" that claimed no Democrat believes in abortion up until "the water breaks"*.

        *Even though several Democrats said exactly this, they later recanted or "clarified" their comments and added context and color.

        Do Democrats believe in Abortion up through the third Trimester?

        Verdict: False.

      3. A fetus isn't legally a person and has no rights so it's not murder.
        Yes a fetus survives solely on the goodwill of the woman.
        Are you going to charge a woman with manslaughter if she accidentally falls down the stairs and loses the fetus? What if she purposely falls down the stairs? What if she doesn't take prenatal vitamins is that child abuse?

        1. Are you going to charge a woman with manslaughter if she accidentally falls down the stairs and loses the fetus?

          No because I wouldn't charge a woman with manslaughter if she fell down the stairs holding her 3 month old baby.

          What if she doesn't take prenatal vitamins is that child abuse?

          There are a lot of reliably blue-state creatures who look down on serving a pregnant woman alcohol because "it harms the baby". Note the rhetorical shift from "clump of cells" to "baby" here.

        2. Thankfully, basic human rights are innate and not dependent on what the law thinks. If you do not agree, then please understand that you may not use the arguement of reproductive rights or the right to control your own body in any future debate on abortion.

          To sum, either your rights exist separately from the law, or as reproductive rights and rights to your own body don't exist, because they are not explicitly mentioned in the constitution.

    6. The woman chose to allow the fetus to use her womb by virtue of engaging in an activity that any reasonable person understands may result in pregnancy, then reneged on it. Try that with a renter of any property.

        1. Man, you guys must think every woman is not only getting raped, but it also resulting in pregnancy, like all the time.

          1. It doesn't matter if it only happens to one woman it makes your statement false.

            1. It does no such thing because most people that aren't abortofreaks understand that rape victims having abortions is such a minuscule portion of the debate it doesn't require addressing in every single comment.

              If you want to have an honest conversation about the topic, maybe start by understanding that the overwhelming number of people you will interact with will assume the qualifiers of "except for rape and the life of the mother".

              When 99% of abortions are elective and not because of rape, constantly bringing rape up is a red herring meant to derail the conversation.

              1. No if an abortion for rape is not murder it's never murder. You can't hold that abortion is murder and allow any exceptions.

                1. Self-defense laws are a thing. Also infanticide when committed by the mother is already a lesser charge than normal murder.

                  But really this is a side question that will naturally work itself out by focusing on the real question, which is when we develop human rights. People don't feel psychological discomfort from banning women from killing 8 and a half month babies that are products of rape, because we all understand that that's an innocent human being who is not responsible for the actions of their father.

                2. I owe you an apology after seeing one of your other posts. I shouldn't have assumed you were some rabid pro-abortionist instead of arriving at your conclusions based on what you think is objective.

              2. Desig best way to handle the red herring is to thank them profusely for agreeing with your position in all cases that are not rape. It gives them the option of either getting back on topic and debating the actual issue or conceding. Most people choose to get back on topic.

            2. So women never go to the hospital to be treated for rape with conception reducing pharmaceuticals but only go to the hospital as the head is crowning saying "Kill it! Kill it!"

        2. The question is whether abortion of a baby who was the product of rape can be considered justifiable homicide. I don't think it ever can, but I don't think all anti-abortion arguments must account for every conceivable circumstance to succeed in general and establish a rule. Likewise, a pro-choice argument based on outlier examples, such as a preteen girl impregnated by her alcholic father, cannot demonstrate that abortion ought to be legal at any time for any reason. That's bad moral philosophy and poor legal reasoning.

          1. I fall somewhere in the middle. I see little reason why the Mississippi law is morally repugnant. If it takes you four months to decide something, than that's your problem. Four months seems more than adequate to make a decision. If abortion must be legal, and I don't think total bans are workable, then a reasonable limit seems appropriate in almost all cases.

            1. And for the outlier cases we have judges. Didn't judges used to judge? If regular judge function doesnt work in this context how about make them distinct from law judges. More like a council of wise-men. Analgous to some native court systems.

    7. All rights are property, and the right to life is the one on which all others reside.

      1. If a state totally bans abortion and a woman has a pregnancy which will kill her if not aborted you want to let her die?

        1. Your argument makes no sense. Read what other people are saying and apply some logic to your thought process. If mom dies, the baby dies. So yes, when the choice is between losing both patients and losing one patient, you choose losing only one patient.

        2. Again, depends on the circumstances. After 24 weeks there is no real medical justification to save the mother's life, as the fetus can be delivered in less time with induction or cesarian, and lower risk factors than abortions after that fact. The main debate would be earlier than 24 weeks (however this number should be lower because we are increasingly able to save infants born as early as the 21st week, and given the accuracy of most fetal age estimation, this could mean as early as 17 weeks, which is not dissimilar to the Mississippi law). So, we really are talking about the first and early second trimester, which means in most states, outside a few outliers, this would not be impacted by the courts decisions.

  9. Next Up;

    Dear Smokers,

    You invited your cancer in; You have not right to remove it...
    [WE] Power-Mad mob will pass legislation that no tumor can be removed from you.

    1. I think comparing a fetus to a cancer is an excellent strategy. More of this please.

      1. So, you are actually saying that shrill and irrational is not a winning form of argument?

        Who knew?

      2. Comparing the fetus to a parasite is a common argument.

        1. The "fetus as a killable parasite" argument is even worse than the "fetus as a killable trespasser" argument, but not as bad as the "fetus as a destructible inanimate object" or "fetus as a severable part of the woman's own body" arguments.

          1. It is telling that the pro-choice extremists go to such length to dehumanize and even demonize the fetus in order to support their position. It's almost like they realize any acknowledgement of it as a human would be an admission that abortion is morally wrong. I don't have a problem with saying it's morally wrong, but should be allowed with a reasonable restriction that bans it in almost all cases after a certain point. I think 15 or 16 weeks is adequate time to make that decision.

            1. However, I would tell my wife or daughter that I don't support them getting an abortion under almost any circumstance, not because I think it should be banned, and not because I am their master, but because it's not morally justified in my opinion. That being said, I wouldn't disown them or anything drastic either.

              1. I find this quite reasonable.

                It does highlight the inadequacy of dealing with certain issues thru the courts and 'law'. It also hints at why we do. People hate the uncertainty of whether the leeway granted to communities outside of the law will be abused.

                In the case of abortion - whether it would be used as convenience [amongst other concerns]. This concept applies to all areas of the law actually.

                I'm not totally opposed to DAs not charging people for certain crimes in certain cases based on community morality IFF it has a logical and moral grounding in reality. But the way it is being used by Soros-approved DAs smacks of progressive corruption.

                This is the type of abuse that have people just defaulting to cut and dried rules.

            2. The pro-choice arguments that focus on personhood vis a vis neocortical development or biographical life vs. biological life tend to be of a much higher quality and more interesting than doofus arguments that deny a living human fetus is fully alive or fully human.

              1. To a degree, but they are still fraught with some inherent risks, namely defining what is neocortical development. And how do we draw the line. The germ cells for the neocortex forms fairly early. They tend to focus on when distinct neocortical functions are detectable, or when there is an "explosion" of said measurements. But that doesn't mean those functions are absent before this time. And since fetal development is not a set pattern (it can vary by a week or two or more, and in people with autism and other developmental abnormalities even more) it makes these debated even more open to counterarguments. Then, throw in the fact that even a 40 week infant's neocortex is immature, and that neocortex maturity doesn't finalize until the mid 20s, it still seems an arbitrary benchmark. It might be more reasonable than is it a person but it still isn't necessarily as solid a debate point as some believe. The fact is, is that abortion is really an area of gray and trying to assert black and white thinking on it is counterproductive.

              2. Sadly it seems most of the pro-abortionist that post here fall into the second camp.

            3. Why are you dehumanizing tumors? They have human DNA, don't they?

              1. Sorry to burst your bubble, but there is no scenario where that tumor is going to grow into a new and different human with rights. And I'm pretty sure it only has the dna of the person it is growing in.

              2. They have human DNA that is the exact same as the human they reside on, they are human tumors. That isn't dehumanizing them. But a fetus has its own unique DNA that isn't the same as the mother's. That's a piss poor attempt at a gotcha.

    2. If you want to debate someone it helps to have a passing familiarity with the arguements they are making, not the ones you wish they were making. The central debate of abortion is when people develop human rights. Chickens don't have human rights, cancer don't have human rights, a one month premature infant has human rights and it's peer that's still in the womb obviously does too.

      1. Based on Trey and TJJ's post, it's not so obvious.

        1. Trey and TJJ are both capable of understanding the other side and they are capable of finding out what the other side actually believes. They have actively decided not to. Their reasons for remaining willfuly ignorant reflect badly only on themselves.

    3. Whose DNA is encoded in the Cancer cell?

      1. Now, whose DNA is encoded in a fetus?

        1. Are you making the argument that the DNA has to be from two people? Sooner or later, someone will make a clone. Will that not be a person?

          1. That will indeed bring a whole slough of legal and ethical dilemmas with it. Until then, yes, a new human being requires the input of DNA from two people.

          2. Yes, because human cloning is illegal in most of the world and has never been successfully conducted even in countries where it is legal. And then the question becomes does cloning become a desperate individual or not. As this is purely a philosophical debate at this time, it's basically moot.

  10. Thank God this abortion thing came along, because then we wouldn't have to talk about embarrassing issues around Russia Sanctions.

    1. Or POTUS' ever more apparent mental incapacity. Or his involvement with his crackhead son's corrupt business dealings.
      Or our Ministry of Truth.

      1. Or the new WH press sec's grotesque connections to progressive media and political causes. I seem to recall there being much outrage among the permanently outraged about this sort of thing during the trump years.

      2. And ministry of environmental justice that openly admits it's going to determine what cases to prosecute based on skin color and sexual orientation.

    2. Honestly, the abortion thing may save us from going to war. It's distracting all the greatest war proponents, so unironically, it is a good thing.

      1. I rather doubt that it will. Once the jackasses are committed to a path, they will follow it. Because 'somebody has to do something.'

  11. At least the arguments here are better than other comment blogs. I get tired of the "my body my choice" and "murder" arguments.
    In the USA, the argument should be when does the individual right to life begin? Conception seems to be an easy line to draw but doesn't make sense when the embryo has about a 50/50 chance of implantation in the uterus...
    Birth is also an easy line but who would be in favor of aborting a healthy baby the day before delivery? It's pretty much the same, morally, as the day after delivery....
    Viability outside the womb makes pretty good sense but this will be hard to get through the Senate with 60 votes and using the SC to re-invent the meaning of the Constitution hasn't been very successful.
    So, With no clear moral pathway and no clear legal pathway I think it's best to err on the side of liberty as one can always choose to not get an abortion. With that said, it's good that this is going back to the states to decide...I hope they use the same logic, unfortunately they won't.

    1. Viability is also wishy washy, because I believe the current age of viability is 19 weeks. With something like a twenty percent survival chance in Japan. It's also only going to go lower as medical science advances.

      1. Yep, that's the problem with using viability. It's a mess of a problem for sure.

      2. Yeah viability is a problem. As are just about any method. Ultrasounds taken after week 16 can be off by as much as 4 weeks, as fetal development is not a set rate after this period. Using date of last menstrual cycle is even more susceptible to error, as some women have faux menstrual cycles up to and through the second trimester and other women have such irregular cycles as to make this method almost meaningless. The best method is ultrasound as early as possible, seven to ten days after a positive pregnancy test. But those require vaginal ultrasound, which is invasive.

        1. You just threw out a bunch of things that almost never happen and are trying to make it reasonable to question the almost universal experience of pregnant women, which is being able to identifybtheir last period and use a calendar.

          If you have sone sort of data that shows that the things you refer to are statistically significant, let's see it. But my guess is you are just trying to undermine the idea of viability as a reasonable standard, which is an unfortunate habit of those who oppose it.

          1. Almost never happen? You don't even know what you are talking about now.

          2. Its called 17 years as a nurse including 7 years as an ob gyn. It's also common knowledge that many women don't have regular menstrual cycles. It's also common knowledge that women can have faux menstruation after conception. As for the Ultrasound this is also common medical knowledge. A simple google search on the subject verifies this. At 18-28 weeks accuracy is +/- 2 weeks, so can be off by almost a month. After 28 weeks it's plus or minus 3 weeks. Before 16 weeks it's plus or minus 1.2 weeks. The earlier the ultrasound the more accurate it is. Look it up for yourself.

          3. You just threw out a bunch of things that almost never happen and are trying to make it reasonable to question the almost universal experience of pregnant women
            You have stated rape pregnancy as a common occurrence.
            You have stated that abortion is a common occurrence.
            You have stated that babies are just clumps of cells up until birth.
            Are you being held hostage and forced to type these things?

      3. The earliest a preemie has been born and survived was a little past 20 weeks. The brain development necessary to sustain the body typically develops around 24 weeks. The standard isn't wishy-washy, it is very specific and very rational.

        It would take some reserarch to determine, but a 20% survival rate is probably not achieved until 22 weeks, plus or minus a few days. If I remember correctly, 50% survival happens between 24 and 25 weeks.

        Finally, the medical advances you reference have moved the needle a grand total of a few days in the past three or four decades.

        There is a floor. The brain has to achieve a certain level of development to be able to sustain and regulate the body. Before that, life is impossible for a fetus, absent the mother.

        1. So what threshold for survival is enough for it to be ruled viable? 50%? 20%? 10%?

          And you seem to be discounting the idea that brain development continues after you are born. The brain doesn't stop developing just because you pass through the vaginal canal.

    2. Here, let me fix this--

      "With an extremely clear moral pathway and a clear legal pathway I think it's best to err on the side of life as we have no certain knowledge of the point at with the individual starts."

      In a case like this, it is always best to err on the side that leaves the most participants alive as the right to life is the primary right without which there are no others.

      1. When the fetus has the necessary functions to exist, I agree. Before that, it is the decision of the person involved, their doctor, and no one else.

        1. What does exist mean? It exists in the womb.

      2. This seems like an argument against the right to self-defense using deadly force.

        1. No it doesn't. Again you are making huge leaps to draw those conclusion. The right to self defense does not run counter to the principle he stated. At most self defense is one life for another. As self defense in usually in defense of a perceived threat to your life, it changes nothing, just who dies. The difference is who is the aggressor. In self defense the aggressor is killed. Without self defense the aggressor lives.

          In abortion one person dies while another lives. In the case of no abortion, except in extremely rare circumstances, which almost no one is arguing against (before you try your usual sophistry, I'd thought I make that clear), two people live. Ergo trying to draw a parallel between the principle that allows two people to live and self defense is not logically consistent.

        2. I can see why you are a former libertarian, as you appear to lack the necessary logical and mental capacity to understand basic concepts that would be necessary to be a consistent libertarian. You form your opinions and then try to fit facts to those opinions rather than letting the facts dictate your opinions.

          1. In other words, you do the exact opposite of the scientific principle or the principles of deductive reasoning.

    3. Government doesn't have jurisdiction inside a woman's body, so she is not legally culpable for what SHE does within her own body.
      Government does have jurisdiction outside women's bodies, thus any 3td party that executes a fetus/child should be criminally culpable for intentional homicide.

      1. But the government does have jurisdiction when she or anyone hurts/harms another body. That is what the debate is about. And if you look at most of the state laws, they are directed at the abortion providers not the woman. Either the person who proscribe abortion pills or sells them, or the person who performs surgical abortions.

    4. Viability is a poor benchmark because it goes to zero as soon as an artificial womb is perfected. We define human death as the ending of higher brain functions. It is logical to define the beginning of human life as starting of higher brain functions such as learning which begins near the end of the second trimester when audio paths get connected.

  12. It's a constitutional right today. In July, it no longer will be. The ultraconservative Christians hand-picked for the Supreme Court are not doing this because cosmic logic compels them to. They're doing it because they have the power to, and their ideology has no actual respect for the bodily privacy of women. After all, the constitution doesn't mention it.

    1. Hahahahahaha, you really think this is going to lead to Handmaid's Tale, don't you?


      1. The laws Republicans are trying to pass about abortion are less liberal than Saudi Arabia's abortion laws.

        1. Republicans? Who is sitting in the Oval Office right now?

        2. And current abortion rights are more permissive here than in Europe

          1. Mississippi law, which this case is about, is in line with France, hardly an Orthodox Christian theocracy.

    2. It's an interpretation of a constitutional right, and probably a poor interpretation at that. Yes, some of the societal push to overturn R V W is from an ideological stand point but there is a good legal argument as well. R v W wasn't a ruling as much as it was legislation from the bench.
      And easy with the strawman, the argument from the conservative right is that "life" begins at conception with the natural right to life being violated by abortion. Other than that, I don't think the conservative right has an issue with privacy rights for women.

      1. Conservative Christians have not outdone science and philosophy when it comes to determining when personhood rights begin. Since that's a controversial and probably unsolvable problem, Roe leaves the question up to the individual.

        You're either against the state invading your body or you're for it. Libertarian or theocrat. It's time to choose.

        1. Now do vaccine and mask mandates.

          1. Babies aren't contagious you fuckwit.

            1. So, rights only apply if they don't impact others? Good to hear. So, the right to abortion could arguably apply to a viable fetus, correct?

              1. Did I say that?

                Sure, there's hypocrisy over masks. It's coming from the people who said "my body my choice" all through the pandemic as they agitated for the "right" to be careless with their hygiene around other people.

                Naturally, they think police should arrest women for practicing reproductive choices with their own bodies.

                1. No one is staying the woman should be arrested. Most the laws punish the people performing the abortions. And even then, you act as if abortion is the only reproductive choice. Additionally, you are missing the whole point of the debate, the pro life people aren't arguing if the woman has a right to her body, they are arguing that the fetus also has a right to it's life. And most pro life are willing to compromise according to almost all polls, permitting abortion within the first trimester and then severely restricting it. And I know you'll point to the few states and outspoken activists, but they are outliers, the same as some of the pro choice people who have argued for post term abortions and abortions all the way up to crowning.

                  1. They've already arrested women for having miscarriages. How can you consume so much right-wing media and not be aware of how extreme they've become?

                    1. A few cases that got tossed out. Yeah, pointing to the extreme to make assertions about the majority is a weasel way to debate. Almost no one supports these kinds of actions. The arrests were wrong and I didn't hear anyone disagree with that. I'm sure there were a few idiots, but they are so few trying to use that as an example is just utter bullshit and you know it. You brought this up as a gotcha being perfectly aware that almost everyone condemned those actions. You brought these extreme cases up to paint anyone that disagrees with you as being unreasonable. You also complained when others used the same tactics when they argue CRT, defend the police etc.

          2. You can refuse a vaccine. Millions of people have done so.

            1. And were punished for it.

              1. Only by dying of Covid.

                1. People lost their jobs, soldiers and sailors were court martialed and received less than honorable discharges, which carries a whole lot of punishment, including being banned from many federal programs, and many employment opportunities. God, you really are uninformed.

                  1. Point to the part of the constitution that says you have a right to be a soldier and not vaccinated.

                    1. Point to the part of the constitution that says you have to be vaccinated.

                    2. And brace yourself for when you learn what other things soldiers can be ordered to do.

                    3. I know far more than you do about this subject.

                    4. You never pointed to the part of the constitution that said you had to be vaccinated. Or are you in the process of moving the goal posts?

                    5. But the law never said you had to be vaccinated.

                    6. The government said you had to be, they didn't even pass a law. They stated the law already gave them that power. God you are so misinformed it's just sad.

                    7. And further as a soldier you fall under the UCMJ, which is the law, which includes following the lawful orders of a superior. Again, you make a statement that demonstrates how poorly you understand what you are posting about.

                2. You know that people still died with the vaccine, right?

                  1. Many millions more died without it. What's your point?

        2. "You're either against the state invading your body or you're for it. Libertarian or theocrat. It's time to choose."
          Biased horse poop.
          I can think that abortion is barbaric, morally wrong, after viability a violation of the right to life, be against Roe and still be pro-choice.
          The difference is that I don't expect everyone to agree with my ethics and morals. We can have differing opinions and as long as we both have rational, reasonable, and logical arguments.

          1. I can support abortion within a reasonable time frame being legal while also finding abortion morally reprehensible. I know atheists who have the same opinion, and just because I go to church doesn't make my feelings entirely theocratic. The idea that being opposed to abortion is only a religious tenet is false and a straw man. I find nothing wrong with the Mississippi law banning it after 15 weeks in almost every case. And like most compromises, you know it's a true compromise because neither side is completely happy with the results, but most people, except the most extreme in both parties, can live with it.

            1. I agree that, while the anti-abortion position is overwhelmingly supported by relious organizations and people, it is not solely a religious movement. There are as many (or more) religious people who are pro-choice or moderately pro-life as there are anti-abortion.

              However, Soldier, I find your comfort with a 15 week ban, which is a completely arbitrary line, confusing when you have tried so hard to dispute the reasonable and easily-defined standard of viability.

              The one thing that everyone knows about 15 weeks is that the fetus has a 0% chance of surviving without the mother. A completely arbitrary standard with no objective justification.

              At least go with 20 weeks, which is the earliest a fetus has ever survived.

              1. Because viability is not easily defined, despite your assertion. And I've stated my reasoning, because well I find abortion repugnant, I do recognize that it shouldn't be completely banned, however, I think 15 weeks (which is the standard almost all the rest of the developed world uses) is long enough to make that decision. If we use 20 weeks do we change it next year when a 19 week old survived? To me that is arbitrary, too. Because it ignored the possibility for further medical advancements. And currently a 15 week old has an extremely small chance of survival (it's not zero but close enough that debating it isn't worth it), the brain development and the organ development doesn't stop at birth. With current medicine it is close enough to zero to be functionally zero, but that isn't a solid state. It isn't always necessarily going to be true. And just FYI, the youngest to survive is now 19 weeks.

                As I've already stated that fetal age and due dates are not definitive, and that the later an ultrasound is taken the more likely it is to be wrong, I believe that 15 weeks is reasonable. Maybe even 16 weeks. But this could change with science.

                So given the newest development, your 20 weeks is no longer the standard. So it's no less arbitrary than 15 weeks.

          2. Very well said, Eric.

            1. But you haven't really given a reasonable or rational reason. You've made blanket statements that a fetus isn't a person, you even said above they aren't even human, that isn't reasonable or rational. You also seem have argued with well known science, as you do with me on the accuracy of assessing due dates. Further, you have to even back up your assertion that fetuses are not people. Or that they don't have rights. You made a statement and then appealed to authority (the majority believe like I do) which is not even true. You've also tried to argue that fetus and baby are distinct words, however, baby isn't a technical term, it's a generalist term, whereas embryo, zygote, fetus and infant are technical terms. You believe you are being rational, but you really haven't made a rational base argument. You started from a basic assumption, and then tried to determine the verbage and the perimeters of the debate, solely so that they favor your base assumption. This isn't a rational position to take.

              Whereas Eric doesn't try to argue that the fetus is either human or not, nor does he try to obscure the argument by repeating that a fetus is not a person. From his usage of the word barbaric I am leaning towards the assumption that he recognizes the fetus as a person or strongly suspects that is the case. He isn't trying to rationalize. He is clear that it's morally reprehensible and barbaric, but he doesn't believe it should be completely illegal. He and I differ on what restrictions we can support. He believes viability, which I don't see as a concrete number, given the advances in medical knowledge and the fact that brain development is not ended at birth. Given the advances in medicine, the use of the term viability seems to be a moving target.

          3. And what Roe did was preserve our individual ability to make those moral choices for ourselves. It was a libertarian regime, soon to be overthrown in favor of a theocratic one.

            1. It was given to us by a bunch of old men, almost all of whom were white. Should we really trust that much patriarchy?

              1. No, and the Supreme Court gets way too much credit as a progressive institution. It was progressive like one time in its history. You know, that time we got all the peace and prosperity from?

                1. The USSC is not supposed to be progressive. It's supposed to be liberal in the classic and true meaning of the word. Not what progressives claim is liberalism.

            2. Strawman argument. It implies that overturning Roe and returning abortion to the state is purely a theological position and that libertarians all agree that abortion is right, or should be allowed. Further, it implies that the woman's personal choice is the only right being discussed here. All of these are false promises.

              1. Roe said that the state can't intervene on a woman's abortion decisions except under strict circumstances. If you don't like abortion, you don't have to get one. You can even try to convince your neighbors not to get one. Until you're blue in the face, go right ahead. The libertarian solution.

                1. No that isn't the libertarian position. Many libertarians as we've been telling you, believe it's a conflict in rights, the rights of the mother vs the rights of the fetus. Roe doesn't appear to stand anymore so it's back to the states. It's highly unlikely you are going to change the makeup of the supreme court any time soon, so it's now on you to convince the states that abortion shouldn't be regulated at all. Good luck with that.

    3. I wonder why you dismiss the 2nd Amendment.

      1. I would do a total re-write, and leave out the obsolete 2nd amendment. Unfortunately the only constitutional convention we're gonna see is going to come from the red states.

        1. While you’re at it, you could add a “bodily autonomy amendment.”

          Except you wouldn’t really want one.

          1. I would love one. But it isn't necessary because we have the Ninth Amendment.

            1. Except the courts have not ruled the 9A covers bodily autonomy, see the vaccine rulings.

            2. And if you argue they could refuse but suffered the consequences of that refusal, then the same argument can be made about consensual sex.

            3. Drug War has entered the chat.

        2. Ooo now rewrite freedom of speech and the press out too because the internet wasn’t around back then!

          1. I'm pretty cool with a de facto living constitution that evolves in courts and legislatures as society itself evolves. Britain gets on fine without one written down at all.

            1. Yeah, they just throw people in jail for teaching their dog to make funny salutes and punish people for wrong think, but it's all good. Fuck you are an idiot. And if you were more familiar with England, and it's people you would know a lot of English citizens including true classic liberals, state that England doesn't respect personal liberty anymore. And that the government is suppressing many people due to a vocal minority of outspoken activists. And that the system doesn't work for most citizens anymore. It's really a big debate over there and why they voted to leave the EU and why they voted for Johnson and his party (who they feel betrayed them). No, it isn't working well for the UK. That's another sign of your ignorance on what you are asserting as facts.

            2. Also, the living constitution would imply that as society has grown less pro choice (and the polling shows that well many support some abortion they want restrictions on it more severe than Roe allowed) that the courts decisions actually would be supported even under a living constitution. That means there are no rights, if society decides there are no rights.

              1. At some point you people are going to think hard about this and realize the abject absurdity of worshiping a document written by men who wore powdered wigs and walked in horse shit.

                Yeah, "society" can take away rights. It's in the process of doing that as we speak at the Supreme Court and in various Republican shithole states. That's because rights are laws. Some rights have been placed beyond the reach of mere majorities on the basis that mere majorities sometimes are too quick to oppress vulnerable minorities. It's a nice pragmatic arrangement, and for 50 years until July, abortion was among those rights.

                I like more rights rather than fewer, what about you?

                1. No you don't. You stated as much above. You like certain rights, and the constitution of the US is the entire defining principle of what is American government. If you don't like that, there are ways to change it. Not by changing definitions but by convincing enough of society to support your changes. God, that's a stupid argument. And just to be nit picky most didn't wear powdered wigs. That's a historical misconception. Wigs were extremely expensive, and by the late 18th century were largely growing out of style as was powdering them.

        3. So you admit you only support rights if you like them? Thanks for making that clear. The 2A is actually written, Roe v Wade required a reading of a right that wasn't explicitly written. The courts tortured the 14A to derive that right, when they should have used the 9A, but they also ignored the 10A in their ruling.

          1. Let me guess, you would do away with the 10A also.

          2. Yes, I only support the rights I support. Call the police!

            You can regurgitate a bunch of Federalist Society mumbo jumbo about why a 50-year-old basic bodily right was akshully not well written or whatever, but as free agents the members of the Supreme Court could choose not to throw the country into chaos by permitting theocratic state governments to toss women into prison for getting abortions. That's what's so great about being on the Supreme Court, you get to decide what's good precedent or not!

            1. I don't have to regurgitate anything. Ruth Bader Ginsburg did it for me.

              1. Which is more than can be said for all the Republicans on the supreme court during their confirmation hearings.

                1. Don’t be sad Tony. If RBG said it, it has to be good right?

            2. Yeah, so you agree that Brown shouldn't have overturned Scott? Bringing up a theocratic state is pure bullshit argument meant to demonize and dehumanize those who disagree with you.

              No, I'm just establishing that when you state your believe in individual liberty you are full of shit. What you really mean is you only believe in the rights you are willing to let people have, which is something actual fascist and other autocrats supported, while labeling those who you disagree with as theocrats, fascists and autocrats. I'm just exposing you for the hypocrite you are. Actually, I don't even have to put effort into it because you do most of the work for me.

              1. I'm not too bothered by how good things are achieved in law. Let's do what works, how about that? I'm not thrilled that we have relied on nine robed lizard people for many of our basic rights, but you are welcome to call your local Republican and convince him to support some of them.

                1. Good doesn't factor into it. As for basic rights, you have a very funny definition that seems only to apply to what you want it to, but in any other case, what I consider personal rights you are more than happy to restrict. And even speech you seem happy to restrict. Fact it, you don't support basic rights. You support certain rights as long as they align with your political goals. Me, I support rights, rather or not they agree with a political party or not.

                  The nine robed "lizards" don't define rights they're purpose is to settle laws and strike down laws and government actions that infringe on those rights. It's part of the checks and balances. The problem is Roe relied on a poor grounds, as even the pro choice heroine Ginsberg stated. Use a better argument and it's possible you would get a different result. Arguing the 9A would have been far better than the 14A. But it still misses the point most pro lifers are making, which is that there are two people's rights involved. That wasn't settled by Roe. And that's it's biggest weakness.

    4. >>not doing this because cosmic logic compels them to

      but it does.

  13. Of course banning abortion decreases individual liberty.

    1. The right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.
      If abortion is a violation of another's right to life than nobody has liberty to abort.
      Isn't that the crux of the argument?

      1. Again, what's lost in the argument is are there any reasonable limits to abortion... or perhaps re-stated as 'reasonable allowable limits'?

        Most people* don't have much issue with very early stage abortion. Because 'clumps of cells' and all that rhetoric is more believable in the earliest stages of pregnancy. It's when that clump of cells begins to become a fully formed child that most people* start to get queasy (as do I).

        *defined as a majority of people in various abortion surveys.

        Yes, there are rabid Christian Scientists who believe that life begins at conception, and (I've heard this and I'll go ahead and believe it for argument's sake) that there may be people who believe even in the case of ectopic pregnancy that abortion should not be allowed... I presume that they might believe that prayer and faith will get the mother and child through.

        And we know that there are rabid pro-abortion crackpots who believe that we can kill the child as it's crowning during birth with no moral objections whatsoever.

        As a country, we need to find some kind of reasonable space that excludes those two extremes.

        1. Agreed and well said. Too bad there are so many people that want to force their morality as a categorical imperative...bunch of Kants!

        2. Yep, it's why we need to be having the debate on when we are human enough to have human rights. It happens sometime between sperm and egg merger and 9 months, but where to draw that line has been a severely neglected debate (one of the reasons I've been slowly slipping more pro-life over time, is because they are the only ones bothering to engage in the central question. The pro-choice side refuses to acknowledge the question even exists, though that is slowly starting to change)

          1. There’s nothing wrong with allowing states to define this. It allows groups of like minded people to draw their own moral distinctions without infringing on another group’s moral distinctions.

            1. This is where I fall. It's not a question with one right answer, and because it inherently deals with non-consenting parties, the government can't just stay out of it. State level control is the best of a group of bad options. Most states will get close enough to a right answer to minimize rights violations, and the outliers will be less harm than deciding on a national level.

            2. That would be "liked minded individuals" imposing their beliefs on others.

              1. And when that's the case, siding with the idea that protects both individuals, is probably the best route to go. Since the debate is does the unborn fetus have a right to life, the side that errs on it having a right to life is more morally defensible than it has no right to life. Just about any argument as to why it doesn't have a right to life can be applied to some group of people outside the womb as well, which makes these arguments morally suspect.

                1. Molly doesn’t believe certain groups of people deserve rights. She’s a progressive, so I’ll let you guess which groups those are.

        3. Thank you Mother. As Roe originally stood (in my layman’s understanding) abortion within the first trimester was to be allowed, in the second trimester, it was to be restricted to health of the mother and third trimester was to be disallowed. The court also (again in my layman’s understanding) urged Congress to rectify the legal morass that was developing thru actual legislation. 49 years later no one has done a damn thing but try to let the courts legislate from the bench while using cherry picked (no pun intended) cases and jurisdiction hopping and judge shopping to try to get to someone’s idea of where it should go. Had this been addressed some time within the last 5 decades there would have been a legal foundation to work from. But doing it that way would have required negotiation and consensus. And today there is NO room for either in politics.

        4. We should be able to achieve that, since the two lunatic fringes comprise less than 25% of Americans. But they (especially the anti-abortionists) suck all of the oxygen out of the room.

          If those of us in the middle would tell anyone who shouted about infanticide, murder, "convenience", or using abortion as birth control to take their hatred and shove it, we might be able to get somewhere. If we told anyone who said that there should be no restrictions on abortion and that restricting abortion is slavery to shut the hell up, we might be able to get somewhere..

          But there is too much money and political advantage in fighting the culture wars to actually find a solution. There is no incentive for anyone to compromise. On the contrary, there is every reason for those in power to keep the pot stirred and the lunatic fringes empowered.

          1. Yeah it's the anti abortionists who are the extremists, not the ones trying to burn down churches and adoption centers, and not the ones who believe that any law that bans abortion up to and including the baby crowning, that are sucking the oxygen out of the room. Also, contrary to what you believe your position really isn't any more popular than my position, or any more rational (in fact because you keep trying to make an argument that the fetus is either not a person or not deserving of some rights) your argument is actually less rational.

            Your argument and position also is not well informed as I've corrected you multiple times. Additionally, you've gotten some really basic science and medicine wrong. You also have stated that legally an unborn fetus doesn't have any rights under the law, which is demonstrably not true. And have yet to cite any law or court ruling that states as much, despite me asking multiple times for an example (I'm fairly well known for admitting I am wrong when presented with evidence and even changing my mind when actual evidence rather than assertions are presented). I can find only court cases from California and Michigan, which even in those court cases they admit that these rulings are unique and contrary to court cases and laws of almost every other state. However there are no federal rulings or laws to that effect.

            1. Gorsuch did say in his hearing that he believes that Roe ruled the fetus was not a person under the 14A, however since he is apparently siding with the Alito decision, it appears that he finds this ruling unjust.

              Many states have passed laws extending protections to the fetus. Most states, including California (contrary to their statement that the fetus isn't a person) allow for murder charges to be applied when the fetus is killed deliberately outside of abortion. If you shoot a pregnant woman, and she miscarriages, even if she survives you can be charged with murder. If she doesn't survive you can be charged with double murder.

              The ACLU doesn't even pretend, they state right out in front they oppose any and all laws that give any protections to the fetus because they could be in conflict with abortion rights. So they don't even try to pretend that denying rights to fetus is anything more than to keep abortion legal at any stage (they also oppose any restriction even in the third trimester). I see some opinions that state they aren't legally a person, usually reliant solely on Roe and several others that dispute these findings.

              Roe's text doesn't seem to really address this question. The 14A argument doesn't appear to be consistent with the actual meaning of the first clause of the 14A or it's intentions. Especially not based on the debate or the author's writings. It is entirely dependent on the first phrase of the the first clause of the 14A, which grants citizenship to those born in the US and those naturalized, but the last sentence of the first clause of the 14A reads 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. The semicolon and not seems to state that even non citizens can't be denied rights except after trial. So it doesn't seem to imply in a full reading, that rights are solely for those born citizens. And in no reading of it does it read that only after you are born are you considered a person.

              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.

                This is the entire 14A. It doesn't seem to address the pertinent question.

      2. Where an embryo becomes a person is nothing more then a religious belief. To ban abortions as the Republicans want would impose their religious belief (that life begins at fertilization) on others. We cease to be a free country if one group can impose their religious beliefs to the detriment of their freedoms, especially their freedom of reproductive choice.

        1. So I can shoot you and I have committed no crime. Think about what you just said. You literally just declared that when humans develop human rights is a religious belief and has no place in government. That means you as a full grown adult have no human rights because developing them would be religion.

          1. The belief that rights are bestowed on conception obviously stems from religious dogma, but you're right to be skeptical that any secular institution can "discover" when rights enter the picture. All we can do is make laws about it according to, one hopes, an appreciation of the practicalities involved.

            Giving rights to fertilized eggs is patently insane, of course, but things get a little fuzzy, in a good-faith way, around the third trimester.

            Best to leave abortion before then up to individuals since we clearly can't agree in a peaceful way on these things.

            1. Why the third trimester? Have you seen how developed a fetus is during the second trimester, or the fact that a growing number of fetus delivered in the second half of the second trimester now can survive due to advances medical knowledge?

              1. I don't know. I said it's fuzzy. Just don't come looking to me for excuses for why the police should harass and imprison women for getting abortions. I'm for more freedom from the state, not less.

                1. Most aren't calling for imprisoning women, only the craziest of the crazy support that, and yes someone did arrest a woman over a miscarriage, the courts released them and the majority, of even pro lifers, condemned the actions. You are making it even fuzzier by trying to imply that the craziest of the crazy, the smallest percentage of the population, represents the whole. Which I can actually kind of understand as progressives seem to want to redefine all of society to make the fringest groups the mainstream and force everyone not only to tolerate them but to accept them. So, I can understand to a point why you use this tactic, but the rest of us understand that there are always idiots out there, and we don't judge everyone by the actions of a few idiots.

              2. As of now, the earliest has been 20 weeks. 24 weeks is roughly where 50% survival is achieved.

                1. No it's 19 weeks. It keeps getting less, last year it was 20 now it's 19.

                  1. The year before that it was 21.

        2. No, it's philosophical, not religious because it doesn't take religion to debate the issue. From a scientific perspective life begins at conception. Miscarriages and failure to implant are natural processes that end those lives, but it doesn't change the fact that the fetus, embryo or zygote was alive prior to that, and a separate life form. Now, you need to decide why a separate, human life is not a person. And that is why the pro-choice extremists try to hard to dehumanize these beings, because it makes it more palatable to state they aren't a person, than to admit you are killing an individual, genetically unique human or humans in the case of multiple births.

          1. Science says no such thing, and I'd really appreciate it if you could stop speaking for science as if you know what you're talking about.

            You're choosing to confer legal rights on a fertilized human embryo. That's just a choice you're making. No science or even religion is requiring this of you. Only scuzzy political operatives from the 1970s conservative movement who needed a better excuse than "because Jesus says so."

            1. I didn't say science I said philosophy and for your information we have already established that I have far more science education and knowledge than you. And it is alive, it is human, those are scientific facts. It's not a monkey or a dog fetus, it's a human fetus. So, the question becomes does it have rights, which is as I stated a philosophical question. Not a theological one. God, you can't read and you have no idea what you are actually stating as fact isn't actually facts.

              1. If you want to say a human fetus is a human fetus, you don't need a guy in a lab coat for that.

                You're engaging in what is known as begging the question. The entire debate is about when during pregnancy it's OK to terminate without the state sticking its nose in the matter. You're saying that it can stick its nose in at the moment of conception (Brett Kavanaugh likes that idea I suppose). Your reasoning is: "because we have no choice; it's a rights-bearing person at conception." But that's not an argument. It's begging the question.

                I think it practical to confer rights somewhere later down the line, and I would err on the side of individual liberty over state interference, like a good libertarian.

                A libertarian cannot live on tax breaks for billionaires alone.

                1. Hahahahahahahahahaha

                  Whoa boy


                2. Actually I didn't state that. I stated I support it through the first trimester and a bit beyond, the 15th week. So again you are wrong.

                  No, the people saying it isn't human or a person are the ones partaking in begging the question. My point has consistently been that almost all of the pro choice arguments are made to evade the fact that it is a living human being. I find that shit annoying and dishonest. That doesn't mean I feel it should be completely banned. It also doesn't mean I try to make the legality of abortion morally acceptable. I find it morally reprehensible. I find using cocaine morally reprehensible as well, but don't support laws that ban adults from using it.

                  I don't find your arguments or arguments that try to avoid the fact that a fetus is undeniably human and alive, to be intellectual honest. I also don't find them morally defensible. I however, don't support completely banning abortion for purely practical reasons. I do however, support punishing doctors and other medical professionals who conduct abortions after a certain point in the pregnancy, as I don't find a medically justified reason to do it. And I readily admit, despite the fact that I don't support banning abortions completely, and while I support banning it past 15 weeks, I also am not dogmatic about that limit either. I do support that limit being set by the states. I think Texas is stupid. I think Idaho and Utah are equally stupid. I also think Washington and Oregon and California are way to lenient. Even though I believe these things I don't try to pretend that the fetus isn't alive, or it isn't human or it doesn't have a right to life, or that abortion is morally defensible. I am trying to be completely honest rather than pretending to make myself feel better about my position.

                  1. "almost all of the pro choice arguments are made to evade the fact that it is a living human being"

                    Correct. We evade that fact by denying its existence as a fact. You don't mean "living human being," you mean "rights-bearing person." Otherwise you're just muddling the issue.

                    So a fetus is a living human being. So what? The state permits us to kill living human beings under certain circumstances. As an alternative to being forced to carry an unwanted rape baby to term, that could simply be one of those conditions.

                    Or you can say it's a fetus, a non-person, and disposable. These are all just words we use, and if we're going to be obsessed with them, we really should be precise in our use of them. The question is what do you want the state to do to pregnant women and for what purpose? I just think you better have a good purpose, that's all, and "because I've tied myself in a definitional knot" is not among those.

                    1. So when do people get rights? If you are admitting that they are a living human being, but are arguing they don't have rights that implied rights can be denied to any group of humans if society so chooses. Is that the route you want to go in defending individual rights? That rights of human beings depends on some arbitrary designation?

                      If it is a living human being, it's a person. Arguing these definitions is important. The fact you don't want to debate definitions or ignore definitions means that you are solely focused on one person's rights, the mother's, and aren't concerned about another person's rights. That means you believe rights are arbitrary and some people's rights are more important than other people's rights. I've stated multiple times what my position is. You've chosen to ignore it and argue strawman.

                    2. People acquire rights as they age already. A 12 year-old isn't eligible to drive, and a 17 year-old isn't eligible to vote. A 23 year-old can't run for president. This is not as difficult as it appears to be for you.

                      Anti-abortionists don't want to consider the rights of mothers at all. That's because they are fanatical and insane. Roe left a good standard: decide for yourself, with the state intervening only when absolutely necessary for narrowly described state interests. I'm just being a libertarian here and supporting the Roe regime.

          2. "Now, you need to decide why a separate, human life is not a person."

            Because it isn't separate and has a 0% chance of survival if the mother were to die until well through the 2nd trimester.

            "pro-choice extremists try to hard to dehumanize these beings, because it makes it more palatable to state they aren't a person"

            The pro-choice fringe is smaller than the anti-abortionist fringe, but equally irrational and extreme. However, the position that a fetus isn't a person isn't a fringe belief, nor is it an attempt to dehumanize.

            I am not an extremist, but I don't believe that a fetus is a person. Not because I want to dehumanize, but because "person" has a very specific legal definition and a fetus doesn't meet it. To me, the moral point at which a fetus becomes a person is much earlier than the legal point. My personal belief centers on brain activity and the ability of the fetus to maintain and regulate its body. And I don't see a problem with having the biological, moral, and legal points at which life/personhood is achieved be three different points.

            "because it makes it more palatable to state they aren't a person"

            The logic that someone dehimanizes a fetus in order to avoid feeling guilty about being pro-choice is flawed.

            First, if you are pro-choice but wouldn't get an abortion, there isn't any reason to feel guilty since you aren't doing anything to feel guilty about.

            But more significantly, the assumption that someone needs to do something to avoid feeling guilt assumes that, deep down, the person believes the same thing as anti-abortionists. Which is insane, but not surprising since anti-abortionists assume that there is only one valid belief about abortion and everyone knows it.

            1. So, a person on feeding tube isn't a person? Because they have absolutely zero percent chance of surviving without outside support. And just FYI, the mother doesn't create the placenta, that is created by the fetus. Just want to make that clear.

              And I've asked you multiple times what your citation is, proof that a person has a very distinct legal definition. You have yet to provide it. There is no legal definition that I can find anywhere. And as I've stated above survival currently is relegated to 19 weeks, but last year it was 20 weeks and the year before that it was 21 weeks. In three years the survival keeps getting shorter by a week each year. Your basis for viability ignores the idea that development continues after birth, in every single thing that supports life, and that as medicine advances we have dramatically increased our ability to support the fetus if born immature. You are arguing that there is some concrete number, but that isn't scientifically valid.

              As for feeling guilt, it's a human emotion and one even most women who choose abortion experience to some degree.

              Supporting something you find reprehensible is a reason to feel guilty. It's a moral dilemma and guilt is a perfect response and a normal response to moral dilemmas. Man, you try to sound rational but your arguments are not rational. Guilt is a normal response to conflictive ideas. You don't have to be a virulent anti-abortionists to feel guilty about supporting abortion.

              I find the practice morally reprehensible, that doesn't mean I support banning it. But since I find it morally reprehensible I feel guilty about supporting it. That is a basic human response. Trying to argue otherwise is ignoring over a century of psychology. I had to put my dog down because of cancer. It was the right thing to do, but I still felt guilty about it. I slaughtered a pair of wethers last year for meat, we raised them for meat, but I still felt guilty about it. I had to turn off the oxygen and IV lidocaine that was keeping a heart attack victim "alive" at the insistence of his family and by the doctors orders. It was legal but I still felt guilty about it. I had to stop CPR when the doctor called it on a newborn infant who coded after delivery, I did everything correct, but both I and the doctor felt guilty about it. I voted for Jorgenson in 2020, knowing she couldn't win and that I didn't really like her or some of her positions, and I still felt some guilt about it. I voted for a person I know personally for AG of my state, despite knowing him and not exactly liking him, but he was better than the other candidate, so I felt guilty about it.

              Jesus, that's a piss poor argument not based in any understanding of the human psyche.

            2. And stating it isn't a person is dehumanizing it. And above you actually stated it wasn't a human.

          3. ^THIS^ From a scientific perspective life begins at conception.
            And in these cases it refers to HUMAN life.
            The question is... should the application of human rights be grounded in concepts of human life or ... what, exactly...human sentience? Cause the potential for human sentience starts at conceptions... maintains in dreamless sleep or coma, etc. etc.

            I guess people are trying for some hybrid of sentience potential and viability...?
            or whatever is the constituent concepts in 'personhood' are judged to be (legal definition thereof).

            1. Do human rights accrue to human beings at any stage of development or only to legal human persons? That's the question.

    2. "Of course banning abortion decreases individual liberty."

      And we know that progressives and democrats don't have two shits to give about individual liberty as a concept. So what's their next excuse?

      1. The sole mission of progressivism is to increase individual liberty.

        Republicans just say that's what they want. They mean they want increased individual liberty for white Christian men with money. They don't say that part out loud because they are confident you are too stupid not to notice they're stripping rights away from everyone else at a gallop.

        1. Bullshit. That has never been the sole purpose of progressivism.

        2. Progressives supported eugenics, forced sterilizations, support collective rights over individual rights, believe in hate speech laws, forcing people to prescribe to made up definitions and punishing those who disagree, oppose the right to self defense, practice elitism (which is fundamentally the opposite of individual rights). I could go on.

          As for your strawman argument about what Republicans want, it's so false it really doesn't need to be countered, but I will anyhow. Most segregationists, including the progressive icon Wilson and FDR, were progressives. Republicans believe that individual rights aren't determined by skin color, that all people have the same rights. They believe that abortion denies the most fundamental right, the right to life.

          Once again you don't even appear remotely knowledgeable about any of the things you are asserting as facts. You especially seem ignorant of the history of progressivism.

          1. I wasn't talking about progressives from 100 years ago. I don't know why you're talking about history. I don't find history particularly enlightening, but to each his own.

            But since you seem to be struggling, let me rephrase: pretty much every political belief I, myself, hold is in service of maximizing individual human liberty. Period.

            1. Except for speech, what we can put in our bodies, religion, who we can vote for, etc.

            2. But it's not even true for modern progressives as many of these things still apply and even more now. And above you actually stated you only support individual rights you agree with, so you aren't trying to increase individual liberty at all, just what you believe are individual liberty while also being for restrictions any liberty you disagree with. That isn't increasing individual liberty. Not even close.

              1. I don't support the individual right to wantonly murder other people, no. There are others I'm sure you can imagine.

                I'm sorry, but talking with you is like rollerskating through molasses sometimes.

                1. But you continue to say you’re pro-abortion…

                2. Who does support the right to individually murder people? Once again you are making a dishonest argument. Debating with me is like roller skating through molasses because you don't actually understand what you are stating and don't have the knowledge capable of making simple deductions.

                  You stated you are opposed to rights you disagree with. Which is exactly what I stated. You don't support rights you disagree with. You stated that. Owning a gun doesn't mean murdering someone. Fuck, if that is your point it's a really stupid fucking argument. Additionally, you state that you don't support killing individuals but have no problem killing a fetus for any reason. Those are mutually exclusive in my opinion and in many people's opinions, and I am pro choice with reasonable restrictions, I believe it should be legal until 15 weeks. After that I believe it should be severely restricted to the most dire circumstances.

                  Additionally, self defense isn't murder, it's homicide, which is different. Homicide can be justified, murder is never justified. Do you support killing in combat? Do you support a police sniper who kills someone holding a gun up to someone else's head? Can I kill someone who breaks into my house and shoots at me or tried to rape my daughter? Or is that wanton murder in your opinion?

                  It's important because the vast majority of gun owners will never support wanton murder, or participate in it. So that is just such a dishonest argument. The problem you have in debating me is that I use logic and you don't. You use feels and can't be consistent because you really don't have a strong grasp of any of the subjects you love to lecture people on.

                  1. You seem to have caught on that it is indeed a stupid argument. It's not even an argument, it's a tautology. I'm sorry, I'll try to be less whimsical, but the point is that we all support some rights and not others, so we haven't really been talking about anything.

                    Both of us have positions on abortion and gun rights. I'm not sure they necessarily have to correlate in any way, and I don't think it's terribly interesting for me to explain the moral premises behind my policy views. They're pretty basic: minimize harm to human beings and maximize liberty. I don't affix "The lord hath spoken" to it, but that's okay.

                    1. But you admit the fetus is a human being above. So minimizing harm to a human being seems to be contrary to supporting abortion. If it's a human being, granting it the most basic right, the right to life is not restricting a right, it's defending a right of someone who can't defend themselves. Yes, it creates a conflict as to defend that right requires the restriction of another person's right. That's why the debate exists. If you truly took the time to listen to pro-lifers (which I am not, not technically) you would find that few deny this conflict. You would rather not actually understand their viewpoint, instead you would rather strawman it and argue against the straw man rather than what their position really is. If your right to privacy (which is what Roe actually was about, not bodily autonomy so we are clear) violates the right of another person to live, we must decided which is the more basic right. The constitution is pretty clear, as is most western philosophy, that the right to life trumps other rights. So, you must argue that even though it's demonstrably alive, and demonstrably human, that it's place of residence (which it didn't choose) somehow negates it having basic rights. You haven't done this. Instead you have argued that pro life is a forcing theology and taking away people's rights. Instead it's balancing two conflicting rights, in the opinion of most pro lifers. Me personally, as I've stated I find it morally reprehensible but support keeping it legal until some agreed upon point in the pregnancy, I see nothing wrong with 15 weeks, the same as Europe, because I don't think there is any way to justify longer than almost four months to make that decision. Hell, I could agree to a full four months, 16 weeks. As this would leave almost 90% of abortions legal, I really don't see why this is controversial and neither apparently do most other western societies.

                      Morally I can't justify abortion. But I'm not trying to justify it. I'm trying to be pragmatic about balancing the rights of the mother and the right to life. You seem to be arguing the fetus had no right to life until it's born. Which begs the question what is the difference between an infant born at 39 weeks and a fetus that's 39 weeks gestation. The in utero fetus at 39 weeks can be delivered via induction or cesaren and have as good a chance of living as the one born naturally at the same age. Even Roe stated abortion in the 3rd trimester was only for the most severe cases. So, even under Roe, except under extraordinary circumstances, abortion was banned. So that precludes any abortion after 28 weeks. The supreme court further lowered that in subsequent decisions to viability, which at the time was 24 weeks, which is the second trimester, however, viability is now lower due to medical advancements, we now can save infants born at 19 weeks. So if we use viability, we are now simply a month different between current viability and the Mississippi law. But let's get back to Roe, Roe actually allowed abortions to be regulated to some degree in the second trimester, week 15 is the second trimester. So really, Roe didn't allow unlimited abortions, and neither did it preclude any restrictions during the second trimester. So arguably, even leaving Roe intact doesn't necessarily preclude a ban after 15 weeks. Alito just agreed with Ginsberg that Roe was wrongly decided. That doesn't make it the last word on the subject. It returns it to the states. It's conceivable that a total ban, like Idaho has, could successfully be challenged in the courts, even without Roe. Even if it isn't, you and others can try to convince the voters of those states to vote for some form of legalization (Idaho allows referendums as do most the states that have total bans on the book). Rather than whining about the loss of Roe, you need to convince the voters of those states to pass resolutions that support your position. As it is, those states can't ban people from seeking care in other states, that violated the interstate commerce clause. If they try, you have a valid court case to overturn those laws. Additionally, if you feel so strongly about it, donate to a charity group that helps women get transportation to a state that allows more abortions. Banning travel between states is pretty well understood to be unconstitutional. Oregon and Washington border Idaho, as does Colorado. There are several different options even with Roe being overturned. Actually under the Alito draft, it's highly unlikely a federal ban would even be permitted, as he specifically states it's covered by the 10A.

            3. “I don't find history particularly enlightening”


              1. Or science apparently as he doesn't believe anything has a biological purpose, but most importantly sex doesn't have a biological purpose because you can enjoy sex.

                1. Not only does sex not have a *single* biological function, as humans we are allowed to decide for ourselves what our own purposes are. That can include sex or not, children or not. It's called freedom. Like being free of the state policing our reproductive choices. I don't know if you lived through the 20th century, but that's kind of a major one.

                  Getting libertarians to actually support freedom is like pulling teeth sometimes.

                  1. You keep saying despite it being completely wrong.

                  2. The act of copulation (ie “sex”) has a single biological purpose. Not people, not people assigning a purpose to it. The actual act. You know, Science! That thing you claim to know so much about and yet are so dumb about. Natural selection (ie Mother Nature) made people who enjoy sex propagate while people who felt nothing during sex were out competed and died out. Follow or at least look up the Science that you are trying to talk authoritatively speak about.

                  3. "The act of copulation has a single biological purpose."

                    No it doesn't. You're the one who needs to read more books. Have you ever read a book?

        3. And let's do a quick question and answer. Do you believe it is okay to abort for a genetic defect? Yes or no?

          1. I believe it's okay to abort for any reason, because I don't see a good reason for empowering the state to ask the question.

            1. So, do you support aborting a 39 week old that has nothing wrong with it and could easily live outside the mother?

              1. It's not about what I support women doing, it's about what you support the state doing to them.

                1. No, it's about what I support in regards to if defenseless humans have rights or not. And no, most pro life don't support punishing women as I've told you multiple times. They support punishing the doctors and nurses that perform abortions. You are purposely ignoring all my replies to you in order to shape the debate only in ways that support you, and as such, aren't even trying to debate what people actually believe. It's completely dishonest. It's lying. It's flat out ignoring the facts in order to try and guilt people into supporting your position. Rather than arguing or debating honestly, you resort to lies in order to misrepresent the debate.

                  1. If you don't support punishing women, you're not only more liberal than Republicans passing laws in some states, you don't actually think a fetus is a full rights-bearing person. Murder is murder, bub.

                    So if you truly don't think that, you've freed yourself of the stupid self-imposed moral conundrum that seems to be bothering you so much.

                    1. Read the actual laws. They don't punish the mother they punish the providers.

        4. And if you do, do you think it's morally okay to abort a fetus for a genetic defect?

        5. But when progressives whine about freedom, all they mean is “I can frame my policy desires in some vague notion of being ‘without something’”

          For example, freedom from choices, freedom from responsibilities, freedom from hearing things I don’t like, freedom for revolution and insurrection, etc.

          They don’t mean real freedom: the freedom to make decisions for myself instead of having authoritarians make them for me.

          1. None of that is true of course, but it sure seems to provide you the excuse you need to vote for fascists.

  14. Of course not, because it ia not enumerated.

  15. What's the best way from a libertarian perspective to think about abortion rights and Supreme Court Associate Justice Samuel Alito's arguments for overturning Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey?

    Seems like leaving the decision up to either the state legislature or Congress would work, as would happen if Roe is overturned.

    1. Personally, I am a 'push decision-making to the lowest possible level' kind of libertarian PDM; in this case, state or local laws, not Congress.

      We don't even have a decision yet. CJ Roberts stated the Dobbs decision is not final. I read the 68 pg (plus an appendix of 30 pages or so) opinion. The opinion has been in the making for a long time; Dobbs was just the vehicle.

      The bottom line is that I trust the women of every state to vote for state abortion legislation that makes sense to them. I mean, I trust my Mom, I trust my wife, I trust my sister, I trust my daughter to all make good decisions when they go vote. Did something change....because they are all pretty damned smart. Maybe the question to the pro-abortionists is why don't you trust women to make good decisions for themselves at the state voting booth? Those pro-abortionists think women are really that stupid? Boy, do they have a lot to learn. 🙂

      The pro-abortionist crowd has been telling us for decades that a majority of Americans totally agree with them. Ok, then it is a slam dunk and the pro-abortionists have nothing to fear. Any state legislation should be a lock, right?

      I just think that people who think like the pro-abortionist crowd are petrified at the prospect of ordinary Americans deciding a question of this importance for themselves.

      1. Agreed if team red stops gerrymandering states and turns off their propaganda machine. We want a fair fight, and in lieu of that, we need constitutional protections to protect us from you.

        1. Is New York a red state? Didn't they just get overruled for gerrymandering?

          As for fair fight, the problem is geographical distribution. Even using a non-partisan map, 538 states that it would only eliminate a couple of Republican seats. The fact is most progressives huddle together in densely packed urban areas. This reduces their ability to effect races outside those areas. Thus, gerrymandering is a red herring that progressives use to comfort the fact that because they choose to flock to certain areas, that their share of representatives is not normally distributed. You would argue better for increasing the size of the House of Representatives, than to argue Republicans have power because of gerrymandering. The number of representatives is what is off. The last time the number of representatives increased was after the 1910 census, and the population was a third of today's population.

          When progressives whine about gerrymandering what they are really complaining about is that rural areas get equal representation. Yes districts in New York have a higher population than Wyoming, and Wyoming gets one representative, the same as the high population districts. So does Wyoming not deserve any representation?

          1. If you're making excuses for being governed by a fanatical minority, then you're not operating in the same values universe I am. If you don't think I deserve to live in a democracy, then all I can point to are the words of Thomas Jefferson, who said if I don't get fair representation in government, I get to start killing people.

            1. Um...I really don't think Jefferson ever said that. But like you said you don't like history.

            2. Actually Jefferson supported the idea of a Republic with proportional representation, not a democracy. Just to be absolutely clear. Second, I stated what the solution is, have Congress increase the number of representatives.

              1. Jefferson and every other founder would be mortified by what the Republican party has done to this country.

                But to be fair, they'd be aghast at seeing black women on the supreme court too.

                1. Actually they probably wouldn't be aghast, as many abhorred slavery and several even supported full privileges regardless of sex or race. Jefferson struggled with slavery, he wanted it abolished but since it was legal, as a plantation owner he couldn't survive without slavery. And I'm not sure what makes you think Jefferson would be abhorred by the Republican party, because Jefferson was a huge fan of small government and state rights vs federal rights. If anything, Jefferson and many of the founding fathers would question the goals of the modern democratic party that believes in strong centralized government, high taxes (especially income tax which they almost all universally rejected) heavy business regulations and opposition to capitalism (almost to a person they were devout Adam Smith capitalists). Jefferson supported ownership of arms including military grade cannons by the individual. In fact name me one single Republican policy that Jefferson would be appalled at? Because I doubt you can, because it's obvious you've never studied Jefferson or any of the founding fathers actual writings or beliefs. You are arguing a caricature, which isn't even close to resembling the real thing.

                  About the only one who may not be appalled would be Adams, who supported throwing people in jail for what they said in public.

                  Here is a hint, most Republicans,don't want to replace the government with church control. That's a fantasy of the left. Hell, you couldn't even get them to agree to which church to put in control. I can guarantee that no Lutheran wants Baptists, Catholics or Eastern Orthodox in control and vice versa. It's never going to happen except in your imagination. Christians are more divided in belief than Muslims, we just stopped killing each other for the most part over it instead we just argue a lot now. Hell, get two Lutherans who belong to the same church, and you'll get three different opinions on theology. There is no conspiracy of Christianity to enslave everyone to become Christian. Fuck, we can't even agree if you have to drink wine, water or juice with communion. Do you really believe we can agree how to run a country?

                  1. Good news then. I'll be sure to calibrate my hatred of the Republican party to include "most likely not wanting to turn the US into a theocracy."

                    The real conspiracy is by dark money funders of the Federalist Society, which has hand-picked each Republican justice with virtually no real Congressional oversight permitted. I think it's just another Koch operation, and he's mostly concerned with getting free money from the US, but he seems fine with instituting theocratic and fascist elements if it better serves that purpose.

                    1. So you’re ok hating an amphorous non-homogenous group solely on an identity? You sound like a cross-burning klansman. Racist to the core.

                    2. People freely choose to become Republicans or Nazis, not to be redundant.

                    3. Just like you chose to be a demagogic Marxist faggot, not to be redundant.

      2. "Personally, I am a 'push decision-making to the lowest possible level' kind of libertarian"

        So why not stick with the individual level, like ut has been for almost 50 years?

        "The bottom line is that I trust the women of every state to vote for state abortion legislation that makes sense to them."

        People don't vote on only abortion. Yet anti-abortion politicians will take a victory as a mandate to restrict abortion severely. As long as it is in the realm of politics it will be held at the level that is preferred by the powers that be.

        Do you think that Texas anti-abortion politicians will allow Harris County to make abortion legal in Houston if a state ban is passed? Cultural conservatives say they want local control until it allows people to avoid being coerced. Then it should be up to the state.

        "The pro-abortionist crowd has been telling us for decades that a majority of Americans totally agree with them. "

        No, pro-choice advocates say (completely accurately) that almost no one believes that abortion should be illegal and that 85% of people support legal abortion. Pro-life folks think it should be restricted tightly, pro-choice people think it should be looser, but most Americans believe it should be legal.

        "I just think that people who think like the pro-abortionist crowd are petrified at the prospect of ordinary Americans deciding a question of this importance for themselves."

        More likely they are petrified at the prospect of their decision-making being taken from them by the state. Which is a valid concern.

        1. It really hasn't been that for fifty years though. What Roe really stated was that nationally that there could be no restrictions. It actually took it from the states and placed it at the federal level. The result was that you could get an abortion up to the third trimester. But Roe never ruled on the personhood or rights or lack of rights of the fetus. It only ruled on the rights of the mother. Fifty years ago our understanding of fetal development was much less than it is today. We know at 16 weeks babies dream, and that they feel pain and respond to outside stimulus, that they respond to their mothers voice. We didn't know that in the 1970s. So, we now have a much better understanding of fetal development and have made drastic increases in preterm survivability and health, as well as major advancements in birth control (you can now get an implant that last months without having to take pills that are effective in preventing pregnancy. So the personal choice basis of Roe isn't as solid an argument today, nor is the viability test implied by Roe currently consistent. I'm not sure why leaving it to the states, is any worse than having a federal standard imposed by the courts. California will have very lax laws, Mississippi has moderate laws, Texas has screwy laws, Idaho bans it completely. Washington and Oregon have very lax laws, as does Colorado. People will still have access in Idaho, most of the population lives close enough to a state with very lax laws that Idaho ban is likely to be meaningless. Most of the other states will settle somewhere between California and Texas. People will decide which system works best and eventually most states will follow suit.

          1. The I Fucking Love Science types like shreek (dba Nelson today) believe we should return to the Jewish Torah standard of "quickening" for fetal development.

  16. Is Abortion a Constitutional Right?

    No. No elective surgical procedure can be a Constitutional right.

    You can not have the right to the labor of another.

    1. Except for the police, judges, public defenders, garbage collectors, water treatment plant employees, teachers, soldiers...

      1. None of those people get paid? Damn I missed that happening. Can you cite when it started?

        1. Doctors get paid too.

          1. So you can’t cite when it started? Has it ended? If not can you show where someone is still doing this labor for free?

      2. Actually you don't have the right to the labor of any of those people as an individual. It's been decided by almost the exact same court that decided Roe. They serve the public not the individual. No person has the right to their labor, the public as a whole does. A cop doesn't have to respond to a 911 call. A firefighter doesn't have to rush into a fire to save you. A kid can be expelled from school (thus depriving them of the labor of the teacher). If you can pay, you can be denied a public defender and a public defender is not required to defend someone they feel morally they can't defend. The water treatment technician is only responsible for making sure the water in the mains is safe, they are not responsible for insuring your personal plumbing is safe, ergo they don't serve you individually. A doctor can refuse to treat a patient. A nurse can too. I have refused to treat a patient I knew or one that grabbed me by the balls (a happened). You really don't have a point in any of your examples.

        1. This isn't even on topic, because nobody is talking about government subsidizing abortion (though I think it should).

          Still, you're splitting some pretty fine hairs looking for an excuse for why police, legal, and all the other services paid for by taxpayers are OK but medical services are not. You could just try not doing that.

          1. You brought it up. You can't then rule it non sequitur because you were wrong.

      3. Except for the police, judges, public defenders, garbage collectors, water treatment plant employees, teachers, soldiers...

        You have no RIGHT to any of these peoples labor. You PAY them for it.

    2. The medical technology is the right. You have a right to know how its done. We all created technology, it didnt create us. We all paid into the divelopment of technology.

      Technology kills us all day everyday. Every day we find out some new poisonous technology thats been killing us every day of our lives thus far. Sure, cutting edge technology has to be protected for national security reasons and to protect the capitalist industries that created it, but everything long since established, should be public information.

      You dont have the right to the labor of a doctor to do an appendectomy on you, you have the right to do an appendectomy on yourself tho. And you have the right to the facilities where you could do it well.

      Tbh, the whole medical industry should be automated.

  17. Regardless of whether you believe that Roe v. Wade was decided rightly or wrongly, can we all acknowledge that right now it is an individual decision and, once Roe is overturned, it will be taken from the individual and given to the state?

    1. No, you're slightly misinformed yet. It's not now an individual decision. It's granted by the fourthteenth amendment and than the decision is between a doctor and her patient. Iys per virtue of privacy between a doctor and her patient.

      Roe doesnt need to be overturned to make the procedure illegal to perform, Imo.

      But, its w/e.

    2. We could acknowledge that if it were true, but we don't because it isn't. The kids you fuck are prepubescent anyway shreek. This will never be something you need to concern yourself about.

  18. The procedure can be illegal but nothing can take the right of a woman to regulate her bodily processes. And abortion procedure is not regulating one's own bodily processes. Taking a miscarriage pill could be tho.

    Thats what im saying rly, i supprt making abortion illegal, i just think it's tokenary at best.

  19. I read that Post and got it fine and informative.

  20. Nice information I appreciate your content! You provide very useful data. This post give me lots of advise it is very useful for me. Thanks for sharing this piece of information. Keep posting all this kind of information.

  21. This is not just an argument over women's right to an abortion, it is also an argument whether or not religion has anything to do with society, particularly the Catholic religion. However, any church or religious organization that reveals its opposition to abortion automatically sets itself up for violent attacks against it.
    Events of the past week end clearly indicate the left will stop at nothing, even if it means at burning down churches or women's counseling centers. Why stop there? How about murdering the priests, ministers and other members of the clergy. Maybe their families as well. Why not burn down all the churches and make religion illegal in America. The Communists did, so why can't it be so in America?
    It is illegal to show up at judges homes and scream and yell at them in attempts to get them to change their mind. The same for members of juries.
    So why weren't those people arrested? Why is there no rush to investigate the violent attacks on churches and women's counseling centers?
    Maybe it's because Merrick Garfinkle's main target are those on the right,.... conservatives and those on the left, no matter how violent and disorderly they become are ignored by the nation's top prosecutor. No matter if they break the law, threaten Supreme Court judges, that's ok according to Garfinkle.
    I'm willing to bet that right now Garfinkle is formulating plans to have those who oppose abortion and support churches position arrested and charged as domestic terrorists.
    In America, up is down and 2+2=5.

  22. The real question is practical enforcement, not the policy itself.

    Women have a point when they say they're going to abort, come hell or high water. If their minds are made up, making it harder for them will cause problems.

    I laugh at this argumentation because all laws make negative actions harder for the individuals determined to perform them. Should we not have laws against robbery because arresting and jailing a robber could mean separating a parent from their children?

    Regardless of where you draw the line, abortion restrictions mean jailing pregnant women and forcing them to term.

    I'm culturally pro life and even I can't come to terms with reconciling this issue. I don't see a good compromise anywhere.

    I just want people to respect life more. Sex shouldn't be treated like having a drink or watching a movie. There are real consequences to sex. You risk pregnancy every time, even if you're using contraceptives. People should think of sex like driving a car. You aren't an island. What you do adversely affects others.

    This is where the culture war comes in. People should be shamed for promiscuity. Prostitutes shouldn't be called sex workers. Porn can be degenerate. You shouldn't have sex outside of committed relationships where you can handle an unexpected pregnancy. Contraceptives should be readily accessible and used by all. Abortion shouldn't be used as contraceptive. We should all consider adoption as an alternative. Think twice before treating an unborn child as a clump of cells. Try talking to real people who are actually rape babies; you'll never find one who says "Man, I hate life and wish I had been aborted."

    Legislating everything I just mentioned? That's a line I can't cross in good conscience.

    1. I don't see a good compromise anywhere.

      It's pretty simple. The power to regulate abortion is not the federal government's. It belongs to the states, or to the people, via the 9th and 10th amendments to the US constitution. States can make policy, people can vote with their feet, or they can challenge the laws in court. Most states would probably strike the relatively reasonable balance that our European counterparts have: abort through the first trimester unfettered. If you can't figure out if you're ready for parenthood within 3 months, tough shit.

  23. What's the best way from a libertarian perspective to think about abortion rights and Supreme Court Associate Justice Samuel Alito's arguments for overturning Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey?

    The libertarian way to think about abortion is that you make a free choice to live within a community that either allows or prohibits abortions. In a truly libertarian society, those arrangements are fully private and contractual.

    In the society we live in, we usually try to approximate those libertarian arrangements through subsidiarity and local and state laws.

    1. "In a truly libertarian society, those arrangements are fully private and contractual."

      just so everyone knows..... that "private" part is exactly what the basis was for roe to begin with, and it is what everyone against abortion wants undone.

      heartbeat, number of weeks.... every criteria that has ever been attempted to limit abortions requires disclosure of information that is nobody's business to know.

      morally, i think 20-24 weeks is reasonable. it is when people can start to tell you are pregnant, it is when you can feel the baby kick, it is where all historical abortion bans were based.... and it is when the pregnancy is not really so "private." anything up until that point requires giving information to the government that is not readily apparent. once the baby kicks, the secret is out of the bag.

      1. just so everyone knows..... that "private" part is exactly what the basis was for roe to begin with

        Roe fabricated an individual right to privacy; that has nothing to do with what I was saying.

        and it is what everyone against abortion wants undone.

        There is nothing to "undo": the Constitution does not provide a "right to privacy".

        heartbeat, number of weeks.... every criteria that has ever been attempted to limit abortions requires disclosure of information that is nobody's business to know.

        Many medical procedures are illegal in the US; such regulations do not infringe on anybody's privacy. But, as I was saying, the Constitution doesn't provide a generic right to privacy.

        morally, i think 20-24 weeks is reasonable

        And who made you emperor?

      2. every criteria that has ever been attempted to limit abortions requires disclosure of information that is nobody's business to know.

        Now do vaccine passports.

  24. Where do outfits like the Mises Fifth Column and the Voelkischer Conspiracy get off trying to pass themselves off as libertarian? Appeals to ethical fallacies couched in mystical assumptions are unfalsifiable, as proven by the assertion that fossils were planted in strata by God as a test of faith. No girl-bullier offers to provide for adding 200,000 individuals a day to the population. Yet Armageddon is the shibboleth of superstition that in pre-nuclear death-worship cults caused sudden aggression-fired drops in population. Bullying women is unreconstructed slaver invasion across borders.

  25. Has no one read the 13th Amendment? It prohibits involuntary servitude. Any good parent will tell you that parenthood is a lifetime of servitude, sometimes joyous, but always serving the created human. Carrying a child to term also permanently damages a woman's body and imposes some risk of death. That servitude must be voluntary due to the 13th Amendment. The woman's decision must be made before the developing cells gain higher brain function near the end of the second trimester. A fetus with a learning brain is a person with the full constitutional protection of the 5th Amendment.

  26. I don't really care about the history of abortion, except the last 49 years, during which we have stood by and watched the state sanctioned murder of 60,000,000 unborn babies.
    Now it looks like we are going to have democratic tools for stopping that barbarism.
    The "Libertarian" way of looking at this?
    Frankly I don't give a shit about that, but if you must:
    Those unborn babies are human beings with a right to live.
    The end

  27. Freedom is the right to say 1+1=3. Not only does it very often equal 3. Take copulation for example. Another might be that absolute one does not exist. 1.4 is still rounded to 1.
    1.4+>1=>2.4 which = 3 rounded up.

    Everyone has the right to be deluded and psychotic. It's all anyone can actually be. The mind can be almost completely disjointed from reality. Reality and the mind must thusly be separate. The mind is even often separate from instincts. The phenotypical human male has every natural instinct to rape and impregnate a phenotypical female. However, we all have to take into consideration the violence that might bring and/or the possibility of catching or spreading std's and/or another mouth to feed in a dwindling envoronment. So the mind acts as a contraceptive but it's completely unnatural.

    Religion, particularly catholicism, has even less to do with nature and it's goals. They talk of all kinds of wanky hokus pokus, often in complete contradiction and total madness. It's a cult that always seeks to dominate societies. It's a nepotism. It's a literal abomination that preaches against subjective abomination the whole while asserting its subjectivity is objectivity. Im all about acts of violence on catholics but anything short of nuking the vatican is just violence for the sake of violence.

    They'll stop at nothing to maintain dominance. They'd happily kill a living baby whenever it suits them but then try and unnaturaly ban you from even regulating your own bodily processes. Either you hate these slime to hell or they will try to dominate you. Theres no in-between, no compromise, and no middle ground that suits them. They're a cancer. Just like death, they slowly steal from you everything you dont fight to keep. They're pederasts. And they're happy with that.

    Catholics however are not the whole issue with illegalising abortion procedures. Frankly, they're right on that. Abortion should be illegal. However, nothing could or should stop an abortion pill. So whats the use besides radicalising your irrational enemy? Here you see their real goal. Dont fool yourselves so called "christans " catholics arent your friends. You're not catholic. If you are, you're not catholic enough and never will be. If you are, you're just a sacrifice waiting for slaughter.

    Gangs.... join em?
    Or just lead them off a cliff....

    1. The mind can be almost completely disjointed from reality.

      So you've aptly demonstrated.

  28. I'm not convinced of that.

    It doesn't matter what you are or are not convinced of, because you're an ignorant piece of shit with no legal training whatsoever.

Please to post comments