Abortion

Abortion Bans Failed in the 19th Century. They'll Also Fail in the 21st.

History provides a window into how abortion bans will play out if re-instituted.

|

HD Download

Over the last year, nine states have passed aggressive anti-abortion measures that aim to restrict access to early abortion procedures. The new bans, which have yet to take effect, are a direct challenge to the 1973 Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade, which established a woman's right to obtain an abortion without excessive government restriction. 

The wave of new state laws criminalizing the procedure has generated protests from pro-choice advocates and has inflamed an already complicated debate that centers on how to best protect life while also maintaining women's liberty in making reproductive choices. 

Before Roe v. Wade, government prohibition wasn't particularly effective in eliminating the practice. Even after the first state laws criminalizing abortion were passed in the late-nineteenth century, women found ways to obtain the procedure, all while faced with the threat of arrest and prosecution. Upper-class white women were more likely to find relatively safe ways to break the law, while minorities and the poor turned to shady operators, risking infertility and death. 

Abortion Before 1850: Commonly Practiced and Perfectly Legal

Before the 1850s, local papers from Kansas to New York had ads for "female pills" promising "relief for ladies." Female physicians like Madame Restell solicited clients looking "to be treated for obstruction of the monthly period." But the use of coded language merely reflected the Victorian-era's sensibilities. Up until the 19th-century, abortion of early pregnancy was legal and common. 

These abortion ads stirred little controversy. Bearing children was risky and women were about 40 times more likely to die giving in childbirth than today. 

Abortive tonics and potions were generally ineffective and potentially dangerous, but determined women could turn to midwives or physicians for procedures that roughly mirrored modern techniques. When Abortion Was a Crime by University of Illinois historian Leslie Reagan documents how terminating pregnancies was both common practice and an open secret. An estimated one in five women had an abortion during this period, and they tended to be married and upper-class.

Prevalent cultural attitudes of the time only viewed abortion after the first trimester as immoral.  Before the 1850s, the turning point from legal to illegal was known as the "quickening," or when a woman could feel the fetus move, which generally happens in the second trimester. Quickening was an important distinction under common law and Catholic doctrine.

Abortion After the 1850s: The Medical Establishment vs. Expert Midwives

Public sentiment shifted in the second half of the nineteenth century. The criminalization of abortion began mainly as a business tactic to bring women's reproductive health under control of the emerging physician class. 

Accredited male doctors campaigned to pass abortion bans at the state and federal level as a way to shut down unlicensed, and mostly female, practitioners with the end goal to establish state control over the medical profession. 

It was the newly formed American Medical Association, under the direction of Dr. Horatio Storer, that led the effort in criminalizing abortion. Storer made a passionate moral argument against the procedure, which had the effect of delegitimizing expert female practitioners. 

Again, media coverage skewed the reality of abortion procedures. The death rate from abortions performed by midwives and physicians were nearly identical, yet news reports blamed non-accredited female practitioners with sensationalized stories of women bleeding to death from botched procedures. 

Storer also capitalized on fears of falling birth rates among white, native-born women, arguing that if they were allowed to abort it would hasten the takeover of the country by foreigners and people of color. He envisioned the "spread of civilization" west and south to be done by native-born white Americans, not by people of color. In 1894, then New York City Police Commissioner Teddy Roosevelt called white women who sought abortions "race criminals."

The American Medical Association's efforts were a resounding success in driving the practice underground. By 1880, most states had passed laws that prohibited abortion except when a woman's life was in danger—and generally male doctors got to make the decision when it came to a woman's personal health. The American Medical Association also scored a victory at the federal level with the passage of the 1873 Comstock Law, an anti-obscenity bill that prohibited sending abortion and birth control information through the U.S. Postal Service. 

Abortion from 1900 to 1941: The Failure of Criminalization

While abortions were illegal, most women were still able to obtain one from sympathetic physicians and midwives who tended to disregard the law and comply with their patient's requests. Over more than a century of criminalization—from after the Civil War to the passage of Roe v. Wade—scholars, including Regan, estimate that a quarter of all pregnancies ended in abortion. 

Another consequence of abortion bans was law enforcement interfering in private lives. Cops fought back against illegal abortions with arrests, interrogations, and prosecution. Police officers and prosecutors threatened doctors with jail time to get them to collaborate with local law enforcement in punishing women who sought their services. 

In 1902, the Journal of the American Medical Association advised physicians to demand bedside statements of exoneration before treating women who had undergone botched abortions.  Men whose lovers had died while having a pregnancy terminated were sometimes arrested and charged with failing to fulfill their paternal obligations. 

By the Great Depression, abortion was illegal in every state and yet the practice had become more common. Medical studies and sex surveys indicated that women of every social class turned to abortion in greater numbers as the economy deteriorated.

But only the wealthy and well-connected could safely obtain the procedure through the loophole of medical necessity. This generally involved paying out of pocket to be examined by three doctors including a psychiatrist, who would make a recommendation to a hospital board.

Women who couldn't afford this option turned to illegal providers, whose methods brought the risk of permanent infertility or death.

Abortion from 1941 to 1973: The Crackdown Intensifies—And Still Fails

The crackdown on abortion intensified with World War II. Physicians joined hospitals and clinics en masse, which brought institutional scrutiny of their decisions. States tried to close the loophole exploited by wealthy women by mandating approval from a hospital-appointed committee. Police raided abortion facilities and then physically examined the arrestees while in custody. 

Getting a safe abortion became harder, so the practice went further underground. Organizations like The Clergy Consultation Service, founded by a group of Protestant ministers and Jewish rabbis, ferried women to states where abortion was legal. By 1970 the group was helping an estimated 150,000 women a year terminate their pregnancies. Other groups helped women travel to Mexico or Puerto Rico to have the procedure done safely. 

Women who could not access reliable services turned to nefarious, untrained practitioners. The result was a spike in death rates from abortions in the 1960s. Researchers at UCLA predicted that criminalization would result in the deaths of five thousand women each year during this time period. 

Abortion from 1973 to the Present: The Roe v. Wade Era

Hospitalizations from botched abortions became a national epidemic. Treating women who had abortion complications helped convince a segment of the medical community that once called for restrictive bans to push for decriminalization. 

The profession's about-face set the stage for the Supreme Court's 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade, which struck down state laws criminalizing abortion as unconstitutional. 

Today, that decision could be overturned by the high court's conservative majority. If that happens, it will not only once again drive the practice underground, but also result in a whole new realm of state surveillance and misapplication of laws to monitor women's bodies.

As with the prohibition of drugs, alcohol, and sex work, a legal ban on abortion wouldn't be effective because a majority of Americans don't believe that the practice should be illegal. 

But they also have an easier time than ever before of not getting pregnant in the first place. One of the biggest changes since the days when abortion first became a crime in the nineteenth century is better birth control. Today wider access to contraception has driven the U.S. abortion rate down to its lowest levels since the passage of Roe v. Wade, and that number could be brought down even further by making the pill available over-the-counter. 

The major lesson of history is that activists should focus on changing individual minds because outlawing a widely accepted practice always leads to more human suffering.

Produced by Alexis Garcia. Camera by Paul Detrick. Archival graphics research by Regan Taylor.

Photo credits: Dan Anderson/ZUMA Press/Newscom, Steve Pellegrino/ZUMA Press/Newscom, Lorie Shaull/Flickr, Library of Congress, U.S. Senate/ZUMA Press/Newscom, Everett Collection/Newscom, National Library of Medicine, AiWire/Newscom. 

Historical Footage: Library of Congress.

"Pine Apple Rag (Scott Joplin piano roll)" by Scott Joplin is licensed under an Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/). Source: http://freemusicarchive.org/music/Scott_Joplin/Frog_Legs_Ragtime_Era_Favorites/Scott_Joplin_-_08_-_Pine_Apple_Rag_1908_piano_roll.

NEXT: New Bill Would Tie Federal Transit Funding to Local Zoning Reforms

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. So, you’re just gonna keep running from the question of “where do fetuses come from if they aren’t invited” aren’t you?

      You pathetic pussy. You’re wrong , know it, and are afraid to deal with it.

  1. Well, I might as well start this respectful and reasoned debate. The most libertarian position on abortion is probably evictionism as described by Walter Block: “a woman always has the right to evict a fetus, but she does not have the right to kill it.” This is true after the fetus becomes a person, which is probably sometime in the second trimester. Reasonable people can disagree about when during the pregnancy a fetus becomes a person.

    1. Reasonable people can disagree about when during the pregnancy a fetus becomes a person.

      And that is the question that this article completely begs. If you assume life begins after the magic trip down the birth canal, then this article makes sense. If you don’t share that assumption and think life begins sometime before that, then this article is monstrous and akin to saying “since murder laws don’t prevent all murders and cause serious inconvenience to those who wish to commit murder, such laws should be abolished.”

      This piece doesn’t address the key and in fact only issue that matters because the author is either too dumb to address the issue or is smart enough to address it but realizes how badly any reasonable answer cuts against the pro abortion at any time position reason so desperately clings to.

      1. “but realizes how badly any reasonable answer cuts against the pro abortion at any time position reason so desperately clings to.”

        From all the polls I’ve seen, that isn’t even a very popular position with more people approving of restrictions as the pregnancy progresses and the child is more well-developed.

        1. I joined the LP and the libertarian movement out of HS back in the late 70’s, and sometimes I wonder what happened to libertarianism after I dropped out of it about 20 years ago. The LP I remember was, yes, pro-“choice”, but there was at least some recognition that this was a live controversy among libertarians, with a significant faction of pro-life libertarians (I was one.) at least getting some respect.

          I guess the march through the institutions really has overtaken the LP, and respect for dissidents is a thing of the past.

      2. The article is trash. It doesn’t hold water ethically or scientifically. Abortion fanatics are part of a heinous death cult. Period. As you say, eviction is a reasonable position.

        It is one thing for a de corset to oppose the agency and rights to survival of a baby. As they do not believe in such concepts. It is quite another for anyone claiming to be a libertarian to embrace it.

        1. If eviction is acceptable then aren’t pretty much all manner of child abandonment that do not rise to the infliction of direct harm likewise acceptable?

      3. It’s funny, John, how you completely missed the whole point of evictionism: the right to evict.

        1. Not as funny as watching you tantrum stupidly because your analogy got destroyed.

      4. The article does not offer an opinion about when life begins but it does call attention to the history of the abortion debate. High on the list is the fact that the philosophical question of when life begins was not a consideration in the illegalization of abortions from 1850-ish to 1960-ish. The consensus was and remained throughout that period that life began at “quickening”.

        Challenging “quickening” as the starting point of life only became a popular question after Roe v Wade. Arguably quite long after.

    2. I always found that argument extremely weak because the mother “invited” the fetus into her care through positive action (barring rape or other mishaps). The analogy doesn’t hold.

      1. ‘Invited’?

        ‘Forced’. The fetus had no say.

        1. Oh wow you don’t say?

          It’s almost like I knew that, but was explicitly operating with the analogy in mind!

          Maybe I should have put quotation marks around it to indicate that the word may be debateable, like is done with such things.

          1. was emphasizing, not disagreeing.

      2. Uh, no. The fetus wasn’t invited. You can’t invite something that doesn’t exist. And, even if we grant this faulty invitation argument, invitations can be withdrawn at any time. Otherwise, you are saying that a woman can’t change her mind during intercourse and that a man is entitled to keep thrusting once he is inside.

        1. “Uh, no. The fetus wasn’t invited. You can’t invite something that doesn’t exist”

          Did you think this stupid fucking assertion made sense?

          1. Fuck off, Tulpa.

            1. So you did. You thought stupid fucking assertion made sense. You use a stupid fucking analogy, it fails, and you make a fool of yourself shtting up a thread because you look dumb.

              Great job moron.

              1. Ahahahahahhahe thinks you’re me ahahahahahaahahahah

        2. Uh, no. The fetus wasn’t invited. You can’t invite something that doesn’t exist

          So you can’t invite an infection by exposing yourself to a pathogen? Oh. I guess you’re wrong.

          And, even if we grant this faulty invitation argument,

          You’re the one pretending a womb is a house. If you find the analogy faulty, start there because my application of it is dead on. And, you know, I told you it was bad. Which is what brought on your current tantrum.

          invitations can be withdrawn at any time

          So an aiirline can withdraw my invitation to fly in midair?

          Are you actually this obtuse?

          Otherwise, you are saying that a woman can’t change her mind during intercourse

          No, you’re just not very intelligent, and are firimg off straw men. No one said anythimg about intercourse. You just can’t think about a situation without an imperfect analogy to make it simple for you.

          No one said “an invitation can’t be withdrawn” that’s just the straw man you adhered to because your analogy is bad and I pointed it out.

          Which is pretty emblematic of the posts I have seen from you.

          1. It’s hilarious how upset he got!

            Whrrw the fuck does that idiot get any of that from “I always found that argument extremely weak because the mother “invited” the fetus into her care through positive action (barring rape or other mishaps). The analogy doesn’t hold.”

            Oh, right, he’s super butthurt because you were right and his analogy is fucking dumb.

          2. Trying again,with proper formatting

            Uh, no. The fetus wasn’t invited. You can’t invite something that doesn’t exist

            So you can’t invite an infection by exposing yourself to a pathogen? Oh. I guess you’re wrong.

            And, even if we grant this faulty invitation argument,

            You’re the one pretending a womb is a house. If you find the analogy faulty, start there because my application of it is dead on. And, you know, I told you it was bad. Which is what brought on your current tantrum.

            invitations can be withdrawn at any time

            So an aiirline can withdraw my invitation to fly in midair?

            Are you actually this obtuse?

            Otherwise, you are saying that a woman can’t change her mind during intercourse

            No, you’re just not very intelligent, and are firing off straw men. No one said anything about intercourse. You just can’t think about a situation without an imperfect analogy to make it simple for you.

            No one said “an invitation can’t be withdrawn” that’s just the straw man you adhered to because your analogy is bad and I pointed it out.

            Which is pretty emblematic of the posts I have seen from you.

            1. Argue with that you fucking retard.

        3. Uh, no. The fetus wasn’t invited

          Then how did it get there.

          This should be good.

          1. He won’t answer. He’s a coward and he knows how stupid that sounds.

            1. I found it particularly interesting that he thinks “You can’t invite something that doesn’t exist. ” is somehow a profound and cutting dismissal of the point, and not an obvious and poorly formed fallacy.

              By his logic, fetuses never exist.

              1. Well he’s an imbecile. You can tell he knows he’s made a fool of himself because he fled. The good news is, this never goes away.

          2. I’d like to know as well. Obviously force is one avenue, but “you can’t invite something that doesn’t exist” doesn’t even hold water logically. It’s like he realized he had no counter and decided to string some words together. Not to mention the dozen or so straw men he decided to obfuscate with.

            So where do they come from if there is no force and they aren’t invited by voluntary action?

            Well Chipper? You’re not going to let the trolls be right about you are you?

            1. He doesn’t really have a choice in the matter
              The trolls are almost always right about eunuch

        4. If your birth control failed, the pregnancy was not invited. Unless, of course, you pretend that no one should have sex unless they want pregnancy. That’s what a lot of religious conservatives content. It’s the “keep your legs closed” argument (unless you are a man of course).

          That why zealous religious conservatives also don’t believe in birth control. They don’t want anyone to have sex for run.

          1. “the pregnancy was not invited”

            So you were raped?

            Oh so it WAS invited.

  2. “alleged abortion victim dies”

    where do you even start with that headline?

  3. How likely does anyone really think an abortion ban really is?

    1. Very unlikely. What is likely and practical is an abortion ban after say 20 weeks. That is a compromise that would be supported by reasonable people on both sides and one that would greatly decrease the number of abortions. It would also be a compromise with embraces personal responsibility, which you would think would appeal to libertarians but oddly doesn’t in reason’s case.

      1. and one that would greatly decrease the number of abortions.

        It really wouldn’t though (not that stopping early term abortions is a hill I care to die on).

        The majority of abortions in 2015 took place early in gestation: 91.1% of abortions were performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation; a smaller number of abortions (7.6%) were performed at 14–20 weeks’ gestation, and even fewer (1.3%) were performed at ≥21 weeks’ gestation.
        https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/abortion.htm

        1. These stats have been quoted for dozens of years. If accurate, it makes one wonder why the activists are so zealously committed to maintaining free (as in libre and gratis) access to that 1.3% of late-term abortions.

          1. Because, for feminists any restriction on the blessed sacrament of abortion is an act of blaspheme and damnation.

          2. I have always wondered that myself. Maybe Planned Parenthood making millions selling body parts has something to do with it.

          3. Abortions after about 24 weeks are already illegal. Women want to keep the medical exception rule to avoid death, infertility and being forced to bear an infant who cannot live outside the womb or will die painfully (e.g. Tay Sachs infant, major encephaly). Women do not want legislators forcing them to bear children like this or delaying abortions with red tape so long that it endangers their health.

            https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/06/health/late-term-abortion-explainer/index.html

            1. That explanation of things everyone already knows probably isn’t going to have the effect you seem to think it will.

              1. Because plenty of people know it isn’t true; So long as the “medical exception” includes mental health, an abortionist can rationalize a late term elective abortion as necessary to prevent the mother from suffering anguish at the thought of giving live birth.

                1. an abortionist can rationalize a late term elective abortion as necessary to prevent the mother from suffering anguish at the thought of giving live birth.

                  Except that what the stats Lester224 cited tell you is that elective abortion after 20 weeks is at best exceedingly rare if not non-existent.

                  1. Really? It’s now been legalized recently in NY and Virginia.

                    Day ain’t over yet. And never underestimate the inhumanity of a progressive.

                  2. And what we’ll tell you is that the stats Lester224 cited are at best incomplete. As I said, did you suppose Kermit Gosnell’s work was included in them?

                    The pro-choice movement has fought abortion reporting laws, because they don’t want reliable numbers to be available. See, for example, Planned Parenthood sues Idaho over abortion reporting law

                  3. You’re wrong here. PP and abortionists are trained to tell the mother to cry depression or anguish to have late term abortions. These are not considered elective abortions based on the linked statistics, but medical.

                    I’ll say it again. You’re wrong.

                    1. I take it you’ve never been to a planned parenthood clinic. They certainly don’t do what you say. You are regurgitating propaganda.

            2. Women want to keep the medical exception rule to avoid death, infertility and being forced to bear an infant who cannot live outside the womb or will die painfully (e.g. Tay Sachs infant, major encephaly). Women do not want legislators forcing them to bear children like this or delaying abortions with red tape so long that it endangers their health.

              And that is a complete lie. At 24 weeks, the child is viable. The solution to a problematic pregnancy is to induce labor at that point. Abortion is more harmful to the mother and creates greater risk than inducing labor.


              This is completely false. There is no medical situation in which late abortion is medically necessary to save the life of the mother. In a common late abortion technique, a lethal intracardiac injection is given, and labor is induced. This takes between two and four days and is not a procedure done in true emergency situations.

              late term abortions are straight up murder.
              http://thefederalist.com/2019/02/26/fact-late-term-abortions-never-medically-necessary/

              1. I know that when I want medical advice, I consult The Federalist.

                1. I know that when I want advice on journalism, I consult chemjeff.

                  1. Jeff is as stupid as he is ignorant. But he makes up for it by being dishonest.

                    1. I’m keeping this one to club him with, because if he WASN’T a fucking retard, he would have simply CLICKED ON THE AUTHOR’S NAMES AND SEEN HIS CRITICISM IS FUCKING RETARDED.

                    2. Wow. That truly is an impressive level of retard on display.

                      Who would have thought such a ‘radical’ ‘individualist’ would prove to be such a reliable dogmatist.

                      Chemjeff Blinders Firmly In Place

                  2. Oh fuck off, all of you.

                    No, I don’t read The Federalist for medical advice, and nor should you.

                    I don’t care what the credentials are on the writer on some op-ed piece. IT’S AN OP-ED PIECE. It’s not a scientific article, it’s not a scholarly discussion, nor is it supposed to be. Dr. Davenport is presenting HER OPINION, not the entirety of the scientific knowledge of the subject, along with a pro-life activist. I don’t expect impartial reasoning from either of them and the fact that you all have to resort to rank credentialism in order to justify the opinion says volumes about your ability to fall for this crap. It’s the same type of stunt that left-wing economists say about Paul Krugman’s opinions. WHY HE WON A NOBEL PRIZE DONTCHA KNOW. Yes he did. That doesn’t mean he’s right about everything. It doesn’t even mean he’s right about economics! People with Dr. in front of their name don’t mean that they are correct about everything, it doesn’t necessarily mean they are even correct about everything in their own field of study.

                    A person interested in pursuing the truth would understand this. Tulpa does not, and uses bad-faith arguments to try to delegitimize people he forms obsessions with.

                    And back to the original point, John wrote:

                    “The solution to a problematic pregnancy is to induce labor at that point. Abortion is more harmful to the mother and creates greater risk than inducing labor.”

                    Well, John, WHO THE HELL ARE YOU to decide what “THE SOLUTION” is to a “problematic” pregnancy? Take a fetus that is anencephalatic. This fetus literally has no brain and has zero chance of survival. Who the hell are you to tell this mother “no, you must carry this dead fetus in your body until a natural child birth occurs”?

                    1. I think we all,knew you wouldn’t own up Jeff.

                      “Dr. Davenport is presenting HER OPINION,”

                      Her EXPERT opinion. Whichvyou didn’t read until you got movked for makomg a fool of yourself dismissing her opinion because “Federalist”

                      Honestly, how are you that pathetic? You’re COMPLETELY wrong, but STILL find a way to bitch and avoid admittimg it you sad, small idiot of a man.

                    2. A person interested in pursuing the truth would understand this. Tulpa does not, and uses bad-faith arguments to try to delegitimize people he forms obsessions with.

                      Ahahahahah how is you stupidly ad homming an OBGYN and making an all time fuckup ANYTHING TO DO WITH ME you sad fuck?

                    3. I don’t care what the credentials are on the writer on some op-ed piece.

                      We can see that, it’s why you’re held in such low regard, especially since you made them an issue in the first place.

                      IT’S AN OP-ED PIECE. It’s not a scientific article

                      Which changes nothing about how silly and pouty you look, except that it makes you look very desperate. Had that been your original objection, and not a fallback position, it would still have been ridiculous but not as much.

                      it’s not a scholarly discussion, nor is it supposed to be

                      Which has nothing to do with anything, especially your original objection that you are tying to bury.

                      I don’t expect impartial reasoning from either of them

                      After this incident, I doubt anyone cares what you think.

                      and the fact that you all have to resort to rank credentialism

                      Means people are responding logically to your poorly formed ad hominem fallacy. You questioned credibilty. Credentials are a normal counter to that.

                      A person interested in pursuing the truth would understand this. Tulpa

                      Should probably look into a restraining order against you.

                      Your entire post was the outgassing of a little boy caught acting badly. You did yourself no favors with it.

                      It’s fairly clearcthat you’ve been sulking about this all day and waited until the thrwsd was dying to post your silly, extremely defensive screed in order to avoid the feedback you knew was coming.

                    4. I dismiss op-eds for medical advice, yes. As should every other sentient being.

                      You are a sucker to fall for such an obvious demagogic trick. Post an opinion piece written by someone with a fancy title and claim that it is IRREFUTABLE SCIENCE because of the person’s title. It’s just credentialism. So your claim is that I’m “completely wrong” for not falling for credentialist fallacies? Huh. I guess you believe everything Paul Krugman says too, especially his NY Times op-eds. Why he not only has a fancy title, he won a NOBEL PRIZE!!!

                      And, by the way, I wonder why you don’t ever mention the second article of the opinion piece. Oh yeah, it’s a pro-life activist. Not exactly SCIENCE.

                      If Dr. Davenport wants me or anyone else to take her professional opinion seriously, she should present it in a scholarly manner, not in an op-ed on a right-wing blog.

                    5. And wow, some of you have some very active imaginations.

                      No I haven’t been “sulking” about any of this. Some of us do have actual jobs, you know.

                      You all just despise me so much that you will fall all over yourselves engaging in fallacy after fallacy if it means trying to “prove” me wrong.

                      You fell for one of the oldest tricks on the planet – get a person with a flashy title to say things that you want to hear, and then use the title to claim the opinion has higher value than it really does. And then when I call you out for it, you dig in deeper and try to defend credentialism as something other than an appeal to authority.

                      Sometimes I wonder about some of you. I don’t think you’re mentally healthy.

                    6. “chemjeff radical individualist
                      September.16.2019 at 5:03 pm
                      I dismiss op-eds for medical advice, yes. ”

                      Ahahahhaha KEEP TRYING YOU SAD FUCK!

                      No, you just stupidly flail because you made a fucking fool of yourself questioning the medcal expertise of an OBGYN.

                      Keep trying to frame it so you don’t look like an idiot.

                    7. It’s amusing to see the narrative-building that the garbage troll posters around here have been crafting about me.

                      “It’s obvious you’ve been sulking all day…”

                      “It’s obvious you look silly and pouty…”

                      “It’s obvious you’re completely wrong…”

                      Just take their opinions and state it as “OBVIOUS” fact, which is just an attempt to reframe my words into their narrative. It’s just a more subtle way of strawmanning my arguments.

                    8. “You fell for ”

                      No Jeff you stupid fuck, no one fell for anything. The ENTIRE discussionis abOut how your ad hom is retarded. You’re trying to turn it “you beleived her” because that’s how you think you can avoud admitting you made a fool of yourself.

                      .

                    9. “It’s obvious you’ve been sulking all day…”

                      “It’s obvious you look silly and pouty…”

                      “It’s obvious you’re completely wrong…

                      It might be the giant walls of pouty childish bratty distraction that you’re using to avoid admitting how stupid you look that makes everyone think that.

                    10. “Just take their opinions and state it as “OBVIOUS” fact”

                      Ah so you decide to straight up lie then.

                    11. questioning the medcal expertise of an OBGYN.

                      I didn’t question Dr. Davenport’s medical expertise. I’m sure she’s a fine doctor.

                      I don’t trust her opinion on whether abortion is ever “medically necessary”, because one doctor’s opinion does not represent the state of all medical knowledge in any subject. I do not trust that she represented the entirety of the subject fairly, particularly considering the venue she chose to express her opinion.

                      I am not the one falling for the credentialist trick of using her fancy title to try to trump all disagreement on the subject, as a fallacy of appeal to authority.

                      And I don’t trust op-eds for medical advice. Nor should you.

                    12. “Just take their opinions and state it as “OBVIOUS” fact, which is just an attempt to reframe my words into their narrative. It’s just a more subtle way of strawmanning my arguments.”

                      God you’re fucking pathetic. You are so fucking dumb, you actually get caught red handed makong a fool of yourself and you blame me then fire off that fucking gibberish

                      YOU are the one straw manning. EVERYONE is laughing at how dumb you look.

                      We can tell that you know you fucked up because of all the jargon you’re using incorrectly to distract people.

                    13. “chemjeff radical individualist
                      September.16.2019 at 5:24 pm
                      questioning the medcal expertise of an OBGYN.

                      I didn’t question Dr. Davenport’s medical expertise”

                      Liar.

                      “chemjeff radical individualist
                      September.16.2019 at 2:04 pm
                      I know that when I want medical advice, I consult The Federalist.”

                      Keep lying and making excuses, this thread is forever and you know how fucking dumb you look.

                    14. The ENTIRE discussionis abOut how your ad hom is retarded.

                      I suppose all those people trashing Dr. Paul Krugman, Nobel Laureate, for his often stupid economic opinions, are engaging in a retarded ad-hom. Is that it?

                      Oh wait, no I know, you’re not trying to make any point at all, you’re just furthering your continued obsession with me.

                    15. “I am not the one falling for the credentialist trick of using her fancy title to try to trump all disagreement on the subject, as a fallacy of appeal to authority.”

                      Neither am I dumbass. No, you’re the idiot who ad hommed her, then realized post facto that she actually WAS qualified and this sad display is your best attempt to save some face.

                      It failed.

                    16. Liar.

                      Show me the quote where I questioned Dr. Davenport’s medical expertise. Go ahead, I’ll wait.

                      Or, you can kindly shut up and apologize for yet lying about me one more time.

                    17. “I suppose all those people”

                      Hey look you’re trying to dstract again like an idiot eho knows he fucked up.

                    18. “Show me the quote where I questioned ”

                      It was in the post you quoted you dumb fuck.Thus is your whole plan isnt it? This is what you cooke up while you wee sulkimg all day isn’t it? “I’ll screech OP ED” as though that had fuckall to do with your original ad hom. Your entire life is so tied up in commenting here that you CANNOT STAND looking stupid like you do right now and are saying literallly ANYTHING YOU CAN THINK OF to distract from your embarassment.

                    19. Neither am I dumbass. No, you’re the idiot who ad hommed her, then realized post facto that she actually WAS qualified and this sad display is your best attempt to save some face.

                      I ridiculed the practice of citing op-eds for medical advice. I don’t care who the author is, M.D. or not. You are the one who is falsely accusing me of questioning the medical expertise of a doctor. I’m sure she’s a fine doctor. I’m just not interested in her opinion on abortion. She’s qualified to be a doctor. She’s not qualified to be the VOICE OF AUTHORITY on abortion. Get it? No amount of lies from you will change that.

                    20. “I ridiculed the practice of citing op-eds for medical advice.”

                      No liar, you didn’t.

                      You said

                      chemjeff radical individualist
                      September.16.2019 at 2:04 pm
                      I know that when I want medical advice, I consult The Federalist

                      Your “OP ED!!!” screeching is the pathetic fallback you came up with to avoid dealimg with how dumb your actual post was.

                    21. She’s qualified to be a doctor. She’s not qualified to be the VOICE OF AUTHORITY on abortion. Get it

                      Yes we all get it. You fucked up, and are desperately flailing around intbe hipes that your idiotic spamming will distract from how dumb you look.

                      We CAN SEE WHAT YOU WROTE JEFF. All of your typical shit posting won’t change the word you typed.

                    22. It was in the post you quoted you dumb fuck.

                      No it wasn’t, liar.

                      Thus is your whole plan isnt it? This is what you cooke up while you wee sulkimg all day isn’t it?

                      “while you we[r]e sulki[n]g all day”
                      Stated as if it were fact. That is more Tulpa strawmanning.

                      “I’ll screech OP ED” as though that had fuckall to do with your original ad hom.

                      That’s what The Federalist posts – op-eds. They aren’t a scholarly journal. Glad I could clarify that for you.

                      I questioned the practice of citing op-eds for medical advice. You are attempting to CHANGE the argument into a false one, one that I never made, that I am supposedly challenging Dr. Davenport’s medical expertise. That is a lie. That is a brazen lie that you will never recant, and frankly you don’t even really care that it is a lie, because the entire point for you to post that lie is to have fun at my expense.

                      Your entire life is so tied up in commenting here

                      That must be why I post maybe a dozen comments a week nowadays. My comments on this article are the most I have posted on a single article for a while now.

                      You, on the other hand, has his self identity quite heavily invested in this place.

                      that you CANNOT STAND looking stupid like you do right now and are saying literallly ANYTHING YOU CAN THINK OF to distract from your embarassment.

                      Yet another way you’re trying to shape the discussion to fit your convenient little tidy narrative. Except that it’s entirely false.

                    23. Is Chemjeff serious with this? This guy has to be trolling, no?

                    24. “That must be why I post maybe a dozen comments a week nowadays. ”

                      Except in this thread, where you’ve posted more walls of text than that in the last hour.

                      Thanks for proving all of my points.

                    25. “I ridiculed the practice of citing op-eds for medical advice.”

                      No liar, you didn’t.

                      You said

                      chemjeff radical individualist
                      September.16.2019 at 2:04 pm
                      I know that when I want medical advice, I consult The Federalist

                      Your “OP ED!!!” screeching is the pathetic fallback you came up with to avoid dealing with how dumb your actual post was.

                    26. Thanks for proving all of my points.

                      In Tulpa-speak, this is where Tulpa admits he is totally wrong, and yet nonetheless claims victory.

                    27. No no protest more Jeff, it’s totally working and you dont sound like a typical intetenet basement dwelller who fucked up and is so tied up int his place that your ego can’t handle looking so stupid in front of everyone.

                    28. No Pirella, he’s 100% serious. He really did think we can’t see what he wrote. He really does think that people won’t see he’s obviously lying about what he said and is deeply embarrassed about how stupud he looks. He really does think screeching “OPED!!!” helps him and doesn’t make him look pathetic and desperate.

                    29. chemjeff radical individualist
                      September.16.2019 at 5:55 pm
                      Thanks for proving all of my points.

                      In Tulpa-speak, this is where Tulpa admits he is totally wrong,

                      In basement dwelling bitch speak, this is where jeff pretends I’m not content with havimg people read his words and judge for themselves.

                      Me “we can read what yiu wrote jeff”

                      Jeff “wallotext stupdly trying to make his idiot mistakes look like other also idiot mistakes”

                      YOU are the one doing the explaining jeff. We can all see why.

                    30. Oh my god that’s so sad! I can see what he wrote originally and it doesn’t have anything to do with Op Ed’s. Why would he lie when I can see what he wrote?

                      He has to be trolling.

                    31. [Pirella
                      September.16.2019 at 5:44 pm
                      Is Chemjeff serious with this? This guy has to be trolling, no?]

                      Jeff is both devoutly sincere, and utterly psychotic.

                    32. Hey Jeff, when you openly admit you doubled your own monthly output just to explain why you weren’t wrong…

                      you’re losing.

                    33. Oh, Tulpa.
                      Truth is, to you, it doesn’t really matter what I say, does it? You’ll find a way to spin it and distort it into some negative narrative. My words are just a launching pad for you to begin another trolling session. I could say “water is wet” and you’d say “shut up bitch”. That is about what it boils down to.

                      I really should stop responding to you, because at this point I think I am just enabling your mental illness.

                      And nobody is fooled by your Pirella sock.

                    34. Nothing you said in this thread convinced me in any way Jeff. I can see what you wrote, and you explanation rings hollow. Your argument was totally unconvincing, and I find your behavior here to be childish in the extreme.

                      And before you whine to me about Tulpa, and why I’m not going after him, he’s an idiot. A known quantity of idiot. A large quantity. And as much as I hate this, he has you here. You made a tiny mistake, and your behavior makes it look like you are so deeply invested in your obsession with being demonized by Tulpa that you don’t care how deranged it makes you look when you make asinine arguments.

                      So what now? Now you call me Tulpa too probably, right? Fine I’m Tulpa too. All your critics are all Tulpa. That’s not deranged. You sound like Tulpa thinking everyone else is a sock.

                      You look as bad as Tulpa and not a single serious poster cares what you think about anything. Great job.

                    35. What baby jeffrey is too fucking dumb to realize is that most people who mock krugman understand that Krugman’s current keynesian philosophy is actually largely at odds with the trade theory of his nobel prize. Jeff is also too fucking stupid to understand there are many lanes of economic theory and being an expert in one does not make one an expert in all. Jeffrey os also too fucking stupid to realize that krugman op eds in the NYT are more political than based on theory.

                      Baby jeffrey is a fucking idiot.

                    36. Wait, you think I *enjoy* being demonized by Tulpa? What kind of crack are you smoking?

                      John cited an OPINION PIECE on The Federalist about why no abortions were “medically necessary”. I’m sorry, but if you are getting your medical advice from opinion pieces, there is something wrong with you. John was pushing opinion as fact and I called him out on it. Everyone else tried to assert that I was claiming that Dr. Davenport was some shitty doctor or something. That’s not at all what I said. That was Tulpa’s and John’s complete invention.

                      What exactly was my supposed “mistake” here? That I should have said that an *opinion piece* written by a doctor (along with a pro-life activist!) should be considered medically authoritative because the author has an M.D. behind her name? That’s the fallacy of appeal to authority! That is what John was pushing.

                      Good Lord. Tulpa twists my argument into something it wasn’t, very obviously for all to see, and that is somehow my fault for not accepting his twisted interpretation of my words?

                    37. Jeff is also too fucking stupid to understand there are many lanes of economic theory and being an expert in one does not make one an expert in all.

                      Oh, so like how I wrote this above?

                      chemjeff radical individualist
                      September.16.2019 at 5:08 pm

                      You fell for one of the oldest tricks on the planet – get a person with a flashy title to say things that you want to hear, and then use the title to claim the opinion has higher value than it really does.

                      It’s the same idea. I’m the one who pointed out that having a flashy title or fancy award does not make one an expert on everything. So good for Dr. Davenport for having an M.D. and for evidently being a good ob-gyn. Good for her. That doesn’t make her an expert on abortion. Period. And it is completely nuts for so many of you to cry foul when I point this VERY SAME THING out.

                2. Chem Jeff with the ad homimen. Whatever you do Jeff, never change. Never develop the ability to come up with a cogent point or do anything but spew fallacies and mendacity. You wouldn’t be you.

                  Meanwhile, why don’t you move on and let the adults talk for a while.

                  1. “FACT: Late-Term Abortions Are Never Medically Necessary
                    For babies with abnormalities, perinatal hospice is an option. For mothers whose lives are threatened by complications, emergency C-section is an option.
                    By Lila Rose and Mary Davenport

                    “Dr. Mary Davenport is an OBGYN.”

                    You know, one of the authors of the piece jeff was too fucking stupid to look into.

                    Let’s see if he’s still such a piece of trash he has no problem making a fool of himself adhommimg an OBGYN FOR HER PROFESSIONAL OPINION.

                    1. If jeff wasn’t exactly what everyone always says he is, he’d come in and laugh about how badly he fucked that up. Totally fucked it. Complete failure on his part.

                    2. Wow, that’s a own goal for Chemjeff. Damn.

                  2. John, you are the king of ad hominems.

                    1. Fetuses aren’t invited!!!

                  3. Jeff is the same dumbfuck lunatic who cites ratical.org. take a look at that site. It is nuts.

                3. Pedo Jeffy, John is exactly right and you are exactly stupid. I have a family friend who is an NNP. I’ve known the things John said to be fact for quite some time.

                  You should get your daddy’s money back from that university in Toronto you attend.

                  1. Or he could’ve yaknow, clicked a couople links.

                    What this tells me about Chemjeff is that he doesn’t even click links before he dismisses stories. Based on his own statements, he does that because of his own prejuduces, not anything logical.

                4. Jesus christ baby jeff, at least see who they are quoting before proving yourself a raging dumbfuck.

          4. Because it’s “if accurate”, and there isn’t any good reason to think they ARE accurate. The pro-‘choice’ movement has fought accurate reporting requirements from the start.

            You think Gosnell’s work was showing up in those numbers, for instance?

            1. And Gosnell was just one if them. I’m sure the progtards are covering for dozens or more just like him.

              He is a hero to the progressives.

              1. Dr. Ulrich Klopfer is in the news today; Lost his license a few years back when they found he’d performed an abortion on a pre-teen girl and concealed it. Well, he recently died, and when they checked his home, turned out he’d been collecting dead babies. Thousands of them.

                Late term abortionists are some serious sickos.

      2. What is likely and practical is an abortion ban after say 20 weeks. That is a compromise that would be supported by reasonable people on both sides and one that would greatly decrease the number of abortions.

        That’s been the compromise in every other country in the free world. The United States is among a half dozen countries in the world that has completely unrestricted abortion access – up to and including infanticide now in New York and Virginia.

      3. No way, John. Pro-liferswill not rest until all abortions are illegal. They are not interested in compromise. Fanaticism based on moral certitude does not compromise.

        1. Pro-liferswill not rest until all abortions are illegal. They are not interested in compromise. Fanaticism based on moral certitude does not compromise.

          If you thought the gay wedding cake thing was awkward, just wait for the “I’m keeping it.” cake controversy.

          1. Did..
            Didja see him makimg a fool of himself with the “fetuses aren’t invited” thing?

            Yeah I was on my way to the car, slipped, and bam, I had a fetus in me.

            1. Spontaneous generation strikes again!

  4. Murder was always illegal but people still do it and in the case of abortion we should still try to prevent it. and just because the rich can do it does not mean it should be done. If your to stupid to not get an abortion in the first tri then you are just stupid and should be aborted either way

  5. Obviously the laws against theft, battery, fraud and such have failed as well, so we might as make those legal.

    1. This is the weakness of the libertarian position more broadly. “Creating and enforcing the law doesn’t work so we should have no law” works for literally every law. Not just the ones you happen not to like.

      1. That is the problem in general with pro-abortion rights arguments. The pro argument is almost entirely utilitarian. Any attempt to ground the argument on principles tends to prove way too much. Like some pro arguments undercut the very notion of inherent human rights so they can deny them to pre birth humans.

        1. The problem you run into when trying to convince people to become libertarian is that utilitarian arguments are usually better than arguments based purely on rigid ideological principles.

          1. Which is why Liberty is difficult to maintain in the face of moral panics.

            1. There are plenty of utilitarian arguments for liberty. There are also plenty of utilitarian arguments for avoiding legislation in the face of moral panics. A good instance of this is that keeping vapes completely legal is probably better for public health than banning them in the face of the current panic (and thus driving nicotine addicts to cigarettes).

              1. The ultimate failure of Utilitarian arguments, always and everywhere is: Who decides?

                Because the counter to your example is that a heavily regulated, and possibly subsidized vaping industry will be even safer for all nicotine addicts than a ban or total absence of legislation.

                1. You make some really good points. These are the kinds of dilemmas I think about a lot. It’s almost like the world is one big morally gray catastrophe, isn’t it?

        2. Now do restrictions on guns.

      2. “Creating and enforcing the law doesn’t work so we should have no law” works for literally every law.

        True.

        But the actual libertarian position is to oppose laws that both fail to achieve their purpose and cause additional harms that otherwise wouldn’t occur.

        1. “But the actual libertarian position”

          Oh goody another one who thinks he’s the decider of what libertariansim is.

          No no, it’ll totally work this time, and you won’t look like a dumbfuck like all the others who tried it.

      3. Except that is not the libertarian position. So abort that strawman. The libertarian position is that the right to life does not trump the right of someone else’ s ownership of her own body, even when that body is required for that life to continue.

        1. Yeah, justifiable homicide is exactly how SCOTUS addresses the issue.

        2. “The libertarian position is”

          Guy, you don’t even know how babies are made.

    2. The purpose of the law isn’t to prevent behavior, put to punish people who engage is socially unacceptable behavior. The definition of socially unacceptable is rather subjective, but the libertarian versions is generally the government is only compelled to act when you hurt people or take their stuff by force, fraud, or negligence.

      1. And an abortion, by definition, hurts an individual human.

        1. It hurts a being with human DNA. Not a person until viable (@ 24 weeks- can argue exactly when) according to current law. Less than 24 weeks the being with human DNA doesn’t even have the brainwaves of a dead person.
          So, why should a being which doesn’t have actual brain cognition, and less functionality to think then a newborn cow, have priority over a human adult when it comes to freedom to control her own body? The libertarian position is that the bodily integrity of a person is more important than the life of a non-person. Insisting human DNA makes it a “person” is just religious belief.

          1. You obviously haven’t considered the consequences of basing the value of human life on IQ.

            Or you aren’t capable of self preservation.

  6. Ahem.

    Over the last year, nine states have passed aggressive anti-abortion measures that aim to restrict access to early abortion procedures.

    This should read–

    Over the last year, nine states have passed aggressive anti-abortion measures that aim to restrict access to later term abortion procedures.

    1. Only if you think after 6 weeks is “later term”.
      Alabama: No abortion after 0 weeks. No exceptions except imminent death.
      Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Ohio: No abortion after 6 weeks
      Missouri: No abortion after 8 weeks.

      1. Where is your citation for that.

          1. Missouri’s law would have punished medical professionals with up to 15 years in prison for performing abortions after eight weeks of pregnancy.

            The law only included exemptions for “medical emergencies.”

            the law has a medical exception. So it is not “no abortion after 8 weeks.

            Try again.

      2. Only if you think after 6 weeks is “later term”.

        Actually what I think is that, with the exception of Alabama, no state is trying to restrict access to early term abortion procedures.

        MOST states have some restrictions on LATE term abortion procedures.

  7. “Quickening was an important distinction under law and Catholic doctrine.”

    Which changed, ironically enough I suppose, with the better scientific understanding of embryonic and fetal human development acailable from the late 19th to the 20th Century. The legality of and moral acceptability of abortion was based on an outdated and ignorant understanding of the process of human development.

    1. The legality of and moral acceptability of abortion was based on an outdated and ignorant understanding of the process of human development.

      Bingo.

      1. A religious decision informed by science????

        The Hell you say!

    2. And the social value of legalized abortion has remained pretty well understood the whole time.

      1. Abortion would have been quite valuable in your case.

      2. And the Aztecs believed there was great social value in cutting the hearts out of people.

        The question as always is a human a means to an end or an end in himself?

        1. The question is whether you want to throw 1/4th of American women (and their doctors) into prison for first-degree murder.

          1. No, we want them to stop murdering people. We’d only throw them in prison if they refused to do that.

      3. We’ll, it did prevent a lot of hood rats from infecting society, that’s for certain.

  8. We wouldn’t be here if progressives and the Democrat party of the United States hadn’t decided to go ahead and expand the tenuous ‘truce’ on abortion by inexplicably expanding it to infanticide.

    See this line here? They crossed it. Hence the reaction and people rightfully recoiling in horror.

    Myself included.

    1. More of a stalemate than a truce, but, yes. They just had to “go there”.

      Our horror is their delight, it’s reason enough.

  9. Another great gathering of Libertarians For Statist Womb Management and Libertarians For Big-Government Micromanagement Of Ladyparts Clinics.

    I expect a reasonable compromise on abortion to develop in America, but not until the Republican Party becomes uncompetitive in national elections.

    1. Yes Rev, you are an ignorant hick who has no understanding of science and instead uses your superstitions to rationalize your desire for murder. We know that.

    2. Chances are it’s the abortion until the point of birth left Left that is going to lose this argument. Taxpayer funded abortion on demand without parental notification. And it is the GOP that is unreasonable?

      1. A complete lack of willingness to work out reasonable laws and the inherent wickedness of baby murder laws passed in NY and Virginia have caused state like Alabama to respond in kind. Normal humans have tired of progressives moving our country so far down the path of evil. So they’re pushing back.

        Progressives have only themselves to blame.

        1. If you think the slack-jawed bigots and fundamentalist clingers are the “normal” people, you must live in our desolate, couldn’t-keep-up backwaters. Alabama, maybe.

          And if you think conservatives are suddenly going to turn the tide in the culture war, and start winning against the liberal-libertarian mainstream, you are daft.

          Other than that, great comment, clinger.

          1. The tide will turn right around the time a mass shooter puts a bullet through your empty hicklib skull.

  10. I a favor legal abortion. That said, I fully exp[ect to see Abortion banned in most cases and in most States in my lifetime. Why? Because of the ham-handed stupidity of Pro-Choice activists. Even now, they have not realized what an absolute DISASTER the exposure of Kermit Gosnell’s House of Horrors was. Because if they did, they would be making a great public effort to ensure that there aren’t any others. They aren’t. Or if they are, it isn’t being publicized, which given the lock the Progressive Left has on the mainstream media strikes me as unlikely.

    OF COURSE Pro-Life activists are trying to get abortion banned; they consider it child-murder. Murders happen in spite of the laws against them, but that doesn’t mean the laws against them are wrongheaded. Yes, Pro-Life activists would love to have abortion STOPPED, but they will settle for having society embody disapproval in law.

    And that’s just what is likely to happen. Defending late-term abortion, at this stage of the debate, is a political blunder of gigantic proportions. So is opposing Parental Notification Laws. What the Pro-Choice people, and the Progressive Left in general, tend to forget is that in a representative government, it isn’t enough too be RIGHT, you must also be CONVINCING.

    I wait with trepidation the news that a young woman, smuggled across State lines to avoid Parental Notification, has died of complications attendant on an abortion. Because I have NO REASON to believe that some self-righteous Pro-Choice ninny won’t help such smuggling, and because Abortions have a low, but real, risk of death. And when it happens (WHEN, note, not IF) I also have no reason to doubt that national Pro-Choice voice es will condemn, not the idiot who smuggled the child across State lines, but the States that require Parental Notification…just as they do for handing out aspirin.

    Abortion will very likely remain legal in Nevada, and some other Far Left enclaves may manage to retain legal abortion. But there is going to be a massive backlash that the Pro-Choice advocates are doing NOTHING to defuse.

    1. Were you always unfamiliar with standard English, and capitalization in particular, or have you adopted random capitalization as a tribute to Pres. Trump and his ostentatious illiteracy?

      1. You’re one to talk, considering your horrible use of grammar, hicklib.

  11. Murder bans failed and they will fail again. Way to avoid the actual issue.

  12. Interesting factoid: More than a century and a half ago abortion was not illegal. There was a concept called “quickening”. Basically the fetus wasn’t alive until the mother could feel it move. Before that time it was perfectly legal, and apparently moral, to abort the fetus as it was not considered alive. After that point the fetus was considered to be alive.

    The whole idea of “live begins at conception” is fairly modern.

    What changed this? Basically one horrific botched abortion in the early 19th century. Botched abortions were commonplace. Even when performed by doctors. Because doctors at the time were awful. But this botched abortion by a respected doctor so shocked the public that the demanded something be done. And what was done was to essentially ban all abortions.

    (That botched abortion wasn’t the whole story, and does not explain banning abortions in other parts of the world. For that the natural advance of science and medicine can be blamed, as more knowledge of pregnancy was learned).

    You can read about this, as well as the state of medicine at the time, in the book “Dr. Mutter’s Marvels”, a biography of Doctor Thomas Mutter.

    1. To the extent abortion was legal before quickening, it was because the fetus was *incorrectly* believed to be a lifeless mass of tissue. We know today that such a medieval doctrine is false.

      So if we scratch our heads and wonder why we used to be so “enlightened” in allowing early abortions, the answer is “bad science.”

      What’s our excuse today?

      1. That’s why the pro-‘choice’ movement is so opposed to mandatory ultrasound. They want women to keep think of their baby as a lifeless mass of tissue. The moment they can see that little body, killing it goes out the window for most of them.

        1. Nope, they see the blob that looks like a tadpole and have no problem. Look at the statistics.

  13. Keep abortion legal and let those who choose to abort and those who perform abortions address these questionable moral decisions with whatever god they will meet when they die. Don’t use my tax dollars to subsidize it.

      1. Make murder legal and let those who choose to murder and those who perform murders address these questionable moral decisions with whatever god they will meet when they die. Don’t use my tax dollars to subsidize it.

        And, as noted above, it works for every single crime.

        1. Even if you consider abortion to be murder, which I think there’s a case to be made, you’d have a hard time proving how you are personally harmed by other people murdering their own unborn children.

          I am wholeheartedly against people murdering other people that have already been born, mostly because all of the people that I know have been born and therefore I can be harmed by murder of born people becoming legal.

          What harm are you done by someone else aborting their own children? Or is it just a moral thing so you feel like you get to choose what other people can and can’t do in this realm?

          1. That logically means you have no objection to the murder or other kinds of rights violations of people who are in demographic categories that do not apply to you.

            1. No, my personal connections shouldn’t really be considered. All that matters is that someone somewhere would be harmed by murder being legal, and you could be too.

              1. That is not what you wrote. You wrote that because you cannot at this point be killed by being aborted you do not object to abortion. Logically, then the only acceptable reason you see to object to the legalization of a class of people being killed is that one belongs to that class, or has an interest in someone belonging to that class.

                If you object based on someone outside your interest being harmed, all to the good, but that was not your previous argument .

                1. You wrote that because you cannot at this point be killed by being aborted you do not object to abortion.

                  No, what I wrote was “I am wholeheartedly against people murdering other people that have already been born, mostly because all of the people that I know have been born and therefore I can be harmed by murder of born people becoming legal.”

                  I must have done a poor job at communicating. I apologize. Let me clarify.

                  I don’t object to harming someone that cannot be known.

                  Its the “cannot be known” part that is the crux. If someone can be known, then other people can be harmed by their murder, and thus I am against it. Otherwise, it’s none of my business (and none of yours).

                  1. I should note that I don’t object in terms of a public-policy level. My personal life is a different story with a bunch of moral codes I do not try to force on other people via politicians.

                  2. I find that a bizarre distinction and I am not sure what you even mean by “cannot be known”.

                  3. People who ‘cannot be known’ are a graphic group that you cannot be part of. Thus Mickey’s initial statement remains apparently correct–i.e. that you have no problem with people murdering others who are not in demographic groups that you are not a part of.

                    Because this–

                    All that matters is that someone somewhere would be harmed by murder being legal, and you could be too

                    Is as valid as this–

                    All that matters is that someone somewhere would be harmed by abortion being legal, and you could be too

          2. I am wholeheartedly against people murdering other people that have already been born, mostly because all of the people that I know have been born and therefore I can be harmed by murder of born people becoming legal.

            Setting aside the silliness of this argument (murdering unborn humans is ok because you don’t know any), I would just point out that you apparently are a believer in magical birth canals.

            1. murdering unborn humans is ok because you don’t know any

              You missed the crux of the silly argument. It might be okay to murder unborn humans because you can’t know any.

              I would just point out that you apparently are a believer in magical birth canals.

              No I’m not, and I haven’t insinuated I am. This assumption is all you, baby.

              1. You missed the crux of the silly argument. It might be okay to murder unborn humans because you can’t know any.

                Thank you for the clarification. I believe this one stands on its own.

                No I’m not, and I haven’t insinuated I am. This assumption is all you, baby.

                In terms of development, what do you think happens between the moment before an unborn child enters the birth canal and the moment after birth? And what magically causes them to go from being a human whose murder makes no difference to you to a human whose murder harms you during that time.

                1. I believe this one stands on its own.

                  Indeed.

                  In terms of development, what do you think happens between the moment before an unborn child enters the birth canal and the moment after birth? And what magically causes them to go from being a human whose murder makes no difference to you to a human whose murder harms you during that time.

                  I’m more of a science person than a magic person, but I’m not aware of anything that necessarily change development-wise immediately before birth. But I don’t see why you’re asking me this in the first place, since I am personally morally opposed to abortion.

                  If someone decides to get an abortion, that’s between them, their doctor and their god.

                  1. A science person wouldn’t subscribe to the voodoo belief that the destruction of a human on one side of the birth canal doesn’t harm you while on the other side it would be harmful. You what could do that? A magical birth canal.

            2. It is substantially no different than accepting the murder of forty year olds because you have already reached AARP membership age.

              1. Hey, plenty of people have friends that happen to be very old.

                1. Plenty of people happen to be expecting grandparents.

                  1. Haha, good for you! Congrats.

                    Rest assured, I’m not advocating for the murder of any AARP members. 😛

          3. Here, try this–

            I am wholeheartedly against people murdering other people that are still in the womb, mostly because all of the people that I know–including me– have had to spend at least some part of their lives in the womb and therefore I, and they, and everyone, in fact can be harmed by murder of people in wombs being legal.

        2. It hinges on whether one believes a fetus to be a human being with a soul. I recall reading somewhere that Thomas Aquinas believed that the soul did not enter the body until some WEEKS after birth.

          I don’t believe a fetus is human. I don’t believe a BABY is human. Indeed, I have met a few people, and read about lots more, who seem to have entirely failed to develop souls.

          But I don’t think I can PROVE it to anyone. And I don’t think the opposite can be proved to me. So, I am generally in favor of legal abortion, while not being overly outraged at the prospect of it being banned.

          Well, I’m outraged at the idiocy of the Pro-Choice activists, which is going to end up resulting in the ban they profess to oppose.

          Twits.

          1. Exactly. This is a stupid argument. Leave it to god. A lot of libertarians here are arguing for a lot of government intervention here. Its weird when I’m the most libertarian in the room.

            1. Ii do not think the denial of inherent human rights is “libertarian”.

              1. Ah, but that begs the question, “Is this a human?”

                I happen to think not. But I don’t believe I can prove it. I also don’t think it can be proved that it IS.

                And, in any case, the argument will soon be moot. The Progressive Left s doing its level best to sink legal abortion by not policing their own (Gosnell and, I sadly fear, others) and staking out unreasonable arguments. Late term abortiins may not be, strictly speaking, murder of a human, but it LOOKS like it, and is entirely too goddamned close for comfort.

          2. I don’t believe a BABY is human.

            You forgot to mention at which point you’re against killing infants.

          3. You cannot prove a unborn human is a person. OK.

            You cannot prove an adult is a person. OK.

            Because you cannot prove an unborn human is a person you think it is acceptable to kill it.

            Because you cannot prove an adult is a person then presumably you think it should be acceptable to kill adults, and therefore you have a sociopathic philosophy. If you do not, then you have to explain the inconsistency in your logic as you are coming to different conclusions from the same premises.

    1. Ok. Now try that with murderers and rapists.

      1. No need, it doesn’t apply.

    2. So you have no problem with my employer paying for my wife’s abortion through my insurance? Just asking.

      1. I heartily encourage your wife to have as many abortions as possible, whether they’re your kids or her boyfriend’s.

  14. I don’t think the Johns of the world should be able to get away with claiming that “life,” i.e., personhood rights begin at conception without also explaining why they’re not for treating a quarter of all women in the country as first-degree baby murderers under the law.

    So what’s it gonna be? Let’s assume John is right, and let’s move on to the other debate that must necessarily follow. Life in prison or the death penalty for a quarter of all American women?

    1. Tony, your strawman is bullshit. Also, as a sodomite, you have no stake in the discussion. So go fuck off and drink your Drano.

      1. You don’t know what a straw man is, but I have no doubt you are quite familiar with sodomy, especially with unwilling victims.

    2. Shhhhhhh, Tony, don’t bring logic into this.

      1. No–let’s bring logic into this.

        If they manage to ban abortion, then absolutely, women who have an abortion should be jailed or executed.

        Because it’s murder.

        Right now, we allow this type of murder. We let women kill their gestating offspring if they deem those offspring to be an inconvenience.

        Would we allow this in any other case?

        “Hey, Bob kept parking in front of my house. I had to walk a good thirty feet to get to my door. Sometimes in the rain. It was a real inconvenience. So I killed him.’

        You don’t get to kill people who inconvenience you ESPECIALLY if you FORCED them, against their will, to do so.

        So we have this endless discussion–when does fetus Bob become just Bob?

        But that doesn’t really work.

        Why?

        Because if the person that Bob’s been forced to gestate in just lives their life, eats, sleeps, tries to a void being stabbed or infected, as everyone does, then Bob just pops out, once he no longer is forced to gestate.

        So, Bob is Bob as long as you do nothing to stop him from being Bob. Just like anyone else.

        But it’s her body, you say–nope. It’s not– not after she and her accomplice force Bob into it. They didn’t even think of Bob when they did it.

        So if we make this type of murder illegal again, then absolutely people who commit it should face the full brunt of the law.

        1. if the person that Bob’s been forced to gestate in just lives their life, eats, sleeps, tries to a void being stabbed or infected, as everyone does, then Bob just pops out

          That roaring sound you hear is every mother in the world laughing at that statement.

          But it’s her body, you say–nope. It’s not– not after she and her accomplice force Bob into it. They didn’t even think of Bob when they did it.

          Yes, it is her body, and that doesn’t change when she becomes pregnant. And, no, they didn’t think of Bob, and owed him not a thought, because when she and her “accomplice” did the deed, Bob did not exist.

          And even in the extremely unlikely event that abortion is made illegal in this country, there is not a chance in Hell that women will be prosecuted for it. Anti-abortionists will be fine with that, because they don’t see pregnant women as fully human beings with agency. If they did, they could not be anti-abortion.

  15. “Accredited male doctors campaigned to pass abortion bans at the state and federal level as a way to shut down unlicensed, and mostly female, practitioners with the end goal to establish state control over the medical profession. ”

    You realize that *at least* half of aborted fetuses are female, and probably more due to sex selective abortions?

    1. Some arguments just sound better when chanted in a Wiccan drum circle than when exposed to the cold light of reason. (lowercase r)

  16. We must continue to butcher the most innocuous among us, the unborn, if we are to keep up with the Shiite Muslims.
    https://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2014/11/shia-muslims-mark-holy-day-with-bloody-self-mutilation-nsfl/

    C’mon, America.
    We can do it!

    1. From a libertarian perspective, there is nothing wrong with self-mutilation. Their body, their choice.

      1. Even when they mutilate their children?

        1. We practice circumcision every day and no one bats an eye.

          1. But that is fine because Jesus and the Lord God of the Bible required, or maybe approved, circumcision, or something.

      2. Uh…no. From a libertarian perspective, self-mutilation should not be illegal because their body, their choice. That doesn’t mean that a libertarian can’t believe that self-mutilation is wrong.

  17. “The result was a spike in death rates from abortions in the 1960s. Researchers at UCLA predicted that criminalization would result in the deaths of five thousand women each year during this time period.”

    That statistic is bogus, and pushed by the same type of people who tell you not to bother buying a gun for home defense because “statistics prove” you’ll be in greater danger.

    The Alan Guttmacher Institute, in 2003 when it was still *officially connected to Planned Parenthood,* said that illegal abortion deaths (of pregnant women, that is) had dropped to “just over 300 by 1950…By 1965, the number of deaths due to illegal abortion had fallen to just under 200.”

    https://www.guttmacher.org/gpr/2003/03/lessons-roe-will-past-be-prologue

    1. Why the exaggerated statistics? Dr. Bernard Nathanson, a pioneering modern abortionist and a founder of NARAL, spilled the beans after he started having a change of heart (ending up prolife). Dr. Nathanson admitted that he’d pushed the 5,000 figure even though he pretty much figured it was BS:

      “According to his confessions, in the 1960s, he claimed that there were one million illegal abortions being done annually and that 5,000-10,000 women died from them every year. Nathanson later admitted that the actual figures were 98,000 illegal abortions and around 250 women that died annually. To put this in perspective, he confessed to over-estimating by over 1,000 percent the number of illegal abortions, and by 4,000 percent the number of women who died.”

      https://www.frcblog.com/2019/08/pro-life-converts-dr-bernard-nathanson/

    2. Why the exaggerated statistics? Dr. Bernard Nathanson, a pioneering modern abortionist and a founder of NARAL, spilled the beans after he started having a change of heart (ending up prolife). Dr. Nathanson admitted that he’d pushed the 5,000 figure even though he pretty much figured it was BS:

      “According to his confessions, in the 1960s, he claimed that there were one million illegal abortions being done annually and that 5,000-10,000 women died from them every year. Nathanson later admitted that the actual figures were 98,000 illegal abortions and around 250 women that died annually. To put this in perspective, he confessed to over-estimating by over 1,000 percent the number of illegal abortions, and by 4,000 percent the number of women who died.”

      https://www.frcblog.com/2019/08/pro-life-converts-dr-bernard-nathanson/

  18. Is it better to make parents that don’t want children have them and take care of them, or have them and put them up for adoption or allow them to be aborted?

    Do kids that come from families that would have rather murdered them end up being net positives to the system, or do they typically end up on welfare, advocating for increased government intervention, etc?

    I can see why people just get religious with it and say life begins at conception or does not begin until birth, etc. I think the most productive policy, from a practical standpoint, is probably to allow people that don’t want their kids to murder them before they are born via abortion. Yeah, I know I’m fucked up.

    1. I’m afraid so, especially since as you mentioned, adoption is also on the table as a general rule (the proof is, the choicers won’t support a law requiring, as a prerequisite to abortion, that the fetus be certified as unadoptable by impartial agencies).

      1. You’re not very well acquainted with the foster care system, are you?

        1. Correct me if I’m wrong, but foster care isn’t the same as adoption, is it?

          In any case, are you willing to claim that foster care a fate worse than death?

          1. Babies that don’t get adopted can end up in foster care, yes, during which time they can be adopted (but often aren’t). And yes, some situations can be worse than death. Either way, its not really my place to make that decision for other people.

            1. But it’s your place to decide who has the protection of the law?

              Would you withdraw the protection of the law from *everyone*? Or only from people who are unhappy, or in a bad situation? Really, is there any category of people entitled to the protection of the law against private or official violence?

              1. But it’s your place to decide who has the protection of the law?

                Hm, well, I obviously have an opinion on it. I guess I’m just not as self-righteous or certain about mine as you are about yours.

                Would you withdraw the protection of the law from *everyone*?

                Probably not. I can’t think of a good argument why we should. Would you?

                Or only from people who are unhappy, or in a bad situation?

                See above.

                Really, is there any category of people entitled to the protection of the law against private or official violence?

                I’d probably say people that are either born or past some certain number of weeks in the womb, just to draw an arbitrary line.

                1. “I’d probably say people that are either born or past some certain number of weeks in the womb, just to draw an arbitrary line.”

                  The weird, freaky thing is that this might make you more “conservative” than the abortion status quo – although most abortions are early-term, the criteria for late-term abortions are more permissive than you might like.

  19. As with the prohibition of drugs, alcohol, and sex work, a legal ban on abortion wouldn’t be effective because a majority of Americans don’t believe that the practice should be illegal.

    Any word on how popular banning slavery was when the 13th Amendment passed?

  20. There are about 17,000 murders a year in the US compared to 750,000 abortion murders.

    Abortion is the worst genocide in earths history.

    How many more murders would there be if it wasn’t illegal?

    1. Or it’s not murder at all and we can all get on with lunch.

  21. The ironies of the pro-life position are sweeter than the flesh of freshly spit-roasted fetus.

    So we’re going to have to throw one quarter of all American women into the criminal court system on charges of first-degree murder. No debate on that. It’s either murder or it’s not.

    So pro-lifers are clearly willing to raise their own taxes enough to pay for a gazillion-fold increase in the judicial and prison infrastructure required for this endeavor. Not to mention the expense of millions upon millions of new death-penalty appeals processes for the baby murderers.

    I think we can all agree on that. You pay for what you want your government to do. It’s fiscal prudence.

    1. Yes, because that’s exactly how abortion laws worked when they were on the books.

      I mean, if you trust this article (hint: you shouldn’t unless you’re highly credulous), there were 5,000 women dying every year in the 1960s from illegal abortions! (see above for rebuttal)

    2. The genocide of abortion is far worse than slavery ever was.

      There could be another civil war over abortion.

      It’s obvious what side you’re on.

      1. All I ask is that you are willing to raise your taxes for the expense of throwing a quarter of all American women into prison for first-degree murder. It’s only fair.

        1. You would have asked a similar question to people who opposed slavery.

          1. We did take half measures dealing with those immoral traitors, and we are still living with the consequences.

            1. Eating fetus = immoral traitor

              Everyone loses when playing devils advocate.

      2. I’m starting to suspect that Rob Misek is a sock of OpenBordersLiberal-tarian.

  22. This is all much a do about nothing. Conservatives fail at everything they try to do in government, because all bureaucrats hate conservatives and will act to thwart them. They are the Washington Generals of politics. You are all hysterical idiot pussy hat wearers if you really think the Falwell types will ever be relevant again. There will be no new meaningful bans on abortion. Ever.

    The Republicans simply can not be an effective threat against civil liberties. Unlike the antifa supporting terrorist communists in the Democrat party.

    1. this is totally accurate.

      abortion is fake news for both sides and the most overblown controversy of our time. Roe v Wade could be overturned and it would make almost no difference at all.

    2. The Republicans simply can not be an effective threat against civil liberties.

      except when they’re pushing through the PATRIOT Act, torturing people, and sucking the most cop dick on the planet

  23. Slavery was perfectly acceptable and common in 1850 as well, guess I have no moral legs to stand on in opposing it for fundamentally violating human rights.

    1. Forced birth is slavery of a person to a non-person. A fetus at 20 weeks is not a person. It has about as much brainwave function as a person declared brain dead.

      1. Children have literally survived premature birth at 21 weeks and gone on to live normal lives. Begone, savage.

        1. and gone on to live normal lives.

          Bullshit.

  24. Yes, abortion is a crime. The government should ban this type of activities.

Please to post comments