“Appearing on ‘The View’ on Friday, Conservative commentator Tomi Lahren admitted that she supports abortion rights, saying it would be hypocritical of her to believe the government should decide what women should do with their bodies,” washingtonpost.com reports. “’You know what? I’m for limited government, so stay out of my guns, and you can stay out of my body as well.'” Well . . .

The Blaze, her home and media birthplace, has suspended Ms. Lahren. A lot of conservative commentators have attacked Ms. Lahren’s “firearms freedom is the same as a woman’s freedom to choose abortion” stance. Viciously so.

Conservative writers and social media accounts blasted her explanation for her abortion rights stance and criticized her with headlines such as “Flip-flop.”

On the conservative blog the Resurgent, Peter Heck compared Lahren to other young stars who grapple with a “meteoric” rise to fame, in a culture that “bizarrely worships youth and beauty.”

“There’s a reason why it usually doesn’t end well when someone who lacks any meaningful or serious understanding of political philosophy and ideology is thrust in front of a camera and promoted as a conservative spokesman,” Heck wrote. “They are pitifully unprepared to exercise the disciplines of reason and discernment.”

As for me, I agree with Ms. Lahren.

Don’t get me wrong: I believe we should do everything we can to reduce the number of safe, legal abortions. Sex ed, contraception, adoption, guidance, whatever — as long as it’s presented as a personal choice. And I understand the thinking of those who consider abortion murder.

But I also believe that the danger of government interference with individual choice — be that gun ownership, drug use or abortion — is the greater danger, both individually and to our society.

On NPR yesterday, the host commented on abortion, saying “If it’s a right it shouldn’t be divvied-up by state.” Which is exactly how The People of the Gun feel about gun rights. Although many people don’t believe that abortion is a right, Roe v Wade be damned.

Anyway, what’s your take?

240 Responses to Pro-Choice ‘Conservative Rock Star’ Tomi Lahren Equates Abortion Rights With Gun Rights

  1. WTF…so murdering your baby is equivalent to the 2nd Amendment? I guess “conservative” has a new definition.

    • I believe that there is life from conception, but don’t believe that abortion should be made illegal. Call me pro-life and pro-choice at the same time. There is no point to making abortion illegal unless you’re willing to jail any woman who gets one (or attempts one); There is no point to granting full rights to the unborn unless you’re willing to investigate every miscarriage as a murder. The argument that you’re only going to jail the doctors for providing abortion services is ludicrous- they only act at the request of the woman seeking the abortion. You might as well jail only the hit-man and not the mafioso who hired him.

      So for those who disagree (and on this subject, reasonable people can disagree) a question: Are you willing to punish the women seeking abortions? How strongly- the same as murder?

      • That’s the libertarian position. You can be morally opposed to something and still understand it should not be illegal. Welcome to the club.

        • Exactly. And that’s why this description of her is so ludicrous:

          “…someone who lacks any meaningful or serious understanding of political philosophy and ideology….”

          She plainly has a very libertarian understanding of political philosophy and ideology. Saying she lacks any meaningful understanding is ridiculous from anyone claiming to be a conservative yet wanting the state to dictate morals… especially when the morals they want to enforce end at birth, which is where it does for most “pro-lifers”, who don’t care if the baby has a good home, will get a good education, will be taken traveling on safe roads and bridges, has any access to health care at all, etc.

        • There are plenty of libertarians who believe abortion should be illegal, for the same reason they believe murder should be illegal. It’s the difference between thinking “I don’t like that you do that but you’re just hurting yourself so ok” and “I think you should be stopped from doing that because you’re harming an innocent third party”.

      • I think it’d be more helpful to punish the abortion doctors, not the women they’re exploiting. The abortionists are the ones actually pulling the trigger.

        The difference between this and drugs or guns is that this isn’t an adult of sound mind inflicting harm upon themselves. This is a child having that harm inflicted upon them by a third party for no reason and without them being able to give consent. I would argue it is ANTI-libertarian to say that all abortion should be legal. You’re denying that child personhood and a set of rights they should have.

        • Frankly, that’s a cop out. That’s where the so-called pro-life movement falls short. They don’t have the stomach for putting young women in jail for murder. Nor do I. I can’t imagine investigating a miscarriage as a possible murder. But that’s what you would have to do if a fetus were considered a constitutionally protected person.

        • Doctors are exploiting their patients? Buster, every voluntary trade is just that – voluntary. By definition, each party gets more of value than they gave.

          You sound like just another fool who thinks women have no agency, no free will, that everything they do must be managed by their betters. If a woman does something you don’t like, it couldn’t possibly be her decision. Someone must have exploited her.

          You also sound like someone who thinks women treat abortion as just another day at the nail salon, no big deal. You might try treating women as full humans and ask a few what they really think, instead of presuming you know better than they do what’s good for them. You’d be surprised how seriously they take it.

        • Kevin,

          If police discovered that a 13 day-old infant had died, they would investigate to determine whether the infant died of natural causes versus foul play, child abuse, or child neglect. The fact that an infant’s death is emotionally devastating for the mom and a police investigation would add to the mother’s distress does not mean police should not investigate. A human life was lost after all.

          Miscarriages, through no fault of the mother, are natural and quite common (unfortunately). And they are often emotionally devastating for the (formerly) pregnant woman. Nevertheless, a human life was lost and we should investigate for unnatural causes.

          Because natural miscarriages (through no fault of the mom) are relatively common, I would support a simple a police investigation limited to asking a few questions of the woman and other family members or friends — and medical professionals if the woman went to a hospital. Unless the responses to those questions raise some serious red flags, the investigation ends right there in order to minimize the woman’s distress.

        • A dang good start is to get govt $$$ out of the abortion business… I can somewhat agree with the being morally against but not insisting it be illegal, but I sure don’t want to be forced to pay for it! And for those suggesting miscarriages be investigated, I’d throw out a guess that a good many miscarriages have zero record…

        • Chad, look up a thing called the Hyde Amendment — you’ll discover you’re about a whole generation behind on things. It was 1976, and it banned the use of federal funds for abortions.

          It’s been tweaked a bit since; federal money can be used if a woman is pregnant due to rape, or if pregnancy puts her life in danger.

      • Well when my teenager really makes life difficult for me financially and emotionally, I should be allowed to kill him. It’s my choice. I created him so I have the right to end that life. Hey, at least he got to live for 15 years.

    • Yeah, those “conservatives”, like this Heck jerk, are better described as controlling asshole MEN who are trying to make rules for others which will never concern them. And anyone who actually considers abortion “murder” has the right to refuse one for himself (but not for anyone else), or to utilize any period in the past 55+ years to introduce a constitutional amendment, thus determining how many people agree. Most here will agree, just because you disagree with a court ruling which establishes a right, that does not give you license to ignore it. You can comply, change it, or stand ready to go to prison as a real, live criminal.

      • And anyone who actually considers abortion “murder” has the right to refuse one for himself (but not for anyone else), or to utilize any period in the past 55+ years to introduce a constitutional amendment, thus determining how many people agree.

        So I guess if you were murdered, your murderer could just explain to the cops that he didn’t consider it murder — it was just a very late-term abortion.

        • I don’t think Larry in tx put much thought into his post, it was a very naive and weak post. Just like Tomi’s thinking.

        • I think he was saying that if I choose to not be murdered then I have the right to not be murdered, but until I had a voice to affirm that position I did not have the right to not be murdered. Or something…

          Perhaps the solution is for us to start arming potential abortion victims.

      • Oh, what a sloppy definition of murder!

        If there’s a person there, then its deliberate death is murder — by definition. The question is whether there’s a person, and that’s the real problem with Roe v. Wade: the Court didn’t seriously address what constitutes being a human person.

        I’d settle for the end of the first trimester, as that is roughly when medical science can point to a set of brainwaves utterly indistinguishable from those of a living, air-breathing human individual. It is our brains that make us human, so that set of brainwaves incontestably establishes that we are dealing with an actual human person — so there should be no dispute at all that killing that human is murder.

        Of course the unborn may be a person before that, but we can’t objectively establish such, so binding society by it is not a reasonable option. But what we can establish should be set in law — with the only exception being if the life of the mother is threatened, at which point no one has the moral authority to make a decision for her.

        • You have full human DNA as soon as sperm penetrates egg. The same DNA you have today. Not saying there is a right answer, but trying to determine a time frame as to when something becomes human is a crap shoot. You are human the second you are conceived.

        • Trey, “full human DNA” isn’t relevant, because it doesn’t prove there’s a person there. Until the unborn has at least all the standard body parts and they’re functioning, it’s ludicrous to make a claim that science tells us it’s a person. And as a nation with freedom of religion, the only common basis we have for deciding such things is science. We may hold, on faith, that there’s a person present, but unless science can show it we have no basis to insist on that position for everyone.

          The example of the early church should guide here: one reason the number of Christians in the Roman Empire erupted so rapidly was that they made an effort to claim every abandoned infant, every cast-off child. Rather than demanding that government do our bidding, we should be just stepping up and acting to save lives. The example of those early Christians changed Western culture, and it could do the same again.

          After all, Jesus never said, “Go therefore and pass laws in My Name, coercing your fellows to behave as you wish”. Laws didn’t make anyone righteous under Moses, and they won’t do so today — indeed as Paul noted, laws just stir up sin. But living the Gospel draws people!

      • Trump originally said he didn’t care about overturning Roe v. Wade and was okay with legalizing marijuana.

    • You aren’t murdering anyone.

      Even if you believe that life begins at conception, that life is not viable without the woman’s support.

      If the woman rescinds that support, the baby dies.

      Look at it in a case that involves something other than a baby.

      Something as simple as a blood transfusion. Let us assume for a moment, that someone needs blood to survive, and you are the only person available with a compatible blood type. Not allowing your blood to be used is not the same as murdering them. Even if you had previously allowed your blood to be used. At any point in time you can refuse further blood donations and that person will die, but you are not killing them.

      It is called bodily autonomy. You cannot be forced to do something with your body against your will, even if that action is to preserve another life.

      You cannot be forced to donate blood, you cannot be forced to donate a kidney, you cannot be forced to carry a child to term.

      • A newborn or even a 6 month old is not viable without support either.

        If neglected it is murder. You can tell yourself abortion is not murder but it is .

        Your argument is as hollow as “it’s better off” and “what kind of life would it have had”

        Murder so the “parent” won’t be inconvenienced. Logic like yours exemplifies people not taking responsibility for their actions.

        Pathetic

      • Ilya, that’s an interesting argument, but it suffers from two fatal flaws: first, it can be used to justify infanticide and abandonment, and second it ignores the fact that in almost all cases the woman already made a decision about her body, namely to take the chance of becoming pregnant. So it is repugnant both morally and in terms of choice.

      • False equivalency. Denying a blood transfusion is not an overt act to end a person’s life. Actively seeking services that will deliberately destroy a human being, or performing said services, is an overt act with the intended consequence of destroying a human life (murder).

    • > I guess “conservative” has a new definition.

      Nope, it’s the old one, pre-70s. Until then, conservative evangelicals didn’t care about abortion at all.

  2. I also agree, although I’m sure it’s because I don’t consider a fertilized egg as a person.

    (yes, there comes some point between ‘fertilized egg’ and ‘birthed child’ that it changes for me- but unfortunately there’s no clear demarcation so the dividing line is up for grabs).

    • …..that has to happen at some point…..if women want to carve out their body orifices, that’s fine with me….just like the racial problems, i quit caring long ago….I get it that I’m never going to get “it”…..just leave my guns and my freedom alone….do not equate your social elitism with my care for my neighbors safety along with my family. These people love the “post-Christian” world, where they “wash” their “souls” by being against the flavor of the day…..racism, trans-genderphobism, homophobism, bigotry and a WHOLE host of “,isms”……they feel closer to “god” when they espouse this garbage……….they are “washed”….we who are responsible and foot the bill “need” them to show us the way……Being “out-raged” about something is akin to speaking in tongues at one of those “old time tent revivals”….lol…..washed of all sins!!!!….we are f’ing doomed 🙂

    • There are very clear demarcations, unfortunately for the left, they are all far too early in the pregnancy. For instance, fetal heartbeat seems a reasonable compromise to me. At that point the child is pumping it own blood that is frequently not even the same blood type as the mother. Hardly a ‘lump of tissue’ or a ‘tumor’. But that happens ~18 days into the pregnancy, before most women even know they’re pregnant. So the left has to pretend it doesn’t happen, I guess.

      • Yes, they love science until they don’t. 🙂 seems to be happening to a lot of these guys in the virtual presence of a pretty blonde lady too. Personhood isn’t a complicated question, it’s just inconvenient for the pro choice crowd.

        • The left hates science, period. They’re every bit as bad as the Catholic church before the Reformation. I’ve had a few anthropogenic global warming conversations with lefties and they are so opinionated yet have absolutely zero knowledge of the subject. All they can cite is that tired old ‘97% of scientists agree’ meme. They don’t know that the way the question was worded I’d be in the 97% or that only a small portion were actually ‘climate scientists’. But that’s what the left lives on, ignorance. Trust the elites to do all the heavy thinking and we’ll tell you what to do and think.

          (BTW, for the record I don’t doubt that human activity is having a minor effect on climate. I just believe that the effects are overwhelmingly positive since a) before man came along CO2 was at it’s lowest levels since complex multi-cellular life appeared, b) plants grow faster, produce more food and require less water with more CO2 and c) we’re living in an ICE AGE! All scientific facts denied by the people Lenin called ‘useful idiots’.)

      • No, that is not when they decide a fetal heartbeat is. You can detect a ‘hearbeat’ before 12 weeks, when the heart is still a non-functioning sack pulsing with the flow of maternal blood.

      • We don’t care if it’s a “lump of tissue” or not. What we care about is whether it’s a person or not. Persons have natural rights, non-persons don’t.

    • Scenario for you: You are standing in front of a shack with two people and you have a grenade in your hand. You are going to pull the pin and toss the grenade in the shack, but one of the people says “Stop! There is someone in there”.
      The second person says “Don’t worry, there is no one in there”. Would you have any moral obligation to check the Shack before you blew it up? Or would you forgo blowing it up at all, just to be safe?

    • Roe v Wade has the same effect, the way to change it is a constitutional amendment. There has never been an attempt because everyone knows it would be a waste of money, could never pass, so the answer is to treat it like 2A is treated, try to hide it, lie about it, shout people down, scream and yell and run around with your hair on fire, the tactics are scary similar. OH! And belittle your opposition as Heck does above, he got real close to saying flat-out that women should not be allowed to comment. Especially those who could actually become pregnant.

      • Roe v Wade and Dred Scott are moral equivalents. In Dred Scott, the court decided that blacks were not human and therefore could no more sue for their freedom than a horse could sue for his. In Roe v Wade the human fetus was decided to be just a part of a woman’s body and therefore not human. Dred Scott is widely considered to be the courts worst decision ever. Eventually Roe v Wade will be just as well remembered as people eventually have to acknowledge pre-natal science.

        • Man, you’re making good points across the board. You wouldn’t be basing these off of consistent Constitutional, Conservative principles, would you?

        • In Roe v Wade the human fetus was decided to be just a part of a woman’s body and therefore not human.

          THAT is the fundamental error. Fact: a “fetus” is a unique human being separate from the mother.

          The fundamental problem with abortion proponents is that they have denied the fundamental humanity of the “fetus”. They are saying that human life only has a right to life under conditions that humans arbitrarily define. It should be obvious that we are in serious trouble if our rights only exist when we satisfy arbitrary human conditions. (That is “might makes right”.)

          Interesting note: I am not aware of any animal species on the planet that seeks to destroy its offspring before it is even born. Abortion is uniquely human … and uniquely unnatural.

        • Excellent post.

          This graph from the original post is disappointing for pretending there’s no actual life at stake (the child’s)… but instead, abortion is merely “controversial,” like the war on drugs. Life and death are not matters of controversy.

          But I also believe that the danger of government interference with individual choice — be that gun ownership, drug use or abortion — is the greater danger, both individually and to our society.”

          It’s preposterous to consider that one day being “pro-choice” could actually mean that a person wants the freedom to choose whether to be burdened by older family members with expensive healthcare. The question then is whether libertarians will think the prudes who disagree with this approach are all about government intrusion.

        • u_s, I wasn’t sure where you came down on this issue but as usual you are living up to your namesake.

          Ray, I believe in limited government. Government at any level shouldn’t get into things the private sector can handle since the private sector always does so more efficiently. However governments are necessary to maintain order. If a group tried living without government they’d be quickly overrun by the neighboring government and then subject to their rules. In our federal system laws prohibiting murder, theft, rape etc. are left to the states. Abortion is murder and therefore the federal government has no business in the matter. But if the state is not going to look out for the weakest of it’s citizens then what good is it? And who is weaker and more in need of the government’s protection than the unborn? 60,000,000 since Roe v Wade should make the answer pretty clear.

        • u_s what about all the animal species, mammal and reptile, that eat their young after they are born to survive and better prepare themselves for the next cycle of weather/breeding? This is decidedly ‘natural’ but can’t really be used as a basis for comparison with human behavior. If it is used then it supports the ‘wouldn’t have a good life anyways’ or ‘is better off’ arguments that are loaded with fallacy.

          The issue at question is whether or not those of us that believe the federal government should generally stand off when it comes to me and my family’s rights should have laws telling us specifically what we can and can’t do with our bodies. We really can’t agree that these should be left to states to decide? Let CA, NY, NJ damage of the future of the liberal species and overall let’s keep the federal governments hands out of our business.

      • The way to change a court ruling is a constitutional amendment? How about another court ruling? As far it being a right, abortion is not enshrined in or enumerated in our constitution.

  3. The Democrats agree to repeal the NFA, Brady Bill, GCA, LEOPA and UFA, the Republicans agree to stop boring me to death with constant focus on shit I don’t care about either way every two years (at minimum)? Sounds good to me!

      • I suspect this to go to 300 posts just as all of RF’s “abortion linked to gun rights” articles seem to do. For me, I guess I’m of the position where I wish there were 300th trimester abortions that could be applied specifically to the political class. Does that make me pro-choice?

        • I wish there were 300th trimester abortions that could be applied specifically to the political class.

          You do realize that IS the entire reason for the Second Amendment, correct?

  4. I agree with and disagree with her often, but that’s life, there are regulars here that I think are nuts about one subject and spot on about others, that’s just how people are.

    I’m against abortion as a contraceptive and I’m against government subsidized abortions.

    This is a subject that is too deep for a simple comment, it calls for a comfy chair, a glass of scotch and proper discourse in person.

    • My wife spent around 20 years involved with abortion rights, and she assures me that any woman who uses abortion in place of contraceptives (a common and convenient lie) will not do it twice. Not a pleasant experience, physically or emotionally.

  5. Um, sounds like a pretty consistent libertarian position to me.

    Don’t like guns? Don’t buy one!
    Don’t like abortions? Don’t have one!

      • If you think that is a choice, try it sometime. Nah, it is so much more fun to stick in a criminal act among discussion of legal choices, isn’t it? If you’re a bit dull.

        • If you’re a bit dull, it’s easy to gloss past the fact that to many reasonable and rational people in the U.S., abortion is infanticide and the current state of the law is an abomination, just as the laws that kept slavery legal were an abomination.

      • Cloudbuster your arguments would be easy to change to

        Cloudbuster says:
        March 20, 2017 at 18:58

        If you’re a bit dull, it’s easy to gloss past the fact that to many reasonable and rational people in the U.S., the 2nd Amendment is outdated and the current state of the law is an abomination, just as the laws that kept slavery legal were an abomination.

    • Like human rights? Fight slavery!
      Like human rights? Fight for full rights for every citizen!
      Like human rights? Fight abortion!

    • Vhyrus,

      I am totally on-board with choice as long as a person’s choice does not arbitrarily kill another human being for convenience sake.

      Strangely, I have yet to find an adult who embraces the thought that it would be totally cool if their mom had aborted them before birth.

  6. Want a gun, don’t make me buy it for u. Want an abortion, don’t make me buy it for u! Don’t want to have to get an abortion, keep your pants on! One is a right clearly enumerated in the constitution, one is a “right” created by a very liberal activist court that ignored 100+ years of precedent and invented a right out of thin air (it’s a living document). Agree or don’t, but that is the fact of the matter

    • “Agree or don’t, but that is the fact of the matter”

      Actually, I agree, and I agreed at the time. But the decision was made, and there is only one way to reverse it, called an amendment. Not done because it would not pass. Saying “It was a bad decision”, while correct, changes nothing.

  7. why does anyone give a hoot about what some hawt 24 year old nobody thinks about abortion? On a gun blog?

  8. “As for me, I agree with Ms. Lahren.”

    Me too. I’m pro-abortion for women and pro-gun for self defense. Which is often the same thing, whether we want to admit it or not.

    • ‘I’m pro-abortion for women…’

      So only the female fetuses should be aborted? What are you Chinese?

    • A nascent political party which supports people’s rights at least to the extent of promising to keep government out of abortion or firearm decisions, will take over the world. Many prominent anti-choice advocates are just lying, they actually support choice but see political gain in denying it. Primo examples are H.W. and Barbara Bush, George ran against Reagan on a ticket embracing choice, was required by Reagan to renounce it as a condition for VP. After they left office, years after, Barbara announced she had ALWAYS been pro-choice. But still there are controlling men making a living pretending something is going to change, 55 years later. Really ridiculous. Pass an amendment or grow up.

    • “I’m pro-abortion for women and pro-gun for self defense. Which is often the same thing, whether we want to admit it or not.”

      There’s the deepest thought in this discussion so far!

      Liberals often essentially equate abortion with euthanasia by arguing that an unwanted child will have a miserable life, so put it out of its misery before that happens. Equating it to self-defense will be a stretch for many, but it is a closer analogue than the liberals make.

  9. Miss Lehren did a complete 180 from her previous statements. This also exposes her as a ‘libertarian’ rather than a ‘conservative’, which is fine. What’s not fine is not being able to defend your positions when you’re a political commentator and being anti-science (being completely and willfully ignorant of the science of fetal development).

      • ‘Please document your science background.’

        That may just win the stupidest comment on the interwebs of the day award! So if I’m not a credentialed scientist I’m not allowed to make statements of fact? Try this out for science; http://www.webmd.com/baby/ss/slideshow-fetal-development – Note frame 7, that is the age to which Republicans have been trying to push back the threshold due to the fact that by then (if not before) a human fetus can feel pain. And the left is crying bloody murder over it. They’re also crying bloody murder over laws requiring mothers to look at the ultrasound before they’re allowed to kill the baby, because they’re sooooooo pro-science, you know.

      • You don’t need to be a scientist to listen to stories from former abortion clinic nurses who quit after watching a baby on an ultrasound trying to avoid the needle that the doctor eventually uses to stab her in the head. It doesn’t take a background in science to know that’s wrong, it just takes common sense.

        • Another good point, but that doesn’t make it murder — a puppy will act the same in trying to avoid something painful.

          Science can’t put personhood much earlier than the end of the first trimester when a full panoply of brainwaves showing not just pain but dream states, enjoyment, and learning — but it dare not put it later!

        • Raymond, as to your first point, until a human female gives birth to puppies your point is completely invalid. The willful killing of a dog is the lawful destruction of your property (as long as the animal is dispatched humanely), the willful killing of a human child is murder.

          As to your second point, if science can establish personhood before the end of the first trimester, why is it legal to kill a child that’s twice as old? And why is the left screaming bloody murder over the prospect of limiting abortion to 7 weeks after the first trimester?

        • Sorry, gov, but the point is valid: animals shy away from pain, so the fact that a human unborn tries to avoid pain does not show the presence of a human being. It’s an element that is necessary, but is not sufficient.

          As to why it’s still legal to perform abortions later than the end of the first trimester, that would be because neither party is interested in science when it gets in the way of their agenda.

    • Murder is defined as “the unlawful killing of another human being* with malice aforethought.”

      The fetus is alive before the abortion and dead afterword. The abortion caused this state of affairs. We have a killing.

      I don’t see how someone (other than the fetus in question) can scientifically look at a fetus and define it as anything other than another human being. We have another human being.

      Abortions are planned. That means there is malice aforethought. We have malice aforethought.

      All that’s left is unlawful. That depends on whether or not the “human being” is a person because the 14th Amendment gives all persons equal protections of the law. If some humans are persons and others are not, I’d like to see a good bright-line argument for that.

      Is an unborn human a person? That is the only question that has any business in the abortion debate. I don’t know the answer. I’ve got my own opinions, but they aren’t authoritative. What’s a person? That’s a question for theologians and philosophers. If we leave it to science, then the answer has to be all human beings.

      Also that whole penumbra line of reasoning is utter and complete bullshit. There is no constitutional right to abortions. Roe is the worst reasoned decision I have ever read, and I’ve read that 4th Circuit decision about AR’s being “like” M-16’s. (Not that that one wasn’t reasoned terribly).

      *The definition of murder used to be “the unlawful killing of another person with malice aforethought,” but the courts changed it after Roe. This supports the argument that a fetus is a person, at least in the mind of jurists. Why change it to human being otherwise? And, honestly, changing it to “human being” only weakens the pro-abortion argument anyway.

      • Well Roe and Dred Scott.

        Right in the majority decision on Roe v Wade written by Justice Blackmun he stated that ‘if the humanity of the fetus could be scientifically established’ it would nullify their decision. So the answer is science, not philosophy or any other mental masturbatory excise. The court said so.

        • Good point on science. I’d forgotten that.

          The Scott decision was not poorly reasoned. It was evil. There is a difference.

  10. Basically, the lady is right. Government, especially fed.gov, out of bedrooms, doctors’ offices, gun closets, school curricula, my wallet, and in most aspects of daily life, out of my life and other people’s lives. We ONLY want you to protect us from enemies, foreign and domestic, and to pursue building of infrastructure that clearly benefits all and where a profit motive is not in the interest of the overall economy. Whether pursued by R or D, “conservative” or “liberal”, otherwise it is social engineering by politicians and pressure groups and all should want to see it ended.

    • Pretty good, but you neglected to mention keeping fed government out of redistributing wealth from those who earned it to those who did not, solely for the purpose of buying votes.

    • So the government is responsible for protecting your life but not very young children? Internal logic, find some. Government exists to protect rights, those generally being Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Remember that?

  11. I believe that there is a time when what’s growing inside a woman is not alive yet. No people I know feel the Day After Pill is murder.

    I believe there is a time when it IS alive. No people I know would think an abortion the day before the due date should be legal, or is moral in any way moral for anyone to do.

    Most everyone argues over the middle. The SC has ruled that the Third Trimester is when a child can survive outside of its mother and is therefore a life deserving of protection.

    Reasonable people may believe the line should be drawn in a different place. Absolutes are as ridiculous as the Chinese practice of sticking a needle full of formaldehyde into the head of a crowning child.

    None of these points or any others have anything to do with my right to keep and bear arms.

    • The decision in Roe v Wade was that it was impossible for any person or group of people to make up a rule covering everybody without extreme unfairness, therefor they would leave that decision up to each individual person involved, for herself. I dunno how they could be more fair, although I don’t see where they got the authority to rule either way. Should have been left to the states, but it wasn’t. Pass an amendment.

      Otherwise, a clear line of demarcation is live birth. At 6 months, or 9 months, live birth. Makes sense to me.

      • The Chinese classify human life with the first breath. And abortion is legal up to that point. It is an extremely clear line indeed. It does not match my own belief on the beginning of life. My wife is pregnant now and the thought of losing my son literally sickens me. I was sad about a previous miscarriage in the first Trimester, it does not hold a candle to my feelings for this boy now in the third Trimester.

        I think Roe v Wade is pretty fair. I also still believe it has nothing to do with gun rights

  12. I agree, also on libertarian principles. I am pretty much anti abortion, though I am pro choice, simply on the grounds that it is governmental overreach to pass laws against it. I feel the same way about suicide, for what it’s worth. As others have said, though, I certainly don’t want to pay for it. I also think abortions that occur after the child is developed enough to live outside the womb should be illegal.

    For those who may think this is tantamount to supporting infanticide consider that where ever guns are banned people break the law to obtain or build them. Legal abortion at least keeps the woman from bleeding to death in a back alley somewhere.

  13. So the Blaze suspended her and she may be leaving. Fox should pick her up. I think it’s crazy they let her go for not toting the party line on abortion. Talking heads have no free will. They can only regurgitate the teleprompter.

  14. I’m pro-choice insofar as a matter of settled law that a woman has the right to have an abortion. That being said, I find the use of taxpayer-funded abortion under the guise of “public health” repugnant, as I do a lot of pro-choice arguments from the political left.

      • It’s hilarious how people forget that. Like, the law used to be that the British could just move into your house if they wanted to. Or they could tax the crap out of us. Or any number of other stuff. It’s like, “yeah…….so?” Law doesn’t equal moral, folks!!

    • My bride spent a few years as head of women’s health division of Texas dept of Health, became intimately familiar with Title 10, assures me that zero tax dollars are spent on abortion procedures, while bunches are spent to fool terrified young women into believing everything will be fine if they just carry to term, when they are actually dumped unceremoniously beside the road. Still, I respect your attempt to not pay for health foolishness, suggest we pass an amendment prohibiting spending tax dollars on health care of any kind, for anyone who has not paid for it or earned it. As in, Medicaid (in particular) drops to zero. Health care subsidies, tax credits for health insurance, all into the crapper. You don’t want to pay for one thing, I don’t want to pay for something else, just drop ALL of it!

      • Agreed but so many toothless cousins would be SOL if we do that shit. But hell they need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, get off the oxy (and their sisters) and get back to work in the mines.

      • I respect your take, Larry! Thoughtful and well said.
        That said, up here on the other end of I-35 (and unless I’m wrong, which I very well could be), Minnesota’s version of Obamacare covers abortion services. As some people get it for free, and tax dollars fund the bureaucracy that runs it and provides premium subsidies, to me that equals public funding…and that I can’t agree with, even though I’m pro-choice when it comes down to it.

  15. Your momma could’ve aborted you, and didnt. The question is, do you think that’s a good or bad thing? Are you willing to accept that your entire existence is worth exterminating so your mom could be lazy? That’s really what it boils down to. Let’s cut the crap. It’s not about “rights” or “Liberty” or “choice.” It’s about being lazy. Women who get abortions are simply flat out too lazy to deal with having a child. Now also, are “women’s rights” superior to human rights? Only you can decide, wether your existence matters or not. I for one am quite glad I exist and I’m quite happy getting an abortion would be the equivalent to murder in my mothers eyes.

    • Bad example. If my Mom had aborted me, she would have been subject to around 20 years in prison, as would any MD or midwife who assisted her. Those were the rules for another 20-25 years, in every state. Personally, I think that is bullshit, your opinion is your own, but forcing it on me at gunpoint is not the way we were promised this was going to work.

      • It’s not about that though, is it? It’s about being lazy. Period. Now, these women who get abortions would’ve been garunteed to be shitty parents, and the child who was raised by the them may have such a rough go at it they would’ve preferred to not exist, but that’s kindve a different philosophical argument. Most people like existing, and will always prefer existence to non existence, even if existence is rough. But back to my main point. It’s not about putting a gun in your face to force you do anything. And it’s not about freedom of choice. Those are simply talking points used to argue in favor of outright laziness. These women kill their children so they don’t have to put forth the effort of raising them.

        • Your arguemnt is lazy thinking. There are a large number of reasons to get an abortion that have nothing to do with laziness. There are multiple conditions that are incompatible with life that somehow get past the body’s tendency to miscarry any defective foetus such as triploid syndrome, various organ malformations or absences that would result in a short, painful existence that would end days or weeks after birth. It is not laziness of the parents in these instances that prompts an abortion, it is the fact the child will die regardless and there will be less trauma and suffering overall for the child to never be born. There is also the posibility for the diagnosis of a serious illness in the mother that requires immediate treatment for survival that would be incompatible with the survival of the foetus. Think agressive cancer, conditions requiring major abdominal surgery and even the use of some antibiotics can damage a developing foetus and render them non-viable.
          Medical reasons are not the only reasons that may neccessitate an abortion and this is why a medical exemption to laws banning abortions would not work. The old arguement about rape victims and cases of incest may be statistical outliers but the problem with blanket rules is that you essentially ignore all conditions outside of your own preconceived notions as to why an action is needed (in this case an abortion) and force people in those situations to commit a crime.
          In terms of gestation length and survival 20 weeks is these days considered to be the earliest date that a foetus may be delivered and survive, which is not to say that they won’t be beset by multiple health problems and developmental deficits but it is the gestation time at which it is theoretically possible in keep a child alive in a very well equipped paediatric ICU. The ethics surrounding allowing children to live at this level of development (rather than providing palliative care for those born this prematurely) is hotly debated in many medical circles. About 32-36 weeks is where a foetus could be delivered and survive with minimal intervention but may still develop chronic health issues due to premature birth. 39 weeks plus is now the generally accepted time at which there will be negligible health issues due to gestation length.
          The idea that life begins at conception is patent nonsense as there is no viable way for a zygote to survive outside of it’s host. The fact that the majority of zygotes either fail to implant (and thus die and are flushed away in the next menstrual flow) or miscarry in the first trimester demonstrates that a majority of those “lives” are ended by natural causes and thus are non viable at that stage. There is some point in the foetal development that the foetus could be considered alive and therefore be invested with the natural rights of all humans but it is difficult to delineate that point clearly and both the “at conception” and “at first breath” arguements lack nuance or really anything to back them up other than the belief of their proponents.
          As a separate issue the laws in some states that require women to either wait 48 hours after first contacting a provider or to view ultrasounds of the foetus before receiving an abortion are idiotic restrictions on the rights of those women to access a legal health service and thus are morally contemptible. Other attempts to enforce a de-facto ban on abortion by regulating the location at which they are provided (requiring facility standards that are massively exceed that which is required to deliver a safe service) are also attempts to ignore the current law of the land and should be repealed.

  16. Conservative, liberal, pfft. Those things are to philosophy what different flavors of spray cheese are to food. Abortion and private weapons are all of a piece to me, the larger whole being the ideal of individual liberty.

  17. I find it funny how those that protest abortion clinics and tell the woman she should keep the baby are not willing to adopt a child. They are also the ones who complain about how too many children these days are being raised in fatherless/motherless homes and “our family values” have diminished over the years.

    How many of those abortions would grow up in a parentless evironment with the only parent struggling to raise it and barely able to take care of it?

    • I don’t think people should be allowed to commit murder. Does that make me a hypocrite if I don’t start providing for the potential murder victim’s well-being?

    • One moment there, Brian — careful with the generalizations.

      I was once a member of a local chapter of Lutherans for Life, and had the honor and privilege of delivering checks to pay for hospital stays, heating, food, rent, and whatever else it took to keep up quality of life for the mothers our chapter had convinced to have their babies. Helping with adoption costs was beyond our means, but we had connections to organizations which dealt with that.

      BTW, our definition of quality of life was “I wouldn’t want to live like that!” If two or more members of the chapter agreed on that, we acted to bring up the conditions until they were acceptable.

  18. She’s right about the gov keeping their hands off our bodies.

    The Constitution applies to people born or present in the U.S.

    As far as a moral issue, we blow up women and kids all the time so unless there are a bunch of peaceniks on this site hypocrisy is thy name.

    • “The Constitution applies to people born or present in the U.S.”

      Wow. I hadn’t ever thought of that, even the constitution does not protect the unborn.

    • How about we’re against the killing of innocent women and children at any time and we (as Constitutionalists) believe that the government’s primary function is to protect human rights (LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness)? That’s what we call internal logic. Tomi needs to find some.

  19. I believe in the right to life, but don’t believe people are obligated to share umbilical cords and uterine walls with another entity if they don’t want to. That sounds an awful lot like involuntary servitude to me. If someone has to die because another person refuses to share uterine walls and umbilical cords and their blood supply, well, that sucks, but it’s the fault of the dependent for not being a rugged individualist and being self-sufficient.

    • Well, when you’re effed, you’re effed. Terminal illness, hit by lightning, advanced age, bad weather, partner a ho… stuff happens and there’s very little of it that the state can help with. I’m glad I’m not a unwanted fetus, but it is what it is, needing to live inside someone else is an jnsurmountable problem if the host is unwilling.

  20. I’d like to live in a world where abortions don’t happen, but I don’t think making them illegal is the way to stop them. By making them “illegal” all you’re doing is punishing the poor because the rich can afford to travel somewhere where it’s legal and have it done there. Plus, a rich family might be able to afford to keep and raise a child, a poor family may not have that option. In areas where the option to have an abortion isn’t available, women who can’t afford to travel, are dying from preforming unsafe abortions on themselves.

    If you want to stop abortions, stop unwanted pregnancies. By defunding programs like Planned Parenthood, you’re stopping people from access to birth control, which leads to more unplanned pregnancies. By pushing the abstinence only message, you’re ignoring more effective methods of preventing unplanned pregnancies. Don’t make abortions illegal, make them unnecessary.

    Also, I wonder how many rich “pro-life” politicians have paid under the table for their wives or daughters or mistresses to have an abortion?

    • Exactly this.

      Like the poster above me, I’d be thrilled to live in a world where abortions didn’t happen. But the fact of the matter is, the best way to prevent them is to prevent the pregnancy in the first place rather than punish the woman after the fact.

    • This is true. I wish Miss Lahren had enough basic knowledge and principle to make this sort of nuanced argument rather than just agreeing with the fools on The View. She does a disservice to her fans when she shows such ignorance.

      • ‘She does a disservice to her fans when she shows such ignorance.’ – Still, she’s a notch or two higher in that regard than the current evening lineup at Fox News.

      • Abstinence is 100% effective. (Well, 99.9999999991% if you consider Mary) It’s abstinence only education that’s not effective. A 2008 study at the University of Washington show that kids that were taught comprehensive sex education were 60% less likely to become pregnant than someone who received abstinence only education. Only about 3% of Americans actually wait until marriage to have sex. 2010 CDC statistics shows that states that focus on abstinence only education, like Mississippi, have double the teen pregnancy rates of the national average, and triple the rates compared to states that focus on comprehensive sex education.

        Abstinence only might sound like the right moral choice, but hormone fueled teenagers don’t have the same morality as you or I. And when they slip up, which they will, wouldn’t it be better for them to have been taught about condoms and birth control, than just abstinence only? It’s like learning to be a pilot and your instructor just says, don’t crash. Well, what about parachutes, escape hatches, emergency landing procedures, and life rafts? Nope, “just don’t crash” is the most effective way of not crashing.

  21. I haven’t read the comments, but I’m willing to bet 95%+ of them do not agree that abortion rights is equivalent to gun rights. And they are right. IN NO WAY is abortion rights equal to gun rights, which is protected specifically by the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution!! Abortion is the KILLING of an unborn child, not some heath care issue. Please.

  22. 60 million abortions since RvW which probably translates to 100+M missing Americans when factoring in 2nd/3rd generations.

    Future generations will judge us harshly racking up a genocide count that gives Stalin and Mao some competition.

    I’m not an absolutist but anything past 12-16 weeks indicates a wanton disregard for life.

    Our church works with Ronald McDonald house parents and there are two recent cases where the born babies started out at 16 ounces and in the low 20 weeks.

    • “60 million abortions since RvW which probably translates to 100+M missing Americans when factoring in 2nd/3rd generations.”

      A minor inquiry(or several): What is the value of 100+M lives that were most likely not wanted in the first place?

      What of countries like Mexico that outlaw abortion and currently have a populace that their economy cannot sustain?

      Would the good ol’ US of A really be better with the voided children of the disenfranchised comprising an additional wellfare class?

      What is the alternative to the current paradigm?

      If RvW had gone in the other direction, what would the US look like, and is that what people really want?

      “Future generations will judge us harshly for the genocide that borders on Stalin and Mao.”

      Unfortunately death in all forms shapes the economy and business is good.

      Apologies for the potentially perceived callousness in advance.

      • Ultimately, the utility argument isn’t effective. Liberals use this argument against gun owners all the time (“you don’t need that,” “That right is a net negative for society,” etc) The question is, do people get the freedom to live their lives or not? I think they do. And I think people have the right and the freedom to practice safe intimate practices without needed to kill a human being to cover up their mistake. At that point, it isn’t really about the mother (or the father’s) “choice.” The third human being, the child, should also have freedom of choice and most people choose to live.

        • “Ultimately, the utility argument isn’t effective. Liberals use this argument against gun owners all the time (“you don’t need that,” “That right is a net negative for society,” etc)”

          So taking one choice away that has potentially life altering consequences is ok(abortion), but taking a different choice away that also has potentially life altering consequences(gun rights) is not ok?

          Is this illogical and inconsistent or is Esoteric Inanity just esoterically inane?

          Perhaps compassion and mercy would be a better term than social utility. Compassion and mercy for the unborn, and compassion and mercy for the current dregs of society.

          “The question is, do people get the freedom to live their lives or not? I think they do. And I think people have the right and the freedom to practice safe intimate practices without needed to kill a human being to cover up their mistake.”

          Are all lives equal and hold the same inherent value? If so, how can one rationally prioritize?

          If there is some grand panacea to this conundrum, then by all means elucidate. Somehow though, forcefully denying somebody the ability to affect their own destiny doesn’t seem to be on the side of the angels anymore than infanticide.

          Choices will be made, and people must live with them.

          “At that point, it isn’t really about the mother (or the father’s) “choice.” The third human being, the child, should also have freedom of choice and most people choose to live.”

          Is it crueler to be killed before birth, or be born into a world where one potentially has a detrimental existence?

          What is the answer, if there is one? Perhaps the chosen path is one that can be reconciled.

      • ‘What is the value of 100+M lives that were most likely not wanted in the first place?’ – So are you saying the 60 million victims of abortion wanted to die or that if no other person cares if you live or die that your own opinion doesn’t count. I’m pretty sure the owners of those lives cherished them as they were their only possessions. This is demonstrated by the well documented act of trying to fend off the needles and the forceps when the ‘doctor’ kills them. How can a creature that struggles for life be unwanted?

        ‘What of countries like Mexico that outlaw abortion and currently have a populace that their economy cannot sustain?’ – Bad governance is no excuse for infanticide.

        • “So are you saying the 60 million victims of abortion wanted to die or that if no other person cares if you live or die that your own opinion doesn’t count. I’m pretty sure the owners of those lives cherished them as they were their only possessions. This is demonstrated by the well documented act of trying to fend off the needles and the forceps when the ‘doctor’ kills them. How can a creature that struggles for life be unwanted?”

          It seems to come down to a question of self awareness. How self aware is a fetus/infant/(pick a fitting noun)? This, Esoteric Inanity cannot say, as it would be sophistry at best. He can only speculate as to what type of future most would have, seeing as how none were apparently wanted, the prospects look quite grim. The full ramifications of those lost lives on the world could never truly be realized as the complexities are too great. Could be good, could be bad, maybe even no difference at all.

          To posit this notion: What of all the homeless dogs and cats out there in kill shelters? Everyone of them is at least as self aware as a fetus, and also often die horrifically. Don’t they deserve a chance at love and life?

          To answer the inquiry, it would be just as impractical as having unwanted children. There is no place for any of them in a world with finite resources, sadly.

          Once again, apologies for the blatant callousness.

          “Bad governance is no excuse for infanticide.”

          Agreed, just as bad decisions and irresponsibility are no excuse either. Unfortunately, staunch morality doesn’t change the stark reality.

          In an ideal world there would be a place for everyone and nothing would go wrong. This world isn’t ideal.

        • ‘How self aware is a fetus?’ – Aware enough to fight for his or her life. More self aware than an adult in a coma. Moreover a fetus is in a temporary state of incapacitation whereas adults frequently never come out of comas. Still, if you walked into the hospital and stabbed your comatose uncle to death you’d probably spend the rest of your life in prison. Comparisons to animals are invalid, unless you’re one of those PETA hippies who think killing a dog is murder.

          No the world isn’t ideal and banning abortion would no more end abortion than the prohibition on murder has ended murder. But that doesn’t mean we have to deny the reality of a morally reprehensible act and appease the perpetrators either. My wife has had co-workers casually talk about their abortions. They should be scared to death to admit to such a thing. They should be ashamed, not proud.

    • 20 weeks is now very much a viable fetus (don’t tell the lefties though). But if viability is the point of acknowledging human rights, you must accept that eventually we will make it possible to take a newly fertilized egg and incubate the child in a lab, making every fertilized egg a viable human. Why would abortion be a heinous act in 2117 but perfectly acceptable in 2017?

      • Viable in the sense that if they are delivered in a tertiary hospital with a world class NICU they could survive (and often this is still down to chance) and merely have lifelong issues with their lungs, digestive system, skin etc.

        Heinous in 2117 but not in 2017? That cant be a serious argument. In 1870 amputation of limbs due to serious infection was considered routine (and often fatal) doing the same thing in 1970 would have horrified most people due to the advent of antibiotics and effective management of severe infection without surgical intervention. In the 19th century operating without anaesthetic was considered routine doing that in the 20th would get you lynched. Medical advances make best practice from previous periods in time seem barbaric or unnneccessary but at the time it was best practice.

        As with many posters above I’d like abortion to be unnecessary and not used but while it is required by some it should be safe for the women involved.

        • You equate a leg with a human fetus, however a leg doesn’t have a unique set of human DNA. A leg does not have it’s own heart pumping blood that’s frequently a different blood type than it’s host. A leg is never a different sex than it’s host. Amputations used to be necessary before the advent of modern antibiotics, but the purpose of the procedure was to save a human life, not end one. All around a very poor analogy.

          As far as abortions someday being unnecessary, that day is today. As I heard Dana Loesh say earlier, ‘the choice comes before conception’.

        • Unique DNA in a leg, possible but exceedingly rare (outside of cancer some chimeral abnormalities can cause different parts of the body to have different DNA ie women with different different DNA in their ovaries such that they have failed maternity tests with their own children until samples were taken from their ovaries and not cheek swabs) and altogether irrelevant to the discussion.

          My point was regarding the fact that advances in medical technology can alter perceptions about the medical treatments for past generations that were considered “best practice” or neccessary. If in 100 years we have 100% effective contraception and technology that allows for in utero correction of significant genetic defects then there will be no need for abortion just as there is currently no real need for major surgery without anaesthesia.

  23. Dennis Prager on Jews like RF….

    “Why don’t you preach what you practice?”

    In other words…”The soft bigotry of low expectations”.

  24. I’m more of a libertarian who leans conservative. I believe in a woman’s right to choose and I support the 2A. I’m, also an union member, so I lean left on labor issues. I vote, but it’s always a struggle.

    • Seems that the diagnosis is that Colt Magnum appears to exhibit human tendencies. Prognosis is cryptic indeed.

  25. “I believe we should do everything we can to reduce the number of safe, legal abortions”

    Why? If abortion is not murder, and is merely an operation, then why does it matter? What harm is done?

    You can only take this position if on some level you view abortion as a “necessary evil”.

    So RF is abortion a necessary evil or is the baby not a human being?

    • What? Consistent internal logic and beliefs based on principles rather than pretty faces? This is the internet man, get outta here with that! 🙂

    • A necessary evil. To protect against a greater evil: tyrannical government. The kind that murdered my grandparents.

      • Wondering if you could expand on that a little, RF? I think we share a similar view regarding abortion, but not sure I follow your argument. How do abortion rights guard against tyranny?

      • So why stop at government prohibitions of murdering unborn humans? Why not post birth humans? Why bother with prohibitions against rape, robbery, assalt, etc.? If those prohibitions represent an intrusion of government power that threatens our very existence shouldn’t they be ended as well?

    • It can be both. An abortion is merely an operation and not murder and yet you can regret the necessity of the act either from the perspective of the trauma to the woman (emotional and physical) and/or the loss of a future potential human (assuming they would otherwise have survived gestation). You could also be saddened by the fact that the act is neccessary for a number of reasons and trying to improve society so that it is not necessary at the same levels in future should not be a bad thing.

      Something can be both not evil and not desirable.

    • If there is indeed one single gene that controls this and it is not a result of environmental conditions and genetics influencing neuro development at some yet to be determined point in gestation AND this testing is available to pregnant women then it becomes a matter of if the mother is legally able to have an abortion then the reason does not necessarily matter (unless you have laws restricting the reasons that an abortion may be procured). In essence it would not matter if the reason for the abortion was that the foetus, not baby as hey that would be infanticide if you did it after birth, was gay or had any other trait that was unacceptable to the woman carrying it.

      • So you’re totally cool with people of certain ethnicities killing their children for the sole purpose of being conceived female then? What if the father’s black?

        • No I am not “totally cool” with that. I find the concept of valuing one gender above another to be distasteful, and to have no place in a modern civilised country and certainly wouldn’t have an abortion (if I was female) on those grounds. However if there is no law against an act, regardless of how distasteful I find it, I’m not going to try to stop them from partaking in those legal activities.

          If some muppet has an abortion on the grounds that the father is of any ethnic group I would question their intellect and the apparent absence of effective contraception but if it is legal then they may be unwise, foolhardy, possibly stupid but it does not make their actions (or prejudices) criminal.

          I know it may seem like semantics (or weasel words I guess) to you but the correct terminology for the act is aborting (or terminating) a foetus, not killing a baby the 2 are very different acts.

  26. A question for opponents of abortion: If you get your way, what will happen to the babies who are delivered instead of aborted? Note that a woman who would rather have an abortion than a baby and the sperm donor who impregnated her aren’t likely candidates for parents of the year. Tom Givens says that the youngest person he ever arrested for a serious felony was only eight years old. None of his extended family had ever held an honest job. Most had criminal records. Too many kids start out this way. Their prospects are prison, death row or being shot dead by the police or an armed victim. Would an abortion have deprived them of life or spared them from life?

    • So if your parents are poor you don’t have a right to live? Also, if you’re rich do you not then have the right to kill your child?

      • “So if your parents are poor you don’t have a right to live?”

        Does society owe the children of the disenfranchised a life?

        “Also, if you’re rich do you not then have the right to kill your child?”

        Depends on the circumstances.

        • Since when does society grant life? I thought that was the job of the mother and father (and perhaps God).

        • “Since when does society grant life? I thought that was the job of the mother and father (and perhaps God).”

          While “life” is ephemeral, it is not necessarily fleeting when the magnitude is comparable in members of the same species. As the old saying goes: Man’s life may go by in the blink of God’s eye, but man will live to see many of his own die. The word “life” signifies a state of substantive being, and not merely a stage or starting point.

          So to posit the question again: “Does society owe the children of the disenfranchised a life?”

        • “Since when does society grant life? I thought that was the job of the mother and father (and perhaps God).”

          While “life” is ephemeral, it is not necessarily fleeting when the magnitude is comparable in members of the same species.

          As the old saying goes: Man’s life may go by in the blink of God’s eye, but man will live to see many of his own die.

          The word “life” signifies a state of substantive being, and not merely a stage or origin.

          So to posit the question again: “Does society owe the children of the disenfranchised a life?”

        • First, abortion is legal for both the enfranchised and the disenfranchised. Why would society ‘owe’ life to one and not the other? If murder is illegal than so should abortion be, because abortion is murder. If you murder a homeless man will you not be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law?

        • “First, abortion is legal for both the enfranchised and the disenfranchised.”

          Point acknowledged.

          “Why would society ‘owe’ life to one and not the other?”

          It’s not a matter of why but rather how, as in how can the disenfranchised take care of a child when many cannot even take care of themselves? Thus, it often falls upon others to see to the well being of such misbegotten dregs. The wealthy are not only equipped to care for their children, but can be held legally responsible in most cases. How does one hold somebody accountable when they are not capable of doing the task that they are charged with?

          A parent unaccepting of their children can no more be expected to properly take care of their child, than the child can be expected to take care of themselves. Who then is left to care for the wretch lest it should die in the street?

          Like it or not this is the reality. Is there a better way, one in which every child has a loving home and a purpose? The notion seems pollyannaish at best.

          “If murder is illegal than so should abortion be, because abortion is murder. If you murder a homeless man will you not be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law?”

          What is murder? The term can be quite subjective depending upon the views of an individual.

          Assuming that the context is “Unlawful killing or taking of life” then abortion cannot be considered murder in the States as it is lawful. If by “Unlawful” one takes it to mean appealing to the “laws” of a higher power e.g. biblical, then as absurd as it sounds, the 1st amendment might be of relevance.

          Regarding the homeless man, yes if murdered then the killer ideally would be prosecuted. However, it is somewhat of a pseudo equivalency when compared to abortion. As he is an independent life-form, perhaps even an unwanted child that was carried to term. To make it more of a direct parallel, presume that the homeless man firmly attached himself to somebody and insisted upon following them home and feasting upon them while causing nausea. A silly comparison one must profess, but in such a scenario an individual would be fully justified(under US law) in terminating the “homeless man”.

          Perhaps a less silly scenario would be a woman that doesn’t want her child, merely giving birth and leaving it in the street to die like a homeless man. Such things happen on occasion, is this preferable to abortion?

          Seriously though: “Does society owe the children of the disenfranchised a life?”

        • “First, abortion is legal for both the enfranchised and the disenfranchised.”

          Point acknowledged.

          “Why would society ‘owe’ life to one and not the other?”

          It’s not a matter of why but rather how, as in how can the disenfranchised take care of a child when many cannot even take care of themselves? Thus, it often falls upon others to see to the well being of such misbegotten dregs. The wealthy are not only equipped to care for their children, but can be held legally responsible in most cases. How does one hold somebody accountable when they are not capable of doing the task that they are charged with?

          A parent unaccepting of their children can no more be expected to properly take care of their child, than the child can be expected to take care of themselves. Who then is left to care for the wretch lest it should die in the street?

          Like it or not this is the reality. Is there a better way, one in which every child has a loving home and a purpose? The notion seems pollyannaish at best.

          “If murder is illegal than so should abortion be, because abortion is murder. If you murder a homeless man will you not be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law?”

          What is murder? The term can be quite subjective depending upon the views of an individual.

          Assuming that the context is “Unlawful killing or taking of life” then abortion cannot be considered murder in the States as it is lawful. If by “Unlawful” one takes it to mean appealing to the “laws” of a higher power e.g. biblical, then as absurd as it sounds, the 1st amendment might be of relevance.

          Regarding the homeless man, yes if murdered then the killer ideally would be prosecuted. However, it is somewhat of a pseudo equivalency when compared to abortion. As he is an independent life-form, perhaps even an unwanted child that was carried to term. To make it more of a direct parallel, presume that the homeless man firmly attached himself to somebody and insisted upon following them home and feasting upon them while causing nausea. A silly comparison one must profess, but in such a scenario an individual would be fully justified(under US law) in terminating the “homeless man”.

          Perhaps a less silly scenario would be a woman that doesn’t want her child, merely giving birth and leaving it in the street to die like a homeless man. Such things happen on occasion, is this preferable to abortion?

      • It isn’t a question of rich or poor. It’s a question of good parenting or bad. Many good people were raised during the Great Depression when food, clothing and shelter were hard to come by. On the other hand, there are a lot of spoiled brats whose rich parents never made the effort to raise them properly.

        Years ago, a teenage boy was shot to death by the homeowner during a residential burglary. Since there was no identification on the body, it took a while to figure out who he was. That happened when an elderly woman filed a missing person report. It had been several days since she last saw the grandson she was raising. The kid’s biological parents were nowhere to be found. I don’t know whether to cut Granny some slack because she had volunteered to raise the kid, probably on no more than her social security, or to blame her for the piss poor job she did raising her daughter. In my opinion, this kid was dead on arrival. It just took fifteen or so years for him to quit breathing. Although he pulled the trigger, the homeowner didn’t kill him. His parents murdered him on the day he was conceived.

        There is an alternative to abortion but I doubt you will like it. It’s a whole lot of government run orphanages funded by yours and my taxes. They won’t be as good as parents who have the necessary mental, physical and financial resources but they won’t be as bad as the two examples I cited.

    • Yes, abortion would have denied them life. lol seriously? You don’t get to make the call on who gets a shot at living and who doesn’t. For every kid that does poorly, others will rise above. And some kids that come from great families also fair poorly. But a person who believes in basic liberty should want to give everyone at least a shot. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

  27. Life AND liberty are fundamental human rights. People should be allowed to live if they’re not hurting society and they should have the right to defend their liberty. Children and babies can’t defend themselves, therefore their rights should be protected by adults. Thus a true believer in individual rights should believe in both, particularly as an American Constitutionalist. There’s some room for nuance here (when does a person become a person?) but to simply say “I’m pro-Choice” as an American Conservative is really off. Tomi Lahren always struck me as a very surface conservative commentator and this just confirms it. This is a bizarre position that requires Liberal-style doublethink to reconcile.

      • Yeah, that’s similar logic to the whole, “abortion helps feminism” thing. Really? Denying basic personhood to a group that’s at least half women is somehow “feminist?” Craziness. Honestly, people drawing an equivilancy between being pro choice and pro gun simply haven’t grounded their ideas in basic human freedom/liberty. Principles, folks.

      • And you’re absolutely right, young men are killed by this practice all the time. This isn’t a gender issue, it’s an issue of personhood and human rights.

        • If there is a gender issue to it it’s the fact that in certain cultures it’s very common for female fetuses to be aborted. In China the ratio of baby boys born to baby girls is something like 135 to 100. And those cultures do exist within the USA. Is it OK to kill your child for the sole reason that daughters aren’t worth as much as sons? Or could that be construed as immoral?

  28. I don’t like the word “choice”. I prefer the word “alternative” because abortion is a horrible alternative for just about anybody who isn’t completely dead emotionally.

    But it needs to remain legal and available. There are a lot fewer violent criminals per capita now because they were never born into households where they were not wanted.

    • So how do you determine which babies will grow up to be criminals and which ones productive law abiding taxpayers? Are you seriously saying that killing 100 of the latter to keep 2 or 3 from growing up to be thugs is somehow anything but morally reprehensible?

    • It had the wanted effect though people are blowing it up. The premise is pretty thin. That being said abortion is murder and not enshrined in the constitution

    • I can appreciate the sentiment, but as the abortion-rights v gun-rights of has come up more than once in the political spectrum I can’t say it’s an irrelevant discussion for a pro-gun rights blog to have. Honestly, I think it’s a good conversation as it shows gun owners are not like-minded on all things political. We’re a bit more of a nuanced crowd than we are often painted in the media or by those against gun rights (not that those two groups aren’t one in the same…)

  29. If you kill a pregnant woman are you charged with one or two murders?

    Can you be charged with murder if you attack a pregnant woman and cause an injury that causes her to lose her child?

    Does a male fetus have different and distinct DNA?

    Does DNA meet the legal standard for proof of Identity?

    • “If you kill a pregnant woman are you charged with one or two murders?

      Can you be charged with murder if you attack a pregnant woman and cause an injury that causes her to lose her child?

      Does a male fetus have different and distinct DNA?”

      Point taken and in no way is it necessarily invalid, however, no paradigm is absolute, in theory.

      Using DNA as an indicator for a separate and individual entity can prove to be illogical. Certain virus induced cancers have been found to alter the host’s DNA. Individuals with genetic chimerism can have various amounts of cell tissue throughout their body that is genetically distinct and often the remnants of siblings assimilated in the womb. Lateral gene transfer is another fascinating phenomena.

      “Does DNA meet the legal standard for proof of Identity?”

      A tough inquiry to consider, in most cases, for most people, the answer is probably yes. However, as mentioned prior, there are exceptions. Legislating on such pseudo dogma, though, would be unwise.

  30. FLAME DELETED

    My simple statement may be redundant to dozens of previous comments (I’ve not taken time to read all 20 bazillion of them.) I believe that LIFE is a right, not destroying a life that’s damned inconvenient. And I see no place to “draw the line” that makes sense to me, except at conception.

    I don’t believe that protecting the life of the innocent unborn is hypocritical, nor do I believe it contradictory to the principal of allowing citizens the right to protect their lives with guns.

    It’s pretty simple, really.

  31. I can appreciate the sentiment from those of you ranting about this being a topic on TTAG, but as the abortion-rights v gun-rights of has come up more than once in the political spectrum I can’t say it’s an irrelevant discussion for a pro-gun rights blog to have. Honestly, I think it’s a good conversation as it shows gun owners are not like-minded on all things political. We’re a bit more of a nuanced crowd than we are often painted in the media or by those against gun rights (not that those two groups aren’t one in the same…)

    • Gun rights can be interpreted as ground zero for human rights in a free society. The ability to keep a government in check is essential to keeping said society free. Thus resisting government infringement upon individual rights is also paramount to the citizenry’s interest.

  32. Does every human being have equal intrinsic value to their life?

    If so, then what of the poor bastard detoxing down the street that has no home, no job and nobody to give a damn about him.

    How many people spend time down at the soup kitchen?

    Why would a society want even more dregs when they can’t even competently accommodate their present undesirables?

    Moral absolutism is a wonderful thing in theory, but reality is a bitch.

    • It isn’t life in states that have captial punishment, the right to use lethal force to defend yourself or indeed allow police to use lethal force on suspected felons… But hey as an atheist, pro-gun, pro-choice libertarian I’m down with that.

  33. Lhstr, when Rove passed it was what we new at the time, now we know much more about birth and the defenseless! We need to change the law NOW period….. Be safe out there, and yes all ppl have rights….

  34. Lhstr, when Rove passed it was what we new at the time, now we know much more about birth and the defenseless! We need to change the law NOW period. Be safe out there, and yes all ppl have rights….

  35. Liberal world view:
    Embryo with heartbeat, circulatory and nervous system is not life and can be deleted on a whim -payed for by government.
    The moment bacteria is found on Mars – “Mars has life and government must pass regulations to protect Martian life at all costs…obligatory screeching added for effect ”
    cause SCIENCE!!!
    Don’t like it?…I don’t care.

  36. So much gun talk here, it BOGGLES the mind! This is infinitely worse than the caliber wars…at least that’s on subject.

  37. To uncommon sense:

    Interesting note: I am not aware of any animal species on the planet that seeks to destroy its offspring before it is even born. Abortion is uniquely human … and uniquely unnatural

    I’ve not studied the issue but note that in some species of shark, including the sand shark I think, the mother developed several embryos on utero. With no placenta to feed them the little sharks eat each other for food until only one is left, who is then born. So that’s one species where it is evolutionary design

    • It’s unnatural just because people do it? I fail to see the connection there.

      Lots of animals build dens, beavers build dams even. No one calls that unnatural. So why is the human habit of constructing a building any less natural? We’re animals, a part of the natural world, therefore I would argue that nothing we do is “unnatural”.

      We have abortions because “we have the technology”. Other animals birth their young and then eat them because that’s the option available to them.

      I find abortion abhorrent in a lot of ways, but in my estimation it’s certainly not unnatural.

    • It’s common for make apex predators (e.g. bears and lions) to kill the offspring of other males. They then mate with the dead cubs’ mothers. From an evolutionary perspective, this makes perfect sense. The genetic lines of predators who do this will continue while the genetic lines of the cubs they kill will end.

  38. From a moral and ethical perspective abortion is a sticky topic. At what point does life begin? Reasonable people may differ on that. In my opinion that point is where the fetus can survive without the mother, but that’s just my opinion and I understand the arguments for “life at conception” and other points in time as well.

    For me personally, I look at this kind of thing from a public policy perspective. I’m no fan of abortions that are not medically necessary. That said, making abortion illegal is probably a bad public policy choice. Making it illegal will simply drive it into the black market where there will be zero regulation. The infamous “back alley abortionist” will become a thing and I just don’t see an upside to that. It certainly won’t “stop” abortions any more than the WoD has stopped cocaine, heroin or LSD use.

    That’s also how I look at firearms. Way, way too many people are too quick to say “But muh rights!”. Yes, that’s a fair argument but it’s one about which many people will disagree and it gets into a stupid argument about “Where rights come from” which, IMHO, is a counterproductive argument to have.

    Instead I say that banning firearms, again IMHO, is poor public policy because at absolute best we go right back to being a “pre gun powder” society where those who are, young strong or talented at personal combat have the advantage and can basically do as they please in regard to those not so martially inclined or capable. The best fighters in the world age and with that age comes an increased likelihood of injury, dulled senses/reflexes and a loss of strength. Anyone who tells you that knives aren’t as dangerous as guns has no idea what they’re talking about. Weaker criminals and other assorted jackasses will simply form groups where their strength comes from numbers and they will act in a similar fashion to those who are strong.

    On top of that, I would point out that “gun bans” or “restrictive licensing” or whatever you want to call it basically don’t work. France has fairly strict gun laws that made a fair number of Parisians helpless when some terrorist assholes showed up with guns. Further, it’s quite obvious to anyone with two neurons to rub together, that someone intent on killing a large number of people can find other ways to do it. One only need look to the Nice truck attack, 9/11 or the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah building none of which involved guns, all of which caused mass casualties and mostly caused them in much larger numbers than gun attacks have (The Baticlan being a notable exception). Pretty much anyone can build an VBIED if they choose to. If they’re smart they might even get away with it, but if they’re dedicated (willing to die) they will almost certainly hit their target unless Lady Luck intervenes on behalf of the rest of us.

    Gun control, abortion control, drug control and numerous other types of “control” all fall down because at their root it’s an attempt to control human behavior which is inextricably linked to human nature. Simply put, when it comes to gun control: It WILL fail. We’re a territorial species that, like other animals, really has little compunction about using violence to defend or expand our territory. We may do it for different reasons that monkeys or wolves but that doesn’t change the essence of what we’re doing. No law will change human nature. The USSR spent about 70 years proving this to be the case.

    • ‘In my opinion that point is where the fetus can survive without the mother…’ – without the mother or without adult care? I’m guessing your position is when the fetus can survive outside the womb. The problem with that is that stage of development is constantly occurring at a younger and younger age due to advancements in medical technology. At some point the womb won’t be necessary at all making life begin at conception. It’s hard to justify a moral stance based on the current state of medical technology.

      ‘It certainly won’t “stop” abortions any more than the WoD has stopped cocaine, heroin or LSD use.’ – I totally agree. But nobody’s talking about ending the prohibition on murder because we’ve had that for thousands of years and it still hasn’t stopped people from murdering other people. Same with rape, robbery, etc.

      ‘Gun control, abortion control, drug control and numerous other types of “control” all fall down because at their root it’s an attempt to control human behavior which is inextricably linked to human nature.’ – Absolutely true, which is why governments need to be judicious about the control they attempt to exert. But that doesn’t mean that they should condone just any sort of depravity either. Otherwise there’s no point in their existence.

      BTW, the greatest social utility of an armed society is the same as the reason the 2nd Amendment was enshrined in the first place – to prevent a tyrannical government from abusing it’s citizens.

      • “It’s hard to justify a moral stance based on the current state of medical technology.”

        Which, IMHO, is what makes ethics a better way to dealing with things. It’s not absolute and can deal with changes in technology or circumstance.

        “But nobody’s talking about ending the prohibition on murder because we’ve had that for thousands of years and it still hasn’t stopped people from murdering other people.”

        There’s malum prohibitum and then there’s malum in se. Murder is the latter the others are the former and laws governing the former, IMHO, shouldn’t exist.

        “…governments need to be judicious about the control they attempt to exert…”

        They’re not judicious at all and laws are not passed for the “greater good” no matter what the Left wants us to believe. Depravity, in general, is in the eye of the beholder. Again the question is the best public policy. That deals with the real world and not the perfect world you and I wish existed. Gun control and “abortion control” both exist in the realm of “sounds good on paper” but both will have terrible consequences in real life. Consiquences that are worse than “legalized [whatever]”.

  39. Hypothetical situation:
    Guy gets girlfriend pregnant.
    Guy commits to supporting his girlfriend and/or their baby.
    Girl just doesn’t even want to deal with it and wants an abortion.
    Guy values life very highly and begs girlfriend not to do it, offers a contract (similar to a prenup) to take full responsibility for the baby, including compensation for the “pain and suffering” of pregnancy.
    Girl still gets and abortion.
    Who would the victim be?

    Answer: the innocent child.

    Does the victim change when the guy is an irresponsible douche who demands his girlfriend get an abortion (a more likely scenario)?

    • I worry about the situations where neither takes responsibility for the child or the mother is a teenager not yet ready for parenthood. Both her life and the child’s are ruined.

    • Apologies for the bizarre inquiry, but how does a man compensate a woman “for the “pain and suffering” of pregnancy”?

      Repeatedly being kicked in the testicles is the only thing that comes to mind.

    • Apologies for the bizarre inquiry, but how does a man compensate a woman “for the “pain and suffering” of pregnancy”?

      Repeatedly being kicked in the testicles is the only thing that comes to mind.

  40. ‘In my opinion that point is where the fetus can survive without the mother…’ – without the mother or without adult care? I’m guessing your position is when the fetus can survive outside the womb. The problem with that is that stage of development is constantly occurring at a younger and younger age due to advancements in medical technology. At some point the womb won’t be necessary at all making life begin at conception. It’s hard to justify a moral stance based on the current state of medical technology.

    ‘It certainly won’t “stop” abortions any more than the WoD has stopped cocaine, heroin or LSD use.’ – I totally agree. But nobody’s talking about ending the prohibition on murder because we’ve had that for thousands of years and it still hasn’t stopped people from murdering other people. Same with rape, robbery, etc.

    ‘Gun control, abortion control, drug control and numerous other types of “control” all fall down because at their root it’s an attempt to control human behavior which is inextricably linked to human nature.’ – Absolutely true, which is why governments need to be judicious about the control they attempt to exert. But that doesn’t mean that they should condone just any sort of depravity either. Otherwise there’s no point in their existence.

    BTW, the greatest social utility of an armed society is the same as the reason the 2nd Amendment was enshrined in the first place – to prevent a tyrannical government from abusing it’s citizens.

    • I wish when you accidentally post a reply in the wrong place and copy and paste it to the right place and delete the original comment that the comment would stay deleted.

  41. I think abortion after 12 weeks is likely murder. I’m not sure about abortions in the first 12 weeks. At the same time I’m not sure that the governekt is the best way to prevent abortions.

  42. Conservatives really need to think about the political reality where 70 million more democrats existed and were voting. We’d be a completely socialist nation by now without abortion.

  43. Saying a “Conservative” is for abortion (even if they’re saying it) is completely incongrous and wrong, and the very idea of abortion cannot coexist with Conservatism.

  44. You have a right to do damn near anything you want, but if you exercise all of those rights, you may no longer be granted the liberty to do anythibg else.

  45. 1. I like Tomi Lahren…..I liked her better on OANN……

    2. Glenn Beck is a mentally unbalanced asshole who is running his media outlet into the ground.

    3. I’m OK with abortion. Less liberal voters to tip the scales of the culture wars and billions in welfare payments saved.

    4. I have a narrower scope of what constitutes “murder” than most. (Ie: if someone raped your mom and avoided prosecution and you killed them by whatever means, it’s not murder)

  46. Just for a bit of perspective:

    According to the Federal Reserve, the amount of money transacted through banks in the U.S. daily is fourteen trillion dollars. The annual total comes thus to over five quadrillion dollars.

    For the price of a 0.001% tax on each transaction, we could cover the costs of birthing and raising every unborn who gets aborted for financial reasons, and enough more that everyone who wanted to adopt a child could have one. Would this not be worth it for the sake of our dignity as a people?

    • I hate taxes but I’d be happy to pay 10 times that if the money actually went where it’s supposed to.

      • Definitely — the whole federal government needs audited, including the Pentagon and the Federal Reserve.

        My point is that if we are to consider ourselves a people, not just a collection of individuals in some social jungle, how we treat the least among us is a sound measure of who we are. Jesus words that “you shall know them by their fruit” applies equally well to nations. In this case, for a tax so small as to be unnoticeable we could treat the least among us far better than we do at present.

        [It’s worth noting that if a tax on financial transaction through banks were set at 0.1% for just a year, the U.S. could pay off the entire debt, pay to bring all interstates and U.S. highways up to the best standards, and toss a couple of trillion left over into the Social Security fund — enough that every retiree could be guaranteed 135% of the poverty level as an income, just on the interest from that ‘endowment’.]

  47. i am surprised, for the second time in the last two weeks i have discovered a conservative that actually has a brain!!

  48. Holy crap. Any one of you that isn’t a woman needs to shut the fuck up about abortion rights. Don’t want your partner to possibly have an abortion? Then keep your dick in your pants. Why on earth you would feel the need to meddle in shit that is absolutely none of your concern is beyond me. “But,but,but the babies!!!” is fucking stupid as well, unless you’ve somehow run out of actual already born children to help and you still have time and money.

    • Sorry, Drew, but that doesn’t work. It’s like saying that since my dad didn’t know any Japanese people back at the time of WWII, he should have shut about about rounding them up and putting them in internment camps, or if I don’t know any Haitians I should shut up about whether any of them should get refugee status.

      It is in fact the same logic that some blacks use when they say whites have no business being involved in deciding on things for them.

      As the sage said, nothing human is strange to me, that is, in more modern terms, no human is a stranger to me because we are all human. If the unborn in the womb is a human, then I have all the grounds needed to speak up.

      That said, there is a small piece of validity in your position: no other human being can tell the pregnant woman what decision to make. By God’s providence she is the one who is in charge of her condition, and while others may offer counsel or guidance, she alone has to make the decision.

      And there’s where, BTW, the parallel with guns comes in: each individual alone is in charge of his or her condition, so while others may offer counsel or guidance, the decision whether or not to keep and bear arms belongs to the individual alone.

  49. If abortion rights are the same as gun rights, the government is required to give me a free gun. They have not.

    • Why should they give you one free when you have to pay for the other?

      Women don’t get free abortions from the government, even under the ACA, which is the closest that it comes.

  50. The logic seems consistent to me; don’t fuck with me in any way what so ever.

    Also, how quickly we all seem to forget the 9th amendment.

  51. Sorry, but if we want to secure our 2nd Amendment protected God given right to keep and bear arms, then we have to again secure the right to life of innocent unborn children. There simply is no way that a “I will agree with the lunatic leftist ideological agenda of Hitlery, Feinstein, Boxer, Obama, and Pelosi, when it comes to some things, but oppose them when it comes to firearms restrictions!” mentality will ever lead us from the path of tyranny.

    The only way back to greater freedom and prosperity is to tear down every single last brick and stone in the Left’s ideological wall, and small them all into dust. Period.

    As the late, great, Joe Sobran put it in his brilliant piece “How Tyranny Came To America”,
    http://www.sobran.com/articles/tyranny.shtml

    “Take abortion. Set aside your own views and feelings about it. Is it really possible that, as the Supreme Court in effect said, all the abortion laws of all 50 states — no matter how restrictive, no matter how permissive — had always been unconstitutional? Not only that, but no previous Court, no justice on any Court in all our history — not Marshall, not Story, not Taney, not Holmes, not Hughes, not Frankfurter, not even Warren — had ever been recorded as doubting the constitutionality of those laws. Everyone had always taken it for granted that the states had every right to enact them.

    Are we supposed to believe, in all seriousness, that the Court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade was a response to the text of the Constitution, the discernment of a meaning that had eluded all its predecessors, rather than an enactment of the current liberal agenda? Come now.”

  52. Here’s the thing.
    We are in the US of A.
    Some people want the govt to tell people what to do with their guns.
    Some people want the govt to tell people what to do with their bodies.
    Wow same problem.

    The Founding Fathers were wise enough to put the kibbosh on govt interference in our lives. You may not like Hustler magazine. Pass a law that it’s illegal to sell and a decade from now the Bible could be outlawed. Then you’d say hey! But You let the govt decide what we can read.

    As much as your religion tells you something is bad you are missing that other people believe differently. If you’re a Christian you know that God gives us free will. So let him sort it out. Christianity in our example has no teaching that it’s believers go to hell because someone else sins.

    So back to guns. Defend our rights to be left alone. Defend other’s rights too. You don’t have to agree with the exact thing. If your conscience tells you don’t do something don’t do it.

    This is where the Dems are messing up. They want activist judges…..until they don’t.

  53. Sorry, but if we want to secure our 2nd Amendment protected God given right to keep and bear arms, then we have to again secure the right to life of innocent unborn children. There simply is no way that a “I will agree with the lunatic leftist ideological agenda of Hitlery, Feinstein, Boxer, Obama, and Pelosi, when it comes to some things, but oppose them when it comes to firearms restrictions!” mentality will ever lead us from the path of tyranny.

    The only way back to greater freedom and prosperity is to tear down every single last brick and stone in the Left’s ideological wall, and small them all into dust. Period.

    As the late, great, Joe Sobran put it in his brilliant piece “How Tyranny Came To America”,

    “Take abortion. Set aside your own views and feelings about it. Is it really possible that, as the Supreme Court in effect said, all the abortion laws of all 50 states — no matter how restrictive, no matter how permissive — had always been unconstitutional? Not only that, but no previous Court, no justice on any Court in all our history — not Marshall, not Story, not Taney, not Holmes, not Hughes, not Frankfurter, not even Warren — had ever been recorded as doubting the constitutionality of those laws. Everyone had always taken it for granted that the states had every right to enact them.

    Are we supposed to believe, in all seriousness, that the Court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade was a response to the text of the Constitution, the discernment of a meaning that had eluded all its predecessors, rather than an enactment of the current liberal agenda? Come now.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *