Stem Cell Debate Irrelevant
by neolibertarian
It appears that the same scientist who gave us stem research has now found that inducing adult cells into stem cells is more effective and efficient than destroying embryos to harvest their stem cells. (see: LAT and Weekly Standard) This means that either harvesting or cloning embryos in order to destroy them is not only unnecessary, but less effective than inducing adult cells into pluripotency (the state of being able to morph into different types of cells). The scientist who started the cloning controversy by cloning Dolly, has announced that he will no longer pursue cloning embryos, and instead will advance his research with this new method.
Science has illuminated a path that can offer lifesaving cures without life-destroying treatments. This development leads me to offer three sentiments.
First, that this same process might be repeated on a different but related subject: abortion. It has been my view for some time that eventually science will allow us a path to end a woman's state of being pregnant without ending the life of the developing child. If scientists can remove a heart and implant it into a new person, then surely they can eventually figure out how to preserve the life of a fetus (and eventually an embryo) by shielding them from the outside environment long enough to get them to an incubator of some kind. In this way, women who are frightened of motherhood or too selfish to carry to term and place a baby up for adoption can be relieved of the horrible burden of pregnancy without destroying the life of another person. Of course, it's likely many women abort because they refuse to accept that they might have genetic offspring out there that somebody else adopted, but it's far harder to get a majority of Americans to accept this callous argument. So I think science will provide a solution to the abortion debate, just as it has provided an ethical solution to the stem cell controversy.
Second, I am glad the government was not entirely involved in the research process here. Aside from being slow and prone to corruption, the government makes investments determined by politics and headlines. Unless there are either headlines or regular political pressures from concerned groups, politicians have trouble maintaining focus. They run to the headlines on baseball steroids, on global warming, on whatever issue strikes our fancy, then they forget. Once they forget, the funding is very likely to dissipate. This has been repeatedly pointed out at Coyote Blog; politicians find much more benefit in building new projects than in funding existing projects. Rather than relying on the government, it was good that private efforts were involved. It was private efforts that decided that cloning embryos were both far away from any real treatments (embryonic stem cells are not used in any treatments right now, while adult stem cells are used in many) and would be exorbitantly expensive to offer (the LAT article above suggests a price of $100k per treatment). Private efforts decided to pursue better methods; if government fiat had been involved, then scientists would have pursued an unethical and less-productive avenue of research, simply to get the free dollars from the state.
Third, this new method should therefore NOT be subjected to government funding and intervention. I am sure that Republicans and conservatives will pile on to support it and show that they were not anti-science, but pro-embryo. Well, I am pro-embryo, but I'm also pro-market. The federal government and the states should keep the hell out of science. Governments like to twist science to serve their own ends (see: Nazi racial theory, Soviet Lysenko-ism, and now embryonic stem cell research). Even in this controversy, cloning of embryos was largely pursued just as a fuck-you to the pro-life movement. Cloning embryos was not a very viable path, but once conservatives and religious types voiced concerns the left pounced all over it. So the government (including states like California, which tried to fund this research itself) pushed science along a politically-determined path. But not only can science be led astray by poorly-distributed government moneys, it can also be prevented from good areas when the government decides that A) it has an interest in controlling science and B) it should prevent scientists from research areas deemed frivolous or offensive.
We should vigorously defend the freedom of science from being led astray or from being managed by the government. Even though I have no moral qualms about iPS cell research and I think it's great if it leads to wondrous new cures, I don't want the government involved. Science and markets should guide research to the best and most productive areas.
Armenian Genocide
by neolibertarian
Speaker Pelosi has recently backed off from a bill she sponsored to recognize the Armenian genocide. The likelihood that the bill would further alienate the Turks, who are US allies and hold NATO membership, was enough to get a bunch of co-sponsors to drop off the bill. I have several good reasons why the recognition of Armenian genocide is a good thing.
1) It actually happened. This is the best possible argument. The Ottoman Empire destroyed the lives of roughly a million and a half Armenians. Many countries, including NATO countries and 80% of US states, have already recognized that it happened.
2) Turkey isn't being all that ally-friendly to us right now. We each provide mutual benefits to each other, and yes, Turkey is letting us use their territory for staging related to Iraq. But when the war started up, they withheld their support and assistance. As we speak, Turkey has just authorized another military incursion into northern Iraqi Kurdistan to fight Turkish Kurd rebel groups. That's severely destabilizing to us (though granted, they are having a tough fight and letting the Kurds cross that bordfer unmolested was not sustainable). Turkey has also been abusive to its Kurdish population for quite some time and is a major obstacle to letting the Kurds finally establish an independent state. The US has been nice to Turkey since Ataturk - Kurdistan was at the last minute rejected for statehood under the Fourteen Points in deference to Turkey. We defended Turkey against Soviet aggression at a time when, to be honest, they probably needed us more than we needed them. If all that goodwill still hasn't given us a more loyal ally, why should we continue to overlook crimes committed by their predecessor government?
3) Ignorance is dangerous. Ignorance of genocidal history is lethal. We should continue to acknowledge past crimes and transgressions committed by governments so that everyone can remember that they happen and be more vigilant in the future.
My proposal would be that the Congress, rather than simply passing a resolution, start an investigative commission to look into the matter. Getting historians and the like to compile the evidence, examine the counter-arguments and (where possible) record first- and second-hand witness testimony is FAR more valuable than a simple Sense of the House or Sense of the Senate resolution.
A commission's report would put the actual evidence on the record. It could be published and sold in bookstores. It would provide a basis for further examination and discussion, most especially on the ideological, social and political foreshadowing of the genocide itself.
Additionally, I would provide opportunity for scholars to refute or scale down specific accusations while on the panel. Letting pro-Ottoman perspectives in shows that the commission would not simply be a kangaroo court. Moreover, mis-stated and overstated claims of genocide are harmful to the cause of remembrance; people prone to conspiracy theories often find one or two facts that may have been inflated or added without sufficient evidence, and use them as strawmen to take down the whole affair. So multiple perspectives (even from apologists for the mass murder 1.5 million people) can help form a far stronger report in the end.
California has a large Armenian-American population - the largest of any US State (e.g. the population of Glendale, CA was over 1/4 Armenian-descended in the 2000 Census). I'm sure that Pelosi's move was justifiably started by pressure from that community. I can hardly blame them any more than we would blame Jews for being interested in recognition of the Holocaust. Now she's backing down, which frankly makes her look stupid, weak, foolhardy and a real novie at foreign policy. It would've been extremely easy to just get a little conference with somebody at State (even Condi or Bush) and find out what the official US position is on Armenia. Instead, Pelosi went in obviously without properly preparing for the issue.
This is hardly the first time I've hard of the issue, but I'm very glad it came up in such a public way. I'm convinced that Americans need to recognize the Armenian genocide happened, if not through Congress then at least personally.
If the Turks have a problem with us recognizing a war crime committed by an entirely different government (one that was so ineffective they overthrew it) and by people who are no longer living, we shouldn't apologize to them. It's the victims and their families that should receive our condolences.
Gonzales v. Carhart
by neolibertarian
The challenge of the partial-birth abortion ban was rejected and the ban sustained. This means it is now a federal crime, generally, to perform one type of abortion.
Abortion proponents and apologists argue that partial-birth abortion is an inflammatory name for the procedure. So whenever pro-abortion groups issue press releases, pro-choice pundits make arguments on TV, and newspapers or newswires talk about it, they make sure to qualify 'partial-birth abortion' as the name that opponents use for the act. Let's be clear: the child is partially birthed by inducing labor in the mother, then it is aborted before birth is complete. Partial-birth abortion is an absolutely accurate description.
The act of termination is particularly gruesome; scissors are forcefully inserted into the rear base of the child's head. The scissors are spread to make a larger opening. A vacuum is used to suction out the brain matter of the fetus, collapsing the skull and destroying its life.
There's little wonder that nearly everyone who knows the details is opposed to the procedure and consequentially most polls show somewhere from over 60% to nearly 80% of Americans opposed to it being performed.
As to the judicial merits, I'm of course glad the ban was upheld. The whole mess of abortion jurisprudence needs to be swept clean and started anew. The cliches and double-talk and compromise-dominated language make everything extremely unclear. Those opposed to abortion should be motivated by respect for life, but this law only bans the way in which a fetus is aborted. Those supporting abortion say they're motivated by privacy, generally, but Ginsburg's dissent somehow made this about women's right to equal citizenship, as though being inconveniently pregnant negates the benefits of citizenship. More than that, the confusing dictates of caselaw and the puzzling review standard of 'undue burden' show how poorly coordinated the Court's rulings are.
The root problem is that Justice Blackmun's original decision in Roe was arbitrary by his own admission. In his writings to other Justices, Blackmun admitted that the point of viability was arbitrary and he essentially admitted that he was wholly creating law. It's no wonder that the Court remains muddled, autocratic and without a hint of self-consciousness about its own contradictions on the issue.
The larger point shines through to me: one particularly cruel and unusual form of abortion will now rarely, if ever, be performed. Let's hope the law's exemptions are not so wide as to negate the law's effectiveness entirely.
This is a victory for life and freedom, but is a little like telling a murderer he can use a handgun as a weapon of choice but not a bloody axe. In the end, the difference is mostly on the side of those of us who have to perceive the abortion, and not on the side of the child being aborted. Children will still be aborted, even in the second and third trimester, though hopefully this ban will make some fence-sitting parents think twice before ordering an abortion.
Portuguese Abortion Referendum
by neolibertarian
Two weeks ago Portugal had a national referendum on abortion. The question put to the country was whether abortion on demand should be allowed up to ten weeks gestation. Of course, it would only be performed by licensed practitioners.
Currently, abortion in Portugal is allowed to save the life of the mother, or for her physical or mental health up to 12 weeks gestation, or if conceived by rape up to 16 weeks gestation, or if afflicted with incurable disease or deformity up to 24 weeks.
Here's my take on the problems with current Portuguese abortion law.
- The life of mother is almost never threatened by childbirth. The only cases where c-section is unavailable (as a life-preserving alternative to abortion) is ectopic pregnancy, as very small percentage of cases. In those cases, the law should treat fetuses like people; if it's lawful to kill innocent people to save your own life, then that should apply to fetuses. Eventually, with research and development, I firmly believe that science will show there's never an unavoidable medical need to kill a fetus to save the mother.
- "Physical and mental health" is often a smokescreen for social abortion or abortion on demand. Since a woman who doesn't want a child is likely to be upset over staying pregnant, and since bearing a child often involves fatigue and vitamin deficiency, it's easy to meet the often-low hurdles of physical and mental health. We don't let women with post-partum depression kill their newborn babies, and we oughtn't let women with anxieties or even depression kill their unborn babies. They can give the child up for adoption; the problem is that most abortion-seeking moms would rather kill their kids than give them up. Well extremely selfish emotional issues over adoption don't justify murder.
- It's really creepy to think that rape could justify an abortion, because it never has a legal effect on people who are safely born. There's no reason to think that the crimes of the father should reflect on the child (the same is true, I suppose, of the crimes of the mother, since some jurisdictions acknowledge at least the possibility of a woman raping a man - I guess like Lot and his daughters). Rape is a horrible crime, and it's still completely wrong to punish the child for it. No born child is murdered for being the product of rape or incest, and neither should an unborn child.
- What's super creepy is the idea of deformity or disease justifying murder. At least with rape, the exception is meant as a gift to the victim/mother. With the deformity exception, it's meant as a negative judgment on the worth of the child. The disabled have every right to exist, the same as healthy children. If mothers don't want their babies who might have Down Syndrome or spina bifida, then I'm sure there are many people willing to adopt them and charities willing to sponsor their extended medical costs.
So I am very uncomfortable with the abortion statues under current Portuguese law, and of course still opposed to the referendum question.
The Portuguese electorate, fewer than 44% of which turned out to vote on the referendum, disagrees with me. Nearly 60% voted for abortion on demand. Since less than half of eligible voters turned out, the referendum is non-binding. However, the Prime Minister is a Socialist, so the government will still move ahead with the change in law. A similar referendum in 1998 met with a slight-majority voting no, so the change was not made then.
Just Plain Creepy
by neolibertarian
I've often sensed a weird vibe from anti-immigration arguments. This Coyote post about prominent anti-immigrationist John Tanton helps bring it together nicely. Apparently Tanton is an Ehrlich-style overpopulation fearmonger at his core. But it's not just about 'sustainability' and corporations and capitalism. No, he heard all the problems about overpopulation and so he helped start a Planned Parenthood chapter, thinking birth control and abortion would be important to stemming the tide.
His views on immigration and abortion (both of them roughly opposite mine) are informed by his views on human nature, overpopulation and the natural environment. What a horrible concoction they make - yet at the same time it fits together so well. Wanting to control people in all aspects of their lives is just an honest expression of fears that they're too incompetent or short-sighted to fix it themselves. Most people in this country draw lines about what they'll fix (in part because they don't object to the behaviors and activities they don't want regulated). This Tanton guy, if this is all true, really goes all in with his social engineering.
Beyond that, the Coyote-linked article on him states that he used common fears about non-English language use in the US as a springboard for anti-immigration rhetoric. So many people disliked seeing Spanish and other languages, especially in government operation, that he tried to capitalize on it (successfully). It reminds me of a 2000 Pat Buchanan commercial, possibly that campaign's only national TV commercial. In it, some guy starts choking on his meal and dashes to the phone to call 911. He dieswaiting for the automated operator to go through the language options ('para espanol, marque numero dos,' etc.). Since Buchanan is big on anti-immigration and anti-globalization issues (as well as being a prominent anti-Israel conservative) it made sense for him to play to such a shallow feeling. Of course, the guy was choking, so even a real 911 to an immediate operator wouldn't have helped him; choking people can't talk, and the EMTs wouldn't have made it there in the short time necessary to give him abdominal thrusts before his brain died off. The point, though, was that it's funny and that anglophones are somehow marginalized by non-anglophones.
The author of the article thinks Tanton wants purity - in the natural world, in countries and their borders, and so forth. I think he fears others are making mistakes and wants to make sure the right actions are taken and the right decisions made. He wants someone to assert control of the environment, of markets, of migration and of populations. The lack of someone or something in control of these situations, I'll go out on a limb and wager, motivates him more than anything else.
Just Plain Creepy
by neolibertarian
I've often sensed a weird vibe from anti-immigration arguments. This Coyote post about prominent anti-immigrationist John Tanton helps bring it together nicely. Apparently Tanton is an Ehrlich-style overpopulation fearmonger at his core. But it's not just about 'sustainability' and corporations and capitalism. No, he heard all the problems about overpopulation and so he helped start a Planned Parenthood chapter, thinking birth control and abortion would be important to stemming the tide.
His views on immigration and abortion (both of them roughly opposite mine) are informed by his views on human nature, overpopulation and the natural environment. What a horrible concoction they make - yet at the same time it fits together so well. Wanting to control people in all aspects of their lives is just an honest expression of fears that they're too incompetent or short-sighted to fix it themselves. Most people in this country draw lines about what they'll fix (in part because they don't object to the behaviors and activities they don't want regulated). This Tanton guy, if this is all true, really goes all in with his social engineering.
Beyond that, the Coyote-linked article on him states that he used common fears about non-English language use in the US as a springboard for anti-immigration rhetoric. So many people disliked seeing Spanish and other languages, especially in government operation, that he tried to capitalize on it (successfully). It reminds me of a 2000 Pat Buchanan commercial, possibly that campaign's only national TV commercial. In it, some guy starts choking on his meal and dashes to the phone to call 911. He dieswaiting for the automated operator to go through the language options ('para espanol, marque numero dos,' etc.). Since Buchanan is big on anti-immigration and anti-globalization issues (as well as being a prominent anti-Israel conservative) it made sense for him to play to such a shallow feeling. Of course, the guy was choking, so even a real 911 to an immediate operator wouldn't have helped him; choking people can't talk, and the EMTs wouldn't have made it there in the short time necessary to give him abdominal thrusts before his brain died off. The point, though, was that it's funny and that anglophones are somehow marginalized by non-anglophones.
The author of the article thinks Tanton wants purity - in the natural world, in countries and their borders, and so forth. I think he fears others are making mistakes and wants to make sure the right actions are taken and the right decisions made. He wants someone to assert control of the environment, of markets, of migration and of populations. The lack of someone or something in control of these situations, I'll go out on a limb and wager, motivates him more than anything else.
Choice For Men
by neolibertarian
Cathy Young (tip to VC) is discussing the prospect of reproductive choice for men. A men's rights group has finally found a test case of a father paying child support. This has spawned a series of discussions on the subject.
Interestingly, Cathy Young cites discussions from Shakespeare's Sister and Neo-neocon, meaning it's a blog discussion between three women about men's rights. I only find it interesting because I am so regularly subjected to the fallacy that as a man I am not allowed to have an opinion on abortion (unless I'm pro-choice).
The two key principles here are freedom and equality. Men and women should be legally equal (even if nature is not so egalitarian) and in their equality they should be free. Freedom, however, trumps equality. It's just spiteful to make some people less free out of equality.
For women, I agree with one strain of logic, if not the actual constitutional absurdities in Casey (or Roe), that result in reproductive choice - I just disagree on the act of abortion. Killing your child is beyond the reach of freedom or choice. If abortion were replaced by some method to safely remove a fetus and let it grow in an incubator, then I'd be on-board - both morally and constitutionally, that seems like a good thing.
Women have a right to control their bodies, and the Constitution clearly protects general liberty in the 5th, 9th and 14th Amendments. The absurd argument that somehow there should be a state choice - either to let people murder or to let people be murdered - is nothing more than a stupid argument designed for rhetorical purposes to make the speaker seem moderate or reasonable. Women have reproductive rights, they just can't kill pregnancies.
Men also have reproductive rights, and they also can't kill their pregnancies.
The solution here requires us to look at parental rights in general, and adoption in particular. If a parent puts a child up for adoption, then his or her rights as a parent are terminated. Adoption also terminates parental obligations. Unlike free speech, privacy from seizure, or the right to counsel, parental rights necessitate obligations. I don't have to do anything to have the right to free speech; though there are limits on free speech, like when and where to practice it, I don't need to fill out a form or go to weekly meetings or buy equipment to have that right. But if I didn't take my child to doctor check-ups, send him to school, or feed him properly then I could see him taken away, rightly.
If someone wishes to terminate parental rights and obligations then that should be allowed. With the loss of rights goes the loss of obligations. So an ex-parent wouldn't have a legal say over where the child went to school or where the child lived, but wouldn't have a legal obligation to pay for the child's schooling or living expenses.
It only seems fair that both parents can exercise this right, and this is especially important if the parents are not together. So either mom or dad can renounce parental rights and send the kid to the other parent, (or to family, an adoption center, anywhere with a reasonable expectation of the child's long-term safety). In this way, neither men nor women could be burdened with child or children's expenses without recourse.
The alternative, forcing people to accept the decision of the other parent with regard to child care and forcing them to fund those decisions, is noit in balance with adoption in general. It would mean that married couples could put a child up for adoption, or that single parents with custody of the child could put him up for adoption, but parents without custody couldn't also terminate rights and obligations.
The solution is not complex, whatever some might say, because all we have to do is extend existing principles to this situation. Here's the solution:
If you don't want to care for your own child, you can surrender rights and obligations whether or not you have custody of him or her.
There, simple. Granted, it may have problems but, Jesus, if the standard is whether or not a right or option might cause problems then we'd have to rethink a lot of our laws. I have the right to insult people, to demean people, to gossip, to generally be an asshole. If we only cared about social harmony then we'd pass eight million laws, turn into San Angeles and ban salt, cholesterol and cursing.
Choice For Men
by neolibertarian
Cathy Young (tip to VC) is discussing the prospect of reproductive choice for men. A men's rights group has finally found a test case of a father paying child support. This has spawned a series of discussions on the subject.
Interestingly, Cathy Young cites discussions from Shakespeare's Sister and Neo-neocon, meaning it's a blog discussion between three women about men's rights. I only find it interesting because I am so regularly subjected to the fallacy that as a man I am not allowed to have an opinion on abortion (unless I'm pro-choice).
The two key principles here are freedom and equality. Men and women should be legally equal (even if nature is not so egalitarian) and in their equality they should be free. Freedom, however, trumps equality. It's just spiteful to make some people less free out of equality.
For women, I agree with one strain of logic, if not the actual constitutional absurdities in Casey (or Roe), that result in reproductive choice - I just disagree on the act of abortion. Killing your child is beyond the reach of freedom or choice. If abortion were replaced by some method to safely remove a fetus and let it grow in an incubator, then I'd be on-board - both morally and constitutionally, that seems like a good thing.
Women have a right to control their bodies, and the Constitution clearly protects general liberty in the 5th, 9th and 14th Amendments. The absurd argument that somehow there should be a state choice - either to let people murder or to let people be murdered - is nothing more than a stupid argument designed for rhetorical purposes to make the speaker seem moderate or reasonable. Women have reproductive rights, they just can't kill pregnancies.
Men also have reproductive rights, and they also can't kill their pregnancies.
The solution here requires us to look at parental rights in general, and adoption in particular. If a parent puts a child up for adoption, then his or her rights as a parent are terminated. Adoption also terminates parental obligations. Unlike free speech, privacy from seizure, or the right to counsel, parental rights necessitate obligations. I don't have to do anything to have the right to free speech; though there are limits on free speech, like when and where to practice it, I don't need to fill out a form or go to weekly meetings or buy equipment to have that right. But if I didn't take my child to doctor check-ups, send him to school, or feed him properly then I could see him taken away, rightly.
If someone wishes to terminate parental rights and obligations then that should be allowed. With the loss of rights goes the loss of obligations. So an ex-parent wouldn't have a legal say over where the child went to school or where the child lived, but wouldn't have a legal obligation to pay for the child's schooling or living expenses.
It only seems fair that both parents can exercise this right, and this is especially important if the parents are not together. So either mom or dad can renounce parental rights and send the kid to the other parent, (or to family, an adoption center, anywhere with a reasonable expectation of the child's long-term safety). In this way, neither men nor women could be burdened with child or children's expenses without recourse.
The alternative, forcing people to accept the decision of the other parent with regard to child care and forcing them to fund those decisions, is noit in balance with adoption in general. It would mean that married couples could put a child up for adoption, or that single parents with custody of the child could put him up for adoption, but parents without custody couldn't also terminate rights and obligations.
The solution is not complex, whatever some might say, because all we have to do is extend existing principles to this situation. Here's the solution:
If you don't want to care for your own child, you can surrender rights and obligations whether or not you have custody of him or her.
There, simple. Granted, it may have problems but, Jesus, if the standard is whether or not a right or option might cause problems then we'd have to rethink a lot of our laws. I have the right to insult people, to demean people, to gossip, to generally be an asshole. If we only cared about social harmony then we'd pass eight million laws, turn into San Angeles and ban salt, cholesterol and cursing.
UDHR Against Abortion?
by neolibertarian
From Article II of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
And from Art III of the UDHR:Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
And of course Art VI:Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
Of course, at the time abortion wasn't considered a hot political controversy so much as it was a social ill or evil to be eased by technocratic legislation. But the wording really lends itself to the pro-life position on abortion - especially the part about birth (though they could've meant birth in the aristocrat vs. peasant sense, rather than the OBGYN sense).
Conflicting Hawaii Decision
by neolibertarian
The Hawaii Supreme Court overturned the manslaughter conviction of a mother for killing her baby by using crystal meth. Apparently she used it the day of his birth (maybe it catalyzed his birth? I dunno) and he died of it two days later, with meth all through his system.
The ruling is problematic in two ways. One, there's significant overhand here beyond the womb. Though the act in question was during pregnancy (the last possible part of the pregnancy) the death in question was that of a newborn baby - something no state has yet denied the rights of life or personhood. This area is generally light in decisions because very few pregnancies advance to this point without either being wanted or being aborted. It's also very strange that a drug user (presumably an addict) wouldn't have miscarried earlier due to her habit. So this doesn't really conflict with a lot of other rulings, just with common sense. If your newborn dies because of something you did directly before birth, does that mean you didn't do anything punishable to the newborn? The real conflict here is with the illogic of personhood law in this country.
What it far more clearly conflicts with is the decision of many states (most recently and prominently, California and the federal Laci and Conner Law) is the upheld convictions for murderers who attack pregnant women and kill the fetus as well. In California, if you kill a woman cause the death of her fetus (meaning a pregnancy of at least eight weeks gestation) then that's two counts of murder.
But if there's an exception for mothers to kill their own babies (though the HI case was manslaughter, not murder) then it means fetuses are more like valuable property or an investment; you can destroy yours but other people can't. Of course, I HIGHLY doubt that any reasonable court would let that logic stand, because it would be the return of slavery in concept. It mean literally mean that one human was owned by another. Guardianship is one thing, but the power of life and death over our children is never part of guardianship, only the more degrading instances of human slavery.
The conflict ought to come before the Supreme Court, so that they can lay down a little order here. Maybe with Roberts and Alito they'll actually come to their senses and at least decide on a more concrete definition and bright line for personhood.
This, by the way, is why simply repealing Roe - as a lot of abortion opponents advocate - would be insane. It would be like pushing the country back to the 1850s except with abortion instead of slavery. We can't have such radically different conceptions of personhood, especially within the same country and across neighboring states. As Seward called it, that's a recipe for an "irrepressible conflict" because sooner or later it will have to be all one or all the other.
No, personhood has to be standardized across the country because the Constitution protects it. This Hawaii case is just another example of how unclear the Supreme Court has left it all these years by describing when abortion can happen, instead of explaining when a human's rights begin.
Pro-Choice People Against Choice
by neolibertarian
Pro-choice people are again livid that private organizations have decided to allow individual choice on the controversial issue of abortifacient drugs. Target is allowing their pharmacists to exercise personal choice of whether to sell Plan B or not, and this kind of individual liberty isn't something that self-styled civil libertarians will live with.
Why? Because they see the issue as they always seem to see the issue, in terms of group rights. Rather than genuinely believing that abortion is a right because of individual autonomy, they support it because of women-centered reasons. The group Women deserves access to abortion as a defense from discrimination. Naturally, this means that opposing access to abortifacients, even when done through individual choice, is seen through a lens of attacking groups. Exhibit A:So let's ask Target if they also support the following Target employees:
- Check out clerks who verify how fat you are before selling you that package of potato chips?
- Pharmacists who don't want to fill prescriptions for Jewish customers who killed Christ.
- Pharmacists who don't want to help customers who worship a "Satanic counterfeit" (read: "The Pope," in fundie-speak).
- Pharmacists who only dispense HIV medicine to "innocent victims" of AIDS.
- Pharmacists who want proof that women seeking emergency contraception were really raped, and that they didn't "deserve it."
- Pharmacists (or cashiers) who are Christian Scientists - can they refuse to sell any medicine, even aspirin, to anyone?
- Pharmacists who won't sell birth control pills to unmarried women, condoms to unmarried men, or any birth control at all because God doesn't want people spilling their seed.
- Can fundamentalist Christian employees refuse to interact with gay people in any way, shape or form since gays are sinners, abominations, biological errors, and very likely pedophiles?
Can you find the one bullet point different from the others? It's the Christian Scientists one, also the most idiotic of the points. In response to this unique argument, I have three things to say. First, why would Target hire somebody who was unwilling to perform the tasks for which he was hired? Refusing to sell a limited number of items is one thing, and a parallel could be found for any occupation, but refusing to dispense medication of any form in a job that's exclusively about dispensing medication is a retarded argument. We are all dumber for having read it. Second, if Target decided to let its employees not do their jobs but still be paid, is that really any business of ours? Only if we've already paid or entered a contract with them and they're in breach. And third, it's obvious that this is simply an excuse to trot out one of the more extreme brands of Christian theology, since it's worthless as regards this discussion.
Every other bullet point is a bad comparison, since they're dependent on the customer and not the product. But the left-wing author failed to realize this critical, defining distinction because he sees the abortifacient-abstentionists as attacking a group, when the actual issue is about the product.
A valid analogy would be if Target allowed vegetarians to not handle meats, vegans to not handle dairy or leather, and so forth. The analogy should be about personal beliefs toward a product, not toward the customers or groups of customers. As far as I know, no pharmacist ever suggested that the private sexual history of patients be examined for approval of the prescription.
In the same post, he posted an e-mail to a Target rep in which he expressed, inter alia, this little gem of freedom-minded thinking:Here's how it works: I have a prescription. You fill the prescription. That's all there is to it and anything else, any hemming and hawing, any refusal based on moral or religious grounds, is not only wrong, but also morally reprehensible.
Patently ridiculous. Businesses don't exist to cater to every demand or whim all in one place. They exist because of a web of individual desires and profits. The investors and shareholders pony up dough to keep the business capitalized. The managers and employees provide labor in exchange for wages and benefits. The customers provide funds in exchange for goods. It does not exist for charity, nor does it exist because somebody wanted to give customers everything they ever wanted.
Moreover, the customers are not there because they want to give charity to the company; at most maybe they want to support the PR-induced image they have of a business, but more likely they want the products and that's why they pay.
This horribly vague and completely undefined moral obligation for companies to meet customer demands is insanely anti-freedom. It doesn't provide for any individual moral choice in the matter, on the part of either companies or individuals. It doesn't explain the limits of provision a business is bound to obey - do businesses have to provide everything related to their products, or is this moral rule hypocritically limited to abortion drugs? I somehow doubt that a liquor department carrying only beer and wine would be chastised for not providing harder liquors, even though the customer might request them.
But I suppose the author wishes to shut down Kosher and Halaal establishments until they offer pork, since they are merely limited by religious morality. No? Well the argument for not selling abortifacients is stronger than not selling pork, since abortion is (at least arguably) malum in se, while dietary rules are generally malum prohibitum.
The fact is that he has no real argument, only outrage and anger. A collective-focused mentality that sees this as a selgith against women and against the non-theistic, instead of a valid personal choice that's been allowed by a private employers. A "pro-choice" person would surely applaud this act of private conviction, yes? Not really.
The actual libertarians who favor abortion's legality tend to be far less enthusiastic about the issue than Democrats and socialists, who see it in more anti-clerical and feminist terms. For a real Libertarian who's pro-choice, abortion is just one on a list of a million different things that are under threat of being illegal or actually are illegal. But Democrats and socialists are more concerned about abortion's social acceptance, not about its legality. Many want it not only legal, but solemnly encouraged and even paid for by the state.
For such types, it's a matter of anti-clericalism or feminism, not liberty or freedom. So of course they don't give a damn about freedom when it comes to choosing to not sell abortifacients.
Here's my take on the issue.
1) People have a right to do or not do as they please. If you don't want to sell certain things, abortion-related or not, then you don't have to. You could be a numerologist and decide that you won't sell products with 13 letters in the name. That's fine; don't sell it.
2) Businesses have a right to do ot not do as they please. If your employer says you have to sell it and you won't, then they can either accept it or fire you. They own the business and the drugs, and if they don't want to pay for your convictions, then take a hike Mr. Catholic, Mr. Hindu or Mr. Numerologist. Sorry, I agree you have a right not to sell stuff, but they have a right to not employ you. For contract employees who aren't at-will (as in, to be fired-at-will) then refer to your contract; if any part of it obligates you to violate your principles, then either do so or accept the contractual penalties.
3) Government can go to hell. The government shouldn't obligate you to violate your moral principles - not for a job, not for jury duty, not for the draft, not for anything. As long as those moral principles aren't conflicting with the rights of others, the government should be a non-issue. And there is no right to make others sell you stuff (though there is a right to buy stuff, so long as somebody wants to sell). Licensing of pharmacies and pharmacists is not an excuse to coerce them into selling anything.
We all exist for ourselves, and if we behave altruistically it should be because we chose it, not because it was forced upon us at gunpoint.
Let this be a lesson: pro-choice often means nothing of the sort. For a long time I've tried to stick to pro-choice as distinct from pro-abortion; it seemed a fairer way to refer to the less aggressive supporters of abortion legality, as opposed to the postive-good cheerleaders fore abortion. But now I think pro-abortion is the more apt term. After all, the state's power would be directed towards keeping abortionists and clinics safe from violence, and it would be a legal right to obtain or perform an abortion.
I wouldn't say that somebody from 1850 who wanted slavery legal but owned no slaves himself was pro-choice on slavery; I'd call him pro-slavery. And so I think that pro-abortion is a fair and sufficient term for someone supporting abortion's legality. I guess that would make me 'anti-abortion' a term long used to spite pro-lifers as not really caring about life, merely about opposing abortion itself. Well, I think I'll continue to simply consider myself an abortion abolitionist.
It's really interesting that when you think about it, the whole debate is really about when life begins, even though it's almost always protrayed as a 'religious tradition versus secular feminism' matter. If life were universally seen to begin at conception, then abortion would be legally murder; if life were universally considered to begin well after conception, then abortion would just be birth control.
Roberts Confirmed
by neolibertarian
The Senate voted 78-22 to confirm Judge John Roberts as Chief Justice of the United States. The Democrats split evenly, 22 yea and 22 nay, with every Repulican and independent Jeffords voting yea. Here are the nays:
Akaka (D-HI)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Boxer (D-CA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Obama (D-IL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Some interesting votes are Clinton and Bayh, centrists with presidential ambitions - likely trying to warm up the left base and stop from antagonizing the abortion lobbyists. Feingold was also interesting in that he voted to confirm, but he also voted to confirm Ashcroft; I think Feingold just has a certain attitude about executive appointments: give the guy lattitude to govern or rope to hang himself. Biden, who also fancies himself President one day soon, voted nay.
I'm a little puzzled by Dodd and Leahy, who are in no real trouble after voting for Roberts, but who don't seem to gain anything by it. My guess is they actually think him qualified.
Such is presidential politics in the Senate: 100 people who want to be President and always a dozen or so voting on key issues in order to send the right signal to the right groups. By voting against Roberts for CJ, Clinton, Bayh and Biden have bought a little currency with the pro-choice groups, who pay very close attention to judicial confirmations, but have lost comparatively little of their sought reputations as reasonable centrists, since most people don't put nearly so much attention into how people vote on judicial nominees.
The following Democrats, who voted yea, are not running for President in 2008 (or are running as pro-lifers):
Baucus (D-MT)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Byrd (D-WV)
Carper (D-DE)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Feingold (D-WI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Wyden (D-OR)
Feingold and Lieberman might still try and run, since they have more dark-horse, "maverick" appeal anyway. But this vote was far more relevant in separating the wannabe Presidents from the Senators. Other votes in the future will help signify who's running on the GOP side. Even though it seems like Roberts is so distant from the issue of abortion itself, the importance pressure groups put on the judiciary and the importance of pro-choice leaders to the Democratic party make voting against Roberts a near-mandatory step for primary contenders (even if this rule is unspoken).
Update: Also, the whole pledge of allegiance thing that Republicans hope to use against the lefties is pretty hard to toss at the Roberts nay voters, since to most fair-minded people it's hard to divine a desire to "take God out of the pledge" from a nay vote on Roberts. Even if you're not being all that fair, this is far more about Roe/Casey than the pledge.
Saddam Hussein Trial Blog
by neolibertarian
There's now a blog dedicated to discussing and covering the trial of Saddam Hussein. (tip to VC)
The issues they've raised for debate and discussion are important and intriguing. I'd like to offer my opinions on their 9 issues.Issue #1: Does Saddam Hussein have a right to represent himself before the Iraqi Special Tribunal like Slobodan Milosevic has done at The Hague?
Yes, he does. If he has a right to retain counsel for his defense then he has the right to lead his own defense. It's probably a horrible iudea, but he has that right - a right he denied to countless others.Issue #2: Should the Saddam Hussein trial be televised?
I'm ambivalent on this subject, but it's probably best to leave it at no. It should be recorded for posterity of course, but I'd prefer not to give Saddam one last platform to speak to people. He might even be able to communicate a message to the last of his followers.Issue #3: Is the Iraqi Special Tribunal, which was established on December 10, 2003 by the Occupying Power and the unelected Iraqi Governing Council, a legitimate judicial institution?
Yes, judicial bodies are not supposed to gain legitimacy through elections. They can gain practical legitimacy through public support, but the matter at hand is whether it can deliver a fair trial that respects the rights of the accused while also delivering justice for victims.Issue #4: Should Saddam Hussein Be Exposed to the Death Penalty?
Yes, of course. Aside from exercising it against untold hundreds of thousands with few or no pretenses of trial protections, Saddam Hussein is a disgusting, vile human body. If he doesn't deserve the death penalty then nobody does.Issue #5: Did the Iraqi regime’s actions to dam rivers, leading to the destruction of the habitat of the Marsh Arabs, constitute a form of genocide?
Yes, but only due to the intent and not the action. Because damming the rivers and draining the marshes were intended to punish the largely Shi'a population in the south and were coupled with programs intended to kill or run off the Shi'a, as well the Arabization policy to force them to take more Sunni-Arabic surnames, it could be established (by further evidence of motive and intent) that the draining of the marshes were genocide. Damming the rivers to destroy the marshes and using the hydro power to help Sunni-dominated areas is akin to ripping down Jewish houses and sending the valuables to Aryan homes.
Of course, the act of damming itself isn't genocidal. Simply damming the river could be justified on a number of rationales, including power and technology for the country (hospitals and schools being two major beneficiaries of power, not to mention industry and employment). Given the other policies targeted at ruining, dispersing, killing or converting the Marshland Shi'i Arabs, there's a strong case to be made for it being an act of genocide. I think there'd have to be some evidence establishing intent related to the damming in order to close the circle.
It has to established beyond reasonable doubt that it was genocide, not just disastrously insensitive and dangerous public policy. In my opinion, it's clear that draining the swamps was part of the genocidal policies of the Ba'athist regime.Issue #6: Did the Anfal Operations constitute Genocide?
Yes, over 1,200 villages were destroyed by the Ba'athists during the Anfal campaign, and over 3,800 villages total. Saddam's people destroyed over 1,700 schools, over 2,400 mosques, and several hundred hospitals. Approximately three-quarters of Kurdish rural villageswere destroyed. I'd say that fits the term genocide.
Unfortunately in 1988, after the massacre at Halabja, the US State Department instructed diplomats to give Iran partial blame for the massacre. Along with the potentiality that the US (and France and others) supplied some of Iraq's chemical weapons, Saddam and his defenders might be able to obscure the issue and make it seem like less than genocide. It clearly was an attempt to drive away the Kurds, who represented a threat to the Ba'athist regime, to the borders of Iraq, and to the control of northern oil fields, especially around Kirkuk. As a sidenote, the US stopped sending Iraq chemical weapons and chemical weapons precursors by mid-1984.Issue #7: Does Saddam Hussein have head of state immunity?
No. First, he's no longer head of state of anything. Second, the state he was head of no longer exists, all of its members and employees having been arrested, scattered or killed. Third, head of state immunity should not be a shield from abuses of office or from unrelated crimes committed while in office. If there's any argument to be made on this front, it would be that casualties of Kuwaitis or Iranians killed in those two wars would not be visited upon the head of state; however, considering the aggression of the Ba'athists I don't think even this limited form should be allowed to carry. Certainly the premediateted, planned, and implemented knowing policies of murder, rape and genocide shouldn't be ignored due to head of state immunity.Issue #8: Can Saddam Hussein get a fair trial?
I don't know that I have enough information to answer this question. All I can say with certainty is that he has already experienced far more legal protections than the average person under his regime would have had.Issue #9: Does the IST protect the basic right to the assistance of counsel?
The Iraqi Special Tribunal rules explicitly recognize the right to the assistance of counsel:The right to legal assistance of his own choosing, including the right to have legal assistance provided by the Defense Office if he does not have sufficient means to pay for it
On the whole, good issues, important subject.
Update: Also, I just wanted to point out that Saddam will be tried in front of Iraqi judges. The Nazi war criminals at Nuremberg were tried by the Allies, including the Soviets. I don't think it was wrong to use Allied judges in Nuremberg, but I think it speaks to the level of effort being expended in Iraq to democratize the country and to provide a fair trial for Saddam.
Cloning and Personhood
by neolibertarian
Arnold's movie Sixth Day is showing on TBS. It's basically a doom and gloom piece about cloning, but it's a decent enough plotline. It seems to focus on human uniqueness.
The basic plot is that a tremendously powerful businessman has a way to clone adults in a matter of hours and to download their memories and personality through special eye scans. In other words, if you die they can just make a new you based on the last time you saved your memory.
In the movie, the law states that clones aren't people and they're to be destroyed. Since he's a clone (having been killed at least once by anti-cloning zealots) that means he'd no longer own his business and would be killed. So his motivation is to try and make it so cloning people whole is legal (it's already legal in the movie to clone organs and pets), thus protecting himself from being destroyed if his secret clone identity is revealed.
Fiction is a fun place to pick up real issues. This is an interesting subject, but the issue itself wouldn't be nearly so controversial. Cloned or not, a person is a person. After all, if somebody created from a test tube has rights, how different would a clone be?
Of course, I'm the same person who thinks a fetus has a right to live, so never mind me.
I also think it would be cool if we could clone tissue and organs. Everything from skin grafts to heart transplants would be easier, more predictable and more affordable. We also wouldn't have to spend so much energy recruiting and testing donors.
E-mail to Instapundit
by neolibertarian
Over this piece in the NYT.I have to strenuously disagree with your interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment in your third question to Judge Roberts in your NYT piece. The "born or naturalized" line is without a doubt NOT a definition of personhood, but rather a way of specifying which persons "are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." "Born or naturalized" is a modifier of "all persons," the same as the qualification that they be "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in order to be citizens.
If the first sentence of Section 1 were a definition of persons then it would be open hunting season on immigrants (the non-naturalized) and foreign diplomats (those not 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof'), who would be reduced to no more rights than an embryo or fetus, rules of comity aside. Such is thankfully not the case.
Coyote on Roe
by neolibertarian
There's a good piece at Coyote Blog about Roe v. Wade and its position in modern constitutional law. He makes some excellent points about the contradictory (hypocritical) way Roe was decided.
Of course, technically Roe isn't in force any longer. Casey is the reigning caselaw in the matter, and it reworked the standard to be even more confusing. Now not only is abortion jurisprudence an awkward dab of narrowly applied, selectively used liberty, but it's protected under a standard of "undue burden" instead of "strict scrutiny." The difference isn't entirely clear except that, in theory, it's a little looser and allows a few (politically popular) regulations without really reducing access to abortion.
I have to say that I think Roe is a horrible decision because it's nothing more than a cynical attempt to enshrine abortion rights within a framework otherwise hostile to liberty. I think the Ninth Amendment ought to be far stronger in application, literally as strong as the other amendments, and that the privileges and immunities clause needs to be brought up alongside it. But I have to disagree on abortion itself.
Personhood is not bestowed at birth and nothing in the Constitution says so (although it does say birth determines one's state of residence, it does not say birth bestows personhood). Until there's a constitutional amendment denying personhood to those yet unborn, conception - the point at which a human is created - ought to be the point at which personhood rights exist.
But otherwise I agree that unenumerated rights are still rights. The Ninth Amendment was added because the framers believed in an unenumerable liberty. Liberty is anything you have the right to do that doesn't infringe on the rights of others. That comes from Locke's descriptions of natural law and Mill's harm principles. The biggest argument against a bill of rights was that it would suggest that any unlisted rights were somehow not valid or less valid as rights. The Ninth Amendment says that unlisted rights are equally as important as the listed ones. The listed ones are just there establish a basic framework.
Pushing The Envelope on The Right to Life
by neolibertarian
A few short years ago there was precious little discussion of Social Security reform at all, let alone private accounts. Now polling shows that a majority of Americans support personal accounts of some form. It would've been difficult to blame the President for not pushing reform of Social Security, given its reputation as difficult and unpopular to change. Yet he went on a road tour for weeks promoting it.
The problem as I see it is that his performance on the right to life consists largely of two things: 1) being willing to sign pro-life acts of Congress, and 2) opposing federal funding of embryo destruction. While I'm glad that the President signed into law things like the PBA ban and the Unborn Victims of Violence Act ('Laci and Conner's Law') - especially since Clinton repeatedly vetoed a partial-birth abortion ban on fraudulent claims of medical necessity - it doesn't strike me that he had a very big role in either. He's a supporter, but he didn't appear to be the driving force. I don't recall him spending a lot of time as president pushing Congress on the issue or trying to drum up political support. It's hard to get all worked up about the stem cell stance, since it's not about banning stem cell research, but about not federally funding it - a world of difference.
He coasts on the momentum of supporting the pro-life side while not expending political capital on behalf of it. If anything he consumes the political capital of supporting these two issues - which have support in the 60s or 70s - and spends it elsewhere. There's nothing wrong with gaining and expending political points, but it's frustrating to see such a monumentally-important issue ignored.
It's an important time to support the right to life movement because of the SCOTUS nomination the President is about to make. Republican SCOTUS nominations have not been very good to the pro-life movement, with Republican appointees Stevens, Souter, Kennedy and O'Connor all supporting a constitutional right to abortion. In fact, the Court is 7-2 Republican to Democratic appointees, yet 6-3 for abortion rights and 5-4 for partial-birth abortion.
The President should appoint someone serious about the right to life, rather than continuing to walk the fine line of doing just enough to hold support and show some real leadership on the issue. History will remember his actions.
What's Wrong With This Situation?
by neolibertarian
As we learned this spring, an incapacitated woman can be deprived of water and food until dead on the say-so of her estranged husband. However convicted murderers and rapists cannot be executed if they are comatose, and must be perfectly healthy before we kill them. Who thinks this stuff up?
I understand the need to place moral and legal restrictions on the death penalty, but considering the first step of the death penalty is to make the felon unconscious, it seems like a comatose death row inmate saves the state from an anesthesiologist's bill.
Abortions Successfully Prosecuted As Murder
by neolibertarian
link (tip to QandO)
All right, this story from Texas makes no sense. A 17 year old regretted not getting an abortion and started jogging and hitting herself to induce an abortion. When it didn't work, she asked her boyfriend to help her miscarry. They both started beating her up and when he stepped on her stomach both her fetuses miscarried. The boyfriend was successfully prosecuted for two counts of murder and sentenced to life since the prosecution did not ask for the death penalty.
Why is it that a boyfriend stomping on four month old fetuses is murder but a doctor dismembering an eight month old fetus isn't? Doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The reason it doesn't make sense is that Roe v. Wade and ensuing caselaw look at the desired result (that almost all abortion should be legal) and then justifies it post-hoc. A logical view of abortion would identify a moral principle, square it with biological truths and then formulate the abortion policy as a consequence of both.
I won't complain too much, though, since it is murder. I'm just confused by how it can be squared with what the Supreme Court says.
No 'Choice' For Pro-Lifers?
by neolibertarian
The pharmacist issue is getting more news coverage and again it seems that 'choice' only applies when you make a choice FOR abortion. Those making a personal choice against it are marginalized. This has been an issue before when the Congress was fighting over whether health care providers could decline to provide abortions (especially contentious since many Catholic health groups were operating in areas far from other providers but had strong moral objections to abortifacients).
The operative here is choice. If the rule on abortion is that it's a choice, then that has to swing both ways. Some people of libertarian bent have tried to construct justifications that suggest something to the effect of "pharmacists enjoy a monopoly on dispensing drugs, therefore they have to provide a public service" and lose their right to personal morality in their job.
That's just silly, though.
First of all, if they don't have a "monopoly" in the economic sense; they compete against each other all the time. Even grocery stores have pharmacies now. There's quite a bit of competition in the pharmacist field; just because only pharmacists can do pharmacy doesn't mean there's a "monopoly."
Second, it's a completely socialist method of looking at the world. Businesses exist to create a profit for their owners and shareholders, employees work to generate wealth for themselves, consumers purchase goods to use themselves. Business do not exist to provide employees with jobs, employees do not work to provide consumers with goods, and consumers do not purchase goods to keep companies in business. Everyone in the equation is primarily in it for his own ends, and that's fine. To force people to work for the good of others is socialist, just like making a business exist for the public good is socialist. Pharmacists exist for their own reasons - to feed their families, to buy a home, to otherwise generate wealth to spend. They don't owe the public a service; if a pharmacy decides to limit the goods it provides then they have to accept the consequences.
Third, if we accept their premise, then the government would be rewarded for extending its power by a further extension of its power. In other words, the government over-regulates the pharmacy field, and gets rewarded by getting to say what drugs and services pharmacists have to provide. With this standard, the government could control any profession simply by requiring a license to do it. Private school teachers, who don't need licenses in all states, could be forced to teach certain (morally objectionable) classes in their PRIVATE schools because the government decided to license their profession. The government was rewarded for illegitimately controlling a profession by getting further control over it. Does that make a lot of sense for a libertarian? Does it make sense for anybody?
Overall, the point is choice. As long as a person's life before birth is subject to choice, then that has to be the rule. If the pro-abortion people want to throw the choice idea out the window (along with their moderate pro-choice allies), then they can no longer claim any sort of alleged libertarian superiority over the pro-life people. Either people are free to choose or not choose abortion, or the choice rhetoric is nothing more than a hypocritical fig leaf over the unimpeded destruction of millions.
