Jackson Free Press

So, Rudy "Take the Guns!" Giuliani is headed to Mississippi to campaign in a region where very few of his (historic) views actually resonate. We're guessing his kids won't be along for the trip to Dixie; at least one of them is too busy campaigning for Obama and trying to get over the fact that her daddy announced his divorce to mama on TV at a press conference. Of course, that was back before the cad became a conservative darling in a party that is just about fresh out of darlings.

(Hat tip to Cottonmouth.)

Previous Commentsshow

Hey, liars lie.

DonnaLadd

Aug 22 2007

I heard about that story last week. But something tells me that it won't stick.

golden eagle

Aug 22 2007

I could be wrong, but I'm expecting Rudy to be loved down here in Nut Bush City Limits. If Kerry and Gore are considered socialists down here by some republicans Rudy will be welcomed and treated like royalty. I realize he's from up noff (usually a detriment), but as long as you're with the GOP - gone off presumably- you can still make friends and win votes here. Your background, shady character and lack of substance won't matter, in my opinion. We will see how he's received. Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong. I'm not trying to be mean. I just need to see something different to have a different mindset.

Ray Carter

Aug 22 2007

Yeah, there is little logic or grounding in reality. It's all about memes. I remember when all the gun nuts were touting Rudy's crime strategy—without realizing that gun control, and really dangerous enforcement of it, was at the heart of it. We had the pleasure of shutting a few of them up by posting facts on the site about it, but still. I do expect the fake family-values-cheat-on-my-wife crowd to line up behind him, yes. And probably the Hinds County Republican guys.

DonnaLadd

Aug 22 2007

GOP - Gone Off Presumably. He, he. Larry the cable guy called me after reading the comment saying " now, that's funny rat der."

Ray Carter

Aug 22 2007

I kinda doubt a 3x divorced guy (hope I have the number right) is gonna play well here in Biblesville. Rudy has some interesting qualities and would make a good VP candidate or attorney general but for prez his liabilities are huge. None of the republican candidates have really caught my attention thus far.

GLewis

Aug 22 2007

I like Romey a little bit. He seems a very decent fellow and out of place I might add.

Ray Carter

Aug 22 2007

I think it's incumbent upon our friends in the NRA--you know who you are--to comment on Giuliani's candidacy. Here we have a pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro-gay rights candidate trying to take over the Republican Party. What is he Nelson Rockefeller? Is it OK because he's another "bomb, bomb Iran" type? Following up on the New York Times story, Salon has noted that despite Giuliani's claims that he spent as much time at ground zero as rescue workers, he actually spent twice as much time at Yankee games. This is not necessarily to say that he should have stayed in New York after the worst attack on the U.S. in modern history, but to claim that he was like one of the rescue workers when he was living it up in the good seats is truly disgraceful. Remember that he was also the genius who insisted on putting NYC's emergency response center in--you guessed it--the World Trace Center, even after it had been attacked. Furthermore, there's a chance Building 7 would not have fallen had it not been loaded with 24,000 gallons of diesel for the center's generators. The more you look at Giuliani, the less there is to like. Of course, that's not for me to say. Republicans?

Brian C Johnson

Aug 22 2007

Well, like I said earlier, he's not a Republican. "Furthermore, there's a chance Building 7 would not have fallen had it not been loaded with 24,000 gallons of diesel for the center's generators." Interesting.

LawClerk

Aug 23 2007

Guiliani is definitely a republican - a card carrying member of the GOP -which stands for "Gone Off Permanently" or as Scooting Libby now calls it "Getting Off Politically" if not legally. The repubs will vote for Guiliani or something similar no matter his failures, mistakes, transgressions or indiscretions. After all, they're the party of Congressman Whip My Booty Vitter from Louisiana and the Page Stalking Foley from Florida. If they continue this trend, and they will, the authors of Webster's dictionary can substitute GOP for the words pervert and lost cause.

Ray Carter

Aug 23 2007

say what you will about the man- he took NYC from an uncontrollable mess into the safest large city in america. He's not perfect in his private life- who here hasnt had to deal with a crazy ex-wife? They were estranged for years- Then she refused to leave Gracie Mansion and caused a terrible embarrasment. Leave his personal life personal. I judge leaders by their record, and none match his. Winston Churchill had some crazy stuff in his personal life as well.

bill hauswirth

Aug 23 2007

"I think it's incumbent upon our friends in the NRA--you know who you are--to comment on Giuliani's candidacy". Brian, do you really have to ask? OK. I'll play. Hell no. If this is the best the GOP can do, many gun owners, including me will just stay home.

Cliff Cargill

Aug 23 2007

"Hell no. If this is the best the GOP can do, many gun owners, including me will just stay home." I will simply vote for Ron Paul.

LawClerk

Aug 23 2007

Y'all can always go with the good guys - Democrats, which will result in stopping this stupid and dumb war, cleaning up congress for a while, finally sending someone to DC worthy of the new Mississippi mantra or calling, and run George-like and Shoots-like people out of DC. We will do it with or without you. We rather have you with us since we're Mississippians and all in this mess together, whether we like it or not, no matter who is to blame. A change is going to come. I has to happen. We can't withstand the same old stuff. The Democrats aren't communist, socialists, haters of white males, prejudiced against white folks, et al. We're a beautiful mix of everyone the country has to offer wihout any ceilings, places or limitations for males, women or minorities, blacks, whites, indians, latinos, asians or other. We reflect what the world is and all it's capable of becoming. All decent people should be too happy to turn on and run the hell off any politicans that are not serving the needs of the people.

Ray Carter

Aug 23 2007

Ray, if the democrats wanted to stop the war, they could. They have a majority. The democrats are pushers of socialist agendas, which partially includes: national healthcare, wealth redistribution, massive gun control, high taxes.... I don't want any of that, and I'm pretty sure the rest of the USA will not want that either if given a choice between Freedom and socialism.

LawClerk

Aug 24 2007

Who said anything about the Democrats wanting to redistribute wealth?

golden eagle

Aug 24 2007

Lawclerk, I wish I could say I'm surprised by this statement or reply. Do you really believe the Democrats can stop the war. It's news to me that the Democrats are at fault for this war continuing. But if you believe Clinton, Gore, Kerry or any other capitalistic white man in America is for wealth redistribution and high taxes there is nothing any non-republican can tell you any way. I can see gun control helping the crime situation. I know you feel real safe now with so many criminal on the streets with guns. Lord knows only those who can afford healthcare deserves it. The rest can just suffer and die. I take it you're one of the wealthy ones; otherwise, I can't understand your support of programs that benefits them and not regular people. I bet you don't have any problems with the wealthy and connected receiving all kinds of favortism and largesse from federal, state and local government, with farm subsidies for weallthy and non-poor farmers not planting crops at all, for corporations being bailed out free of charge, with Haliburton and the likes making tons of money from this war, with the way Katrina was handled by this administration, et al. I can't understand your perspective or philosopy of going down with the Titantic and blaming shipmakers and rescuers for not presenting a sailing boat, oceanliners or life-jacket that fits your taste or liking. Never mind, we all gotta down down some kind of way. I know I'm too dumb to see your points.

Ray Carter

Aug 24 2007

Lawclerk, how would a Democrat president get enough power to redistribute wealth in the country? Will he have both houses and the Supreme Court under his spell too? Would the masses of white folks just sit idly by and allow this to happen? Help me out here. I may need to switch parties myself if you're correct.

Ray Carter

Aug 24 2007

Golden Eagle, republicans are taught that Democrats desire and expect wealth redistribution in their homes and at their RNC meetining - repugnant nourishing conventions. Lawclerk is my favorite republican right now because he's letting the cat out the bag. What else did they tell you Lawclerk? Once we know everything we're guilty of unknowingly or discern where we are weakest, we will get a program appealing to all Mississippians.

Ray Carter

Aug 24 2007

Ray, perhaps you should reread the sites user agreement and stop putting words in my mouth? Just a thought. Now, if you'd honestly like to question me, then go for it. Your attempt to put words in my mouth and "pretend" that is what I believe goes beyond laughable and is actually insulting. Wealth Redistribution.... Honestly. How do you not see how democrats favor that? Is welfare not wealth redistribution? Am I wrong? No where did I say that only wealthy should have healthcare, but, by mandating healthcare for everyone that can't afford it, you are driving the cost of it up, and thus availing it to less and less people that are actually paying for it. See, Ray, I don't use these different spellings of Republican or Democrat, because it doesn't do anything. I see how you like to re-spell words, and make up your own acronyms. It's really cute. I promise you. In the next election... Freedom will win. (And, if you need help defining "freedom," I would suggest a reading of the Constitution.)

LawClerk

Aug 24 2007

I don't know where I put words in your mouth or even tried to do the same. I'll re-read the user agreement anyway since you see some violation I don't see. You see lots of things I don't see, I suppose. I have to admit, you're beginning to resonate with me right now. What I don't understate is your situational use of the term welfare or socialism. We will never agree on this because I'm not the one being dishonest or blind here. You have a problem with so-called welfare and health care for the poor, but no problem at all with $100 billion or whatever amount being spent on an unnecessary and murderous war; otherwise, you wouldn't have voted for Bush twice. I know this is putting words in your mouth too, no matter the clear facts of the matter. I can't buy, at all, your 4th paragraph although I have heard it all before from many medical doctors and repugnant spin doctors who can care less about the poor and are surely in medicine and politics for the money they personally receive. FYI, I have even heard a Canadian lawyer make the same argument to me, to no avail. He was bothered because he couldn't do his job and get paid as fastly as he desired. His interest was purely personal and selfish too. The different spellings do something for me though. They help me tell a truthful yet funny story in fewer words that isn't really funny at all. I have read the constitution, the preamble, Bill of Rights, the Delaration of Independence, the bible (which is why I know the south isn't really any bible-belt), parts of all your history, and many cases from the U. S. courts. I have also read many other documents that have critiqued and analyzed these documents. The learning gained from the combined reading of these documents is why and how I know you're a full of crap as a Christmas turkey. I like humor though, and you sho' made me laugh. Cheers. What else you got? We will see what happens in the future.

Ray Carter

Aug 24 2007

LawClerk and Ray Carter, as you have probably noticed, I try to stay out of these kind of political debates: however, something struck a nerve when I read the question by LawClerk, "IS welfare not wealth redistrubution.?" The answer is NO. The only thing that welfare does, and I don't mean just poor blacks receiving commodity cheese and flour or food stamps, is prepetuate the need for more welfare and in this formula, the rich becomes richer and the poor, poorer. Give a person a fair shake. Give him/her opportunity/a job Many Blacks have been able to break the cycle of proverty but just think about who owns the cheese and flour factories and who owns the many markets that profit from food stamps. The only reason that it continues is because of the economic importance it is to the wealthy. If we are talking about a system that will bring the issue of wealth full circled, it will be the redress of issues of discrimination and the locking out of people with meager means. We must look at certain formulas. A good example would be our colleges and universities. What keeps JSU, ASU and MVSU from being fianced prorortionally to MSU, USM and other White universities? We must look at State Government and demand fair hiring practices from those who manage the people's money. It is then that Blacks, poor Whites and other minorities will have a chance at wealth producing activities. The NFL is a perfect example of how this can/will work. Finally, someone realized that: If a man can write a better book, Preach a better sermon, Or build a better mouse-trap than his neighbor, Though he builds his house in the woods, The world will make a beaten pathway To his DEN. We've come a long way from the solo act of Jackie Robinson.

justjess

Aug 24 2007

But, still not far enough!

justjess

Aug 24 2007

Justjess, you just made me realize that I forgot to mention the high cost of the middle man between the distribution of so-called welfare from the government to poor people. The middle man or persons except for at the very lowest levels were never black and were paid handsomely, and surely most welfare payments went to whites. None of this will matter to Lawclerk. While your argument is truthful about racism and discrimination, repugs won't ever accept it again. We all know by now that no discrimiation occurrs anymore or its so small that no one can see, feel or appreciate it.

Ray Carter

Aug 24 2007

Lawclerk, be honest and admit that what I called Vitter and the GOP were funny. I thought republicans had humor to match their games.

Ray Carter

Aug 24 2007

Ray, I'm not saying anything for the effect that anything I might say makes you laugh. I thoroughly agree with JustJess's statement "[welfare] prepetuate the need for more welfare and in this formula, the rich becomes richer and the poor, poorer." So, what are we going to do about it? We can talk about how so and so discriminate against so and so, and whatever else.. but it's not solving the problem. Whoever builds a better mousetrap should be rewarded for it. And, further, we should keep the .gov out of the mousetrap building game, and leave it to private individuals. If, Ray, you are so concerned with the poor not being able to afford healthcare, why not help them afford it rather than declare that it be free for everyone? Our policies are making healthcare outrageously expensive... "You have a problem with so-called welfare and health care for the poor, but no problem at all with $100 billion or whatever amount being spent on an unnecessary and murderous war" Now please, will you go view all of my posts and quote me, verbatim, where I said that? I will wait. "parts of all your history" Um.... what is that supposed to mean?

LawClerk

Aug 24 2007

I forgot to add, hell nall, welfare isn't wealth redisribution. Poor folks can barely eat off welfare. Taking a country and states from the Indians and Mexicans, reservationalizing the Indians, enslaving black folks for free labor are acts of wealth redistribution, I would aver, and believe me, no other ethnicity in north America is lowdown enough to repeat that act.

Ray Carter

Aug 24 2007

And, further, we should keep the .gov out of the mousetrap building game, and leave it to private individuals. Why?

Rico

Aug 24 2007

Your history means YOUR HISTROY. Rico, he wants the government kept out so private individuals can screw people and make a ton of money doing it. In other words, no honest and powerful regulation, oversight, control and enforcement.

Ray Carter

Aug 24 2007

"Your history means YOUR HISTROY." As in "my history and not yours?" Think carefully before you answer this. "Rico, he wants the government kept out so private individuals can screw people and make a ton of money doing it. In other words, no honest and powerful regulation, oversight, control and enforcement." There ya go again... I love how you speak for me.

LawClerk

Aug 24 2007

Well then, why don't you speak for yourself?

Rico

Aug 24 2007

"Y'all can always go with the good guys - Democrats..." Ray, as long as they can't keep their hands off my guns, I can't ever vote for them.

Cliff Cargill

Aug 24 2007

Among many other things.

Cliff Cargill

Aug 24 2007

Cliff, we won't do away with guns. If anyone ever succeeds at taking our guns away, I'm going to make me a shank or something. If someone breaks into my house with me in there I have every intention of doing great harm to them. And I don't want to have to use just my hands.

Ray Carter

Aug 24 2007

I don't need to think to answer that question, Lawclerk. That's exactly what I meant. We have some separate and shared history. I understand republicans better now. I have enjoyed this lawclerk.

Ray Carter

Aug 24 2007

"Cliff, we won't do away with guns..." Tell that to the Clintons, Shcumer, Kennedy and Fienstein. "If anyone ever succeeds at taking our guns away, I'm going to make me a shank or something". If anyone attempts to take our guns away, I'll no longer be on this earth as I will have died a glorious death.

Cliff Cargill

Aug 24 2007

I don't think that he can answer the question Ray- the Talking Points Memo doesn't cover what to say if someone actually questions the "big government=bad" mantra...

Rico

Aug 24 2007

I know Rico. Lawclerk is great at unintended comedy. He'll go read up, study up, or call the national headquarter for an answer, and get back to us Saturday, Sunday or Monday. At least he's talking and I commend him for that.

Ray Carter

Aug 24 2007

Cliff those people are not against all guns. Clearly there are too many guns in the wrong hands in our country. I believe Britain has gun controls and less killings with guns. I know guns don't kill people. People do. However, if you take away some of the guns fewer people will be killed with guns because there are fewer guns to do it with. You can't deny this. If gun control can help with our crime problem I'm all for it. republicans or gun lovers clearly don't want everyone to have guns. Every war has proven this, including the one we're in now.

Ray Carter

Aug 24 2007

I would read up on those names I mentioned above. I'm well versed on all the bills they've proposed. It's scary stuff. This while they're surrounded by armed bodyguards we pay for. Democrats? No thank you. Here's just taste of one of them: Senator Dianne Feinstein: "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out-right ban, picking up every one of them... 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here." CBS-TV's "60 Minutes", February 5, 1995

Cliff Cargill

Aug 24 2007

President William J. Clinton: "We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans to legitimately own handguns and rifles...that we are unable to think about reality." USA Today, March 11, 1993

Cliff Cargill

Aug 24 2007

I could go on if you'd like me to Ray.

Cliff Cargill

Aug 24 2007

The democrats are anti-gun Ray.

Cliff Cargill

Aug 24 2007

I do need to read up on that. Personally, I feel like I need a gun. The older I get, the more I feel like I need several more guns. I'm willing to do what is best for the majority of the people even if it means turning my guns in.

Ray Carter

Aug 24 2007

"Banning guns is an idea whose time has come." --U.S. Sen. Joseph Biden Associated Press 11/18/93 Obviously Mr. Biden hasn't read the Constitution lately. "We're here to tell the NRA their nightmare is true!." "We're going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy! We're going to beat guns into submission!" --U.S. Rep. Charles Schumer NBC Nightly News 11/30/93 I think someone needs to remind Mr. Schumer that a gun is an inanimate object and as such cannot be beaten "into submission". This makes me wonder about Mr. Schumer's ability to recognize that a gun is a tool, like a hammer or saw, and is neither evil or good. It is only what a human being does with it that is evil or good. "With a 10,000% tax we could tax them out of existence." --U.S. Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan Washington Post 11/4/93 Someone call Senator Moynihan and remind him that excessive taxes are what sparked both the Boston Tea Party and the American Revolution.

Cliff Cargill

Aug 24 2007

Ray:"I do need to read up on that. Personally, I feel like I need a gun. The older I get, the more I feel like I need several more guns. I'm willing to do what is best for the majority of the people even if it means turning my guns in". Ray, to that I respond: "Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin

Cliff Cargill

Aug 24 2007

Thanks CLiff. I'm sticking with the Democrats. Foley and Vitter won't ever call me friend, neighbor, associate, comrade or party mate. Nor will President Bush and Vice-President Shooter. Cliff, Vice Presidet Shooter wouldn't have shot his friend had he not been playing with guns. I'll make me a shank if need be. Maybe I'll keep a big stick since I don't hunt either, if I have to give the guns up.

Ray Carter

Aug 24 2007

(i)The democrats are anti-gun Ray.(/i) They are also pro-choice and believe in the separation of church and state- except when they don't, as is the case with their current Gov/Lt Gov candidates here in Mississippi.

Rico

Aug 24 2007

And, further, we should keep the .gov out of the mousetrap building game, and leave it to private individuals. - me "Why?" Well, Rico, the .gov should not be building mousetraps because they are not authorized to build mousetraps by the Constitution of the United States. It's actually quite simple. Congress shall make no law.... means... Congress can make no law. See? The right of the people... shall not be infringed... Does NOT mean "infringe for a little safety" Anyways. The Constitution does not give the the Government the power of benevolence. If this is what you want it to say, amend it. But, currently, it doesn't say that. It also doesn't say that abortion is legal. Now, if you are really pro-choice, will you let me go out and choose any gun I want?

LawClerk

Aug 24 2007

**Someone call Senator Moynihan and remind him that excessive taxes are what sparked both the Boston Tea Party and the American Revolution.** <--Cliff Cargill, 4:43 p.m. We can't call Moynihan. He died 6 or 7 years ago (or thereabouts).

Kacy

Aug 24 2007

I checked; Moynihan died on March 23, 2003.

Kacy

Aug 24 2007

Well, Rico, the .gov should not be building mousetraps because they are not authorized to build mousetraps by the Constitution of the United States. It's actually quite simple. Congress shall make no law.... means... Congress can make no law. See? The right of the people... shall not be infringed... Does NOT mean "infringe for a little safety" Section 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; That part about providing "for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" would seem to cover a lot of mousetrap building- or a decent health care system. It also doesn't say that abortion is legal. Or illegal... Now, if you are really pro-choice, will you let me go out and choose any gun I want? As far as I'm concerned, go right ahead. A few years ago, when I realized who was in control in Washington (and who would have possession of any lists of gun owners), my stance on gun control changed completely. My guns are legally registered, but I kind of wish that they weren't...

Rico

Aug 24 2007

I know that Kacey. That's a cut and paste comment to show the democrats history on taking gun rights away. I notice you didn't speak to the ones I qouted who are stil alive, and STILL in power. Democrats are anti-gun..period.

Cliff Cargill

Aug 24 2007

Democrats are anti-gun..period. Seriously? Do John Arthur Eaves and Jamie Franks really want to take away your guns? I must have missed that on their web sites, but I didn't really look too closely...

Rico

Aug 24 2007

Trial lawyers have tried unsuccuessfully to sue gun makers out of business. Google it. Besides, Ray was speaking to those in power I mentioned above saying... "Cliff those people are not against all guns..." I clearly proved him wrong. Please read the thread.

Cliff Cargill

Aug 24 2007

Democrat or Republican, if they are anit-gun I will not vote for them.

BubbaT

Aug 24 2007

Amen Bubba T.

Cliff Cargill

Aug 24 2007

"My guns are legally registered, but I kind of wish that they weren't..." You live in Mississippi? You realize that none of your guns are "registered," right? It's against MS State law for them to be "registered" in the sense of the word registered. LC

LawClerk

Aug 24 2007

I dunno- all the firearms that we own were actually purchased by my wife- it was many years ago, but she remembers filling out a form...

Rico

Aug 25 2007

Yessir.. that's a Form 4473. It's something you fill out to buy a firearm from a dealer. However, it's not registration of the firearm. MS Statute 45-9-101: (18) Nothing in this section shall be construed to require or allow the registration, documentation or providing of serial numbers with regard to any firearm. Further, nothing in this section shall be construed to allow the open and unconcealed carrying of any deadly weapon as described in Section 97-37-1, Mississippi Code of 1972.

LawClerk

Aug 25 2007

This is part of why I think a Giuliani candidacy is not as strong as some people think it is, because folks like Cliff and LawClerk would not vote for him. They wouldn't vote for the Democrat, so my assumption is that they would just sit out that election. That's what I would do if someone like Joe Lieberman were the Democratic candidate. I would rather guzzle raw sewage than vote for that man. LawClerk, your comment on abortion and your politics in general make me think that you must be a "strict constructionist." Do you think there is no right to privacy because it is not delineated in the Constitution? Fundamentalists of all types, whether constitutional or biblical, make me uncomfortable, because they tend to denounce the very idea of interpretation, as if they are somehow just telling it like it is by adopting an extremely conservative interpretation, and everyone else is a fibber. Regardless, I think libertarians tip their hands when they announce that abortion should be illegal, revealing that they are more socially conservative and less idealistic than they let on. The government has no right to interfere in our lives. But it does have the right to interfere in the medical decisions a woman makes about her body. It just seems inconsistent to me.

Brian C Johnson

Aug 26 2007

Interesting.. I've never been called a Constitutional fundamentalist before... Just remember, the Constitution can be amended, the Bible cannot. It's not like I'm interpreting the Amendments. I'm reading them. It's what they say, versus what I wish they would say. For your question about privacy, if you are asking that in the context of Roe v. Wade, well, then no. As far as if I have a right to privacy, I say that we would have to based on the 4th Amendment. Your point on abortion and libertarians seems logical on its face, but factually flawed. In a Libertarian world, you should be able to do anything you want to do, without violating anyone else's rights. As in, your rights end, where mine begin. The Libertarians (and other anti-abortionists) want life protected, and believe that life starts at conception rather than birth. When does the Constitution apply? When does someone become alive? When does someone have the right to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness?" When does someone get a 5th Amendment protection of not being deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law???

LawClerk

Aug 26 2007

So you are a fundamentalist: It's not like I'm interpreting the Amendments. I'm reading them. It's what they say, versus what I wish they would say. This is what I would call "naive" reading. (I mean this descriptively rather than pejoratively.) It would seem under your view that we hardly need a Supreme Court at all. They certainly would not be entitled to constitutional review. After all, they "interpreted" that power for themselves, right? I don't want to drag us off thread, but I do recognize that "the rights of the unborn" are how libertarians justify their intervention on abortion. I would just make a couple of points to cast doubt on that. First, anti-abortion laws originate with laws banning contraception, and I hope that the second would not pass libertarian muster. Abortion laws were originally a matter of legislating public morality. The rights of the unborn were a brilliant strategic shift the movement made after it essentially lost the argument over abortion as sexually immoral. Second, it still seems very shaky to me for libertarians to make the right to life argument. Traditionally, life began at viability. It's hard for me to conceive of a definition for protected humanness covering the first trimester that does not ultimately rely on religious ideas, which seems to contradict the libertarian ethos. It's also amusing to me that religious folks have let themselves become so mechanistic, that the soul somehow jumps into the zygote when the chromosomes combine.

Brian C Johnson

Aug 26 2007