In States of Confusion in today's New York Times, we find the following paragraph:

Abortion-rights states would undoubtedly respond in kind [if other states made out of state abortion a crime]. For example, Rhode Island, where 63 percent of residents favor abortion rights, has rebuffed efforts at regulation in the past. Just as Utah could make it a crime for a resident to go to Rhode Island for an abortion, Rhode Island could forbid Utah's law-enforcement officials from interfering with her decision to get one. Similarly, if an anti-abortion state places a fetus in protective custody, an abortion-rights state might do the same for the woman. And so on.

How does putting a woman in protective custody help her?

Well, I suppose a state legislature could designate the entire state as a protective custody zone within the meaning of the statute. (The precedent would be the way that some trusted prisoners in 18th century English jails were allowed to live not in the jail itself, but in a precisely-defined region surrounding it).

There's something wonderfully David D Friedman about the whole idea of states actively competing like this, but I bet those spoilsports on the Supreme Court would rule that one or other of the states was violating the Full Faith & Credit Clause and would have to back down. Too bad.

I still don't get it. How would it help? As long as there are no bounty hunters to take a woman back to stand trial, the protective custody seems pointless.

How about we start considering the mother as having the baby/fetus/viable tissue in protective custody. Cancel Roe v Wade, and do not permit any kind of early release.

Abortion is, was, and will be murder. You are stopping a human heart, thats killing it without due process or questioning who that person is or will be.

How is it that the same talking heads who are for abortion, thought Dookie Williams and Clarence Ray Allen, should get another chance? Then again, all they did was provide very late stage abortion, in order to enhance thier own chances of a better life.

Alright, tell me how right wing and neanderthal I am.

Even in the absence of bounty hunters, one would be in the position of perhaps never being able to return to normal life in one's home state without risking arrest because of this...

And those of means, might simply change residence first.

Well, a sensible way of handling would be to use the commerce clause as it was designed - to prevent state restriction of interstate trade. And stopping someone from going to another state to buy an abortion is just that.

Vaguely off-topic, but a question for Steve (and others): Do you believe abortion is wrong if the fetus has tested positive for some awfull disease / disfigurement? At what point should abortions happen? A related question, at what point is a human (or potential human) not human?

To a certain extent, if we are all the same it will be really boring - but then again, giving birth to someone that will live their entire life in pain isn't really doing them any favors, is it?

Thoughts?

Abortion is, was, and will be murder. You are stopping a human heart, thats killing it without due process or questioning who that person is or will be.
Alright, tell me how right wing and neanderthal I am.

Of course, most people who use this argument never consider the future of the child. Yes, it may very well be murder to kill the fetus, but forcing the mother to have the baby, where its unwanted, unloved....murder by a different process. I'm not convinced either way is better, but I try to see the complete picture.

David,
I am truly old fashioned about this. I believe in NO abortion. People have been born throughout history with birth defects. Its just nature. I do feel for families of children born this way. I have 2 healthy sons and 4 healthy grandsons so I haven't personally experienced a sick child.

We have helped friends with disabled children, with money and time. A good friend lost a child who lived less than a year, due to a birth defect. We do feel for her. I have thanked God it wasn't me and my wife. Yes I know that is selfish.

If we still lived in a society where people stepped up to the plate to help like this, it would take some of the burden away from just the parents. But not enough people can take time from soccer, baseball, piano lessons, and dance class to help their next-door neighbor. And their kids don't learn to help either.

As to living in pain. I have stated here before that I am disabled, drawing disability. I got sick in 1993 with what was most probably Valley Fever and did not work for a year. In 1998 I got meningitis, was completely out of work for 6 months and never really worked full time again. In 2002 I was diagnosed with fibromyalgia and rheumatoid arthritis, and had to quit working even my part-time job. I was 48. I should have had almost 20 years, my prime earning years, left to work. That's life.

This is the only life I have, and disability doesn't pay but about 1/3 of what I used to make. But this is the hand I was dealt. That's life.

My wife and I lost EVERYTHING we ever owned. Save clothes, pictures, music, and small household stuff. Every dollar ever invested in homes, vehicles, furniture, etc. got away because I lost my ability to work. Her salary would not cover our monetary needs. We were in a 2 income need situation, minus an income.

In 2003 she lost her job. Her company went belly up and she had to work whatever temp jobs she could find. We paid COBRA for insurance of almost $700 per month due to my health. Then we went without for 18 months. It's very hard to do without health care when you are feeling bad constantly. It is a burden to hurt all the time. But that's life.

My wife went back to work full time in October last year full time with benefits. At 2/3 of her old pay. We now make a little less than we did when she was working 3 years ago, before my disability started. It's very hard to get by on what we make. Our rent is MORE than a house payment would be. But who would touch us for a mortgage? It's tough to make ends meet.
But that’s life.

To answer your question, I think, I'll ask one. Should she, or I, have the right to stop the other persons life due to the "burden" on the other one of us? Who has the greater right to live, the sick person who suffers, the unemployed person, the tired hungry person, the working person supporting someone who can't work? Where is the line?

I don't see the line. Its just life.

Some people live long healthy, wealthy lives and are never anything but mean, miserable people. They aren't happy or helpful, should their lives be stopped? Other people never have 2 cents to rub together and are perfectly happy. They are happy, but can't really be helpful, should their lives be stopped? And yes it does happen the other way. Rich and happy, poor and miserable. But who gets to decide who lives how, lives when or lives how healthy, or wealthy or helpful?

It's life, and it's nature. Let it be lived, or not naturally.

That SHOULD be life. Qualified with IMHO.

Mac,
see my post above about part of your question.

Next, let the mothers have the children and give them up. There are thousands of adoptive parents looking to raise a child, they can't have themselves. I do know we do need to change the adoption guidelines to help this happen.

You can be the dumbest, brokest, meanest drunk jerks in the world and HAVE your own children naturally. But adoptin seemingly takes the money of the Trumps, combined with the attitude of Mother Theresa to get through the adoption process.

It's stupid.

Next, let the mothers have the children and give them up. There are thousands of adoptive parents looking to raise a child, they can't have themselves. I do know we do need to change the adoption guidelines to help this happen.

I agree 100%. As a "Daddy" to four out of five children, I can well explain what it takes to be a "Daddy" to that amount of children. More importantly, the second part of your paragraph above puts the picture in focus....we have to change the guidelines. But until that happens, there will be thousands of children born unwanted and unloved. Therin a perpetual cycle begins. I'm not against abortion because there are too many ways to kill a child, and most of them exist outside the womb.

However, let me add that I am totally against abortion used as a method of birth control.

How far are you willing to go? You possibly deny someone else's life when you abstain from sex or use contraception. Life is tough.

I don't believe there is a big border there that after the egg is fertilized, it's somehow that significantly more "wrong" to expel it than to just abtain from sex or use contraception so it was not fertilized in the first place, and was then expelled via normal monthly means. (Although the latter way is of course preferred.)

You surely don't mean that everyone should breed as much as possible...

You surely don't mean that everyone should breed as much as possible

Never said that.

I don't believe there is a big border there that after the egg is fertilized, it's somehow that significantly more "wrong" to expel it than to just abtain from sex or use contraception so it was not fertilized in the first place, and was then expelled via normal monthly means. (Although the latter way is of course preferred.)

Never said it was more wrong either. However, look at the toll on the mother's body to have abortions. Its terrible the things it does to the body as well as the fetus. However, there is the simple point that using abortion as birth control is wrong simply from a fiscal standpoint if you want to argue that route. It costs much more than to buy a contraceptive. Its wrong to have doctors performing an abortion on people who want to use it as birth control over that mother who needs it or she dies. Arguing that contraception is killing unborn children is more holistic than scientific. The answering argument though is simple too. If God wants those children born, He can make it happen. If God wants abortions stopped, He can make it happen.