All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 28, 2006 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
34:30
73 Marriage, Homosexuality and Abortion

A public analysis of private practices

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Good afternoon, everybody.
I hope you're doing well.
It's Steph.
It is the 26th of January, Thursday afternoon at 1738.
And I hope that this finds you well.
I had an interesting question.
Actually, one comment and then an interesting question or set of questions.
A fine gentleman asked me, quite logically of course, for the source of my assertion.
That's right.
He asked me for the source of my assertion that the poverty rates had improved from the post-war period up until the 1960s.
Then asked me for the confirmation of the source of that, and so I sent him to the Census Bureau website for poverty in the U.S.
And fortunately, both my Hotmail and my Rogers account were denied access to his.
I guess he had blocked the domain because of spam, so if you're out there, I'm not sure what to say other than do a search for U.S.
poverty statistics, and it will take you to the Census Bureau, and there you will see the source of the statistics of which I speak.
Secondly, a fine young libertarian-slash-objectivist-slash-I'm-sure-to-be-anarchist-soon has emailed me and asked me about the 1-2-3 punch of marriage, abortion, and homosexuality.
And so, I mean, each one of these is probably deserving of an entire podcast, but I will simply touch on some of my ideas around them here, and then if people are interested at all, of course, I can go into more detail, but I'll have to gauge people's level of interest, and then I will go further if, you know, if it's useful and if it's of interest.
Now, as far as marriage goes, of course, marriage is the most wonderful institution in the world if you're with the right person, and the worst institution in the world if you're with the wrong person.
And I know this because I was almost engaged to a woman in my 20s and then backed away, fortunately very sensibly, so I didn't end up with the acid mitosis of a child and a divorce, which is the one thing that can completely mess up a man's life in a way that almost nothing else can.
So, unless you have the income of the Shah, you end up having to try and support one family Uh, that you're no longer part of in any particularly integrated way, and then maybe you want to try and start another family, but your, you know, level of attractiveness, say, has somewhat dipped with the fact that half your income is going to your ex-wife and kids, so I'm very glad that I avoided that mess.
And so, marriage is wonderful.
Marriage is completely non-political.
Marriage is a contract, either verbally or on paper, between two people who want to share their lives together.
And it is completely revocable, but it is a failure if it is revoked.
Right?
I mean, obviously there are certain people who should not be together if they're married.
I mean, my parents were definitely among that category.
But, you know, nonetheless, it's still a failure.
Like a business partner that you're someone you go into business with, it may not work out, but it's not a success if it doesn't.
But it's definitely a success relative to the kind of mess you can make if you stay in business with the wrong person.
And I feel the same about marriage.
That marriage can be dissolved, and it makes sense to dissolve it if the partners are just totally incompatible or messed up.
You know, but it's not a neutral act to do it, especially if there are children involved.
That's why you have to be very careful when you get married, that you're getting married to the right person.
For God's sake, don't cross your fingers and hope for the best, because it's not going to happen.
You have to be sure up front and not just say, hey, maybe it's going to work its way out, or maybe this person is going to change or whatnot.
You know, if you're not perfectly happy before you get married, don't get married.
The only reason, of course, that marriage is at all political is because the government has made it its business to get involved in the institution of marriage, right?
I mean, through things like tax incentives, child credit bonuses, welfare, and so on, the government has gotten heavily involved in the positive and negative incentives of marriage from an economic and sort of socially advantageous standpoint.
So, for instance, you know, if you're on welfare you can't have, at least I don't know if this is the case anymore, but it was when I was younger, I mean you couldn't have a man over, right?
I mean because, you know, that way you get two people on welfare who are just sort of living together and they're both getting income as if they were single people but they're living together, right?
So this obviously is is a bad thing from the government standpoint and from sort of any charitable standpoint it wouldn't make much sense, right?
So if you're going to give charity to someone based on the fact that they're a single person but what they do is they end up going to live with somebody else And both people are getting welfare as if they're single people with their own rent and food to pay, then obviously they're getting too much charity and therefore the government can't allow, you know, gentleman callers, let's say, to women.
Of course, the fact that women can have children and get paid for it And, you know, that that is more advantageous if they're not married, or the fact that they can get charity just for having children with no sort of ethical test or whatever, you know, did you sort of make this mess yourself, means that there's a negative incentive for women, as I mentioned in the podcast on poverty, to sort of, you know, get decent men, get stable, and so on.
So that's another issue.
In the world of tax, it's lunatic, right?
I mean, you can get paid direct child tax credits for having children.
It's a couple of grand, and of course that's exactly what you want, right?
It's people who think that a couple of grand is a good deal reproducing.
So that's another way in which you get the government getting involved in this sort of stuff, and of course there are different tax brackets and tax credits and allowances and this and that and the other.
Spousal RRSP and 401k contributions and all these kinds of complications, which of course has gotten a lot of people pretty interested in what the definition of marriage is, right?
Because there's lots of goodies To be gotten in various situations and circumstances with state regulations depending on whether you are married or are not married and so on.
So, this issue of marriage, which, you know, who cares, right?
It's a completely personal thing between a man and a woman, a man and a man, a woman and a woman, a man and his dog, a dog and a cat, and so on.
Who cares?
It's completely up to every individual.
Of course, the only reason it's become politicized is because the government has changed the incentives and now it becomes something that's economically based, and so that's the only reason we care about it from a political standpoint.
It's a completely personal decision otherwise.
Of course, like all things, the solution to the problem is to get rid of the government.
So, for homosexuality, it's a slightly more complicated topic.
And this is not anything scientific, right?
This is just sort of my opinion, so, you know, I guess take them for what they're worth.
But, you know, like most of my opinions, if not all, I try to deal with these issues from an empirical standpoint.
So where I don't have logic and proof, I have empirical evidence.
I would say that I know something about the homosexual crew because I went to theater school.
And, you know, my good friend in theater school was an actor who was going through the agonizing process of coming out of the closet and recognizing that he was gay and that's what had made him different for so long.
And that was an excruciating set of conversations.
And, of course, I was just vain enough to be curious as to why he'd never been attracted to me.
Although, of course, I've never had any inkling or inclination that way, I guess.
Vanity when you're in your early 20s is not an inconsiderable force, I guess you could say.
And I actually saw that.
I lost track of this guy for many years after theater school, but I just saw him in The Producers in Toronto.
He was playing this nutty German guy.
And he was very funny, so I'm glad he's doing well.
And I also lived with four gay guys and a lesbian when I was going through my master's.
Not for any particular reason other than they had the nicest place, as you can well imagine.
In fact, my sister-in-law came over once, and these gay gentlemen had put together this unbelievably beautiful house, as you can imagine.
And they had jars of spices and oils and so on in the kitchen and everything was just laid out beautifully.
And my sister-in-law came over and was so ecstatic that everything looked so beautiful that she requested that my brother become gay because she felt she could give up sex for a kitchen like that, which was quite funny at the time, but of course became a little less funny later when I got a little more aware of how corrupt this couple was.
But, you know, so I know a fair amount about the homosexual culture.
I also had another gay roommate after I broke up with the woman who I was going to get married to in my 20s.
20s?
Early 30s?
Early 30s, sorry.
And, you know, a fine gentleman, good roommate.
Again, just sort of coincidence, happened to have the nicest place.
So, I know a little bit about these subcultures.
And the one thing that I will say, I guess two things that I'll say about homosexuality.
Three!
Okay, it's always got to be three, remember?
I don't even know why I say anything else now.
The first is that it's not a choice.
I mean, it's not a choice insofar as, you know, people wake up and say, you know, it'd be really cool if I was gay and then just enormously different from everybody else and, you know, had to enter into the subculture and, you know, hide everything from the world and give up children and so on.
So it's not something that is just like a choice.
That's sort of the first thing I'll say.
The second thing that I'll say is that it also, in my experience in talking with gay people, there is always, like in every gay person I've talked to, there's always been a premature sexual experience, also known as some form of child molestation.
Again, I'm not saying that that's any kind of scientific study.
This is like, I don't know, six or eight gay men, and two lesbian women, But, you know, there's always some form of sexual trauma and some of it is not, you know, horrible.
I mean, none of it is good, right?
But, I mean, some of it's just like being exposed to like a flasher or something like that and being fascinated by the penis and so on.
And frightened, of course, by the penis.
And so there's always something that has occurred for these men and women early in life.
I don't know if this is any kind of scientific.
It's certainly not a scientific study, but it's something that I've just sort of noted in my experience with gay men and gay women.
So, you know, that doesn't mean that it's chosen, right?
It just means that it's possible.
that there is a strong reaction to a certain kind of unpleasant stimuli early on in life, and that this may warp the sexual orientation.
I mean, this is all just nonsense, right?
So take of it what you will.
But if you ever get a chance to ask a gay person about any of this, I'd certainly recommend you do it, because it's quite fascinating what you hear.
And the third thing that I'll say is that, particularly in the male gay culture, in the young male gay culture, and this is not a shock to anyone, of course, who spend any time around this subculture, I mean, the sexuality is just wild.
It is absolutely rampant.
I mean, the gentleman who owned the house that I stayed in when I was doing my master's, two very nice fellows, you know, but I was still bourgeois enough, and probably would still be now, to be shocked by The fact, or their statement, that, you know, the sequence of their courtship was that they had sex, then they met, and then they went on a date, right?
Because they met at a sort of gay club where, you know, anonymous sex was the order of the day.
And, you know, then they decided after they'd had sex that they ended up introducing themselves, and liked them, and went on a date, and so on.
And as you can imagine, you know, with such an inverted pyramid of natural courtship, the relationship didn't last more than a year or two.
But, you know, this is sort of the sequence, and it seemed, you know, somewhat normal, I guess you could say, or fairly normal, you know, within that subculture.
One of the gentlemen also told me that, you know, because I was kind of curious, right?
I was asking him about this whole subculture and the sexual libertine nature, the libertine nature of the sexual interactions.
And he was saying, oh, yeah, you know, once a guy called up, it was the wrong number, and we ended up having sex, right?
So, I mean, I guess you just start chatting the next thing you know, right?
And so there is a, you know, this is sexuality freed from the biological responsibility of children and family and so on.
So you would imagine that it would be somewhat less restrained or controlled, I guess you could say, than heterosexual.
Uh, Of course, sexual interactions.
So that's another aspect of the culture that is alarming, I guess, to people who don't really understand that it's not at all unnatural, relative to the absence of children, for sexuality to be unrestrained.
And so that's just another aspect of the subculture that's, you know, disturbing to some people, because they look at heterosexual people acting that way and would be appalled And although there are subsections of the heterosexual culture that do have this kind of approach to sexuality, they're by far in the minority, whereas it's not the case in the male homosexual culture.
In the female homosexual culture, or the lesbian culture, I know much less about it, other than the stereotype that they're often pear-shaped women in comfortable shoes.
But I do know that, you know, one of the problems that women complain about who are lesbians, who I've known, is that, of course, sex doesn't really happen in the relationship, despite what some of the movies say.
Simply because, you know, men can sometimes be thought of as more of the initiators of sex.
You get two women, you know, and they just don't end up Having sex.
There's also a lot of abuse in lesbian relationships based on conversations I've had with a number of lesbians, and this is something, of course, that you don't hear a lot about because, you know, they're supposed to be the gentlest sex and so on, but it is sort of my understanding that it's more common than you would imagine, that there's a lot of verbal and occasionally, not even occasionally, physical abuse within these relationships.
Now, I haven't had the same opportunity to talk with lesbians about premature sexual experience, except with one, and of course that's not even statistically relevant, and that one had, of course, had molestation as a child, and therefore, you know, it may have had some effect, but she didn't seem to have any awareness of the effect it might have had.
She just sort of felt safer around women than she did around men.
So, you know, that's my sort of two bits on the homosexual culture.
It seems to me entirely possible That homosexuality is a genetic adaptation to the problem of sort of two aspects of male tribal culture.
One is that you need warriors who are intensely bonded to one another to fight better, and so to have them in a romantic sexual relationship is not necessarily counterproductive to that end.
Also, for warriors, quite often there would be long-range hunting parties, either for the spoils of other tribes or for game that had gone pretty far astray.
So if you'd hunted out all of the animals close to you, you'd have to travel pretty far, sometimes for days or weeks, to get to better hunting grounds.
And if all of the men were sort of heterosexual and, you know, didn't want to go without sexual relations for that long, or, of course, had lots of children, then they would be less prone to want to go on those kinds of trips, which would be pretty essential to the tribe.
So the fact that men would get attracted to men would sort of make sense in that context, right?
because then if you're a man and you're going with your boyfriend on a long hunting trip or war trip, then you're not leaving children behind and you're also not leaving your sexual life behind as well.
So there's some adaptability of that, which I could understand.
Like it would sort of be good for the tribe as a whole.
So that's the only way that I could say that it would sort of make sense if it's not just sort of sexual trauma, although, I mean, I'm going to hit the gym, and then when I come back, we're going to have a little chat about abortion, and I'll give you at least my two bits on that.
understand how the tribe as a whole could benefit from the existence of homosexuality.
Now, this doesn't exactly explain lesbianism, but, you know, if you have any theories, you know, be sure to let me know.
All right, so I'm going to stop for a moment.
I'm going to hit the gym, and then when I come back, we're going to have a little chat about abortion, and I'll give you at least my two bits on that.
Thanks so much for listening, as always.
So, to continue the topic of abortion, I will share with you my thoughts.
And of course, some of them are, I guess, somewhat logical.
Some of them are purely opinion-aided, which of course means that they mean nothing other than they may serve as the basis for future logical or empirical thought.
But I will tell you my sort of thoughts on abortion.
Now, I think that there is a A middle ground, as much as can be gathered in such an explosive topic.
And the middle ground, I think, is something like there are very few people who have a sort of fundamental position that it is murder to take a morning-after pill, right?
So, the condom broke, you don't want to get pregnant, and you go and get a pill which If the egg is fertilized, it will prevent implantation.
And I think that there are a few people who will say that that is murder.
So you have a potentially fertilized egg, and of course you don't know whether it is or not with the morning after pill, a potentially fertilized egg that you are preventing from implanting, and therefore it's going to get flushed out with your next period, and you don't have a baby.
I think there are a few people who are going to say that is murder.
Now, conversely, there are a few people who are going to say that the day before you give birth, you can kill the fetus, or the baby, or whatever you want to call it, and that there's nothing wrong with that.
Now, it's not that there's nothing wrong with the morning-after pill.
I mean, every sane human being recognizes that the termination of a pregnancy is not a good thing.
You know, that abortion is not a good thing.
Nobody is pro-abortion.
But similarly, I think that I would have some moral qualms, some serious moral qualms about terminating the life of a fetus one day before it sort of magically becomes recategorized as a baby and is out into the world kicking and screaming.
So, you know, somewhere in the middle there is the problem of when does it become not so morally good to terminate a pregnancy.
Now...
One of the things that I think is fairly indisputable is that a woman owns her own body, of course.
I mean, there's no question of that.
And, you know, if a woman owns her own body, then she owns all of the living cells within it.
You know, one of the things that we know is the case is that a fetus is a potential human being in the way that a child is a potential adult.
And an adult, I guess, is a potential corpse.
But the actuality of humanity has not come to be for a fetus.
It is a potential, and therefore I do not equate it as equal to a human life.
This is why generally, of course, when there is a choice, Between saving a mother's life, if a pregnancy has become malignant in some way, we generally say that we will terminate the pregnancy and save the mother, because an actual life is generally considered to be of higher value than a potential life, or a potential human being.
And therefore, I think that it's fair to say that the mother's life takes precedence over the fetus's life.
And therefore it seems to me somewhat logical that at least until this indeterminate stage where a fetus becomes a baby, you know, minutes or days away from birth, it would seem to me logical to say that the woman owns her own body and therefore if she wishes to terminate a pregnancy, heaven forbid, then it's nobody's right to say that she cannot.
Now, the free market is not silent on this matter.
And I think that's sort of important because again, as always, we are handed a situation around abortion which is entirely corrupted by state power.
So, for instance, Abortions are subsidized by state power in Canada, for sure.
I don't know about the details of it in the States, but I'm sure that there is some subsidy going on for abortion in the US.
This is completely abhorrent, of course.
I mean, not only is it a subsidy, which is a forced coercive transfer of money, but for those who do believe, erroneously of course, that God creates life and there's a soul, It still is a particular affront to their irrational beliefs and doesn't tend to help them be any more amenable to reason to have this violation to their beliefs occur.
Similarly, the government has made it so difficult to adopt a baby that it has vastly increased a woman's reluctance to go through with the pregnancy and hand it over to people who may be able to raise it better than she can if she doesn't feel she's in a position to do so.
So, you know, as in all of these general kinds of situations, what you really want to do is try and get the free market in there as much as possible.
So, another thing that you want to do, of course, is to begin to lighten up the restrictions on birth control and to make it more profitable for people to come up with methods of birth control that are more sort of fire-and-forget, you know, so you get like an injection for a year and you don't have to worry about pregnancy.
This, of course, would tend to alleviate the problem of accidental or unwanted pregnancies from that standpoint.
So, like all things which are not evil but undesirable, you want to make sure that the right incentives are in place.
To...
To make it happen.
So, I mean, for instance, in Canada, you can't get a woman to carry a baby for you.
It's illegal.
Right?
I mean, so, you know, if you do find yourself pregnant and you're sort of in a difficult situation from a financial or sociological standpoint, then, you know, what if some couple were able to pay you $20,000 legally for you to have the baby?
Well, it seems to me that that might be a perfectly viable alternative.
To an abortion.
And for those who feel like that's sort of trafficking in human flesh, I fully understand that.
And I mean, this would be a very delicate issue to talk about.
But, you know, the fact of the matter is that, in general, right, a live baby is better than an abortion.
You know, just in my particular sort of view, because life is a wonderful thing.
So if you can create a circumstance where you have sort of plus one life in the human world, and it is something that is good for the parents, maybe a couple who's unable to conceive, that they can then have access to a baby and raise it and have all of that wonder and love, then it seems to me that that's a good thing.
So that sort of would be my take on that.
Now, I think that the real question around abortion is You know, that it's so complicated, right?
Now, clearly, if a woman is raped, it would be, you know, abhorrent to ask her, or to insist, or to bar her from terminating an abortion, sorry, terminating a pregnancy, wherein the baby that she was growing was the sort of seed of a rapist.
I mean, this would be, you know, this to me would be similar to asking a woman to To not have a cancer treated.
I mean, this is just an abhorrent situation where, you know, the woman is going to have to try and raise the child of a rapist.
This is just, you know, not something that you really want to have occur.
So, there are situations under which abortion is valid.
There also are situations, of course, when the mother's life is in danger and the only way to save her And, of course, I can't imagine many more horrible things is to terminate the pregnancy, and we generally choose that, of course, as a viable course.
So it just is one of these complicated topics, and I don't claim to have any final answers.
The other thing, of course, is that the reason that it's so horrible is that, you know, you're producing a sentient, in the end result, you're producing a sentient and hopefully pretty rational human being.
Now, the humanity of it is not particularly relevant.
And, of course, to take a sort of silly and somewhat science-fictiony parable or approach,
You know, if there were some space alien out there who was able to implant, you know, in some sort of horrible way, I'm sure it would be pretty horrible, to implant some sort of living organism within the woman's body that then could grow to fruition and she could give birth to it and it would be sentient, then we would probably not feel that there would be too many problems with having the woman terminate such a pregnancy.
We would probably view it as some form of Parasitism, even though the result would be a sentient though non-human life form.
And therefore, it's not just that it produces a sentient life form that is the reason why we would want to do something like ban abortion.
Because if a woman is infected by an alien or impregnated by an alien against her will, you know, one of these Kansas Flying Saucer stories, then we probably wouldn't have any problem with her terminating the pregnancy.
So the fact that it's a sentient life doesn't really... it's not a sort of rigid criteria.
The other issue, of course, is that actual life is more important than potential life.
And if we take that to its logical conclusion about one's ownership of one's own body, then if my brother had a kidney failure, I guess a dual kidney failure, and the only way that he could survive would be to have my kidney, Then, you know, does he have a right to that?
You know, does he have a right to have me sort of forcibly drugged and have my kidney removed and put into his?
Well, surely, you know, if life, if the continuance or the creation of sentient life is the goal, and that takes precedence over one's own ownership of one's body and its organs, then It would seem to me that that would then be a morally logical course.
So if you're going to ban abortion because life is more important than a woman's ownership of her own body, then it would seem to me that you then have to sort of begin a sort of kidney distribution program via force, right?
Because you can't ban abortion without using violence, i.e.
you're going to violently arrest women who are going to go and have an abortion and the doctors who perform it and blah blah blah, and therefore using violence to To uphold this principle of life as superseding the ownership of one's body would seem to me to be something that would also apply to organ transplants, which is probably not a situation that many of us would contemplate as a particularly moral or good approach to this issue.
So, the last thing that I wanted to say on this topic is that even if we say that the woman does not own the fetus, in other words, the woman does not have the right to terminate the pregnancy because she doesn't own the fetus, Well, I think it's certainly true to say that the woman owns her womb, right?
Because she certainly owns her womb insofar as if another woman needs her womb, she can't sort of ask for it and get it through force.
And the woman, of course, owns her womb whether she has a baby in it or not.
So, without a doubt, the woman owns her womb, even if we say that she does not own the fetus.
But, of course, the fetus cannot survive without the womb, and so if you own the womb, and decide to withdraw its supply from the fetus, like imagine there was some sort of magic pill or procedure that you could put in which would seal off the umbilical cord and therefore would not allow the baby access to the nutrients flowing through the mother's womb into the placenta, then of course the baby would die, right?
And then there would be a sort of an abortion that would occur sort of spontaneously through natural causes.
And therefore, if the woman owns the uterus and the products of her body and of her uterus, even if we say she does not own the fetus, there would just be another way of an inducing abortion which would have the same result, and which would be sort of more in line with what we would think of as ownership, even if we didn't like the idea that she owned the fetus.
So that's sort of another way of looking at it, and of course another way that the free market can help.
You know, I'm sure that most women, if given the choice, and if somebody said to them, if they didn't want to have this baby because, whatever, they're young, they're foolish, the guy they had sex with is a doofus or something, then they would say, you know, if I could snap my fingers and have this baby born elsewhere to a couple that would love it, I would probably be interested in that, let's say.
So, of course, the thing that you want to do to solve the problem of abortion as humanely as possible, without initiating violence against somebody who is, you know, exercising control, a woman who's exercising control over her own body, which is the fundamental basis of property rights and of human rights, The thing you want to do, of course, is to encourage as much research as possible to get the fetus out of the woman's womb and into an environment where it can survive through to maturity in some fashion, right?
I mean, it's just a matter of protein, blood, and oxygen that it needs in order to survive, and surely there's some way to bring this about, but of course, at the moment, because of the legislation and the FDA and the, you know, the horror that people have around stem cell research, This is something that nobody is pursuing because it would just land you in jail quicker than you could say, boo.
So, you know, to sort of sum it up, I would say that in the realm of abortion, the morning after pill, not so bad.
I think everyone recognizes if you're not sort of religious and fundamentalist, everybody recognizes that that is not necessarily equivalent to murder.
However, a baby right before it's born, you know, we're all pretty queasy about the idea of terminating that life form or that life.
And so, somewhere in the middle, and we're not sure exactly where, because again, morality doesn't have to have a stricter definition as the physical sciences, it only needs a biological level.
Somewhere in the middle, there's a sort of fulcrum or a tipping point wherein it slides from fetus to baby, and I'm guessing sort of middle or second trimester, but you know, it could be end of the first, depending on what you sort of, how you feel about it, and I don't know enough about The genetics or development to be able to answer that correctly.
But somewhere in there is a place where we generally would sort of feel queasy about doing it.
And that's, of course, what the majority of the medical profession would feel in a free society.
And therefore you would have fewer and fewer doctors who would be willing to perform an abortion as the pregnancy sort of churned along.
And so that would sort of take care of that problem.
Of course, the free market at the moment is both subsidizing abortions and welfare is creating conditions under which, you know, people can have these ridiculously unstable family environments where, you know, accidental pregnancies are more than likely to happen and it sort of rewards irresponsibility and all that.
And you have tax structures and legislation and baby bonuses and all of the stuff around babies.
And childbirth is enormously warped and corrupted by state power.
So, you know, in a free market situation, if you were pregnant, then you would obviously have to do something to deal with it that would cost you yourself.
And so you would be much more likely to be careful.
You also want as much research as possible going through to birth control that is sort of fire and forget, so that you don't have sort of accidental pregnancies of this kind.
You want to make adoption as easily available as possible.
You want to find as many substitutes for a female womb as possible so that a fetus can be extracted and brought to fruition through some other method than abortion.
And all of these sorts of things, I believe, in a free society would make the problem of abortion, except, again, except for religious people who believe that God creates a soul the moment that the sperm wriggles through the egg membrane, which is, you know, silly, of course.
But in a free society, the problem of abortion would be a rare problem, because you've got much better prevention, you have many more options, you don't have the warping of state influence, and so I think that one of the reasons why abortion is such a hot topic at the moment is because
It violates the belief of those who believe it's evil through funding, and because there has been such an increase of it, of course, you know, and if you sort of follow the statistics on this, it's not really among the upper educated classes, but really it's among those who've been largely trapped into the sort of Social safety news, sort of the suffocating net of state programs, and so that's why it's become such a big issue.
Again, you just let the free market at the problem, and you will find that the problem will get solved very quickly, and in a way that is the most satisfying towards the most people.
So, of course, do let me know what you think.
It is a very interesting, although, of course, quite an explosive topic, and I hope I haven't given too much offense, but I certainly would look forward to any response that you might have on this issue.
▲
Export Selection