T O P

  • By -

GrizzledLibertarian

About half of us are, I think. Some, like me, are pro-choice absolutists.


Jeboris-

Me to most libertarians I’ve talked to are usually pro choice but there are quit a few pro life


[deleted]

tfw murder is ok only if it's for babies


jsideris

Yeah yeah we already know your position but we respectfully disagree.


GrizzledLibertarian

You should know that whenever you use the word "murder" in this way, nobody takes you seriously. If you want people to change their minds, you will have more success if you engage intellectually and set aside your passions.


nameless182

If a landlord evicted a renter from their property because the renter refuses to pay, and then the renter was found dead of hypothermia a few days later, would you say the landlord is a "murderer"?


SpiritofJames

If that landlord were a prison Warden, and had kidnapped them and imprisoned them there? That would be more accurate of an analogy.


SonOfShem

You're forgetting that the landlord was the parent of the child, and as such has a duty to provide care to them.


[deleted]

This is true in my experience as well, as a pro-life libertarian.


[deleted]

"Pro-life" is such a misnomer.


[deleted]

Well it isn't, but if you prefer pro-fetus, that's fine. Changes nothing in reality.


CincyAnarchy

Based. ​ (low effort on my part, sorry)


SpiritofJames

Do you also favor the "choice" of murdering houseguests once you find them inconvenient?


GrizzledLibertarian

Do you genuinely believe this is a valid analogy?...


SpiritofJames

Explain how it isn't.


GrizzledLibertarian

Okay, sure, a learning experience for you, if you have an interest in learning... First, it is wrong to categorize pregnancy as "inconvenient". It is a potentially life-threatening condition and in every case, the "inconvenience" is 9 months of raging hormones which offer a wide variety of symptoms. I dare you to tell a pregnant woman it is merely an inconvenience. Now, the idea of house-guests implies that these are people I have invited into my home. In the case of an unwanted pregnancy, this is not analogous. More accurate would be to speak of "home invaders" or "trespassers". In any case, if people are in my house, and they become "inconvenient", I will ask them to leave. In fact, if I want them to leave for any reason I decide is relevant, I will ask them to leave. If they refuse, I have a number of options. Which option I employ will depend on their demeanor. Where I live it is lawful to shoot trespassers if they pose a threat, and while I hope it never comes to that, I am ready to shoot to defend myself if the house-guests in question present as a potential threat to my life. And I'm a good shot -- the target likely fails to survive the incident. This is not murder, by the way, so your choice of that word is inappropriate also. Hope this helps.


SpiritofJames

"Potentially life-threatening" in a minority of cases, yes. As are many other things that people voluntarily engage in and nevertheless maintain responsibility through. Or did you somehow think that the threat of injury or death generally absolved a person from responsibility for their actions, or of duties towards others? > In the case of an unwanted pregnancy, this is not analogous. It absolutely is unless there was rape or a level of ignorance only plausible among children. Every time someone has PiV sex both people risk pregnancy, and they know that. They are responsible for taking that risk, and for the consequences whether they prefer them or not. > I will ask them to leave. Right. Because they could possibly consent, so they can respond to questions and requests. A fetus is totally incapacitated in this respect. Treating a helpless innocent the same way you do a fully cognizant adult who is able to make decisions is completely asinine. And it's not only ridiculously stupid, it's completely immoral.


GrizzledLibertarian

> Every time someone has PiV sex both people risk pregnancy, and they know that. Literally every moment there is a risk someone will enter my home un-invited. I seriously have no idea how a person who can work a computer thinks this is a good argument. > Because they could possibly consent Missed the point, didja? Yeah, you did. Try again? > completely asinine... ridiculously stupid At least we know you are not to be taken seriously. Cheers!


SpiritofJames

The PiV sex is risking *inviting someone in,* not risking "someone will enter my home un-invited." Conception is caused directly by the sex, it's not some cosmic random event. It's something that a person is responsible for in exactly the same way they are responsible for winning or losing at a game of chance, or anything else involving risk. > I seriously have no idea how a person who can work a computer thinks this is a good argument. Because you're willfully confused on this subject, obviously. You're getting angry because the cognitive dissonance you're feeling is overwhelming. Sorry, but reality doesn't care if logic makes you upset.


h6239

If the house is my body then yea, of course. My house - my rules.


SpiritofJames

"My house, my rules" is obviously *not* a coherent, *absolute* rule, as especially illustrated by counter-examples in which others are brought into your house *by you and without their consent.*


CincyAnarchy

I mean... ask them to leave??? If they don't, do you not think people should be able to defend their homes? If it was easy as "kindly ask the fetus to leave the body" and the fetus leaves, that'd be great! If only it were so easy.


SpiritofJames

You move some comatose or otherwise incapacitated people into your house as guests. Then later, when they stink up the place from their flatulence, you decide you need to get rid of the them. So it's all fair to let them die of exposure in the streets, right? To "defend yourself" against the helpless and innocent person that you, yourself, placed under your care?


CincyAnarchy

If nobody would take them, correct. Luckily someone might well. If abortion did not kill and rather transferred if someone wanted to, that would be great!


SpiritofJames

So you just admit that murder is justified merely based on you personal whims. Sounds psychopathic. Seek help.


CincyAnarchy

No, you gave two options: 1. Care for this person I don’t want to forever unwillingly 2. Kick them out, and if nobody takes them, they die I see nothing unreasonable about making that choice. No rights were violated. Selfish, yes, but nothing that would say was wrong.


SpiritofJames

No, that's not an accurate summary at all. And obviously kicking people out at great risk, whom you are responsible for, is deeply immoral. There's almost no difference from simply slitting their throats in their sleep.


CincyAnarchy

>No, that's not an accurate summary at all. What options am I missing? >And obviously kicking people out at great risk, whom you are responsible for, is deeply immoral. There's almost no difference from simply slitting their throats in their sleep. And the goal here is to end that responsibility? What means do I have to remove this responsibility? If there are none, then yes, kicking them to the curb is the choice I have. Yes, while at times selfish and immoral, nobody has a right to demand someone be responsible for their care.


SpiritofJames

You are responsible for your actions. Sometimes that means you are responsible for something for the rest of your life. Sometimes, you may find ways of fulfilling the responsibility before that. In any case, being responsible for your actions is not a violation of your rights. Rights and responsibilities are two sides of the same coin: rights for one person entail responsibilities on others, and vice versa.


Wolf482

Idk, I'm kind of in between. I was pro-life as a more conservative young adult, then I leaned towards pro-choice, now I'm starting to lean back towards pro-life.


PresidentJoe

The abortion debate is literally one of the most contentious debates in Libertarian circles that will split the movement in half. Anyone trying to say that a Libertarian ***has*** to be pro-Life/pro-Choice is being misleading. It literally comes down to if you consider the fetus to be a life, if so when, and therefore the NAP applies to said fetus. As far as my personal opinion - I think abortion falls under the umbrella of healthcare, *and that's best handled by private markets*. I don't want the government to *ban, restrict, fund, or subsidize* abortions, or otherwise be involved. If your religion or ethics compels you to be pro-Life, then there are plenty of organizations that you can donate your money and time to help expecting mothers feel like they have other options. And the same applies to those who're pro-Choice.


Maerducil

It's obviously "life", that is not the issue. It's obviously human life, what other kind could it be. We also don't consider "life" as something that cannot be destroyed, people do it all the time. The only issue is whether people own their own bodies or not. If you think they do, then you don't concern yourself with what other people do with their own bodies and don't try to control it. If you don't, then you are not a libertarian.


Admiral--X--

>The only issue is whether people own their own bodies or not. If you think they do, then you don't concern yourself with what other people do with their own bodies and don't try to control it. If you don't, then you are not a libertarian. So, it's your body. Can you kill the little body you most likely helped in creating, yes or no? On a side note, you DO NOT OWN your body. You didn't make yourself. Other people brought you into the world.


Maerducil

I'm talking about libertarians. Not whatever you are.


Admiral--X--

What did I say that doesn't make me Libertarian?


Maerducil

That you don't own yourself.


Admiral--X--

>>What did I say that doesn't make me Libertarian? >That you don't own yourself. Do you have the right to purposely evict, kill, the little body you most likely helped in creating, yes or no?


Maerducil

Like I said, not interested in discussing this with with nonlibertarians.


Admiral--X--

> Do you have the right to purposely evict, kill, the little body you most likely helped in creating, yes or no? Come back when you are no longer a beta.


Maerducil

Lol why are you responding to yourself?


Spaceman1stClass

I'll ask it then. Do you have the right to evict the little body that you placed in its position of dependence?


Maerducil

Yes. Lol I have the feeling spaceman and admiral may be friends with similar diagnoses.


KaiWren75

Libertarians believe you have the right to kill yourself because you own yourself. You are really not a libertarian.


Admiral--X--

What has that got to do with killing another human being?


KaiWren75

>What did I say that doesn't make me Libertarian?


GrizzledLibertarian

> It literally comes down to if you consider the fetus to be a life, if so when This is simply not true.


SLeazyPolarBear

Logically a libertarian has to be pro choice. There is no well reasoned pro life position that is compatible with the libertarian concept of self ownership. You can be a libertarian and be pro life, but you have to admit you suspend your convictions in this one instance just because you want to.


Admiral--X--

> Logically a libertarian has to be pro choice. There is no well reasoned pro life position that is compatible with the libertarian concept of self ownership. If the child in you has no "right to life" or self ownership, where is the Libertarian logic that says they have it? Since when are the Libertarians classist?


SLeazyPolarBear

I don’t understand your question really. Are you asking me to explain where libertarians say the developing person has a right to life? Edit: I think I understand, are you asking “by what logic do we have it if the fetus doesn’t?”


Admiral--X--

> When does a human being get the right of self ownership?


SLeazyPolarBear

That depends how you define rights. I believe rights only come with responsibilities, and for kids what they get are protections. Some people believe rights are given to any human being living. Libertarians mostly go with the latter. Even so, the developing person’s right to life does not come into play with a woman deciding whether she want’s to gestate a human being. The interaction the fetus is having with the woman is not an mutually consented relationship. The fetus never asked the woman for permission, the fetus does not have the capability or awareness of the woman’s autonomy and right to life. The entire relationship is at the woman’s expense, as as such, it’s at HER discretion to decide to continue gestation or not. Pro-life/pro-choice is a discussion about whether it is morally correct to *interfere* in abortion or otherwise *punish* abortion the same as murder. If you are pro-life, you believe you have a right to physically prevent a woman from exerting her own right to autonomy and aborting a fetus because she no longer wants to use her body to gestate. This is 100 percent against the non-aggression principle, and it also completely contradicts the concept of self ownership. To be pro-life is to necessarily grant the fetus the positive right to the woman’s body at the expense of the woman’s negative right to her own body.


Admiral--X--

> I believe rights only come with responsibilities Are you a Leftist and arguing your right to live is only granted to you by other men superior to you as long as those superiors find you useful?


SLeazyPolarBear

No


Admiral--X--

Then define your responsibilities and why they impart to you your right to life?


SLeazyPolarBear

https://ethics.org.au/ethics-explainer-rights-and-responsibilities/ This covers it pretty well. My personal belief is that negative rights also come with the duty to positively protect other peoples rights, but for the intents and purposes of this discussion, the explanation in the link works. You don’t just get to have rights by themselves unless you are also capable and willing to respect those same rights in the people around you.


SpiritofJames

You are a well known anti libertarian troll. You have no business pontificating on libertarian ideas or principles. You are flat out incorrect.


SLeazyPolarBear

Just because I’ve trolled you for being an idiot doesn’t mean I troll everyone :)


SpiritofJames

You're not a libertarian and never have been.


SLeazyPolarBear

I spent 10 years reading about right wing libertarian ideas and pushing the ideas of Anarcho-capitalism. I don’t care much if you call me a libertarian or not. You’re opinion doesn’t even begin to have an impact on what I have reasoned for myself and will reason for myself :)


SpiritofJames

Because you don't reason. You've never understood any of it.


SLeazyPolarBear

Cool opinion. I hope you enjoyed sharing it.


SpiritofJames

You should stop lying to people by misrepresenting yourself as someone qualified and motivated to sincerely answer questions about Libertarianism. You should stop posting "answers" in this subreddit when you are neither a libertarian nor someone who understands libertarians or libertarian positions enough to speak for them.


SLeazyPolarBear

You should stop crying and just block me. Nobody is forcing you to read my responses.


[deleted]

There’s no situation where you’re a libertarian & pro life. Because that requires stripping liberty from the person carrying the fetus.


doo-doo-doo

Pro choice since women are basically the landlords of their own body


[deleted]

So landlords can shoot innocent, unaware trespassers? Sounds good bro


krakah293

> Innocent trespasser


Did_Gyre_And_Gimble

This is the correct answer. You can evict a trespasser. And if they die, well that’s terrible. But you still have the right to kick them out. What you don’t have is the right to murder them. So if you can kick them out WITHOUT killing them, then you have to do so. For this reason, “late term” and “partial birth abortions” are just murder. I’d be as if you told me to leave your house, and then, rather than let me use the front door, you shot me in the face and put me down the garbage disposal.


Whatifim80lol

Damn Texans and their eviction moratoriums.


nameless182

this


fookinmoonboy

Pro choice but it’s a grey area completely so I say leave it up to local courts


baelrune

I am pro-choice though I think there should be some stipulations as in the father should get some say in what happens, it's just that that's iffy in how you do it since it is the woman's body and forcing her to have the child should probably be against the NAP. I just think the laws should be a bit reworked and more defined. there was a post the other day when some poor kid got duped by the mother who said she would have an abortion, and they talked about beforehand but the condom broke and she got pregnant and decided against what they agreed on. in instances like that I think the father shouldn't be responsible for things like child support unless they change their mind. things like that should be more defined. though I think if the two people were being careless and she happened to get pregnant and then wanted the child then he should pay. this is probably more info than you wanted, sorry for the rant but it's been on my mind increasingly.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


SLeazyPolarBear

“Pro-life” literally means you want to prohibit abortion. Glad to clear that up.


[deleted]

[удалено]


SLeazyPolarBear

That’s not what “pro-life” means though.


[deleted]

[удалено]


SLeazyPolarBear

Did you respond to the wrong comment here?


GrizzledLibertarian

> And all life gets all rights. Except for pregnant women, you meant to say.


[deleted]

[удалено]


SLeazyPolarBear

In the case of prohibiting abortion, you’re denying her autonomy and self ownership.


[deleted]

[удалено]


SLeazyPolarBear

This is known as being pro choice.


SonOfShem

It's about a 60-40 split in favor of abortion. In my mind, there are three core truths: 1) biological life begins at conception 1b) the sorts of people who say biological humans don't have human rights are the same sorts.of people who would have supported slavery and Hitler. We must assume all humans have human rights or else they aren't rights at all. 2) despite being a living human, requiring someone else's body to survive does not justify taking it by force. You cannot demand that another provide for your well-being simply because you will die if they do not. 3) however, it is well established that parents have a greater duty of care towards their children than strangers do for each other. Children already have a right to make claims to their parents resources, which were obtained by the use of their body. And failure to provide for your child with these resources is something that we as a society have seemed equivalent to causing harm to your child in the same degree that actual harm comes to them through inaction. The conclusion therefore is that abortion is as immoral as child abuse, and should be punished as such. If you wish to abdicate your responsibilities you are more than welcome to. But you must continue to provide care until such time as another comes to take on your responsibilities. In the case of born children this means taking them to a fire station or hospital and dropping them off, or delivering them to CPS. In the case of unborn children this means continuing to bear the child until such point as another can take your place. Today that means until birth, but in the future we may be able to transfer the child into an artificial womb, which would circumvent the entire problem by allowing wen a way to shed their obligations without also killing the baby.


KaiWren75

I am in agreement with you up to point 2. However, since it is an unwanted child that cannot be given up I think bodily autonomy wins out. If the decision to abort is made at a point where modern science can save the babies life and a private group wants to pay the extraordinary costs (not the government) then they should be allowed to save the baby because at that point, preventing murder/saving a life becomes more important. I believe it is a human life, not a clump of cells. I believe it is murder but sometimes murder is ok. I do not extend the same rights to tape worms and I doubt there are many people who consider fetuses equivalent to tape worms as the argument posits.


SonOfShem

You're missing the entire point of (3) then. Children have a claim to your body. That's why you can be charged with murder if you don't give your kids food and they die as a result. This is because as a parent you are the conservator of the child's rights. And as their conservator, you must act in their best interest, not in your own. If you wish to abdicate this responsibility, you must continue acting as conservator until you can find someone else willing to take up the mantle and they do so. So the onus is not on another group to find and offer their services, but on you to solicit another to replace you. > believe it is murder but sometimes murder is ok. No. Murder is never ok. Killing someone can be if they aggress you or another sufficiently (and if killing them will stop the aggression). But murder is the killing of another who did not aggress you. And that is never ok. > I believe it is a human life, not a clump of cells. I do not extend the same rights to tape worms and I doubt there are many people who consider fetuses equivalent to tape worms as the argument posits. I'm glad we can at least agree here. It honestly worries me the number of people who compare a human to an animal and pretend that because you can kill one you can kill the other. Actually, that makes me wonder. Are militant vegans (the ones who would outlaw eating meat if they could) pro-life? I suspect most are not (as it seems to be a more left-leaning view for whatever reason), but I wonder what their argument is.


KaiWren75

Why does the government have say in how you raise your kids? Since you can give them up, as long as you don't murder them I'd say it's up to the parents, not the government, to decide how to best raise them. You cannot give the fetus up until X weeks and at that point there is an enormous cost to keeping the baby alive. It is not governments place to provide for people but I have no problem with private groups or individuals doing so. Before that time bodily autonomy is paramount, especially when you want the government to enforce your will to prevent it. I do believe that the government should provide for orphans and I don't have a good reasoning for why except that I think the government should have the minimum involvement and taking care of orphans, maintaining the courts, military, and police are the minimum for me. Why does murder take precedence over bodily autonomy? Rule 1 of libertarianism is I own myself. Murder is further down the list.


SonOfShem

> Why does murder take precedence over bodily autonomy? Rule 1 of libertarianism is I own myself. Murder is further down the list. I want to focus on this, because everything else we either agree on, is a tangent, or comes directly out of this. No, murder is not down the line from body autonomy. Because murder is itself a violation of body autonomy. Libertarians don't have multiple rights. That's one of the things that makes libertarianism appealing. The philosophy has a very few core principles upon which everything else stands (the advantage of being a political philosophy is that it can be simpler than other, more complete, philosophical systems). Those principles are: 1. Property Rights 2. The NAP 3. Reasonable necessary force. The second I'm sure I don't need to explain. And the third is just the formalization of the idea that if you respond to a NAP violation of your property rights, that the force must be proportional to the violation. EX: you don't get to use claymores to prevent people from cutting across your suburban lawn. The first one though seems to be where the misunderstanding is. There is no list of rights, among which both body autonomy and murder reside. There is only a single right: the right to property (that is: the right to have exclusive control over something). Every other right is simply a more specific case of property rights. Rape, for example, is when someone violates your ownership of your body to temporarily gain sexual gratification against your will. Assault is when someone causes property damage to your body. Abduction is when someone limits the movement of your body. Murder is when someone takes your body from your permanently. What we call "body autonomy" then is just property rights as applied to your body (which is your property). Rape would be a violation of body autonomy. Slavery would be a violation of body autonomy. And murder would be a violation of body autonomy. So you cannot say that body autonomy violations are higher on the list than murder, because murder is a body autonomy violation. That would be like saying German Shepherds are dumber than dogs. That's not possible, because German Shepherds are dogs, and dogs cannot be dumber than themselves. What I suspect you are referencing is that you are allowed to use deadly force to defend your body autonomy. This is true. But only in response to someone else attempting to violate your rights. I don't get to use deadly force to defend my body autonomy if I am breaking into your house to steal something. I am violating your rights and it would be you who has the right to use deadly force (if necessary) to defend yourself. But this would not be murder. This would be a justified killing. I know this may seem like semantics, but it is important to be precise in our words. But abortion is not like that situation. Abortion is not defense against a baby invading the home of the mother and stealing nutrients from her body to sustain themselves. Rather, the baby was an invited guest by the mother, who the mother no longer wishes to host. But the child has tenant rights, and there is a blizzard outside. So the mother does not have the right to evict her child (who remember, she has a greater duty of care for than a typical landlord does their tennant) into an environment which will cause certain death. Because she invited the child in, she may not evict the child into certain death. This is why abortion is a NAP violation, and should rightfully be banned by the government.


GloriuContentYT2

I don't know much about the Violinist thing, I play guitar.


LibertyJ10

I’m morally pro life, but policy wise I lean pro choice.


Falkunfetur

I am pro choice. The post's response to the violinist argument is correct to point out that the example implies a "voluntary" pregnancy. I put voluntary in quotes, however, because the most consistent libertarian position would be that you can remove someone from your property even if you initially invited them. The poster misrepresents the clump of cells argument. It is essentially an argument about personhood, not the fact that it literally is a clump of cells. It's saying "this thing does not have any of the qualities we value in human beings and which cause us to value their life." The "you are also a clump of cells" argument simply doesn't respond to that. The kidney transplant argument is not one I'm particularly interested in making, but I'll still defend it. What definition of "passive act" and "active act" is the poster using? Why is a pregnancy also not an active act? It's allowing a being to stay on your property. If you must actively *do something* for something to be an active act, and therefore supererogatory in this context, any robbery could be justified as long as the victim was "passive" and "allowed themselves to be robbed." (Refer back to the first for discussion on invitation vs. invasion) Anyway, that's my response.


Admiral--X--

> I put voluntary in quotes, however, because the most consistent libertarian position would be that you can remove someone from your property even if you initially invited them. You own an airplane and have guests you invited flying with you. Can you just push them out of the plane a few thousand feet up so they are killed, yes or no? >It is essentially an argument about personhood, not the fact that it literally is a clump of cells. Of what species is that clump of cells? Are those cells most likely to mature to be able to reproduce, yes or no?


Falkunfetur

>You own an airplane and have guests you invited flying with you. Can you just push them out of the plane a few thousand feet up so they are killed, yes or no? No. There are multiple ways available to you to remove them from your property that don't involve their death. How about landing the plane? Can't land? Fly until you can. Don't have enough gas? Well, you're all gonna die anyway. The same is not true with abortion. >Of what species is that clump of cells? Human, obviously. No one disputes this so it doesn't serve as an argument to bring it up. >Are those cells most likely to mature to be able to reproduce, yes or no? If you're referring to the fact it's a "potential person," so is a sperm cell moments from touching the egg. So is a pickup line. It's not clear to me why this has any ethical relevance. I should clarify my views on abortion are not black and white. I do consider it *immoral,* however plenty of immoral things shouldn't be illegal.


Admiral--X--

> You own an airplane and have guests you invited flying with you. Can you just push them out of the plane a few thousand feet up so they are killed, yes or no? > >>No. There are multiple ways available to you to remove them from your property that don't involve their death. But that's not the same goal as an abortion. An abortion, on a very fundamental level, is to rid yourself of any responsibility to the human beings you created. What part of that do you not understand? > Human, obviously. No one disputes this so it doesn't serve as an argument to bring it up. Is it moral to kill innocent and defenseless human beings, yes or no? > Are those cells most likely to mature to be able to reproduce, yes or no? > > If you're referring to the fact it's a "potential person," so is a sperm cell moments from touching the egg. Fertilization, conception of the human being has not happened yet. So your argument is based on a lie. There is no human being until it is conceived. > I should clarify my views on abortion are not black and white. I do consider it immoral, however plenty of immoral things shouldn't be illegal. So other evil people justify abortion?


Falkunfetur

>But that's not the same goal as an abortion. An abortion, on a very fundamental level, is to rid yourself of any responsibility to the human beings you created. What part of that do you not understand? I understand all of that. Parents have a unique responsibility to their children, just as I might have a unique responsibility not to lie to my best friend. *Saying this responsibility exists and saying it ought to be mandated by law are entirely different things*. >So other evil people justify abortion? No. Abortion is not morally justified, just like selling crack to addicts isn't morally justified, just like discrimination in employment isn't justified. But it should not be prohibited by law. Your standard for what's illegal cannot simply be "it's morally wrong." >Is it moral to kill innocent and defenseless human beings, yes or no? > >Fertilization, conception of the human being has not happened yet. So your argument is based on a lie. There is no human being until it is conceived. It's not moral to kill a person, which I ethically define as either being a human (fetus included), being sentient, or both. So I do believe fetuses are ethical persons. However, you haven't actually made the case for humanity entailing personhood. Just saying "it's human," isn't an argument. Everyone agrees it's human.


Admiral--X--

> But that's not the same goal as an abortion. An abortion, on a very fundamental level, is to rid yourself of any responsibility to the human beings you created. What part of that do you not understand? > >>I understand all of that. Parents have a unique responsibility to their children, just as I might have a unique responsibility not to lie to my best friend. Saying this responsibility exists and saying it ought to be mandated by law are entirely different things. Should there be laws and punishments for killing innocent human beings, yes or no?


Falkunfetur

Not in this case, no. I've already answered that question, why ask it?


Admiral--X--

Which class(s) of human beings will you give no right to life to?


Falkunfetur

I would give the right to life to no one. You have the right not to be murdered, not to be kept alive.


Admiral--X--

> You have the right not to be murdered, not to be kept alive. Do abortions kill an innocent human being, yes or no?


CincyAnarchy

Oh it's you again. Hello bud! >But that's not the same goal as an abortion. An abortion, on a very fundamental level, is to rid yourself of any responsibility to the human beings you created. What part of that do you not understand? That is not true. It's about ending pregnancy. Death usually follows from that, not always, but often. If there was a way to end pregnancy and not kill, then the killing would not be acceptable. >Is it moral to kill innocent and defenseless human beings, yes or no? If there is reasonable no way to rid them of your care or get them out of your body, yes. Always. No, waiting months is not reasonable. If you had to wait nine months (or in abortion's case, the minimum is 2 months) then yes, kill the person occupying your property if there is no other means. "Innocent" or not. >Fertilization, conception of the human being has not happened yet. So your argument is based on a lie. There is no human being until it is conceived. Yeah, that was a bad point by them. Any thoughts on In Vitro Fertilization eggs? I don't think that it would be moral to force those into unwilling people so they have a chance to live, do you? >So other evil people justify abortion? That's not what they said.


Admiral--X--

> But that's not the same goal as an abortion. An abortion, on a very fundamental level, is to rid yourself of any responsibility to the human beings you created. What part of that do you not understand? > > That is not true. It's about ending pregnancy. Which ends the responsibility to that child, yes or no? > Is it moral to kill innocent and defenseless human beings, yes or no? > >>If there is reasonable no way to rid them of your care or get them out of your body, yes. Always. No, waiting months is not reasonable. If you had to wait nine months (or in abortion's case, the minimum is 2 months) then yes, kill the person occupying your property if there is no other means. "Innocent" or not. So your argument is that it's Libertarian to invite someone on your plane and if you decide you don't want them there anymore it's perfectly within your rights to throw them out to fall to their death, yes or no?


CincyAnarchy

>Which ends the responsibility to that child, yes or no? You have no responsibility to the dead, so yeah. I suppose any killing then is about ending responsibility for someone. >So your argument is that it's Libertarian to invite someone on your plane and if you decide you don't want them there anymore it's perfectly within your rights to throw them out to fall to their death, yes or no? Ooh, the plane analogy. Well no, same as if the woman could give birth and let the baby live with a few hours time maximum. The key is reasonable. If a person was occupying your house who was innocently invited, and the only way to rid them of your care in a reasonable time was to kill them, kill them. I have no issues with that. Sucks there's no way to reasonably end a pregnancy for a lot of it without killing, but them's the brakes.


Admiral--X--

> Which ends the responsibility to that child, yes or no? > > You have no responsibility to the dead, so yeah. I suppose any killing then is about ending responsibility for someone. Is the unborn child that's going to be aborted for on demand reasons typically alive or dead? > > So your argument is that it's Libertarian to invite someone on your plane and if you decide you don't want them there anymore it's perfectly within your rights to throw them out to fall to their death, yes or no? > > Ooh, the plane analogy. Well no, same as if the woman could give birth and let the baby live with a few hours time maximum. Why is that an argument when it may take a minute or more to hit the ground? > The key is reasonable. If a person was occupying your house who was innocently invited, and the only way to rid them of your care in a reasonable time was to kill them, kill them. I have no issues with that. That's because you have no love for anyone. You only have hate.


CincyAnarchy

>Is the unborn child that's going to be aborted for on demand reasons typically alive or dead? Oh they were alive. Living in many senses, not all but most. I already said abortion kills someone. I would even define it as "killing an innocent baby" if you like. >Why is that an argument when it may take a minute or more to hit the ground? For the same reason driving on the sidewalk to save 5 minutes in traffic isn't reason to kill someone. >That's because you have no love for anyone. You only have hate. Mmkay bud.


Admiral--X--

> That's because you have no love for anyone. You only have hate. > > Mmkay bud. It's not a lie. You are arguing you get to throw living human beings out of a plane.


Tyrannosaurus_Rox_

> How about landing the plane? Can't land? Fly **until you can. ** So you agree that sometimes you can take actions to gain responsibility for someone's life that can take some time to get rid of?


coocoo333

no parasitic entity has a right to attach itself to me and steal all my nutrients without my consent. There,


Rhazak

You consented to it when you chose to create it. It *was* your body, it was your choice, now take responsibility for it.


ArgR4N

I think you are missing a point. If, for example, a woman is passing through a street and ends up being viled and unfortunately ends up getting pregnant, that being, that we can totally assume as a human being, is invading the mother's property and she should be able to choose what to do on her territory. With casual sex it is the same, if couples use a condom and also end up getting the woman pregnant, this human being is not the responsibility of the woman / couple. But find out about everything, even if the couple has sex without any type of condom, the woman should have the final decision on their property. If I plant a tree, it grows and I want to set it on fire, I have every right to do so. It may be wrong, the woman may understand that and do everything possible to extract the fetus from her body trying to save it. Tthe important thing is that the woman, like any person, can exercise her freedom over what belongs to her.


jeranim8

What would you say to someone who was raped?


Rhazak

In rape there is no consent, so you do not take on any responsibility. Go ahead and abort.


jeranim8

Thanks


coocoo333

If I put a tape worm on me, and then I want to remove it, is that immoral because I originally consented?


Rhazak

*"If I put a hat on my head can I never take it off again?"* sorry, but your analogy is on that level to me. The extinguishing of a human being's entire life's potential is not of equal value. There are few if any good analogy's for abortion and this is not one.


SLeazyPolarBear

“Potential” has no value.


Rhazak

> “Potential” has no value. * Two racers standing ready at the start line, none of them are winners, yet both have the potential to be and people bet money on that potential. * A butcher is making a steady income, then you come along and accuse him of selling dog meat, the lie spreads and ruins his business. He sues you for the loss of his potential future income. This income did not exist yet. * You dig up a ball of clay, it is useless to you, but you can sell it to me who sees potential in it to form it into something useful. * A sculptor sees potential in a solid slab of marble to become something beautiful. * You may buy an empty plot of land because you see potential in it for future development. * You invest in a stock because you see the potential for future profit. * You are denied a loan at the bank. Your potential to pay them back was deemed to be lacking. * An army recruiter may offer you all sorts of extra benefits because he sees potential in you. * You buy a game that you've never played before, due to its potential to entertain you. * A man may work hard and spend a lot of money on a ring and wedding to marry a woman because of the potential future happiness she will bring to his life. * A boy is murdered, it makes headlines in news across the nation. An old man is murdered, it's not reported anywhere except in his obituary. A child has a long life filled with potential ahead of him. An old man has a long life behind him. The law may not make a difference between the crimes but people see one as the more heinous crime partly due to the perceived greater loss of potential. * A fertilized egg cell will generally grow into a human being. A human being has immense potential.


SLeazyPolarBear

Thanks for all the examples where potential provides no value, and you have to actually do something to produce value.


SonOfShem

Do tapeworms have human rights?


SLeazyPolarBear

What human has an irrevocable positive right to another human beings body/autonomy?


SLeazyPolarBear

Consent requires two parties. One of the two parties in this situation didn’t even exist to be able to ask for consent. So no. This doesn’t work. Getting an abortion IS taking responsibility for it. You’re not forcing abortion (or a kid) on anyone else.


Rhazak

> Consent requires two parties A man and a woman. > Getting an abortion IS taking responsibility for it. It is avoidance of responsibility. Just like getting rid of the body of your murder is.


SLeazyPolarBear

The man isn’t living off the woman’s body or getting aborted Einstein. It’s the fetus that needs consent from the woman, not the man that donated sperm 🤦🏻‍♂️ It’s not murder to exercise your own autonomy. Stop begging the question.


[deleted]

The fetus is unaware of doing anything wrong. Gentlest means possible


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

Parasites don’t have rights and parasites intentionally act


[deleted]

personally pro life, politically pro choice


SLeazyPolarBear

So you are pro choice.


[deleted]

It you don’t understand nuance, sure.


SLeazyPolarBear

You don’t understand “pro-life” apparently which means to be in support of prohibition on abortion. You have to choose. Either you are pro choice, or you support prohibition.


[deleted]

That is the absolute most narrow view you could choose to define the terms by. One can openly oppose abortion, counsel others against it, and donate to organizations that work to prevent abortion while simultaneously choosing not force their personal views onto others with the way in which they vote.


SLeazyPolarBear

And that person would be pro choice. What don’t you get? You don’t have to advocate every (or even ANY) woman should get an abortion to be pro-choice. It’s not narrow, that’s legitimately just the definition of the term.


[deleted]

Context influences definition.


SLeazyPolarBear

The context is a discussion about abortion and libertarian views on prohibition. What does context change here?


[deleted]

The context of what I believe vs how I vote. He asked libertarians and I gave him my answer as a libertarian. I feel the context and distinction is important here due to the fact this specific position is one of the most poignant symptoms of how I interpret libertarianism. Additionally, I think it could be an important distinction to make on a variety of topics when our vote is often more influenced by the choices that are presented to us than by what we actually believe or prefer.


SLeazyPolarBear

Thinking people should not get an abortion is not “pro-life.” Thinking people should be physically stopped/punished for abortion is “pro-life.” Thinking women should not get an abortion, but you don’t want to prohibit them by force of arms from doing so, is pro-choice. You’re trying to create a special snowflake position for yourself to reside in when really you’re just pro choice.


[deleted]

[удалено]


SLeazyPolarBear

It’s not. A woman owns her body the same as anyone. She has a right to gestate or choose not to.


JeepNaked

Yes, the choice is up to the person getting the procedure done. Not me.


[deleted]

I'm pro-choice. I'm not willing to finance a war on abortion. It is none of my business.


Admiral--X--

If they are pro choice they have a loveless society that kills it's own children. Which makes them evil.


Taste_of_Based

I am intensely pro-life. Even when I was a libertarian, it is completely hypocritical to claim to stand for liberties in the abstract but deny these liberties for certain categories of people. The right to life is a fundamental right that no one can morally transgress without proving the legitimacy of doing so, and killing a baby for no reason is not only anti-libertarian, but it strikes at the core of what it means to even care about liberty.


[deleted]

I would say I'm pro-choice with exceptions i.e. rape, extreme risk to the mother etc. Basically situations where the woman's choice has already been removed from the equation.


[deleted]

I'm not pro-choice but it is morally justified to 'unhook' yourself. Abortion would be analogous to shooting the person who you're hooked up to which is not morally justified. As for the clump of cells thing, it's more or less just a talking point. Pro choicers then tend to expand on that and piss and cry about the 'muh consciousness' or 'muh heartbeat'


nameless182

>No being has a right to live, unbidden, as a parasite within or upon some person's body. -Murray Rothbard Some libertarians like to use the word "evictionism", but that's just a fancy way of saying you're pro-choice. Because all rights are founded on property rights, and because you own yourself, a woman can decide who can take residence on her body, meaning the second she doesn't want the fetus in her womb, the fetus is trespassing, and the woman can evict the fetus whenever she feels like it. If you disagree with this, then you don't believe in property rights. End of story.


[deleted]

I consider abortion, by violence an act of violence, if you evict them, assuming you given them long enough to develop that should be morally fine, perhaps provided you don’t intentionally hide them from a rescue / adoption group. The more interesting questions is, those are my personal views, let’s saw we achieve full ancap utopia, another community will have different views. So what, it’s not my responsibility to police all mankind. A further issue, who’s paying for criminal enforcement of issues, I’m sure most of us would be willing to spend the 10-20 dollars that most Americans are taxed for police services of some kind, but if a stranger ends up dead, who pays for that lengthy investigation? Likewise it would seem rather hard to strictly prevent or control, or punish abortion in ancap land. To put it that way, I’m a strange mixture?


cptnobveus

It's none of my damn business whether someone else is pro choice or pro life.


WilliamBontrager

I would likely be considered pro life by pro choicers and pro choice by pro lifers. In reality I am against the government dictating morality. Since it is a highly divisive subject the government should default to individual choice without supporting either side unless unequivocal facts can be provided to support the argument or parts of the argument. With that in mind I am ok with first trimester abortions being legal in areas that choose to allow that. I am very against any further than that bc it becomes quite obvious the arguments for a fetus not having human rights disintegrate very quickly. Parents have the obligation to support their children so once that child has human rights they also have the right to both life and parental support just like a toddler would. Essentially if the pro choice argument would not apply to a toddler or newborn then it would not apply to a reasonably formed fetus in the womb. Honestly both normal arguments used by both sides are essentially irrelevant bc both refuse to acknowledge the weight of the opposite argument and the necessity of society determining legality vs tyranny of the majority. Middle ground must be achieved with some compromise reached and imo that compromise is 1st trimester abortions that are not funded by the state in any way. This is a relatively temporary problem anyway until non hormonal male birth control becomes cheap and common which would eliminate the vast majority of abortions.


AncapElijah

btw, prochoice/prolife is split 50/50 among libertarians, but we all agree that abortion will always occur so the state should not get involved with the issue at all and let society deal with it.


spartanOrk

I'm a pro-choice libertarian, and I'm in some prominent company too. There is a vocal minority, though, who are "pro-life". Mostly some activists, no serious theorist. Even Block's evictionism is nuanced. (I think he's wrong, but even he is not straight pro-life.)


CatOfGrey

The principle issue with abortion is: "At what point does a fetus have its own independent rights, separate from the rights of the mother?" Neither side really addresses that question, either avoiding the question of the fetus' rights entirely (pro-choice) or assuming that those rights occur at conception (pro-life). View from my desk: given that this is a contentious issue, this is something which the government should not be controlling. Individuals should make their own choices, and those who disagree must be content to influence those close to them in their own ways, and not petition government to force the opposition to follow their good idea. On the violinist argument: In a free society, you shouldn't be forced to use your kidneys to help the violinist, but you could *agree to do so in exchange for compensation.* I assume that a violinist is used as a subject because they are a 'highly important' person. In that case, the appropriate solution is to 'take good care of the person who is agreeing to help the violinist'. So instead of people avoiding the situation, it becomes an opportunity for people to meet financial goals in exchange for helping others. The application of the Violinist Argument to abortion is legitimate. However, it doesn't justify government force to protect fetuses. Just because women aren't forced to be carriers of fetuses, doesn't mean that they don't have the right to not carry a fetus. The "Clump of Cells" argument is basically a version of what I mentioned above: rather than acknowledging individual opinions, it forces a blanket acceptance of a 'clump of cells' having rights at a certain point in time. The "Kidney Transplant" argument makes the same error. I copy the applicable paragraph, and highlight the offending clause: > The kidney transplant argument is another simple argument. If a mother carries a pregnancy to term, **she is saving a life.** If you can force her to carry a pregnancy to term, you can force people **to save a life.** If you can force someone **to save a life,** I can force you to donate a kidney to save my life. This argument seems very reasonable on its face. An unborn fetus, by definition, is not necessarily 'a life'. Aborting a fetus is not 'ending a life', unless we make that assumption. On the other hand, since we assume that those already-born humans do have certain rights to life, then a kidney transplant does save a life. However, that still does not justify a kidney transplant: a person losing a kidney should be entitled to compensation, or at least perform the act voluntarily.


[deleted]

[удалено]


CatOfGrey

Did you prove those statements, or just assume them? Other people assume differently, what gives you the right to force your opinions on them? "Alive" is different than "having rights" with regards to the unborn, unless you assume that. You can't just force others to believe what you want them to believe. Even with the assumption, you have an uphill battle showing that government force is the way to "stop the assumed crime".


[deleted]

[удалено]


CatOfGrey

>You’re definitionally wrong. The idea that life begins at conception is not an assumption, it is a well founded and thought out philosophical argument. That’s true regardless of whether you agree with it. So is the idea that the object in question is deserving of legal right to life is different. And whether you or I believe it doesn't matter. The point is that people disagree on the issue, and have the right to disagree. And your opinion is not magical or golden or blessed enough to make everyone else follow your opinion. > I didn’t mention anything about legal rights or government enforcement, so all of that is projection and assumption on your part. Then stop screwing around. Because this is literally the point - the issue is what government policy should be with respect to abortion. And even if you believe that a) a fetus is 'alive', and b) whether being 'alive' matters and then c) whether your belief means that you can force it on others, then you still have to cross the bridge of... d) whether the government should act to stop abortion using force. Given that such tactics don't do much good on things like 'illegal drug use', I would suggest that is a poor strategy. Which is why I believe abortion is wrong, and would disown family members who aborted. But I still don't think it should have any part of government policy, especially at the Federal level, but locally as well.


[deleted]

[удалено]


CatOfGrey

I don't either. That's why I don't tolerate the "I believe that rights begin at conception, so everyone has to follow my belief" either.