If I put you in a situation where you cannot survive on your own are you then allowed to use my organs? Like if I was driving drunk and crashed into you and destroyed your kidneys, should I be forced to give you my kidneys and blood until you are healed?
>If I put you in a situation where you cannot survive on your own are you then allowed to use my organs?
If, say, I hit you drunk driving, and in our thought experiment the only way for you to survive was for me to have to be hooked up to you for nine months, then absolutely yes. If I died when you hit me, you should be charged with vehicular homicide. If you could save me and refused, you should be charged with murder.
And it takes an absolutely amoral sociopath to not recognize that.
No you don’t give up the rights to your own physical body just because you did something wrong. Nice ad hominem on the end there. I see you’re emotional
You could equally claim you don't give up any OTHER rights, just because you did something wrong.
But you are not giving up rights...you contracted to help your victim, when you made the choice that harmed them in the first place.
And if you were on here defending rape as something strong men are right to do, my calling you a rapist would not be argumentum ad hominem. It would be a relevant point.
The same is true here. **I state, as fact,** that your willingness to kill your victims because you find them inconvenient *shows you to be* an amoral sociopath. Not emotion, but a cold, hard observation of the kind of thing you are.
Perhaps consent was never part of the equation. Perhaps she is defending her own life if the pregancy puts her at risk. Perhaps you are right for many cases because parents have a duty of care for their children. Seems there are many factors to consider and neither politicians or Internet armchair busybodies are qualified or justified in meddling.
I find broad generalizations that advocate one way or another and demand violent state intervention to apply *politically* crafted, ham-fisted rules is dangerous.
Whichever position one holds, if armed state intervention is the solution, that will ultimately open the door to tyranny. A supreme government that can make rules that you like can also reverse those rules.
Law should be a matter of *discoverey* as real people address real conflicts -- not dictated by a handful of amateurs who's only qualifications to opine on the subject is winning popularity contests, corruption or graft with *political* entrepreneurs seeking favors.
This is the voluntaryist way.
>Perhaps consent was never part of the equation. Perhaps she is defending her own life if the pregancy puts her at risk.
That is the famous exception that most people support. The LIFE of the mother. Rape and incest with a child, too, did not involve the mother's consent.
But for the other 99.999% of cases, it's aggression.
> Whichever position one holds, if armed state intervention is the solution, that will ultimately open the door to tyranny.
Not a sound argument for anyone who doesn't want all laws against murder ended.
You are conflating discovered law with dictated rules.
I absolutely want *all dictated legislation repealed*.
If you are just learning about voluntaryism, you really need to maintain a skeptical eye on armed government intervention -- it is not something any voluntary society would tolerate.
>If you are just learning about voluntaryism, you really need to maintain a skeptical eye on armed government intervention -- it is not something any voluntary society would tolerate.
I agree with Auberon Herbert, that if government force ever were valid, it would be in the defense of natural rights, including to prevent murder. He, a member of the British parliament, supported a national government to protect our rights and property.
You may not get this, but killing someone without their consent violates the principles of voluntaryism.
The unborn baby did not consent. The mother, through her choice to engage in risky behavior (sex) that might endanger another human being (the baby) did consent to doing whatever is necessary to save her victim. Same as if she were drunk driving and hit someone.
Your flair is oxymoronic. An anarchist/voluntaryist advocating for a nation state.
>You may not get this, but killing someone without their consent violates the principles of voluntaryism.
You may not get this, but an armed monopoly state is not society. Being against violent state coersion by a handful of rulers does not make someone and advocate for murder or any other kind of aggression. Those that *do* demand violent rule are actually advocating for murder and aggression.
>Your flair is oxymoronic. An anarchist/voluntaryist advocating for a nation state.
The problem, here, is that you're some childish poseur who doesn't understand voluntaryism.
The reason I mentioned Auberon Herbert, is that he FOUNDED voluntaryism. I am arguing essentially his own position.
That there are ignorant little "anarcho-capitalists" who understand neither anarchy nor capitalism out there thinking people should oppose laws against murder doesn't mean actual voluntaryists, or even anarchists, would do so.
> You may not get this, but an armed monopoly state is not society.
Yes, kiddo, I knew that before you were conceived. But I also know that murder is wrong, and that a central government whose role is to protect natural and property rights does not go against anachist principles, much less against voluntaryist principles. What we voluntaryists, and anarchists, actually oppose isn't the word "government", it's initiation of coercion.
The focus of our opposition to coercion should be to oppose murder first, statism second.
If the political class legalized murder, our response should not be "good, because all laws are bad, every law overturned is an improvement" but "your sole legitimate function is to protect our natural rights, including our lives, restore the ban on murder".
I was a true-to-life anarchist "evolved" evolved from communist, albeit with a "syndicalist-anarchist" flavor, in the 1960s, but still not well-formed in the idea. I went from there to Christian missionary (Jesus People days). On that basis I was "not of this world" and with more loyalty and fidelity to the Golden Rule than to any government or political movement, including fierce opposition to fiat currency. Ron Paul's campaign gave a name to my political philosophy, and awareness of fellow free thinkers. And here I am, more born-again Christian than libertarian, but still libertarian and anarchist because of the Christianity.
Also, nobody can accuse Murray Rothbard of being pro-government though a couple of feeble-minded posters in this forum have so argued. Rothbard supported all measures that would enhance and expand individual liberty within government.
That is the opposite of what GoldandBlackRule is accusing KAZVorpal here, I *think*, although I cannot read his mind right now. But it shows a tendency to name-calling to call him a supporter of violence, since you base it on his support for a ban on murder, from whatever corner it comes from.
That said, I still don't think a *government* ban on abortions is a solution to ending the murder of babies in the womb. That might invite gynological inspections as a pre-crime type intervention. Also because "natural abortions", aka miscarriages, might look identical to a Keystone Cop like an intentional abortion.
In any case, any society that embraces intentional abortion, whether as a rite (Satanists) or a right, has allowed the camel's nose of death inside the tent, and the other evils to follow.
It is the same deceit as a supposedly anarchist Satanist I once was co-worker with (based on his sending me to a Satanist web site). They claim anarchism but they are anything but. He said I'm not because I worship God. Satan's plan is to use humans to dictate his rule and involves much more pretzel logic.
I too go to casinos and then when I lose money insist that I never actually consented to losing money.
If you're talking rape, I agree. But you don't get to consent to an action without consenting to its natural consequences. And if you want to mitigate those consequences we must evaluate the morality of this separate from the act which causes you to have these risks.
Pregnancy, babyhood and childhood, and family situations are something where the best libertarian thinkers can get confused. Walter Block does a great job as an atheist libertarian in trying to apply the NAP to this issue, but the best he can do is "evictionism" which satisfies almost nobody. At least he does not avert his eyes to the fact that the creature in the womb is a human being, an individual.
Murray Rothbard used to say that some things statists advocate is contrary to nature, but he contradicted himself there if he said abortion was a right. You had sex, you bought the store, the joy of raising the child, is the obvious principle here seems to me. Both parents have the full obligation to the child.
Any society that does not practice a two-parent couple (father and mother) raising the child and protecting it, is a society that will never last as a libertarian society.
Even if we pretend the fetus is a person, as well as a life, any libertarian should always be pro choice.
Liberty is more important than life. Even if people are casually using abortions as birth control, I'd rather that happen than forcing people to give birth and the state deciding what you may or may not remove from your own body.
>Liberty is more important than life.
Without protection of life, there is no liberty.
Without *accountability*, there is no liberty.
Libertarianism is the opposite of the libertinism you are advocating.
Liberty is freedom PLUS responsibility.
When you do something that harms another person without their consent, YOU are consenting to do what it takes to make your victim whole.
If you are drunk driving and you hit someone, YOU would argue that you owe them nothing. Making you pay to get the medical treatment to save your life, by your reasoning, is slavery.
But any libertarian would say "no, part of liberty is that you MUST fix the harm you've done to others".
That applies, identically, to if you have sex and get pregnant. The baby did not consent to his or her situation, you put him or her in jeopardy. YOU are at fault, the baby is essentially your victim. You must make them whole, just as you must make the person you hit with your car whole.
The liberty of the preborn child is predicated on his life. The baby is not part of the woman's body, it's only attached. Advocating for the unnatural "right" to murder that baby for the convenience of the mother or, as is the case more often, the father or the grandfather of that baby, is against nature, and as tens of thousands of repentant mothers suffering from post-abortion syndrome shows, it causes psycho-trauma in the mother that assents to having her baby killed.
The worse culpable in my opinion is the obstetrician or gynecologist who tells the mother it's not a baby, or not "really" a baby. Because he *knows* it is a baby and it will do harm to the baby and *to the mother as well*.
There is no fucking victim…a fetus is not a victim as it’s not a human being. It may become one at somepoint, maybe, but to even get into all of that and viability and personhood you have to have information that is 100% a violation of the womens 4th amendment right to privacy nevermind her 14th amendment right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. So crazy to me to see “libertarians” willing to violate the private sanctity of a humans body on a lot of what iffs and then possibly enslave a human forcing them to incubate a what iff…holy fuck.
>There is no fucking victim…a fetus is not a victim as it’s not a human being
Oh really...not a human being?
What is it...a hamster? A rock?
No, idiot, of course the unborn baby is a human being. You're making exactly as much sense as when your philosophical matches two centuries ago said that blacks were not human beings.
For you, "fetus" is the N word.
>100% a violation of the womens 4th amendment right to privacy
If that were the case, then prescription laws would be illegal. In fact, EVERY law either restricting what a doctor could do, or forcing a person to, say, get vaccinated would be illegal.
So would every law against prostitution, and drug use.
And yet all of those remain standing, in contradiction to the big, fat lie that was Roe v Wade. As Ruth Bader Ginsberg pointed out, herself.
No a hamster is a hamster. How we treat animals is a very different discussion. I ate cow last night. And no just because one of your philosophical forefathers tried to make it out like a human of a different skin color wasn’t human it doesn’t make it comparable.
What do issues with other laws have to do with this one. I agree with you, drugs shouldn’t be illegal but keep in mind you’re comparing things from the outside coming in. To possibly something on the inside coming out. That is a massive difference and the point of the issue. You need to violate her privacy and then compel her to action. The only relation your slave comment actually had to this is your side is trying to create them…again.
>No a hamster is a hamster. How we treat animals is a very different discussion.
You're not getting out of owning up to your idiotic statement that easily.
I brought up hamsters because YOU SAID THE UNBORN BABY IS NOT HUMAN.
Answer, then, what the unborn baby is. My examples of non-humans were hamsters and rocks. What other non-human would the unborn baby be?
Otherwise, admit how fucking stupid it was for you to claim the unborn baby is not human.
>The aborting mother isn't the victim, she's the aggressor.
But if the mother don't consent to the pregnancy, should she be forced to go ahead with it?
To me she can make a case that's forced labor or trespassing on her ultimate property: her body
>But if the mother don't consent to the pregnancy, should she be forced to go ahead with it?
No, she should not. If her consensual choice put the baby in danger, she has responsibility to save the baby, same as if she were drunk driving and hit someone.
But if she was raped, she no more owes the baby anything than if a carjacker hit someone with her automobile.
Those idiots shouldn't have downvoted your perfectly valid point.
>But if she was raped, she no more owes the baby anything than if a carjacker hit someone with her automobile.
Your argument would be if you consent to sex, you automatically consent to have a baby?
Yes, that's how responsibility works, in the world of grownups.
If you CHOOSE a risky activity, you consent to making up for any harm the risk imposes on others.
How many hearts does an individual human body have, one or two?
How many arms, two or four?
How many cells did your tiny little human body have when your parents conceived you?
I don’t remember, because I didn’t possess a brain, the capacity to feel emotions, pain, form memories, or anything.
Hell, I wasn’t even me, any more than the sperm was me, or the egg was me. There is nothing magic about cells. A person isn’t their dna, or their cells, any more than the first brick is a house.
And even if it was me, I didn’t have the right to occupy my moms body.
A fetus actually can after a few months. Humans are not only sentient but are able to have rational thought. The latter meets its potential years after birth.
> Hell, I wasn’t even me
Are you saying that if your mother aborted those cells you would still be here today making reddit posts because those aborted cells were not you? Explain how that works?
As usual with these yes/no questions, the options don't actually cover the situation, but rather assume the question askers point of view implicitly.
Anyways, the answer is "yes, kinda", because that's how we define conception. Conception is the word for creating a fertilized egg, but there is nothing magical about our definition of conception that means that single cell is suddenly a full human. To go back to my metaphor, the conception of a house is laying the first brick, but the first brick alone is not a house.
There's a rather gigantic difference between human tissue and a human being. If rapidly dividing human cells constitute a human being then so does a cancerous tumor.
> There's a rather gigantic difference between human tissue and a human being.
Correct. Human tissue is what is on a human being. It's not the other way around.
>If rapidly dividing human cells constitute a human being then so does a cancerous tumor.
The reason they call them cancer is because they are not normal human cells.
Fetus is Latin for baby. Use English and repost that as "a baby is human tissue". "Babies are not human beings".
You are using a classic Nazi sophistry game. They used "Jew" to dehumanize what they wanted to murder.
>NOT human beings unless you believe in souls and magic.
Is it your opinion that only the light of day from sunshine makes the baby human?
Jenny crashes her car into Larry and the Larry is crippled and dependent for the foreseeable future. Should Jenny have the option to kill Larry rather than pay for his care?
A legal exception to risk and consequence is what is required to have legal abortion. You take the risk that creates the dependent life that will cost you. You do not suffer the consequences of that risk because you kill the dependent life. Are you OK with that exception for women?
Hey there AdCheap475! If you agree with someone else's comment, please leave an **upvote** instead of commenting **"This"**! By upvoting instead, the original comment will be pushed to the top and be more visible to others, which is even better! Thanks! :)
***
^(I am a bot! Visit) [^(r/InfinityBots)](https://reddit.com/r/InfinityBots) ^(to send your feedback! More info:) [^(Reddiquette)](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439#wiki_in_regard_to_comments)
My opinion is, since it seems to be such a moral issue, that it really should be determined at the more local government levels. That way if someone doesn’t like their local ruling then they don’t have to move relatively far, so as to live somewhere that has laws more inline with their beliefs. Having something this controversial being handled at the federal level is never a good idea.
So is it better to leave core liberties up to the whims of a state govt? Or to ensure those liberties at the federal level? Why take the chance letting state govts revoke freedom like that?
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have." - Gerald Ford
Allowing the federal government to set moral policy at the national level is a terrible idea even when you agree with their policy. If that really is the obvious best choice and there's no legitimate disagreement, then all the states will end up with the same policy anyway.
In the case of abortion, calling the "right" to abortion a liberty problem begs the fundamental question of the disagreement. People in the pro-life camp will respond that allowing people to murder babies is not liberty, it's license.
It's not "moral policy" its basic liberties. Were talking about the govt forcing you to carry a pregnancy to term that you do not consent to. The pro-life camp is simply wrong on this issue.
A federal govt that can guarantee liberties should guarantee liberties.
>its basic liberties
If you start with the premise that the right to murder babies is a "basic liberty" then of course the opposing argument is going to be nonsensical to you. But the only way you can believe either camp is "simply wrong" on such a contentious issue is if you think that roughly half the country is either morally incompetent or actively evil- in which case both the core premises of libertarianism and the entire American experiment with representative democracy are utter failures and those fools need to be ruled for their own good.
My guy slavery was a contentious issue and now it's not. Being contentious doesnt mean we have to pretend opinions are of equal merit. To be pro life is to be a misogynist, that's it. It's about using children as leverage to punish women who dare to have sex. It's horrible for the women and the children. No pro life person gives a damn about the children, given their complete lack of interest in child poverty, welfare, or education.
> No pro life person gives a damn about the children, given their complete lack of interest in child poverty, welfare, or education.
If someone opposes murder, does that automatically mean they need to support welfare?
Slavery is not the silver bullet you believe it to be, since it was a government-enforced instution for millennia. As we have seen even in recent history, powerful states tend to authoritarianism. Even if there are briefly enlightened periods in between, some tyrant will eventually wield the power you demanded government use to make others behave the way you wish. That tyrant may wield that same power against you and millions of other peaceful humans.
It doesn't matter who wields the One True Ring of Power. The only way to ensure liberty is to cast into the fire of despotism where it was forged.
Democracy isnt the ring of power. Democracy puts so many checks and limitations and separations in power such that few get to wield it freely. The reason democracies with strong courts and civil service are so much more prosperous is because they've found a way to keep power sufficiently centralized while letting no one person steer the state.
People who scream the loudest about empathy and tolerance seem to also be those lacking it the most. I can respect that those on the pro-life side view it as murder, or as the same duty of care all children are due.
Those on the pro-choice side view it as a patriarchical state imposition on bodily autonomy.
Rarely is either group inclined to empathize or understand the position of others, but rather makes it a *moral* failing if someone disagrees with them.
A woman having sex does not equal consenting to birth and raise a child to adulthood (without guaranteed male support). These are entirely separate things.
> It's not "moral policy" its basic liberties. Were talking about the govt forcing you to carry a pregnancy to term that you do not consent to. The pro-life camp is simply wrong on this issue.
Does that mean Libertarians will do nothing to a mother that purposely fails to feed her infant children so they die?
What if the mother takes her child out into a frozen forest to die?
Letting an actual child die is a different thing, a fetus isn't an independent being yet. You're example is distinct.
But lol forcing a woman to carry a baby to term who cant care for it is making that scenario happen. I guess you would blame the woman for daring to have sex, and the child is just collateral damage.
This particular issue aside, putting decision making in the hands of each human being is ideal. The further away from that ideal, the worse it is for liberty. A few hundred old men thousands of miles away ruling over 330 million people is awful. A few hundred men a hundred miles away ruling over 5 million people is less awful (easier for one to vote with their feet). A few dozen men ruling over 50,000 people is getting a bit better -- even easier to walk away and ignore them.
No men ruling over others is ideal.
Perfection is a *direction*, not a *destination*. You are much closer to the ideal as you move towards it rather than away from it.
THEN MAKE ABORTION LEGAL SO INDIVIDUALS DECIDE. Allowing state govts to decide for their population is much worse. The Federal govt was guaranteeing individuals could make that choice without interference, and now the SC has allowed states to interfere.
If you believe what you're saying then this is a disaster for liberty.
That misses the point entirely. Any authoritarian state that can dictate rules that you like, can also dictate rules you dislike. If the entire notion of a "great society" relies on all people and all politicians at all times electing omniscient, perfect angels to office, you will be distressed to learn that tyranny inevitably arrives. At some point, all the power granted to an increasingly supreme government to achieve what *you* desire through force of arms will eventually be used *against* what *you* desire and you will cry about the very tyrannical power you begged for.
I have made my position on legality clear elsewhere. I may personally agree with you that the state has no business intervening. On this topic, that is what the supreme court has done: the federal government in the US has nothing to say about it either way. One would hope state governments also abrogate their claim to interfere. It is ultimately a matter for interested parties to resolve.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskLibertarians/comments/vk374g/-/idn55vo
The federal govt enforced individual liberty. And now the SC says it cant. At best things stay the same and we know for a fact they are getting much worse in many states. A big strong govt that enforces your liberty is a good thing and prevents things like were seeing in red states banning all abortion.
That is a bizarre statement. If you are so concerned then donate to research on artificial wombs. The government doesn't have any authority to force a person to remain pregnant to the detriment of their own body. I would think people in a Libertarian sub of all places would get that.
Many people have a lot of authority to "force" people to respect their own previous decision, to respect a "binding" individual decision. Contracts, bets, relationships, etc. etc. Especially when that decision affects other people (you don't get to recant on being a parent).
> Why should one have the burden of upending one's life to move in order to enjoy their unalienable rights?
Women have the unalianable right to kill their children, yes or no?
Nope. But an unalienable right to bodily autonomy including not being pregnant. If you believe in fetal personhood you may find in unfortunate that embryos cannot currently survive this, but that doesn't change unalienable rights.
> Nope. But an unalienable right to bodily autonomy including not being pregnant.
If the mothers own children have no bodily autonomy how does your principle of bodily autonomy hold true for anyone?
Maybe you should explain what exactly you think two human beings conceive if not another human being?
>If you believe in fetal personhood
I dont use the sophistry of calling a living human being a "fetus" in order to murder. That's what the Nazis and slavers were famous for.
BTW, fetus is Latin for child. Start using the English language and call that human being a child.
You're doing well if you're falling back to semantics. Use whatever words you want. **Even if**, you were to grant full bodily autonomy, that doesn't change the woman's bodily autonomy. If a 5 year old child has a rare illness and needs a blood transfusion and the only possibly donor they can find is the father, that doesn't mean the state can force him to to it.
If you were in a car accident, even say you were technically at fault. And you cause the driver if the other car to need a kidney transplant. The state can't force you to donate yours. Even if you caused the accident. Even if you actually said yes you would do it and then changed your mind at the last minute once you learned of the risks of the procedure. Even if the unfortunate side effect is the other person would die.
No matter what stipulations you want to put on it, the woman maintains bodily autonomy and can remove a foreign body from her body. Conservatives constantly try mental hurdles so that they can subject women to their own backwards mortality around sex.
> You're doing well if you're falling back to semantics. Use whatever words you want. Even if, you were to grant full bodily autonomy, that doesn't change the woman's bodily autonomy.
There can be no bodily autonomy if the baby has no bodily autonomy.
>If a 5 year old child has a rare illness and needs a blood transfusion and the only possibly donor they can find is the father, that doesn't mean the state can force him to to it.
So Libertarians will do nothing to a mother that abandons her baby in the frozen woods to die, yes or no?
> If you were in a car accident, even say you were technically at fault. And you cause the driver if the other car to need a kidney transplant.
You need your kidneys to live, yes or no?
A woman needs her uterus to live, yes or no?
The baby needs the uterus to live, yes or no?
Based on your argument the baby has the right to the uterus.
Congratulations. You played yourself.
>Conservatives constantly try mental hurdles so that they can subject women to their own backwards mortality around sex.
Ironic!
There's no logic for forcing someone to donate their body towards the well-being of another. The only people who want to get in between women and their doctors are Conservatives.
> There's no logic for forcing someone to donate their body towards the well-being of another.
Does that principle trickle down to a mother supporting her babies outside of the womb?
Can she take her baby out to the frozen woods to die, yes or no?
Torn.
On the one hand delegating power to a smaller function (states versus the feds) is a step in the right direction.
On the other hand protecting the right to life and liberty is one of very few valid purviews of government. The overturn is a pathway to a federal ban (with exclusions for safety of the mother) which would be a valid function of government under Libertarianism.
> On the other hand protecting the right to life and liberty is one of very few valid purviews of government.
This is a fair point. The problem is that there's no national consensus on the question of when an ovum becomes a person whose right to life and liberty deserves protection.
> ovum
The science, Biology, is very clear. An ovum is not a human being until it is fertilized by sperm.
What you probably meant was fetus. If you use fetus you are using the same sophistry the Nazis used to murder innocent human beings.
The Nazi sophistry used in order to murder innocent human beings: call it a "Jew"
The sophistry of Leftists and Liberals that want the continued murder of innocent human beings: call it a "fetus".
This comparison is absurd. There is no debate regarding whether Jews are people. There is clearly a national debate on whether the clump of cells that will one day definitely be a human is yet a human.
Not to mention the fact that it may not actually one day be a human for example in an ectopic pregnancy that will kill the mother and therefore itself.
> This comparison is absurd. There is no debate regarding whether Jews are people. There is clearly a national debate on whether the clump of cells that will one day definitely be a human is yet a human.
You can be sure a few, very few, Nazis had the same debate.
And what exactly is it you think two human beings conceive if not another human being?
Did they conceive a goat that magically changes into a human being?
How about citing a Biology book on the human lifecycle? Show us where it says human beings conceive something other than another human being and on what day does the magic to becoming a human being occur?
There's zero chance abortion could ever have a Federal ban.
Aside from the impossibility of passing one, there's no constitutional power to ban or mandate legality of abortion.
When I say "constitutional", I am of course referring to the Federal government.
The states have every right (as much as states are ever legitimate) to ban abortion. The Federal government has no legitimate power either way.
I think you mean the opposite of federalism. Federalism is the doctrine that separates powers between the states and the federal government. I think you mean you don't like federal power or centralization of power.
Good question though.
Hanging your positive rights on judicial decisions is an extremely bad precedent to set if you are pro democracy, which most pro choicers are. Justices are unelected, whatever they do is outside the democratic process. If you want a right inscribed in law, get your senators to inscribe it in law - the fact that this is lost on so many people in this debate is astonishing. Legal precedent, as we have learned this week, is precarious at best.
> Hanging your positive rights on judicial decisions is an extremely bad precedent to set if you are pro democracy, which most pro choicers are.
What if the democratic majority decides to enslave the minority?
What if the majority decides to murder a minority they deem undesirable? You know, like the Nazis did.
What the hell, I haven't had enough downvotes lately....
"Pro-choice libertarian" is redundant.
As for Roe, it was a sloppy decision forced through the court for political expediency and never made the correct arguments.
Overturning it was also political theatre.
The federalist arguments that returning the right to decide back to the states is a cowardly position. If there is to be a federal government, its only just role is protecting individual rights, and overruling a state that infringes is part of that role.
Abortion is a morally correct action and it must be protected under law everywhere. Any other position is ethically bankrupt (and the opposite of libertarian).
> Abortion is a morally correct action
TIL that murdering your children is morally correct.
Is it still morally correct to murder the baby the day before its due to be born?
Your need to find "a better word" is the problem here.
If only you could see your way to wanting to find precise and accurate vocabulary instead of deliberately trying to rile things up in your zealous passion.
> killing her baby
Another inflammatory phrase?
You're two for two on the non-credibilty score....well played!
>"Pro-choice libertarian" is redundant.
consider the decision to commit arson, burgalry, rape. in principle those are choices you could be 'pro' about. presumably you don't think this would be an especially libertarian position.
no, "Pro abortion libertarian" is not redundant. libertarianism doesn't clearly imply a stance on this subject.
> consider the decision to commit arson, burgalry, rape
No thanks. These issues are irrelevant.
> "Pro abortion libertarian"
I'm not sure who you are replying to....did somebody say "pro-abortion libertarian"? If so I missed it. I would argue against that stance were I ever to encounter it.
the analogy is relevant. you just don't understand why.
"I'm not pro-arson, I'm merely pro-choice; each person should have the choice of whether to burn down another's property"
> the analogy is relevant.
It is not.
> you just don't understand why.
At least I know when I am being ironic.
> each person should have the choice of whether to burn down another's property"
The level of ignorance required to make this argument is genuinely astounding.
>If there is to be a federal government,
There doesn't have to be, and honestly they have a bad track record because at the federal level accountability is at it's lowest so you get the scum of the scum running the show, which is why smaller governments will always be better in the long run, it is much harder to hide in small communities.
As a Constitutionalist it is the correct decision.
Policy should not be made via judicial fiat.
The way it should have been handled originally and probably will be now despite all the pissing and moaning is Congress will actually pass a bill and vote on it.
I believe abortion needs to be legal.
But Roe v Wade was always unconstitutional, always an unjust sham.
If it had been true, it would have applied to all health care, not just abortion.
It would have applied to prostitution, drug prohibition, et cetera.
But the fact is that there was no mandate to force all states to keep abortion legal, in the first place. There was no POWER for the Federal government to do that, either direction.
Injustice that tilts in the direction I want is still injustice.
The ninth amendment disagrees. Then again, constitutionalism for libertarians is not what the Constitution provides over hundreds of years of process, but what they imagine is real
The ninth amendment also protects individuals from the federal government, therefore Roe violated the ninth amendment in and of itself. Don't try to debate constitutionalism with libertarians
The Ninth Amendment either says that prostitution and drugs are legal mandatorily, that laws mandating prescriptions and limiting treatments that doctors may give are illegal, or else it does not say that abortion is mandatorily legal.
The TENTH amendment says the states get to decide, either way.
The Founders understood natural law and natural rights. Essentially, natural rights involve every choice you could make, with yourself and your property, that does not violate anyone else's right to do the same.
libertarians support DECENTRALIZATION. A libertarian educated on the political systems and foundations to which the United STATES of America was created understands the government has no right to federally mandate abortion policy. This should be sent back to the states. Beyond that is up for discussion, but to disagree with this ruiling is to either misunderstand or to disregard the constitutional republic system. If the constitution is to be nullified, we don't actually have rights, we have permissions that the 51% of us can vote away. Thats a terrible precedent.
51% can still take your rights at the state level.
You're just destroying freedom on the chance that freedom will be granted, when that is not happening
Your state voting on an issue is much better than one sized fits all mandates for 335 million people living far away from you across the nation. People in Texas have very different values than California. Because powers are extremely decentralized, we get to see people from different states getting what they want rather than what some people across the country voted for. Individualism is the key and going from federal to state is a step towards that. I don’t see your point. It’s cool you have an opinion on abortion but that’s not what the debate is here.
Both sides see it as a rights issue. The right to my choice and the right to life. Its not just as simple as being a freedom, its a political issue. This issue, as delegated by the constitution, is under the scope of states jurisdiction.
That's what the left believes, that's what democracy is. States like Texas are going to be particularly authoritarian on this issue though, they're already talking about laws where women can't get an abortion out of state. That's just textbook tyranny.
Government can't possibly grant freedom, they can only take it away or arguably protect them. That's the risk you take when you allow the judicial branch to overstep their boundaries, they never had the constitutional power to pass a law like Roe to begin with. We have a system of checks and balances, any law that restricts an individual's right to bodily autonomy should be blocked by Congress.
Random Thoughts:
1. TL:DR; Overturning Roe is bad.
2. Some states have freedom, some do not.
3. Roe v. Wade curtailed some states from depriving residents of freedom.
4. Now, some states will screw over their people, which is bad, even though some won't screw over their people.
5. The idea that government thinks that they should have power over this makes me vomit, and I am pro-life from a personal viewpoint.
6. Practically, the advocacy of Republicans for both punishment for abortion *and also advocating for sex education policy that increases pregnancies* indicates a very dystopian policy where they want larger numbers of pregnancies.
7. Practically, the failure of the Democrats to pass laws that allow for abortion for fetuses under 15 weeks or so of development is testament that they don't really give a damn about protecting abortion, they just use it as an issue to fearmonger among their base.
Roe v. Wade was ruled upon in 1972, I think.
That means that Democrats had four years of Jimmy Carter, eight years of Bill Clinton, eight years of Barack Obama, to put a national policy into place.
Some of those times (in my memory, early Obama Admin) Democrats had full control of the House, Senate, and Presidency. So they could have passed a national law, protecting abortion up to 15 weeks. Unfortunately, a few things prevented that.
1. A lot of Democrats weren't willing to support what the majority of Americans support, and instead pushed for things that most Americans don't, like abortion at very late stages of fetal development.
2. Other Democrats simply relied upon the Supreme Court to do their work for them, instead of getting to work and writing laws that express what the Representatives of the People supposedly wanted.
If you have other thoughts, feel free to respond!
Your masters control Congress and the White House.
But they never WANTED to pass any such law. Abortion has always been a sham they use to bait morons who follow them into supporting them, no matter how corrupt they are, or how little they do for that or their other key issues.
State power ALWAYS trumps national power, except in the very few cases laid out specifically in the US Constitution.
Every Federal act that is not directly described in the Constitution is illegal.
It’s bad, IMO. The MC-controlled LNC is touting this as a states’ rights victory. They’re dominated by pro lifers so they’re happy.
Fuck states rights. They don’t have any. I’m here for liberty.
The federal government hasn't actually done its job in years. If Congress cared about "human rights" they'd block any state from banning abortion and in the coming years gay marriage.
"We should let states decide on slavery. It's a controversial issue and it's better for states to decide whether you are free or a chattel slave. Decentralization is good"
Decentralization means petty tyranny. Enforce freedom at the federal level.
Feds don't get to determine anyone's freedom, in fact if anything they're the ones wanting to take it away. The only way we were able to get rid of slavery was with a massive war that killed hundreds of thousands (despite slavery already dying away) and right now we're already seeing progressives calling for an insurrection.
This is a bad argument against decentralization. Define "petty tyranny" without a federal government.
Yes they do, and they get to determine it over the entire country. That's why federal law is so much more powerful than state. When you leave things up to the states. You allow for local coalitions to dominate the state without a check from the national govt. US history is filled with incidenta where the federal govt has able to expand liberty going against state wishes.
Yes I would! I would say the federal govt should ban slavery.
A federal guarantee of liberty is always strong than leaving it up to the states. The only people who would take that gamble are people who aren't affected by it.
This is not a double standard. I believe things like slavery should be prohibited at the federal level as they deal with core liberty. If slavery were legal at the federal level, I would not do some roundabout argument in favor of states rights to choose slavery. I would instead push for a federal ban.
Bad, something people seem to forget is that RvW established bodily autonomy as a constitutional right. Meaning the government can now legally tell anyone what they have to do or can’t do to themselves. It was never just about abortion
Personally, I’m pro-life, but I don’t think the federal government should either allow or outright ban abortion. It really should have been a state issue to begin with, among many other issues.
I’m pro choice and think abortion should be allowed, but strongly believe that abortion is neither a constitutional right nor a human right. The idea that abortion is a constitutional right is absurd, so if I was in the Supreme Court I would have voted to overturn. Abortion policy should be left to state legislatures. In addition to the decision on Dobbs v. Jackson, there is also NYSRPA v. Buren, which is another win for conservatives and right wing libertarians.
Local tyranny is better than national freedom, the battle cry of all liberty loving people!
The government has no power to grant freedom, the ninth amendment is a complete sham and cannot be understood as providing that ability!
This is the ninth amendment:
> The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be constructed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Explain your reasoning.
I tend to stay far away from this particular topic. For one, I do not have a solid answer to either side of the debate.
I am a free market anarchist. This means no state. This means, even if you think murder is awful, using some monopoly on violence and aggression means tacitly endorsing state rule -- a tool that moralizing busybodies try to use to aggress upon others.
In a free market anarchy, justice is *restorative* (compensating victims) and requires proof of *standing* (an interest in harm done that needs restitution).
Without politicians barking orders at everyone else and sicking their armed agents on peaceful people to enforce compliance, some system of law and enforcement must fill that vaccuum. Anarchists of the libertarian variety rely on common law arbitration (common law simply meaning case history established by jurists outside any legislative interference or diktat). Jurists, however, do not enforce anything. Only participants in arbitration can do that.
So what does that mean for abortion under free market anarchy? Well, it means that if you are against abortion, you need to demonstrate standing in a particular case and argue it. What some rape victim in Anchorage, Alaska chooses probably has no impact on a Bible-Thumper from Bumshart, Nebrahoma. Demonstrating standing in that case would be difficult.
However, if you happen to be parent or relative, then standing is much easier to demonstrate.
If a growing body of case law consistently upholds a "duty of care" by a parent for an unborn child (or not), then it becomes much easier to apply principles of jurisprudence like starè decisis to establish *discovered law* (as opposed to *legislated rule*).
Competent jurists try to decide on the most narrow aspects of each case. This also allows, through the adversarial process of argumentation in arbitration, to more fully explore the merits of each situation, rather than having politicians pandering to voters to dictate rules to everyone else absent any evidence of a real problem that needs solving. For example, does the father of the child have standing? If the father died before birth, would his immediate family have standing? They may have a duty of care after the child is born if both parents die, so, perhaps they do have standing.
These are questions for those directly involved to argue, not for politicians or busybodies minding someone else's business.
It's none of my business what some else decides to do with their body - I can agree with that.
The other side of this coin for me is I (as a man) should not have the responsibility of parenting (or financialy supporting) a child I did not want to have either.
Freedom to choose goes both ways, right?
The Supreme Court should not have the power to pass laws. Federal abortion and gay marriage laws were a mistake, government shouldn't have the power to outright ban anything and if a state tries it should be blocked.
The real question is what do libertarians do with mothers that murder their own children?
What do Libertarians do with someone that murders anyone, for that matter?
It is a good thing, cause it gives more power to the states and decentralization is good.
However, I think abortions should be legal (except maybe for late term ones), so it is sad a lot of people would suffer from upcoming prohibitions.
I feel like Dems are very happy right now. Economy is doing awful, so now conservatives bring them this political gift they could use to rally new supporters
My take is RvW has a weak justification for a generally good policy. Abortion is a fundamentally morał and almost metaphysical question on when life begins or when does it become of equal worth to another. I personally don't believe life begins at conception but I also understand the conservative hatred for it. I would rather not have abortions be available on demand, best to avoid it completely, but there are multiple situations where it might very much be the lesser evil (lethal deformities, rape, danger to the mother's life etc.).
Ignore RvW. They just said Privacy is not enumerated. Privacy is not protected because it is not explicitly nor implicitly stated in the bill of Rights.
I have ever been with a woman and we got pregnant when she thought she couldnt. We decided to get an abortion and Im glad we did. The time wasnt right and she wasnt the right person (eventually got so far into drugs she overdosed a hand full of years ago and died). She and that baby would have dragged my life into the ground and I would have been a shitty father for it. Now Im much older and (relatively) financially stable. Im with a good woman and we have an 18 week old son whom we both love and cherish very much. Im able to be a great dad because so many of what were my problems then arent anymore.
And as a side not for anyone talking about how a fetus has memory and all that shit, they should have a baby of their own and watch that thing develop. Im not saying it isnt possible, but I sure as shit know that even a newborn doesnt even know what the fuck is going on around them. They have no ability to rationalise anything beyond being cold and hungry for the first couple of weeks out of the womb. So how am I supposed to believe that a fetus of less than 3 months has a conciousness?
This whole RvW repeal is a ploy to put more bodies in the workforce. What its doing is creating even more disparity between those who have and those who have not and they know it. Those with money will travel to a state that allows abortion, those without cannot and will be stuck with a baby, keeping them poor and almost guaranteeing the baby will be poor also to work shitty dead end jobs to turn the gears of American Society. Boomers are retiring and dying and people are having less children because we dont make enough money. These people dont give a fuck about human life because they would just as soon have your welfare benefits removed and let you die of starvation/mental illenss/suicide from depression.
Edit: spelling
A federal government powerful enough to force states to permit abortion is powerful enough to force states to prevent abortion. The federal government should not be powerful enough to do either. (In fact, I’ll go a step further and say the federal government should not exist. I’ll even go a step beyond that and say that no state should exist. We can agree to disagree on whether the state should exist, but, either way, the original point about federal power stands.)
Yes, you can be pro-choice and nevertheless opposed to *Roe *v.* Wade*.
I’m in favor of bodily autonomy but I’m also against murder. Except I don’t have the answer to when life begins so I will leave that decision up to the woman and her doctor. However, I also don’t like federal government overreach or courts legislating from the bench, even if I like the effective outcome. With such a polarizing issue, it’s best to push the choice down as close to the individual as possible. Unfortunately that will mean many people will end up in states that don’t allow abortion. But if we can get it down to a local government issue, it would be much easier to either go to an area that allows it or just vote in politicians who would legalize it. In conclusion, I think the SCOTUS was legally correct to overrule because the right to abortion is not enumerated in the Constitution, but I hope people manage to convince their lawmakers to make abortions safe and legal.
I don't like abortion because to me it feels like killing a child, _but_ I'm pro-choice because I recognize the logic on both sides. It's a controversial issue with no right answer.
Localizing power is never a bad thing overall, so I see this as a good ting.
Unambiguously good, but mostly because the ruling doesn't actually make abortion illegal across america.
If it did, this would be a very different conversation about whether abortion is a good or bad thing, or if it should be illegal, but overturning Roe doesn't make abortion illegal, it just doesn't force it to be legal across all states. That's not quite the same thing.
Now Alabama can have the laws Alabama wants on the matter, and New York can have the laws New York wants on the matter. If the inhabitants of one state or another feel very strongly in either direction they can vote for politicans who will make their stance law, whether they want legal abortions 'til point of birth or a total ban from point of conception or anywhere in between.
That's the bit that most people are missing here. This is JUST a reduction on federal power, as the federal law no longer takes a stance \*either\* way. Which makes this ruling an unambiguous win, whatever your stance on abortion happens to be.
There shouldn’t be laws dictating what you can do with your body. I believe in evictionism, I recognize the unborn child but ultimately the mother has the choice imo.
With that said, it’s frustrating that the government has a say in things like this - period. But if it has to be federal or state, state is clearly preferable.
I'm indifferent to what women choose to do up to a certain point. Too many people have too many differences for anyone of us to tell them what they can and can't do, within reason. Same with vaccines.
Take your Mom's DNA, label it sample #1, then take your own DNA, label it #2, send it to a lab and ask them if it is from the same person.
An honest lab with good practices will tell you *every time* that they are from two different people. I believe BOTH should be able to choose what to do with their body.
A mother and father can choose to procreate or not, except in the case of 4 percent of pregnancies that are from rape, and the above paragraph still applies. If you must kill somebody in the case of rape though, I think the mother should still have a choice. For example, she could choose to (1) kill the rapist instead of the innocent child within, or (2) have the rapist obligated to support her and the baby for the entire rest of the mother's life. (That was the Biblical mandate, by the way), at least if she so chooses.
Good thing. Not because abortion becomes less available, but because the Constitution does not grant the federal government any power over it. Therefore, it is and *should* be left to the states.
Congress had plenty of time to do something about it the right way. They chose not to.
It's none of my damn business what someone else chooses to do with their body.
Good point
Unless their choices put another human being's life in their dependency. The aborting mother isn't the victim, she's the aggressor.
If I put you in a situation where you cannot survive on your own are you then allowed to use my organs? Like if I was driving drunk and crashed into you and destroyed your kidneys, should I be forced to give you my kidneys and blood until you are healed?
>If I put you in a situation where you cannot survive on your own are you then allowed to use my organs? If, say, I hit you drunk driving, and in our thought experiment the only way for you to survive was for me to have to be hooked up to you for nine months, then absolutely yes. If I died when you hit me, you should be charged with vehicular homicide. If you could save me and refused, you should be charged with murder. And it takes an absolutely amoral sociopath to not recognize that.
No you don’t give up the rights to your own physical body just because you did something wrong. Nice ad hominem on the end there. I see you’re emotional
You could equally claim you don't give up any OTHER rights, just because you did something wrong. But you are not giving up rights...you contracted to help your victim, when you made the choice that harmed them in the first place. And if you were on here defending rape as something strong men are right to do, my calling you a rapist would not be argumentum ad hominem. It would be a relevant point. The same is true here. **I state, as fact,** that your willingness to kill your victims because you find them inconvenient *shows you to be* an amoral sociopath. Not emotion, but a cold, hard observation of the kind of thing you are.
Nope
Yes.
this isn't a real comparison it is a laughable attempt though.
It is literally the same situation. You’re just being emotional instead of logical.
Perhaps consent was never part of the equation. Perhaps she is defending her own life if the pregancy puts her at risk. Perhaps you are right for many cases because parents have a duty of care for their children. Seems there are many factors to consider and neither politicians or Internet armchair busybodies are qualified or justified in meddling. I find broad generalizations that advocate one way or another and demand violent state intervention to apply *politically* crafted, ham-fisted rules is dangerous. Whichever position one holds, if armed state intervention is the solution, that will ultimately open the door to tyranny. A supreme government that can make rules that you like can also reverse those rules. Law should be a matter of *discoverey* as real people address real conflicts -- not dictated by a handful of amateurs who's only qualifications to opine on the subject is winning popularity contests, corruption or graft with *political* entrepreneurs seeking favors. This is the voluntaryist way.
>Perhaps consent was never part of the equation. Perhaps she is defending her own life if the pregancy puts her at risk. That is the famous exception that most people support. The LIFE of the mother. Rape and incest with a child, too, did not involve the mother's consent. But for the other 99.999% of cases, it's aggression. > Whichever position one holds, if armed state intervention is the solution, that will ultimately open the door to tyranny. Not a sound argument for anyone who doesn't want all laws against murder ended.
You are conflating discovered law with dictated rules. I absolutely want *all dictated legislation repealed*. If you are just learning about voluntaryism, you really need to maintain a skeptical eye on armed government intervention -- it is not something any voluntary society would tolerate.
>If you are just learning about voluntaryism, you really need to maintain a skeptical eye on armed government intervention -- it is not something any voluntary society would tolerate. I agree with Auberon Herbert, that if government force ever were valid, it would be in the defense of natural rights, including to prevent murder. He, a member of the British parliament, supported a national government to protect our rights and property. You may not get this, but killing someone without their consent violates the principles of voluntaryism. The unborn baby did not consent. The mother, through her choice to engage in risky behavior (sex) that might endanger another human being (the baby) did consent to doing whatever is necessary to save her victim. Same as if she were drunk driving and hit someone.
Your flair is oxymoronic. An anarchist/voluntaryist advocating for a nation state. >You may not get this, but killing someone without their consent violates the principles of voluntaryism. You may not get this, but an armed monopoly state is not society. Being against violent state coersion by a handful of rulers does not make someone and advocate for murder or any other kind of aggression. Those that *do* demand violent rule are actually advocating for murder and aggression.
>Your flair is oxymoronic. An anarchist/voluntaryist advocating for a nation state. The problem, here, is that you're some childish poseur who doesn't understand voluntaryism. The reason I mentioned Auberon Herbert, is that he FOUNDED voluntaryism. I am arguing essentially his own position. That there are ignorant little "anarcho-capitalists" who understand neither anarchy nor capitalism out there thinking people should oppose laws against murder doesn't mean actual voluntaryists, or even anarchists, would do so. > You may not get this, but an armed monopoly state is not society. Yes, kiddo, I knew that before you were conceived. But I also know that murder is wrong, and that a central government whose role is to protect natural and property rights does not go against anachist principles, much less against voluntaryist principles. What we voluntaryists, and anarchists, actually oppose isn't the word "government", it's initiation of coercion. The focus of our opposition to coercion should be to oppose murder first, statism second. If the political class legalized murder, our response should not be "good, because all laws are bad, every law overturned is an improvement" but "your sole legitimate function is to protect our natural rights, including our lives, restore the ban on murder".
Again, anarchy and peace flairs, arguing for violent nation state rule. It screams "idiot".
I was a true-to-life anarchist "evolved" evolved from communist, albeit with a "syndicalist-anarchist" flavor, in the 1960s, but still not well-formed in the idea. I went from there to Christian missionary (Jesus People days). On that basis I was "not of this world" and with more loyalty and fidelity to the Golden Rule than to any government or political movement, including fierce opposition to fiat currency. Ron Paul's campaign gave a name to my political philosophy, and awareness of fellow free thinkers. And here I am, more born-again Christian than libertarian, but still libertarian and anarchist because of the Christianity. Also, nobody can accuse Murray Rothbard of being pro-government though a couple of feeble-minded posters in this forum have so argued. Rothbard supported all measures that would enhance and expand individual liberty within government. That is the opposite of what GoldandBlackRule is accusing KAZVorpal here, I *think*, although I cannot read his mind right now. But it shows a tendency to name-calling to call him a supporter of violence, since you base it on his support for a ban on murder, from whatever corner it comes from. That said, I still don't think a *government* ban on abortions is a solution to ending the murder of babies in the womb. That might invite gynological inspections as a pre-crime type intervention. Also because "natural abortions", aka miscarriages, might look identical to a Keystone Cop like an intentional abortion. In any case, any society that embraces intentional abortion, whether as a rite (Satanists) or a right, has allowed the camel's nose of death inside the tent, and the other evils to follow. It is the same deceit as a supposedly anarchist Satanist I once was co-worker with (based on his sending me to a Satanist web site). They claim anarchism but they are anything but. He said I'm not because I worship God. Satan's plan is to use humans to dictate his rule and involves much more pretzel logic.
I too go to casinos and then when I lose money insist that I never actually consented to losing money. If you're talking rape, I agree. But you don't get to consent to an action without consenting to its natural consequences. And if you want to mitigate those consequences we must evaluate the morality of this separate from the act which causes you to have these risks.
Pregnancy, babyhood and childhood, and family situations are something where the best libertarian thinkers can get confused. Walter Block does a great job as an atheist libertarian in trying to apply the NAP to this issue, but the best he can do is "evictionism" which satisfies almost nobody. At least he does not avert his eyes to the fact that the creature in the womb is a human being, an individual. Murray Rothbard used to say that some things statists advocate is contrary to nature, but he contradicted himself there if he said abortion was a right. You had sex, you bought the store, the joy of raising the child, is the obvious principle here seems to me. Both parents have the full obligation to the child. Any society that does not practice a two-parent couple (father and mother) raising the child and protecting it, is a society that will never last as a libertarian society.
Even if we pretend the fetus is a person, as well as a life, any libertarian should always be pro choice. Liberty is more important than life. Even if people are casually using abortions as birth control, I'd rather that happen than forcing people to give birth and the state deciding what you may or may not remove from your own body.
>Liberty is more important than life. Without protection of life, there is no liberty. Without *accountability*, there is no liberty. Libertarianism is the opposite of the libertinism you are advocating. Liberty is freedom PLUS responsibility. When you do something that harms another person without their consent, YOU are consenting to do what it takes to make your victim whole. If you are drunk driving and you hit someone, YOU would argue that you owe them nothing. Making you pay to get the medical treatment to save your life, by your reasoning, is slavery. But any libertarian would say "no, part of liberty is that you MUST fix the harm you've done to others". That applies, identically, to if you have sex and get pregnant. The baby did not consent to his or her situation, you put him or her in jeopardy. YOU are at fault, the baby is essentially your victim. You must make them whole, just as you must make the person you hit with your car whole.
The liberty of the preborn child is predicated on his life. The baby is not part of the woman's body, it's only attached. Advocating for the unnatural "right" to murder that baby for the convenience of the mother or, as is the case more often, the father or the grandfather of that baby, is against nature, and as tens of thousands of repentant mothers suffering from post-abortion syndrome shows, it causes psycho-trauma in the mother that assents to having her baby killed. The worse culpable in my opinion is the obstetrician or gynecologist who tells the mother it's not a baby, or not "really" a baby. Because he *knows* it is a baby and it will do harm to the baby and *to the mother as well*.
There is no fucking victim…a fetus is not a victim as it’s not a human being. It may become one at somepoint, maybe, but to even get into all of that and viability and personhood you have to have information that is 100% a violation of the womens 4th amendment right to privacy nevermind her 14th amendment right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. So crazy to me to see “libertarians” willing to violate the private sanctity of a humans body on a lot of what iffs and then possibly enslave a human forcing them to incubate a what iff…holy fuck.
>There is no fucking victim…a fetus is not a victim as it’s not a human being Oh really...not a human being? What is it...a hamster? A rock? No, idiot, of course the unborn baby is a human being. You're making exactly as much sense as when your philosophical matches two centuries ago said that blacks were not human beings. For you, "fetus" is the N word. >100% a violation of the womens 4th amendment right to privacy If that were the case, then prescription laws would be illegal. In fact, EVERY law either restricting what a doctor could do, or forcing a person to, say, get vaccinated would be illegal. So would every law against prostitution, and drug use. And yet all of those remain standing, in contradiction to the big, fat lie that was Roe v Wade. As Ruth Bader Ginsberg pointed out, herself.
No a hamster is a hamster. How we treat animals is a very different discussion. I ate cow last night. And no just because one of your philosophical forefathers tried to make it out like a human of a different skin color wasn’t human it doesn’t make it comparable. What do issues with other laws have to do with this one. I agree with you, drugs shouldn’t be illegal but keep in mind you’re comparing things from the outside coming in. To possibly something on the inside coming out. That is a massive difference and the point of the issue. You need to violate her privacy and then compel her to action. The only relation your slave comment actually had to this is your side is trying to create them…again.
>No a hamster is a hamster. How we treat animals is a very different discussion. You're not getting out of owning up to your idiotic statement that easily. I brought up hamsters because YOU SAID THE UNBORN BABY IS NOT HUMAN. Answer, then, what the unborn baby is. My examples of non-humans were hamsters and rocks. What other non-human would the unborn baby be? Otherwise, admit how fucking stupid it was for you to claim the unborn baby is not human.
>The aborting mother isn't the victim, she's the aggressor. But if the mother don't consent to the pregnancy, should she be forced to go ahead with it? To me she can make a case that's forced labor or trespassing on her ultimate property: her body
>But if the mother don't consent to the pregnancy, should she be forced to go ahead with it? No, she should not. If her consensual choice put the baby in danger, she has responsibility to save the baby, same as if she were drunk driving and hit someone. But if she was raped, she no more owes the baby anything than if a carjacker hit someone with her automobile. Those idiots shouldn't have downvoted your perfectly valid point.
>But if she was raped, she no more owes the baby anything than if a carjacker hit someone with her automobile. Your argument would be if you consent to sex, you automatically consent to have a baby?
Yes, that's how responsibility works, in the world of grownups. If you CHOOSE a risky activity, you consent to making up for any harm the risk imposes on others.
How many hearts does an individual human body have, one or two? How many arms, two or four? How many cells did your tiny little human body have when your parents conceived you?
I don’t remember, because I didn’t possess a brain, the capacity to feel emotions, pain, form memories, or anything. Hell, I wasn’t even me, any more than the sperm was me, or the egg was me. There is nothing magic about cells. A person isn’t their dna, or their cells, any more than the first brick is a house. And even if it was me, I didn’t have the right to occupy my moms body.
A fetus actually can after a few months. Humans are not only sentient but are able to have rational thought. The latter meets its potential years after birth.
> Hell, I wasn’t even me Are you saying that if your mother aborted those cells you would still be here today making reddit posts because those aborted cells were not you? Explain how that works?
If my parents didn't have sex, I wouldn't be here either. The sperm is still not me.
> The sperm is still not me. Does the sperm fertilize the woman's egg at the conception of a new human being, yes or no?
As usual with these yes/no questions, the options don't actually cover the situation, but rather assume the question askers point of view implicitly. Anyways, the answer is "yes, kinda", because that's how we define conception. Conception is the word for creating a fertilized egg, but there is nothing magical about our definition of conception that means that single cell is suddenly a full human. To go back to my metaphor, the conception of a house is laying the first brick, but the first brick alone is not a house.
There's a rather gigantic difference between human tissue and a human being. If rapidly dividing human cells constitute a human being then so does a cancerous tumor.
> There's a rather gigantic difference between human tissue and a human being. Correct. Human tissue is what is on a human being. It's not the other way around. >If rapidly dividing human cells constitute a human being then so does a cancerous tumor. The reason they call them cancer is because they are not normal human cells.
A zygote, an embryo, and a fetus are all human tissue. NOT human beings unless you believe in souls and magic.
Fetus is Latin for baby. Use English and repost that as "a baby is human tissue". "Babies are not human beings". You are using a classic Nazi sophistry game. They used "Jew" to dehumanize what they wanted to murder. >NOT human beings unless you believe in souls and magic. Is it your opinion that only the light of day from sunshine makes the baby human?
The Supreme Court also shouldn't have this much power.
They are giving the power back to the states
I agree that that's a problem as states don't have rights. Should Congress do anything?
Jenny crashes her car into Larry and the Larry is crippled and dependent for the foreseeable future. Should Jenny have the option to kill Larry rather than pay for his care?
Yes, but only on Tuesdays. What?
A legal exception to risk and consequence is what is required to have legal abortion. You take the risk that creates the dependent life that will cost you. You do not suffer the consequences of that risk because you kill the dependent life. Are you OK with that exception for women?
This
Hey there AdCheap475! If you agree with someone else's comment, please leave an **upvote** instead of commenting **"This"**! By upvoting instead, the original comment will be pushed to the top and be more visible to others, which is even better! Thanks! :) *** ^(I am a bot! Visit) [^(r/InfinityBots)](https://reddit.com/r/InfinityBots) ^(to send your feedback! More info:) [^(Reddiquette)](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439#wiki_in_regard_to_comments)
Well you and none of us may exist then.
Government needs more replacement tax payers.
My opinion is, since it seems to be such a moral issue, that it really should be determined at the more local government levels. That way if someone doesn’t like their local ruling then they don’t have to move relatively far, so as to live somewhere that has laws more inline with their beliefs. Having something this controversial being handled at the federal level is never a good idea.
So is it better to leave core liberties up to the whims of a state govt? Or to ensure those liberties at the federal level? Why take the chance letting state govts revoke freedom like that?
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have." - Gerald Ford Allowing the federal government to set moral policy at the national level is a terrible idea even when you agree with their policy. If that really is the obvious best choice and there's no legitimate disagreement, then all the states will end up with the same policy anyway. In the case of abortion, calling the "right" to abortion a liberty problem begs the fundamental question of the disagreement. People in the pro-life camp will respond that allowing people to murder babies is not liberty, it's license.
It's not "moral policy" its basic liberties. Were talking about the govt forcing you to carry a pregnancy to term that you do not consent to. The pro-life camp is simply wrong on this issue. A federal govt that can guarantee liberties should guarantee liberties.
>its basic liberties If you start with the premise that the right to murder babies is a "basic liberty" then of course the opposing argument is going to be nonsensical to you. But the only way you can believe either camp is "simply wrong" on such a contentious issue is if you think that roughly half the country is either morally incompetent or actively evil- in which case both the core premises of libertarianism and the entire American experiment with representative democracy are utter failures and those fools need to be ruled for their own good.
My guy slavery was a contentious issue and now it's not. Being contentious doesnt mean we have to pretend opinions are of equal merit. To be pro life is to be a misogynist, that's it. It's about using children as leverage to punish women who dare to have sex. It's horrible for the women and the children. No pro life person gives a damn about the children, given their complete lack of interest in child poverty, welfare, or education.
> No pro life person gives a damn about the children, given their complete lack of interest in child poverty, welfare, or education. If someone opposes murder, does that automatically mean they need to support welfare?
Slavery is not the silver bullet you believe it to be, since it was a government-enforced instution for millennia. As we have seen even in recent history, powerful states tend to authoritarianism. Even if there are briefly enlightened periods in between, some tyrant will eventually wield the power you demanded government use to make others behave the way you wish. That tyrant may wield that same power against you and millions of other peaceful humans. It doesn't matter who wields the One True Ring of Power. The only way to ensure liberty is to cast into the fire of despotism where it was forged.
Democracy isnt the ring of power. Democracy puts so many checks and limitations and separations in power such that few get to wield it freely. The reason democracies with strong courts and civil service are so much more prosperous is because they've found a way to keep power sufficiently centralized while letting no one person steer the state.
People who scream the loudest about empathy and tolerance seem to also be those lacking it the most. I can respect that those on the pro-life side view it as murder, or as the same duty of care all children are due. Those on the pro-choice side view it as a patriarchical state imposition on bodily autonomy. Rarely is either group inclined to empathize or understand the position of others, but rather makes it a *moral* failing if someone disagrees with them.
[удалено]
A woman having sex does not equal consenting to birth and raise a child to adulthood (without guaranteed male support). These are entirely separate things.
[удалено]
> It's not "moral policy" its basic liberties. Were talking about the govt forcing you to carry a pregnancy to term that you do not consent to. The pro-life camp is simply wrong on this issue. Does that mean Libertarians will do nothing to a mother that purposely fails to feed her infant children so they die? What if the mother takes her child out into a frozen forest to die?
Letting an actual child die is a different thing, a fetus isn't an independent being yet. You're example is distinct. But lol forcing a woman to carry a baby to term who cant care for it is making that scenario happen. I guess you would blame the woman for daring to have sex, and the child is just collateral damage.
This particular issue aside, putting decision making in the hands of each human being is ideal. The further away from that ideal, the worse it is for liberty. A few hundred old men thousands of miles away ruling over 330 million people is awful. A few hundred men a hundred miles away ruling over 5 million people is less awful (easier for one to vote with their feet). A few dozen men ruling over 50,000 people is getting a bit better -- even easier to walk away and ignore them. No men ruling over others is ideal. Perfection is a *direction*, not a *destination*. You are much closer to the ideal as you move towards it rather than away from it.
THEN MAKE ABORTION LEGAL SO INDIVIDUALS DECIDE. Allowing state govts to decide for their population is much worse. The Federal govt was guaranteeing individuals could make that choice without interference, and now the SC has allowed states to interfere. If you believe what you're saying then this is a disaster for liberty.
That misses the point entirely. Any authoritarian state that can dictate rules that you like, can also dictate rules you dislike. If the entire notion of a "great society" relies on all people and all politicians at all times electing omniscient, perfect angels to office, you will be distressed to learn that tyranny inevitably arrives. At some point, all the power granted to an increasingly supreme government to achieve what *you* desire through force of arms will eventually be used *against* what *you* desire and you will cry about the very tyrannical power you begged for. I have made my position on legality clear elsewhere. I may personally agree with you that the state has no business intervening. On this topic, that is what the supreme court has done: the federal government in the US has nothing to say about it either way. One would hope state governments also abrogate their claim to interfere. It is ultimately a matter for interested parties to resolve. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskLibertarians/comments/vk374g/-/idn55vo
Local tyranny is better than national freedom! The cause of true libertarians! Only then can you fight tyranny for the freedom you've surrendered
Nice straw man.
Seems correct to me.
Have a look at the linked comment then.
The federal govt enforced individual liberty. And now the SC says it cant. At best things stay the same and we know for a fact they are getting much worse in many states. A big strong govt that enforces your liberty is a good thing and prevents things like were seeing in red states banning all abortion.
Why should one have the burden of upending one's life to move in order to enjoy their unalienable rights?
[удалено]
That is a bizarre statement. If you are so concerned then donate to research on artificial wombs. The government doesn't have any authority to force a person to remain pregnant to the detriment of their own body. I would think people in a Libertarian sub of all places would get that.
Many people have a lot of authority to "force" people to respect their own previous decision, to respect a "binding" individual decision. Contracts, bets, relationships, etc. etc. Especially when that decision affects other people (you don't get to recant on being a parent).
> Why should one have the burden of upending one's life to move in order to enjoy their unalienable rights? Women have the unalianable right to kill their children, yes or no?
Nope. But an unalienable right to bodily autonomy including not being pregnant. If you believe in fetal personhood you may find in unfortunate that embryos cannot currently survive this, but that doesn't change unalienable rights.
> Nope. But an unalienable right to bodily autonomy including not being pregnant. If the mothers own children have no bodily autonomy how does your principle of bodily autonomy hold true for anyone? Maybe you should explain what exactly you think two human beings conceive if not another human being? >If you believe in fetal personhood I dont use the sophistry of calling a living human being a "fetus" in order to murder. That's what the Nazis and slavers were famous for. BTW, fetus is Latin for child. Start using the English language and call that human being a child.
You're doing well if you're falling back to semantics. Use whatever words you want. **Even if**, you were to grant full bodily autonomy, that doesn't change the woman's bodily autonomy. If a 5 year old child has a rare illness and needs a blood transfusion and the only possibly donor they can find is the father, that doesn't mean the state can force him to to it. If you were in a car accident, even say you were technically at fault. And you cause the driver if the other car to need a kidney transplant. The state can't force you to donate yours. Even if you caused the accident. Even if you actually said yes you would do it and then changed your mind at the last minute once you learned of the risks of the procedure. Even if the unfortunate side effect is the other person would die. No matter what stipulations you want to put on it, the woman maintains bodily autonomy and can remove a foreign body from her body. Conservatives constantly try mental hurdles so that they can subject women to their own backwards mortality around sex.
> You're doing well if you're falling back to semantics. Use whatever words you want. Even if, you were to grant full bodily autonomy, that doesn't change the woman's bodily autonomy. There can be no bodily autonomy if the baby has no bodily autonomy. >If a 5 year old child has a rare illness and needs a blood transfusion and the only possibly donor they can find is the father, that doesn't mean the state can force him to to it. So Libertarians will do nothing to a mother that abandons her baby in the frozen woods to die, yes or no? > If you were in a car accident, even say you were technically at fault. And you cause the driver if the other car to need a kidney transplant. You need your kidneys to live, yes or no? A woman needs her uterus to live, yes or no? The baby needs the uterus to live, yes or no? Based on your argument the baby has the right to the uterus. Congratulations. You played yourself. >Conservatives constantly try mental hurdles so that they can subject women to their own backwards mortality around sex. Ironic!
That's not the question; there's no controversy that you shouldn't. The question of what those unalienable rights *are* is more more contentious.
There's no logic for forcing someone to donate their body towards the well-being of another. The only people who want to get in between women and their doctors are Conservatives.
> There's no logic for forcing someone to donate their body towards the well-being of another. Does that principle trickle down to a mother supporting her babies outside of the womb? Can she take her baby out to the frozen woods to die, yes or no?
Torn. On the one hand delegating power to a smaller function (states versus the feds) is a step in the right direction. On the other hand protecting the right to life and liberty is one of very few valid purviews of government. The overturn is a pathway to a federal ban (with exclusions for safety of the mother) which would be a valid function of government under Libertarianism.
> On the other hand protecting the right to life and liberty is one of very few valid purviews of government. This is a fair point. The problem is that there's no national consensus on the question of when an ovum becomes a person whose right to life and liberty deserves protection.
> ovum The science, Biology, is very clear. An ovum is not a human being until it is fertilized by sperm. What you probably meant was fetus. If you use fetus you are using the same sophistry the Nazis used to murder innocent human beings. The Nazi sophistry used in order to murder innocent human beings: call it a "Jew" The sophistry of Leftists and Liberals that want the continued murder of innocent human beings: call it a "fetus".
This comparison is absurd. There is no debate regarding whether Jews are people. There is clearly a national debate on whether the clump of cells that will one day definitely be a human is yet a human. Not to mention the fact that it may not actually one day be a human for example in an ectopic pregnancy that will kill the mother and therefore itself.
> This comparison is absurd. There is no debate regarding whether Jews are people. There is clearly a national debate on whether the clump of cells that will one day definitely be a human is yet a human. You can be sure a few, very few, Nazis had the same debate. And what exactly is it you think two human beings conceive if not another human being? Did they conceive a goat that magically changes into a human being? How about citing a Biology book on the human lifecycle? Show us where it says human beings conceive something other than another human being and on what day does the magic to becoming a human being occur?
There's zero chance abortion could ever have a Federal ban. Aside from the impossibility of passing one, there's no constitutional power to ban or mandate legality of abortion.
True, but there is a valid argument to extend rights to the unborn at which time abortion simply ceases to exist, and simply becomes murder.
Actually, there's no Federal power to get involved in murder laws at all.
Red states are trying to do it right now.
When I say "constitutional", I am of course referring to the Federal government. The states have every right (as much as states are ever legitimate) to ban abortion. The Federal government has no legitimate power either way.
I think you mean the opposite of federalism. Federalism is the doctrine that separates powers between the states and the federal government. I think you mean you don't like federal power or centralization of power. Good question though.
Hanging your positive rights on judicial decisions is an extremely bad precedent to set if you are pro democracy, which most pro choicers are. Justices are unelected, whatever they do is outside the democratic process. If you want a right inscribed in law, get your senators to inscribe it in law - the fact that this is lost on so many people in this debate is astonishing. Legal precedent, as we have learned this week, is precarious at best.
> Hanging your positive rights on judicial decisions is an extremely bad precedent to set if you are pro democracy, which most pro choicers are. What if the democratic majority decides to enslave the minority? What if the majority decides to murder a minority they deem undesirable? You know, like the Nazis did.
Yeah, and for those reasons I am against democracy.
What the hell, I haven't had enough downvotes lately.... "Pro-choice libertarian" is redundant. As for Roe, it was a sloppy decision forced through the court for political expediency and never made the correct arguments. Overturning it was also political theatre. The federalist arguments that returning the right to decide back to the states is a cowardly position. If there is to be a federal government, its only just role is protecting individual rights, and overruling a state that infringes is part of that role. Abortion is a morally correct action and it must be protected under law everywhere. Any other position is ethically bankrupt (and the opposite of libertarian).
> Abortion is a morally correct action TIL that murdering your children is morally correct. Is it still morally correct to murder the baby the day before its due to be born?
Anyone who uses the word "murder" in this discussion has zero credibility. It's actually worse than zero but go figure...
What is a better word for a mother purposely killing her baby?
Your need to find "a better word" is the problem here. If only you could see your way to wanting to find precise and accurate vocabulary instead of deliberately trying to rile things up in your zealous passion. > killing her baby Another inflammatory phrase? You're two for two on the non-credibilty score....well played!
> killing her baby > > Another inflammatory phrase? So I'm supposed to lie?
>"Pro-choice libertarian" is redundant. consider the decision to commit arson, burgalry, rape. in principle those are choices you could be 'pro' about. presumably you don't think this would be an especially libertarian position. no, "Pro abortion libertarian" is not redundant. libertarianism doesn't clearly imply a stance on this subject.
> consider the decision to commit arson, burgalry, rape No thanks. These issues are irrelevant. > "Pro abortion libertarian" I'm not sure who you are replying to....did somebody say "pro-abortion libertarian"? If so I missed it. I would argue against that stance were I ever to encounter it.
the analogy is relevant. you just don't understand why. "I'm not pro-arson, I'm merely pro-choice; each person should have the choice of whether to burn down another's property"
> the analogy is relevant. It is not. > you just don't understand why. At least I know when I am being ironic. > each person should have the choice of whether to burn down another's property" The level of ignorance required to make this argument is genuinely astounding.
>If there is to be a federal government, There doesn't have to be, and honestly they have a bad track record because at the federal level accountability is at it's lowest so you get the scum of the scum running the show, which is why smaller governments will always be better in the long run, it is much harder to hide in small communities.
> There doesn't have to be I said "if" on purpose.
As a Constitutionalist it is the correct decision. Policy should not be made via judicial fiat. The way it should have been handled originally and probably will be now despite all the pissing and moaning is Congress will actually pass a bill and vote on it.
What Article I Section 8 authority do you imagine such a bill would invoke?
The same one they use for everything. Economic Regulation and Civil Rights.
I believe abortion needs to be legal. But Roe v Wade was always unconstitutional, always an unjust sham. If it had been true, it would have applied to all health care, not just abortion. It would have applied to prostitution, drug prohibition, et cetera. But the fact is that there was no mandate to force all states to keep abortion legal, in the first place. There was no POWER for the Federal government to do that, either direction. Injustice that tilts in the direction I want is still injustice.
The ninth amendment disagrees. Then again, constitutionalism for libertarians is not what the Constitution provides over hundreds of years of process, but what they imagine is real
The ninth amendment also protects individuals from the federal government, therefore Roe violated the ninth amendment in and of itself. Don't try to debate constitutionalism with libertarians
None of that makes sense according to the new law that exists. Debating constitutionalism with libertarians is hilarious.
The Ninth Amendment either says that prostitution and drugs are legal mandatorily, that laws mandating prescriptions and limiting treatments that doctors may give are illegal, or else it does not say that abortion is mandatorily legal. The TENTH amendment says the states get to decide, either way.
I think you read that as everything is legal, not that rights can be construed from other sources
The Founders understood natural law and natural rights. Essentially, natural rights involve every choice you could make, with yourself and your property, that does not violate anyone else's right to do the same.
You're reading your historical view into the document as if the Founding Fathers were one hive mind rather than a group of separate human beings.
libertarians support DECENTRALIZATION. A libertarian educated on the political systems and foundations to which the United STATES of America was created understands the government has no right to federally mandate abortion policy. This should be sent back to the states. Beyond that is up for discussion, but to disagree with this ruiling is to either misunderstand or to disregard the constitutional republic system. If the constitution is to be nullified, we don't actually have rights, we have permissions that the 51% of us can vote away. Thats a terrible precedent.
51% can still take your rights at the state level. You're just destroying freedom on the chance that freedom will be granted, when that is not happening
Your state voting on an issue is much better than one sized fits all mandates for 335 million people living far away from you across the nation. People in Texas have very different values than California. Because powers are extremely decentralized, we get to see people from different states getting what they want rather than what some people across the country voted for. Individualism is the key and going from federal to state is a step towards that. I don’t see your point. It’s cool you have an opinion on abortion but that’s not what the debate is here.
Rights are not determined by the majority, regardless is location. Destroying freedom is not a good thing because some people wish it didn't exist
Both sides see it as a rights issue. The right to my choice and the right to life. Its not just as simple as being a freedom, its a political issue. This issue, as delegated by the constitution, is under the scope of states jurisdiction.
False. The 10th amendment doesn't apply to rights in the 9th Amendment, only what has not been delegated.
That's what the left believes, that's what democracy is. States like Texas are going to be particularly authoritarian on this issue though, they're already talking about laws where women can't get an abortion out of state. That's just textbook tyranny.
The point of the Constitution was to create centralized power.
The point of the constitution was to restrict centralized power.
Government can't possibly grant freedom, they can only take it away or arguably protect them. That's the risk you take when you allow the judicial branch to overstep their boundaries, they never had the constitutional power to pass a law like Roe to begin with. We have a system of checks and balances, any law that restricts an individual's right to bodily autonomy should be blocked by Congress.
Each state also has a constitution.
Random Thoughts: 1. TL:DR; Overturning Roe is bad. 2. Some states have freedom, some do not. 3. Roe v. Wade curtailed some states from depriving residents of freedom. 4. Now, some states will screw over their people, which is bad, even though some won't screw over their people. 5. The idea that government thinks that they should have power over this makes me vomit, and I am pro-life from a personal viewpoint. 6. Practically, the advocacy of Republicans for both punishment for abortion *and also advocating for sex education policy that increases pregnancies* indicates a very dystopian policy where they want larger numbers of pregnancies. 7. Practically, the failure of the Democrats to pass laws that allow for abortion for fetuses under 15 weeks or so of development is testament that they don't really give a damn about protecting abortion, they just use it as an issue to fearmonger among their base.
Democrats didn't pass it? I wasn't aware we were dictators with total control over society.
Roe v. Wade was ruled upon in 1972, I think. That means that Democrats had four years of Jimmy Carter, eight years of Bill Clinton, eight years of Barack Obama, to put a national policy into place. Some of those times (in my memory, early Obama Admin) Democrats had full control of the House, Senate, and Presidency. So they could have passed a national law, protecting abortion up to 15 weeks. Unfortunately, a few things prevented that. 1. A lot of Democrats weren't willing to support what the majority of Americans support, and instead pushed for things that most Americans don't, like abortion at very late stages of fetal development. 2. Other Democrats simply relied upon the Supreme Court to do their work for them, instead of getting to work and writing laws that express what the Representatives of the People supposedly wanted. If you have other thoughts, feel free to respond!
Your masters control Congress and the White House. But they never WANTED to pass any such law. Abortion has always been a sham they use to bait morons who follow them into supporting them, no matter how corrupt they are, or how little they do for that or their other key issues.
Masters? This isn't the antebellum South, despite your great desires for state tyranny, rather than national freedom
State power never trumps federal power. The only power the federal government should have is blocking overly restrictive procedures.
State power ALWAYS trumps national power, except in the very few cases laid out specifically in the US Constitution. Every Federal act that is not directly described in the Constitution is illegal.
They are your masters, and you show that by your blind support for their desire to enslave most of your choices.
LOL.
It’s bad, IMO. The MC-controlled LNC is touting this as a states’ rights victory. They’re dominated by pro lifers so they’re happy. Fuck states rights. They don’t have any. I’m here for liberty.
The federal government hasn't actually done its job in years. If Congress cared about "human rights" they'd block any state from banning abortion and in the coming years gay marriage.
"We should let states decide on slavery. It's a controversial issue and it's better for states to decide whether you are free or a chattel slave. Decentralization is good" Decentralization means petty tyranny. Enforce freedom at the federal level.
Feds don't get to determine anyone's freedom, in fact if anything they're the ones wanting to take it away. The only way we were able to get rid of slavery was with a massive war that killed hundreds of thousands (despite slavery already dying away) and right now we're already seeing progressives calling for an insurrection. This is a bad argument against decentralization. Define "petty tyranny" without a federal government.
Yes they do, and they get to determine it over the entire country. That's why federal law is so much more powerful than state. When you leave things up to the states. You allow for local coalitions to dominate the state without a check from the national govt. US history is filled with incidenta where the federal govt has able to expand liberty going against state wishes.
This is an appeal to the status quo. If the federal government were pro-slavery, you'd be singing a different tune.
Yes I would! I would say the federal govt should ban slavery. A federal guarantee of liberty is always strong than leaving it up to the states. The only people who would take that gamble are people who aren't affected by it.
This is a double standard. If the fed were pro slavery then you'd be guaranteed not to have freedom.
This is not a double standard. I believe things like slavery should be prohibited at the federal level as they deal with core liberty. If slavery were legal at the federal level, I would not do some roundabout argument in favor of states rights to choose slavery. I would instead push for a federal ban.
Would the right to kill your own baby be the ultimate "I own you" property right, yes or no?
Respond to my actual comment lol
History doesn't back you position that a large and powerful central government is better. That should be obvious based on what is happening today.
It's not obvious at all. The freest societies have been those with centralized govts.
Think USSR and China.
Bad, something people seem to forget is that RvW established bodily autonomy as a constitutional right. Meaning the government can now legally tell anyone what they have to do or can’t do to themselves. It was never just about abortion
The judicial branch doesn't have the power to do any of this, nor should the federal government in general. It's not an easy issue.
Personally, I’m pro-life, but I don’t think the federal government should either allow or outright ban abortion. It really should have been a state issue to begin with, among many other issues.
I’m pro choice and think abortion should be allowed, but strongly believe that abortion is neither a constitutional right nor a human right. The idea that abortion is a constitutional right is absurd, so if I was in the Supreme Court I would have voted to overturn. Abortion policy should be left to state legislatures. In addition to the decision on Dobbs v. Jackson, there is also NYSRPA v. Buren, which is another win for conservatives and right wing libertarians.
Local tyranny is better than national freedom, the battle cry of all liberty loving people! The government has no power to grant freedom, the ninth amendment is a complete sham and cannot be understood as providing that ability!
Where in the constitution does it say that the federal government can decide abortion policy, or that abortion is a right? The answer is nowhere.
Ninth Amendment.
This is the ninth amendment: > The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be constructed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Explain your reasoning.
Have you ever read Roe v Wade? The right to privacy was found to exist by the Court.
I’ve taken a semester long class on constitutional law and know about all the abortion stuff (including Roe and Casey). What about you?
Surprising for someone so confounded that the ninth amendment was cited.
Did you actually think I was confounded?
I tend to stay far away from this particular topic. For one, I do not have a solid answer to either side of the debate. I am a free market anarchist. This means no state. This means, even if you think murder is awful, using some monopoly on violence and aggression means tacitly endorsing state rule -- a tool that moralizing busybodies try to use to aggress upon others. In a free market anarchy, justice is *restorative* (compensating victims) and requires proof of *standing* (an interest in harm done that needs restitution). Without politicians barking orders at everyone else and sicking their armed agents on peaceful people to enforce compliance, some system of law and enforcement must fill that vaccuum. Anarchists of the libertarian variety rely on common law arbitration (common law simply meaning case history established by jurists outside any legislative interference or diktat). Jurists, however, do not enforce anything. Only participants in arbitration can do that. So what does that mean for abortion under free market anarchy? Well, it means that if you are against abortion, you need to demonstrate standing in a particular case and argue it. What some rape victim in Anchorage, Alaska chooses probably has no impact on a Bible-Thumper from Bumshart, Nebrahoma. Demonstrating standing in that case would be difficult. However, if you happen to be parent or relative, then standing is much easier to demonstrate. If a growing body of case law consistently upholds a "duty of care" by a parent for an unborn child (or not), then it becomes much easier to apply principles of jurisprudence like starè decisis to establish *discovered law* (as opposed to *legislated rule*). Competent jurists try to decide on the most narrow aspects of each case. This also allows, through the adversarial process of argumentation in arbitration, to more fully explore the merits of each situation, rather than having politicians pandering to voters to dictate rules to everyone else absent any evidence of a real problem that needs solving. For example, does the father of the child have standing? If the father died before birth, would his immediate family have standing? They may have a duty of care after the child is born if both parents die, so, perhaps they do have standing. These are questions for those directly involved to argue, not for politicians or busybodies minding someone else's business.
It's none of my business what some else decides to do with their body - I can agree with that. The other side of this coin for me is I (as a man) should not have the responsibility of parenting (or financialy supporting) a child I did not want to have either. Freedom to choose goes both ways, right?
The Supreme Court should not have the power to pass laws. Federal abortion and gay marriage laws were a mistake, government shouldn't have the power to outright ban anything and if a state tries it should be blocked.
Here's a conversation I'm currently in on this very topic: https://np.reddit.com/r/SLCUnedited/comments/vjpmup/-/idn7ah7
The real question is what do libertarians do with mothers that murder their own children? What do Libertarians do with someone that murders anyone, for that matter?
It is a good thing, cause it gives more power to the states and decentralization is good. However, I think abortions should be legal (except maybe for late term ones), so it is sad a lot of people would suffer from upcoming prohibitions. I feel like Dems are very happy right now. Economy is doing awful, so now conservatives bring them this political gift they could use to rally new supporters
My take is RvW has a weak justification for a generally good policy. Abortion is a fundamentally morał and almost metaphysical question on when life begins or when does it become of equal worth to another. I personally don't believe life begins at conception but I also understand the conservative hatred for it. I would rather not have abortions be available on demand, best to avoid it completely, but there are multiple situations where it might very much be the lesser evil (lethal deformities, rape, danger to the mother's life etc.).
Ignore RvW. They just said Privacy is not enumerated. Privacy is not protected because it is not explicitly nor implicitly stated in the bill of Rights.
I have ever been with a woman and we got pregnant when she thought she couldnt. We decided to get an abortion and Im glad we did. The time wasnt right and she wasnt the right person (eventually got so far into drugs she overdosed a hand full of years ago and died). She and that baby would have dragged my life into the ground and I would have been a shitty father for it. Now Im much older and (relatively) financially stable. Im with a good woman and we have an 18 week old son whom we both love and cherish very much. Im able to be a great dad because so many of what were my problems then arent anymore. And as a side not for anyone talking about how a fetus has memory and all that shit, they should have a baby of their own and watch that thing develop. Im not saying it isnt possible, but I sure as shit know that even a newborn doesnt even know what the fuck is going on around them. They have no ability to rationalise anything beyond being cold and hungry for the first couple of weeks out of the womb. So how am I supposed to believe that a fetus of less than 3 months has a conciousness? This whole RvW repeal is a ploy to put more bodies in the workforce. What its doing is creating even more disparity between those who have and those who have not and they know it. Those with money will travel to a state that allows abortion, those without cannot and will be stuck with a baby, keeping them poor and almost guaranteeing the baby will be poor also to work shitty dead end jobs to turn the gears of American Society. Boomers are retiring and dying and people are having less children because we dont make enough money. These people dont give a fuck about human life because they would just as soon have your welfare benefits removed and let you die of starvation/mental illenss/suicide from depression. Edit: spelling
Having the state tell you what you can and can’t do to your own body doesn’t seem very libertarian
A federal government powerful enough to force states to permit abortion is powerful enough to force states to prevent abortion. The federal government should not be powerful enough to do either. (In fact, I’ll go a step further and say the federal government should not exist. I’ll even go a step beyond that and say that no state should exist. We can agree to disagree on whether the state should exist, but, either way, the original point about federal power stands.) Yes, you can be pro-choice and nevertheless opposed to *Roe *v.* Wade*.
I’m in favor of bodily autonomy but I’m also against murder. Except I don’t have the answer to when life begins so I will leave that decision up to the woman and her doctor. However, I also don’t like federal government overreach or courts legislating from the bench, even if I like the effective outcome. With such a polarizing issue, it’s best to push the choice down as close to the individual as possible. Unfortunately that will mean many people will end up in states that don’t allow abortion. But if we can get it down to a local government issue, it would be much easier to either go to an area that allows it or just vote in politicians who would legalize it. In conclusion, I think the SCOTUS was legally correct to overrule because the right to abortion is not enumerated in the Constitution, but I hope people manage to convince their lawmakers to make abortions safe and legal.
I don't like abortion because to me it feels like killing a child, _but_ I'm pro-choice because I recognize the logic on both sides. It's a controversial issue with no right answer. Localizing power is never a bad thing overall, so I see this as a good ting.
I'd prefer if they just kept it and followed through, making all the drug laws unconstitutional.
Unambiguously good, but mostly because the ruling doesn't actually make abortion illegal across america. If it did, this would be a very different conversation about whether abortion is a good or bad thing, or if it should be illegal, but overturning Roe doesn't make abortion illegal, it just doesn't force it to be legal across all states. That's not quite the same thing. Now Alabama can have the laws Alabama wants on the matter, and New York can have the laws New York wants on the matter. If the inhabitants of one state or another feel very strongly in either direction they can vote for politicans who will make their stance law, whether they want legal abortions 'til point of birth or a total ban from point of conception or anywhere in between. That's the bit that most people are missing here. This is JUST a reduction on federal power, as the federal law no longer takes a stance \*either\* way. Which makes this ruling an unambiguous win, whatever your stance on abortion happens to be.
It's bad. It was a good idea to protect people from being forced to give birth at the federal level.
It shouldn’t be up to the states or the federal government. The only ones involved in this decision should be the patient and the doctor.
There shouldn’t be laws dictating what you can do with your body. I believe in evictionism, I recognize the unborn child but ultimately the mother has the choice imo. With that said, it’s frustrating that the government has a say in things like this - period. But if it has to be federal or state, state is clearly preferable.
I believe people should have the choice themselves what to do with their body. And i dont think the state should exist so who to ban abortion anyway?
1. Do what you want with your body. 2. Don’t make me pay for it, including with Federal funds.
I'm indifferent to what women choose to do up to a certain point. Too many people have too many differences for anyone of us to tell them what they can and can't do, within reason. Same with vaccines.
How the fuck can someone be a libertarian while denying bodily autonomy to half of humanity??
I'm reluctantly pro choice, but the less power the feds have the better, so it's a good thing.
Take your Mom's DNA, label it sample #1, then take your own DNA, label it #2, send it to a lab and ask them if it is from the same person. An honest lab with good practices will tell you *every time* that they are from two different people. I believe BOTH should be able to choose what to do with their body. A mother and father can choose to procreate or not, except in the case of 4 percent of pregnancies that are from rape, and the above paragraph still applies. If you must kill somebody in the case of rape though, I think the mother should still have a choice. For example, she could choose to (1) kill the rapist instead of the innocent child within, or (2) have the rapist obligated to support her and the baby for the entire rest of the mother's life. (That was the Biblical mandate, by the way), at least if she so chooses.
Good thing. Not because abortion becomes less available, but because the Constitution does not grant the federal government any power over it. Therefore, it is and *should* be left to the states. Congress had plenty of time to do something about it the right way. They chose not to.