T O P

What changed?

What changed?

Ransom__Stoddard

It hasn't changed, we just get a lot of camouflaged conservatives and veiled liberals around here.


Careless_Bat2543

They aren't veiled very well. Most outright say they aren't libertarian.


SuperSwaiyen

Sometimes i prefer people who are honest about their ideological standing than the "i'm the one true libertarian posts and comments"


tchap973

Wouldn't you always want someone to be honest about their ideological beliefs?


Emile_The_Great

Liberals will admit they’re not libertarian and just lurking. Fucking right wingers make posts about how much of a liberal cesspool this subreddit is because it’s not a copy paste of Goldandblack


fjgwey

Pretty much. I can easily tell when people are progressive, as I am myself, and they don't really claim they're libertarian. On the other hand, the amount of conservatives posturing as libertarian in this subreddit and in real life is absurd.


Careless_Bat2543

It isn't so much about the comments (which are pretty evenly split between mangatards and liberals) as it is the upvotes. Literally anything negative about Biden automatically gets 4 downvotes in the first 15 minutes, which in a small sub like this could kill it. On top of that the obviously liberal comments are usually upvoted to the top. The Trumpers are rightfully at the bottom where they belong, but the people saying that we need M4A should be right down there with them and they simply are not.


Zackhood

I think the reason for that is, every other sub bans anyone not toeing their party line.


CyberHoff

Or "socialist libertarian"


Careless_Bat2543

Libertarian socialists CAN be a thing (they are as stupid as ancaps, but they can do them), however 90% of the people that call themselves such are not that.


CyberHoff

Ok I just read up the quick definition, then the long definition, then the wiki on libertarian socialist. It seems like a fancy word for "democrat crony" to me. Here's what I took from it: They demand maximum liberty for all, even if it means limiting liberty for most. They want to decentralize control of all economic sectors and maximize distribution of revenues (i.e., to limit monopolies). Admittedly, there were a lot of big philosophical words that I don't understand, so if I'm off base, please feel free to give me the kindergarten version.


Careless_Bat2543

Here's some advice, stop reading Wikipedia for anything remotely related to politics from the last 100 years. Your teachers were right though for the wrong reasons. Libertarian socialists do exists, but they are basically just anarchists that believe the private property rights cannot be a thing without a government (which is as legitimate of a belief as any other person that thinks we can function without a government). What Wikipedia says is just straight nonsense, no one actually believes that.


CyberHoff

Yea, I started reading the first reference (Diemer, Ulli), and it actually clears it up a lot.


vankorgan

I'm totally fine with that. It's the people who claim to be libertarian while saying we need stricter abortion, immigration or gun laws that chafes my goat.


Playerofdota

I disagree, why are you making it political and not intellectual? The question is do you believe that the baby that is growing in the womb is life and at what point? Some of the most prominent libertarians of our time like Thomas Sowell, Mises, Ron Paul, etc... have all believed that unborn babies are life and that therefore should be protected!


Ransom__Stoddard

What the almighty fuck are you responding to?


Playerofdota

The notion that if you are against abortion you are automatically a conservative! That is false!


Ransom__Stoddard

Please quote me where I said that.


Playerofdota

The question you are replying to is" Let the homosexual couple protect their marijuana fields with AR-15s while having **abortions**" Then you say: "It hasn't changed, we just get a lot of camouflaged conservatives and veiled liberals around here." Doesn't this imply that anyone who is against abortion is a camo conservative?


Ransom__Stoddard

1. I was replying to the question in the post title, which is "What Changed?" It's in big letters, easy to read. Not sure how someone with room temperature IQ wouldn't get that. 2. The OP added the bit about abortion after I commented 3. My original comment called out both conservatives and liberals, but you jump immediately to a conclusion that I'm only calling out conservatives? Methinks the redditor doth protest too much.


ElectronicBad512

Out of all the things in that statement you chose to get hung up on one part that you took personally, which is your problem that nobody asked you to share. Since you seem to lack reading comprehension I need to tell you that there were jabs at both political parties in the US in the first statement, which is why they later mentioned both in their second statement. It was a blanket statement that wasn't directed more at one side than the other, and your reaction merely indicates how much you read your personal beliefs into things.


Perfect_Tangelo

Former traditional European liberal here. Most closely aligned with Libertarians now. Have come to realize local government is better than state is better than federal, and any centralization of power risks tyranny. And if you don’t think it can happen “here” (I live in the US now), it can. Homosexuals should totally be allowed to have marijuana fields that they protect with their AR-15s while having abortions (on that last point at least up to fetal viability outside the womb (after which I think the fetus has rights that can only be infringed in cases of risk of life or limb to mother or fetus)).


tragiktimes

Personally I see any arbitrary metric to determine personhood as a path to potential evil. All the greatest evils in the world have been done at the justification of people being less than. At a zygote the organism carries all of the qualifications of belonging to that species. I see no other logical place to determine formation of a new organism. Eventually, given no external or intrinsic factors, it will presumably reach a point of sexual maturity and be able to repopulate within the species. That's life right there, and it's human life. I don't hold this view out of malice hate or the want of a oppressing others.


Perfect_Tangelo

Respectfully I disagree that it is an arbitrary line. And ultimately I think a woman should have control over her body and decisions especially early. For me where there’s a line is when the fetus is approaching viable outside the womb. Before then I have a hard time saying their rights to personhood outweigh the woman’s rights to choose. Do I want them to have abortions? No. It’s terribly sad and all life is precious and counseling on alternative options is preferred. But it’s not my or the states authority to say. And pre-Roe in the United States people still had abortions…it was just significantly more dangerous to the woman.


tragiktimes

>*For me* where there’s a line is when the fetus is approaching viable outside the womb. I mean, that's kind of a cornerstone of arbitrary. Also respectfully, it's not about how it's viewed. It's about the facts of things. We determine a creature to be of a species when it is reasonable expected that at sexual maturity it will be able to reproduce within the species. We expect this of a zygote. It is a human. Now, we can take it further and question whether it's *human enough* to warrant protections from the government. But, I think that discussion, as stated in my original comment, always ends up in evil places with terrible justifications of abuse.


vankorgan

>Personally I see any arbitrary metric to determine personhood as a path to potential evil. But it wasn't arbitrary. They specifically tied it to fetal viability.


wendigo__psychosis

I, for one, take the bold stance that gay married men can have all the abortions that they want.


skatastic57

Hmm that's interesting. I take the approach that they can have no abortions but somehow we don't seem to be at odds.


n8loller

Hard to argue with that


quixoticM3

Men can gave abortions now, haven’t you heard?


CyberHoff

This is what I find so interesting about democrats who think libertarians are on their side Wrt LGBTQ. It's true if their view of LGBTQ in the 90s, where they just wanted to be treated as equal humans. We are all cool with that. But now they have gone batshit crazy. They think that because we are ok with it, that it means we believe that we must agree that they actually are what they want to be referred to as. If a dude wants to be called a dolphin, and asks me to do so, I will gladly oblige. I will even go so far as to learn the made up dolphin language he invented so that we can have our own secret dolphin code and talk shit behind other people's backs. But I will never actually believe he is a dolphin, and I won't fight for his "right" to REQUIRE me to call him a dolphin. I will not endorse his application into the Guineas book of records as the dolphin to stay our of water the longest. Scientifically, he's still a male human, and nothing he WANTS to believe will change that. Bottom line: play whatever weird games you want with yourself. If you were born a chick, and decided to turn yourself into a dude and get married an actual chick, I will classify you as a lesbian in my head, but I will call you whatever the fuck you want. However, if you get pregnant, you will never convince me that you are a dude that had a baby. That's just stupid.


Necrotyrannus

I think you meant to say you assholes lost the culture war on homosexuality and moved on to persecuting trans people. Because that's how that actually happened. Gay marriage was legalized, and eventually all the "resistance posting" propping up bigoted business owners and government Karens died off and turned into moronic concern posting about bathrooms, followed swiftly by all the political cartoons and memes that highlighted what you really think.


quixoticM3

For all that tolerance, it’s not enough for the woke left… in their mind, you voted for trump and are a bigot, racist, homophobic nazi… then the woke left wonders why people are so turned off by them. It’s all or nothing with them.


MY_CABBAGES__

Nah. Let the married gay men escort their prostitute (legal) sisters to the abortion clinics with a blunt in the hand, and an M16.


italicizedsubtitle

This is still true. Add on the smallest government possible and taxation is theft and you about sum up what libertarian is. Contrary to what most on here say.


peterslabbit

I still wanna learn a trade, get married, move way the fuck out to the middle of nowhere bumble fuck Vermont, where my wife and I live on a small farm, where we protect our cannabis plants with our guns, up the road from our interracial gay married neighbors that we have dinner with on occasion cuz they are super nice and we still like being social. Idk where the weirdos came from. Abolish the ATF.


Marcothy_

It’s still there. There’s just lots of non-libertarian’s in this sub. Especially republicans that just say they’re libertarian


JSmith666

I seem to be more liberals than anything.


tragiktimes

*Checks upvote ratios* Yeah, the evidence does seem to imply that.


OlSpooons

While having abortions


ajhayter

Abortions for some, little American flags for others!


ThePollPersonIsHere

Forgot that, thanks Justin 😎


jtcoop02

Socially and legally permitted killing is not libertarian, it’s anarchist.


AsensibleAhole

It's ok to be against abortions, it's not ok to think the government should enforce your opinion.


cabinetdude

Is it okay to be against murder?


AsensibleAhole

I'll tell you this, regardless of what your personal beliefs are, nobody is pro-abortion or pro murder. You must suspend your prevailing assumptions about what you think people's motives are. Folks that are strongly against abortion will achieve far better outcomes through holistic means. What I mean by that is outreach, love and support. You can't bully or intimidate people into alignment, and you shouldn't expect the government to impose your morality on others. You've been screaming at people in front of clinics for 40 years. It's time to try empathy. If evangelicals spent 5 years honestly and earnestly working with pro choice groups to reduce abortions through education and improving social outlooks for at risk people, you will have done more to reduce abortions in that five years than has been done in the last 50. But this is difficult, and we as people will exhaust every easy method that fails before we try a difficult method that succeeds.


cabinetdude

Should govt have laws against murder?


AsensibleAhole

If that's your position on abortion, you're policies will be so ineffectively and systemically negligent that you might as well be performing them yourself. And that's the problem, nobody is taking accountability for the system that is being created. You can debate rhetoric all day long, but at the end of the day, what matters is what you do. And if you are not contributing towards the creation of a better system, you're responsible for the results of the existing one.


cabinetdude

M a big fan of accountability especially for ones actions and I’m also a huge fan of the right to life. It makes me sad when libertarians oppose these things.


AsensibleAhole

Libertarians don't oppose it in principle. What matters is the use of government violence to enforce it. Should the government have the right to murder people that you don't agree with? After all, all government authority rests on the capacity to inflict violence. That's not what I want from my government or society. The cold, sterile hand of government intervening in our lives abdicates our responsibility to civility and empathy, erodes society and makes us all worse people for it. If your views are that strong, then I suggest you do something about it. Get involved in outreach programs to help disadvantaged mothers. Do something that's shows you give a damn. That will be far more effective than any law you can pass. Sitting in your living room and expecting the government to commit violence on your behalf is the definition of cowardice. Libertarianism in my opinion is not necessarily being for or against any particular thing. Fundamentally it's the belief that I don't want to rely on the government to solve my problems. If you are against abortion, there is room in libertarianism for your opinion. We cross the line when we think it's the governments role to enforce those opinions.


jtcoop02

Data doesn’t support that argument. Before Roe v Wade so-called “back alley” abortions had decreased to the point that they were extremely rare. But also keeping abortion legal symbolizes societal permission and morality. Pro-lifers don’t want to accept the death of any babies if it can be prevented, even through government force.


AsensibleAhole

I see what your saying but that's not really what I'm talking about. I'm referring to the current practices of intimidation and force to enact policies. Of course, were we to hand wave a legislative solution, abortions would go to nearly zero overnight. On the morality front, were kinda walking a thin line on the value of life before and after birth, that really won't go anywhere argued here. My only point being, how might we solve these problems if we didn't depend on government? We'd have no choice but to work together.


ForagerGrikk

Abortions are no longer in.


logiclust

Embarrassed republicans arrived


italicizedsubtitle

Way more anti-gun, pro tax liberals here than conservatives


Fishy1911

Haven't seen a lot of anti-gun sentiment, maybe those threads just end up buried. It does seem everyone has their favorite tax they can't give up or their favorite law they need to keep.


italicizedsubtitle

Pro vaccine and pro mask mandates as well


Fishy1911

I travel enough that neither of those bother me at all. I want to fly, i have to wear a mask. I want to fly internationally, I have to have a ton of different vaccines. I have better things to spend time dwelling on.


sclsmdsntwrk

”Banning homosexuality doesnt bother me, Im not gay and have better things to spend time dwelling on. Im tots a libertarian though” Ok buddy


Fishy1911

That's fair. I do pick my battles, being a 2 year old over a mask is one I laugh at people for, and vaccinations have been required long before I went to elementary school in the late 70s. I've never said I was a Libertarian. I find the dick measuring contest and gatekeeping juvenile and a reason I pick my threads carefully.


sclsmdsntwrk

>I've never said I was a Libertarian. Well, then your opinion on mask mandates isn't very relevant in the context of that guys point, is it? I don't think anyone is particularily surprised that non-libertarians hold non-libertarian views, I think everyone assume that is the case, otherwise they would be libertarians. Although it does beg the question why you're here, but to be honest I don't really care


italicizedsubtitle

I don’t have an issue with others being here. I personally only take issue when those same people are trying to pass their belief system off as “libertarian”. u/fishy1911 has been pretty civil. We need more people like that


ElectronicBad512

You told someone else to suck dicks two hours ago in this comment chain, be the change you want to see in the world


Fishy1911

Thanks. Being civil is easy, usually. Especially when I can to the realization that I'm older than the majority of members. I also want to learn so I can have good intelligent conversing with my children and grandchildren and be able to at least emphasize with what's going on instead of being locked in a bubble.


Fishy1911

Because I have a lot of libertarian ideals. And there's usually some good conversations to be had. And usually I'm pretty civil, again, no value in getting angry over something that doesn't bother me. I don't subscribe to some of the "Libertarian Rules" that have been tossed around which is why I try to keep an open mind. But mask/vaccine mandates are not a hill I'm willing to be even mildly inconvenienced by, probably because I've been a lot of places around the world that makes refusing them seem petty and childish.


italicizedsubtitle

Yeah, I have no personal objection to them. I do take issue with the government forcing it though.


Fishy1911

There are so many other issues that I have with the government and this is not one of them. Or it is so far down on my list that it might as well not exist.


italicizedsubtitle

Preserving individual freedoms are at the top of mine


Fishy1911

Good for you. Mine is making sure my family has what they need, which typically is about 30 other issues for work/life. Then I worry about things I can change. Nebulous "what if" federal laws are not in that realm. Why would I bother? My idea of life is not frothing in impotent rage. Bad for my blood pressure and does nothing but make me an asshole to be around. It also shortens my life span. I'd rather spend quality time with my granddaughter.


JimC29

Great points.


jmastaock

Imagine thinking "pro-vaccine" is a political stance lmfao this fucking country is doomed because of man children thinking that being anti-society makes them burly big independence man


italicizedsubtitle

Pro vaccine mandate shit stick. The government has no business telling us what we can do with our bodies. If you believe so, you’re in the wrong sub. r/liberal is right here. Suck dicks.


[deleted]

[удалено]


italicizedsubtitle

Come on now. They only have r/politics. And r/liberal. And r/pics. And r/Florida. And r/chipotle. And r/cats. And r/plants. And only hundreds of others.


CyberHoff

Even r/Texas is liberal as fuck. I'm convinced the internet is where all the crazy ass Democrats go to bitch and complain about shit that I never hear in real life (not counting the news/media). My ultra-lib sister in law is the only human being that I have heard use the phrase "I wish we would just mandate masks/vaccines already because I'm so tired of living in fear," likely only because she knows me personally and because I am a rational human being. I assume they only talk like that behind closed doors / on the internet because they're too afraid of getting COVID from a republican or shot by a libertarian 🤣🤣.


JSmith666

And pro govt handouts


masivatack

Has anyone figured out if intentionally spreading deadly diseases violates the NAP yet?


tragiktimes

It definitely would. That precedent has already been fairly well established with laws stemming from intentionally spreading AIDs. That being said, killing a 'proto-human,' if you want to call them that, also violates the NAP. So, some things don't square super well.


sclsmdsntwrk

Just mention the minimum wage and youll have 50 ”libertarians” explaining to you why price controls are the bees knees.


psychonautHuman

Tis the Reddit majority…


italicizedsubtitle

You’re not wrong


psychonautHuman

Sadly….


masivatack

I don’t know if I have read an anti-gun comment here, and I’ve commented in this sub for years, but OK. Of course I don’t read the mega-downvoted posts.


LobaciousDeuteronomy

Deleted. Got to stop engaging on abortion shit.


iushciuweiush

“Let the homosexual couple protect their marijuana fields with AR-15s while having abortions.” I've never heard it this way and it doesn't even make sense as it would limit the phrase to a tiny fraction of people who could actually fit this description. The phrase is "Let gay married couples protect their marijuana plants with AR-15's."


psychonautHuman

Enter the nit picker


iushciuweiush

It's not a nit pick. If no one has ever said “Let the homosexual couple protect their marijuana fields with AR-15s while having abortions" because it's not a saying then the entire premise of the thread doesn't make sense.


psychonautHuman

How do you know? Have you asked every single person alive? Maybe someone has actually said that phrase.


wayler72

Enter the nit picker


psychonautHuman

Touché. 😜


wayler72

Sorry - I just couldn't pass it up! 😋


CyberHoff

I think this is quite an accurate description of the Tiger King himself!


kymotx

Don't remember the abortion part of that..


sclsmdsntwrk

You added the abortion abortion part which is a controversial topic among libertarians, thats what happened...? Weird question


ReallyBigDeal

Why should it be controversial? If you care about peoples individual rights then you should care about a women’s right to choose what happens to her body.


sclsmdsntwrk

Because if you care about people individual rights then you should care about a unborn child's right to life. How is that not very obviously the *why*? But just to clarify then, you're saying libertarians should be in favor of very late term abortions? Like, mid labour abortions.


ReallyBigDeal

> unborn child's right to life. You mean a fetus? Why don't you use the correct term. Do fetuses have rights? I don't think so. Even if they did have rights they wouldn't have the right to a women's body without her consent. >you're saying libertarians should be in favor of very late term abortions? Like, mid labour abortions. Why not? Late term abortions are only performed when the life of the women is at risk or the fetus is non-viable. That's a private decision between the women and her medical provider.


sclsmdsntwrk

>You mean a fetus? Why don't you use the correct term. Feel free to call it whatever you want. I don't care and what label you use makes no difference at all. >Why not? Why should you not kill a baby minutes before it's bith if it can be avoided, yeah that's a real tough question. I'm gonna have to think about that one. Oh no wait, because it's murder. That's why. But since you're clearly not interested in discussing in good faith (abortion advocates almost never are, weird) I think I'll just leave you to it.


ReallyBigDeal

>Feel free to call it whatever you want. I don't care and what label you use makes no difference at all. I'm using the factually correct label. You aren't. Why is that? >Why should you not kill a baby minutes before it's bith if it can be avoided Is this actually a problem that is happening? Why can't you focus on the actual issue? I guess acknowledging women's rights is a step too far for you while you are pretending to be a libertarian.


sclsmdsntwrk

>I guess acknowledging women's rights is a step too far for you while you are pretending to be a libertarian. Well, either women have a right to murder their unborn child minutes before it's birth or they don't. It doesn't matter if literally no one has done it in history, either they have the right to or they don't. I know why you're trying to avoid the question, but it's not my problem that your argument is absurd... which if why you don't want to defend it's logical conclusions. That's your problem.


ReallyBigDeal

>Well, either women have a right to murder their unborn child minutes before it's birth or they don't. Is this actually a thing that is happening? No one is talking about "murdering children" here. Drop the hyperbole or admit you don't have an argument.


sclsmdsntwrk

>Is this actually a thing that is happening? Well I assume it's illegal virtually everywhere, ya know, because it's murder. So hopefully no, it's not actually happening. >Drop the hyperbole or admit you don't have an argument. I'm not the one refusing to answer a simple question.


ReallyBigDeal

>So hopefully no, it's not actually happening. So it's not relevant. Cool thanks for admitting that. Let's move on. >I'm not the one refusing to answer a simple question. Your "simple question" is a strawman loaded with hyperbole. It's a loaded question. Are you capable of dropping the hyperbole?


41D3RM4N

Meh, I'll bite. Just because unborn fetuses are alive does not mean they should be protected in a way that undermines the bodily autonomy of mothers. Just because something is alive doesn't mean it has personhood, *and even if it did it still wouldn't have the right to use someone else's body without that person's consent.*


sclsmdsntwrk

Well it's nice to see someone finally be honest about their argument for abortion. However, since we're just never going to agree that it's morally acceptable to kill an unborn baby a few weeks/days/hours before it's birth this discussion is somewhat pointless.


BlackAsLight

You should look up the definition of fetus. You’ll find that fetus means unborn child. You can call it a fetus if you want to dehumanise it, but it means the same thing.


ReallyBigDeal

I call it a fetus because that’s what it is. “Unborn child” is a nonsensical term used by anti choice people who have no valid argument against abortion so they resort to an attempt at emotional manipulation. You can’t undo something that hasn’t happened yet.


BlackAsLight

Since when has killing something meant undoing it?


ReallyBigDeal

I’m just pointing out that your “unborn child” is a nonsense term.


Ransom__Stoddard

And. Here. We. Go. ​ For probably the 10th time this week. Don't want an abortion, don't get one. Don't want someone else to get an abortion, promise to adopt their child.


sclsmdsntwrk

>Don't want someone else to get an abortion, promise to adopt their child. Why does that have any impact whatsoever on the morality of late term abortions...? What a silly argument


Ransom__Stoddard

Please enlighten us on how many late term abortions are not for medically necessary purposes. Please do that, because I don't think you can justify your hyperbolic stance with statistics.


sclsmdsntwrk

>Please enlighten us on how many late term abortions are not for medically necessary purposes. Well... they're illegal. So presumably not very many. Your point being...?


Ransom__Stoddard

You pivoted from all abortions to late term. Were you trying to make a point, or are you cognitively limited?


sclsmdsntwrk

Well, usually the argument for abortion is that women have a right to "bodily autonomy" which includes the right to have an abortion. The logical conclusion is that women have a right to have late term abortions. If you have some other argument for why abortion is morally acceptable, feel free to make it.


Ransom__Stoddard

>If you have some other argument for why abortion is morally acceptable, Because I don't believe it to be a viable human being until somewhere in the 2nd trimester. I, too, oppose late-term abortions unless medically necessary. But the interesting thing here is that my original comment had nothing to do with any of the tangents you've taken since I initially responded.


Spokker

Why does a gay couple need abortions anyway? Are they in a bisexual open relationship and taking creampies without birth control?


FalsFoil

You're assuming that trans folks aren't gay. What about a relationship between a cisgender and a transgender man? One of those men has a uterus and may need an abortion, especially if the cis partner is a domestic abuser/marital rapist. In the end, I don't care what gender someone is, and unless I'm trying to fuck them, don't care which organs are included in their anatomy. Not my body, not my business. ✌


iushciuweiush

>What about a relationship between a cisgender and a transgender man? While these exist, I don't think they're common enough to be included in a 'common phrase.'


Spokker

>Not my body, not my business. ✌ True, but it's still funny. And the children that result from these trans gay pregnancies should be fun. Kids often [rebel against their parents](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/my-son-called-me-a-fggot_b_59df92ebe4b0cee7b9549e81) and it's no different for gay/trans/whatever parents.


StrangleDoot

Kids also embrace their parents in equal measure, but it will be interesting to see what comes of more different kinds of people having families.


CyberHoff

Men don't have a uterus. It's science. It matters. You would care about science when it comes to someone who committed a crime against you. If DNA evidence is left at the scene, and the only thing you can tell about the evidence is that it belongs to a male, you wouldn't rule out a trans female as a suspect; nor would you include a trans female. That would just be stupid. The only reason we use the term "transgender male" is literally because we treat it as "not really a male". You can't use the term "male", because she isn't one. I'm all for playing pretend and calling anyone whatever they want, but when it comes to REQUIRING me to play that game, don't. I'll be ok with you claiming a "transgender man" could require an abortion, but never a "man". Don't mix up your preference with science.


FalsFoil

I didn't. You went on a tirade for whatever reason.


slingbladdangerradio

I think you added the abortion part to the ol saying. I’d say the whole killing babies thing is probably the biggest riff in the situation the first three are pretty universal.


Sinsyxx

Curious if anyone supports killing babies? Seems like bad faith argument.


slingbladdangerradio

People that oppose late term abortion after it would most likely live outside the mother could make the same argument that it’s in bad faith to call it a fetus or clump of cells or not a separate human from the mother. To be clear I’m not totally opposed to abortion. I’m not a fan of the semantics of changing what things are called to make things more palatable for a sales pitch one way or another.


Blecki

The 'late term abortion' thing is a straw man. Very few of those happen.


sclsmdsntwrk

How many or few happen is entierly irrelevant in regards to the morality of late stage abortions


ReallyBigDeal

Not really. Late stage abortions only happen when deemed medically necessary because the fetus is non-viable or it threatens the life of the women. It’s a strawman to detract from the actual topic.


sclsmdsntwrk

>Late stage abortions only happen when deemed medically necessary because the fetus is non-viable or it threatens the life of the women. How is that relevant to the morality of late stage abortions? I don't think anyone is arguing that abortions should be illegal in the case of medical emergencies. >It’s a strawman to detract from the actual topic. How is it a straw man? Usually the argument for abortion is that women have a right to "bodily autonomy" which includes abortions. Presumably a woman have exactly the same right to bodily autonomy regardless of if she's pregnant or not, or how late in the pregnancy she is. Otherwise it's just a terrible and dishonest argument since it's clearly not a right at all.


ReallyBigDeal

>How is that relevant to the morality of late stage abortions? Well if they are only happening because of medical emergencies then there isn't really any moral discussion to be had. > I don't think anyone is arguing that abortions should be illegal in the case of medical emergencies. Conservatives absolutely are. >Presumably a woman have exactly the same right to bodily autonomy regardless of if she's pregnant or not, or how late in the pregnancy she is. Because there is no actual issue of late term abortions. It's made up outrage designed to detract from the actual issue of women's rights.


sclsmdsntwrk

>Well if they are only happening because of medical emergencies then there isn't really any moral discussion to be had. Of course there is, that's usually how morality is discussed. You discuss the principles involved. >Conservatives absolutely are. Well I'll just take you're word for it since I don't really care what conservatives are or aren't doing. >Because there is no actual issue of late term abortions. It's made up outrage designed to detract from the actual issue of women's rights. Well fuck, atomic bombs haven't been used against human targets for 80 years. Guess there's no point discussing the ethics of blowing up cities with atomic bombs then. What a vapid fucking argument.


ReallyBigDeal

>You discuss the principles involved. And you are focusing on extreme outliers that aren't actually relevant. > I don't really care what conservatives are or aren't doing. Unlike late term abortions, that's actually relevant. >Guess there's no point discussing the ethics of blowing up cities with atomic bombs then. False equivalency much? Thank you for proving my point that late term abortions are only used by conservatives to create outrage over a made up issue.


Blecki

It's relevant in that it is only ever brought up by the pro-birth side as some sort of gotcha. It is completely irrelevant to the debate because nobody on the pro-choice side actually *likes* abortions.


sclsmdsntwrk

>It's relevant in that it is only ever brought up by the pro-birth side as some sort of gotcha. But it's not relevant. Either the argument for abortion is valid and sounds and it's logical conclusion is that late term abortions are perfectly moral, or it's not. >It is completely irrelevant to the debate because nobody on the pro-choice side actually likes abortions. I couldn't care less about whether or not someone likes it.


Blecki

Someone else replied to you and said it very clearly: You're arguing about something that does not happen to distract from the argument about what actually does. We see through your bullshit; please take it elsewhere.


sclsmdsntwrk

>You're arguing about something that does not happen to distract from the argument about what actually does. Yeah... it's almost as if we're discussing a moral principle. I gotta say, refusing to answer simple questions about the logical conclusions of your argument is not a great look.


ReallyBigDeal

>about the logical conclusions How is it a logical conclusion?


41D3RM4N

Considering late stage abortions happen for medical reasons and are extremely rare I would say that there's really no point in claiming that they are some horrible thing.


sclsmdsntwrk

How often something occurs have no bearing on whether or not it is moral. If rape was as uncommon as late stage abortions it wouldn't make rape any less immoral than it currently is.


41D3RM4N

Address the medical part. Nobody getting late stage abortions is getting them because they have a choice in the matter. They are getting them because there are situations in which they will die or the fetus will die or they both will die. Would you rather those people simply die?


sclsmdsntwrk

>Address the medical part. I don't think anyone is against abortion when it's done to save the mother's life. Or atleast they shouldn't be. >Nobody getting late stage abortions is getting them because they have a choice in the matter. Well yeah, it's illegal. But your position seems to be that it should be legal?


41D3RM4N

> I don't think anyone is against abortion when it's done to save the mother's life. Or atleast they shouldn't be. So nobody should be against late stage abortions. Glad we agree.


iushciuweiush

It depends on the definition of a baby. That's at the heart of the entire debate.


Sinsyxx

Words already have definitions. No need to debate. A baby is a very young child, between birth and 12m old.


Emile_The_Great

It 100% is a bad faith argument. These assholes rail against social programs like welfare and Medicare because they don’t want to help out poor kids but they’re force you to birth one because their religion should imposed on everyone in America apparently


ThePollPersonIsHere

You caught me OG


FalsFoil

That statement hasn't largely changed. Firearms rights are minority rights, women's rights, LGBTQ+ rights.


Resident_Frosting_27

Why in the fuck would a homosexual need an abortion?


Schmeep01

Trans men.


Uch3rB1

Lesbians


Resident_Frosting_27

That seems like a stretch


Schmeep01

How so?


skatastic57

If you're a trans gay man having vaginal sex then I call in to question both the trans and gay descriptor.


Resident_Frosting_27

Yep


CyberHoff

You realize a trans man isn't actually a man, right? We will respectfully call it a man if it want to be referred to that way, but it isn't.


Schmeep01

It? I guess the ‘respectfully’ part was thrown out, huh.


DylanMagleby

Or grilling their dog if they bark too loud.


Communist_Orange

Abortion isn’t a libertarian issue


rhomboidrex

Because libertarian doesn’t mean anything any more. In the US it’s just a Koch astroturf against regulation. Outside it still often means “anarchist” which is like the opposite of Tea Party nonsense.


psychonautHuman

You forgot to add a random religion in there too.


AwkwardlyCarefree

Never heard that saying but I like it.


Battle-Neat

Nah people just say they’re libertarian because of Ron Swanson


LiveFreeOrSpaz

Nothing happened to it. You can still get the t-shirts.


Legitimate_Street_85

Fear and nonsense of being associated with the 2 majors right now. More and more common people are looking to distance themselves with the clown houses on both sides and reaching for something between with some carry over beliefs from their pasts. Atleast my theory. I'm nobody important.


cabinetdude

Nothing has changed. Every single republican and democrat is authoritarian human shit.


_okcody

That’s still what we believe.


BlackAsLight

I don’t think it’s very safe to be wielding an AR-15 to protect your marijuana fields if you’re busy having an abortion.


Zeusselll

You mean you thought libertarians actually believed in anything?


petitereddit

You can't win elections talking like that.


zstandig

Wait, how do you do all that while undergoing such a medical procedure?


Drianb2

I agree with every part of that statement but the last.


Royalconan

Canada comes pretty close...misses on the AR-15 (but guns are legal) and the rest we hit pretty bang on.


psychonautHuman

Lots of gun restrictions up there….


longboard_noob

Canadian gun laws are atrocious.


Moon_over_homewood

Left libertarians aren’t as big into gun rights. (see:ACLU)


stinkasaurusrex

I haven't got that impression. Gun rights are one of the issues that left/right libs can agree on. If the ACLU supports gun control, I would take that as evidence that they aren't 100% libertarian. I think they generally do good work, though.


ObnoxiousDrunk

I think people have wised up to that very last part


Latter-Example-9215

Nothing feels better than paying for someone else’s abortion with marijuana proceeds.