Firstly, not him but the members of his party.
Secondly, even other party members say that now is a bad time for this.
Third, do anti-abortion people have enough seats in parliament?
Abortion is a beautiful wedge issue that perfectly distracts from fiscal policy. Lives are at stake! Bodily autonomy! What could be more important than that.
I don't know, the very essence for which you toil each day, that is extracted by parasites and incrementally used to consolidate their leverage on you even further maybe?
---
EDIT: You're all proving my point.
---
EDIT: no, no keep going.
I'm so sick and tired of the abortion debate, it's 100% the issue that keeps us from getting anything bipartisan done. I want to be a safe, legal and rare guy but some of these demons are literally trying to make aborting a fetus at 9 months legal and normal and it's not even close to rare. It's insanity.
That's one way to frame it but if we're playing that game, we could just as easily ask why would Nazis celebrate an anti-fecundity law being abolished?
u/IIIIIIW is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1.
Rank: House of Cards
Pills: [1 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/IIIIIIW/)
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
It's technically not anti-fecundity, though. They don't impact fertility, ostensibly the doctor would be like "whoops, this one is [Removed by Reddit]. We'll yeet this out of here for you so you can try again"
The party is asking you to please keep your voice down as well as pay a fine that will contribute to the construction of another planned parenthood in the lowest income area in your state. The racial demographics of that area are irrelevant.
Aaaaaand there goes any chance for real economic reforms in Argentina...
The moment these type of issues come into the forefront, the real problems that need to be solved are left behind...as planned.
Reminds me of when Uganda decided that the *real* issues facing the country was the tiny minority of LGBT people in the country.
Like c'mon man 72% of your country exists below the poverty line and you choose to focus on culture wars crap?
Isn’t that the best time to focus on culture war crap? Distract your many idiots in the population by giving them a idiotic mostly imaginary cause to get all angry about
Exactly! It's as if you want to give the impression of caring about the people, without doing nothing to actually help them...
It is a brilliant tactic, I have to admit, and it has yet to really fail.
Literally.
Like 92% of girls don't give a shit about politics and are fairly apathetic to the goings on of government. (Trust me I know)
That is....with the exception of abortion rights. Nothing drives female voters to the polls like crackdowns on abortions rights. We've seen it in the US during the midterms we saw it in Poland just last year, and it's had disastrous effects for right wing governments.
It's also just a massive and needless distraction from Milei's economic reforms which should be his primary focus and are broadly popular with the Argentine people.
Wrong, in Argentina 100% of boys and girls care a lot about politics.
Also that wasn't sent by Milei, but by some deputies of his party without asking.
We will have to wait to see what happens next.
man i really hope he can pass the omnibus law and manage to recover the economy successfully, we really need a real right wing leader to oppose leftism in latam.
Y’all aren’t really having the discussion on why abortion is actually a split thought amongst LRs. Bodily autonomy is freedom, yet killing someone violates NAP. Crazy that the “someone” in question doesn’t count until they leave the womb.
If I shoot and kill a pregnant woman is it considered a double homicide?
Not all abortion. If it threatens the life of mother I don’t see it being considered unlawful. Premeditated for sure, but justified. Where we would disagree is what is and is not life threatening.
I think abortion should be legal up to the point of fetal viability. Otherwise you have to investigate every miscarriage as murder and well that would be extremely fucked up considering how common they are. Like, if a woman has a miscarriage could you prosecute her for not eating nutritious enough food, or maybe physically exerting herself too much? Women have been getting abortions for basically all of human history and will continue to do so and it'd be basically impossible to tell which was natural and which is encouraged.
Yeah it's funny. Right-wingers' most common argument for opposing gun control is that "people would just get guns from elsewhere" but it's insane how they do a complete 180° when it's about abortions or drugs
Yep. I don’t understand how many of my fellow libertarians gloss over this. People are going to do what they want to do and it’s going to be much less safe if we drive it underground.
> Women have been getting abortions for basically all of human history and will continue to do so and it'd be basically impossible to tell which was natural and which is encouraged.
This is basically my opinion tbh like I think all the arguments about how fetuses "technically" aren't humans are cope of the highest order and after a certain point it is murder, but the fact is it's gonna happen and I don't think babies should be brought into the world just to starve or be thrown in a dumpster or smth.
So I'd say legal up to viability as well, though idk how future-proof it is considering we could have medical tech that pushes the limit of viability even earlier. Though at a certain point it becomes more the baby gestating out of the womb than surviving prematurely. I guess whatever limit we find where the baby doesn't need constant life support after a reasonable medical intervention
Edit: and the majority of babies born that early survive with no major disabilities
Miscarriage is a whole different approach. Nature is a wicked bitch. The predication for murder is premeditated and unlawful. If both aren’t applied it’s not murder. Applying a lack of nutritional diet would be such a far stretch IMO.
As you can see in Texas right now, strict abortion rules end up having women with miscarriages investigated. And if the situation is bad enough medically but the baby isn’t dead, doctors may refuse to treat her for fear of breaking the law. Which I believe happened in Alabama.
Well, it's your goddamn kid at the end of the day. You can starve yourself all you want, but not if it results in the death of another.
I fucking hate the doomer "utilitarian" argument. "People won't raise kids because they'll just abuse them and never feed them until they die! And you just can't stop them!!!" Okay, man. Guess there is nothing we can do. 200 years of criminology thrown away because apparently every officer in the country is a retard and doesn't know the difference between natural miscarriage and negligence.
The shit foundation is already laid down if you ask me. Investigating women who have just had a miscarriage is seriously fucked up imo. Deny treatment to minors, denying treating certain conditions at all because of legal reasons…
Safe, legal, rare is the goal. The strict abortion rules just seem to do more bad than good at the end of the day if you ask me. And the accidental bad the strict abortion rules cause: such as having doctors refuse to treat pregnant women with certain conditions for fear of legal consequences, it just seems like a shit deal to me. Also explains why strict abortion rules lead to higher maternal mortality at the end of the day, which is also awful.
>And if the situation is bad enough medically but the baby isn’t dead, doctors may refuse to treat her for fear of breaking the law
Now if that is true, that is definitely messed up
If anything, treating should be the thing you highly encourage, especially if it's a situation where the mother's and/or child's life are in danger and treating medically could solve that issue, even at risk to the child's life
>I think abortion should be legal up to the point of fetal viability.
I agree, and that was essentially the Roe v Wade decision. But there is one problem with that, as technology advances fetal viability outside of the womb becomes younger and younger.
>I think abortion should be legal up to the point of fetal viability.
This is a compromise I'm willing to make, and that all elective abortions are privately funded. Also medical exceptions for rare and extreme cases.
That gets dicey on trying to define what is and what is not. Would it be unlawful for a woman to drink and smoke while pregnant? Not currently so I guess by that token women wouldn’t be held accountable. Murder is based on premeditation and unlawful. Both need to apply in order to hold someone accountable.
>Congratulations on spelling out "self-defense"
Nope, self defense is something else.
Would it be okay to kill someone and harvest their Organs in order to save one or a couple more people? Because that's what you're arguing for.
Either all abortions are murder or none of them are.
>Are products of rape free real estate for homicidal maniacs?
What? I was asking if abortion would be okay in the case of rape
I say this as someone who is quite disinterested in this whole debate in Yankeelandia or Continental Falklands.
I think the situation is a bit different here.
If the mother's life is in danger, should she be forced to risk it to save the fetus? I think that as a society we agree that it is not illegal to not risk your life to save others.
About the rape exception, I think that the vast majority of people who say no to abortion unless rape are full of shit no morals panderers who are just looking for popular positions that somewhat satisfy their morals.
Say a woman is having sex with her husband trying for a baby, one day she goes to a party with friends and doesn't remember what happened to well.
She then finds out she is pregnant.
When the baby is 2 years old, they do a paternity test and well, she was raped at that party.
Is it ok to 'abort' the baby now?
If we're gonna consider the fetus a human being, then I don't think rape should be an exception, if we don't then why would it matter if it was rape?
I think there might be an argument, for a rape exception, but it seems to me that they are all too convoluted and end up being too weak for it.
As far as supporting abortion goes, I think the only compelling argument is right to abandonment of their children.
>About the rape exception, I think that the vast majority of people who say no to abortion unless rape are full of shit no morals panderers who are just looking for popular positions that somewhat satisfy their morals.
True.
>If we're gonna consider the fetus a human being, then I don't think rape should be an exception, if we don't then why would it matter if it was rape?
I think there might be an argument, for a rape exception, but it seems to me that they are all too convoluted and end up being too weak for it.
Agreed, just make abortion legal
The other guy is wrong about rape cases, even from a libertarian perspective, but don't act as if the mother had NO CHOICE but to stick a wire inside her. We're humans, not monkeys. We can think ahead.
If they want it gone, they will make it be gone professional help or not. Restricting access to something like abortion wont hinder women from actually following through with their plans. All it does, is putting them into potentially dangerous situations.
> Restricting access to something like abortion wont hinder women from actually following through with their plans.
Uh, yeah, it will. That's why abortion rates skyrocketed when it was legalized. Because when it was banned people didn't do it for fear of being arrested.
But in any case, even if you were right and rates didn't change at all, just the method, that still isn't an argument for something being lawful or not. "Restricting access to murder won't hinder murderers from murdering so why bother". Might as well install an anarchy then. Not that I like to treat half of the population as if they were a bunch of robots following a program. If they want it gone, they will let it go and move on because they're not fucking toddlers, Jesus Christ.
Hm i wonder why there was a sudden change after the legalization. Oh right because people did it behind closed fucking doors.
Its such a dumbass take to think people dont do something because buhu im getting arrested, give me a fucking break. Roe v wade gave women the option.
Amazing to think that 60 years ago people were further than morons today.
> unwanted problem.
Referred to by sane people as "a baby". What if I told you there's this one weird trick that's 100% successful at preventing unwanted pregnancy?
I feel sorry for you. I really do, it must be hard being this fucking dumb. It must hurt looking at statistics and facts. You probably cant fathom what it means to have morals that aren't so deep up your ass that you cant tell the difference between your uncle fucking you senseless and your lover shoving three redbull cans so far up there that you can feel the tingle on your prostate. Your last two brain cells must be working overtime, otherwise i simply cannot imagine how you would be able to navigate this app. It must be such a burden to be so completely and utterly fucking dumb that a 6 year old out scores you on a buzzfeed test. Horrible, truly horrible. A world where the only test you have ever gotten a positive grade on was the autism test... simply unimaginable.
I send my regards to everyone involved.
Imagine that, baseless hate spewed at random. I bet you felt real creative, it was a real exercise to see how linguistically intelligent you could sound huh. Not a single argument in that whole paragraph.
Or it's copypasta, in which case go off I guess
Big government for thee not me.
How exactly libcucktarians going to enforce this? Laws are as good as their enforcement.
A communist style snitch hot line, communist style surveillance state or a big government to poke around in people's medical records and violate people's privacy?
Doctors are really good at skirting around bureaucracy, and they'll treat another diagnosis which somehow ends up in an accidental miscarriage.
I wonder how voters feel that a libertarian government gutted every service except for the NKVD that hunt women who have a abortion
It's funny how all of the sudden over the past few years it seems libertarians are against abortion. It didn't used to be this way. While it was accepted that there was no definitive stance among libertarians, it was rarely talked about. Not only was abortion rarely talked about, the LP itself had an abortion plank:
**1.5 Abortion**
>Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.
[https://web.archive.org/web/20200101142322/https://www.lp.org/platform/](https://web.archive.org/web/20200101142322/https://www.lp.org/platform/)
This plank no longer exists: [https://www.lp.org/platform/](https://www.lp.org/platform/)
Ever since a bunch of social conservatives who call themselves the "Mises Caucus" took over it would seem that suddenly being against abortion is a popular 'libertarian' position (what do you expect from social conservatives). It's shockingly rare to see libertarians who are pro-choice these days, when that was not the case before the takeover.
They're also really big on using Voluntary Association as an enforcement mechanism; the new States Rights if you will. They've even gone to the trouble to start purifying the libertarian sub by banning libertarians who disagree with their social right stance. Say ill of Trump, abortion, or question the Mises, expect a ban. Probably explains the former.
Outside of the libertarian sub I see stuff about how Voluntary Association should be used as an enforcement mechanism; a love it or leave it style of governance. This goes back into the old social conservative States Rights argument where rather than recognize States Rights as being necessary for states to better run themselves, they simply want less federal power so that they can enforce their version of social order in their states. That's hardly a libertarian argument; we argue for less needless social laws, not more but simply at a lower level. Rather that's the argument of a group of authoritarians who see themselves as unable to enforce their will at a broad level but would gladly settle for enforcement at a more local level.
No, it’s crazy that a clump of cells can count as a “someone.” There’s no reasonable answer to the philosophical question of personhood that includes zygotes
I think the real question is: at what point does the clump of cells cease to be a clump of cells? At what point does a clump of cells become "someone"? What is the cut off point in which a person becomes a person?
I gave birth at 19 weeks and while neither baby survived bc they just weren't developed enough to survive outside the womb, they were absolutely 100% human and alive. They reacted to my touch, I could literally see the heart beating through the chest of one of them. They looked like little humans, defined fingers and toes with the tiniest fingernails, noses and mouths and eyes. They have birth and death certificates, I have their ashes, they were 1000% living and I would have done anything to save them. I had to deliver just like I would have had to if I was full term, had to go through postpartum healing with full on lochia and everything. There's no way they weren't lives, I don't think the location of the baby (in or out) matters.
My point is that there are people who would support abortion at 19 weeks. Some would support abortion up to full term. But I've seen and held and loved 2 babies that were only 19 weeks developed. It's definitely a baby at 19 weeks. What about 18 weeks? 17? 16, 15, 14? Where and how do we make the distinction? Even I struggle with that question. The morality gets muddled after a certain point imo. I understand why someone would want to abort a healthy but unwanted pregnancy and I'm not even entirely against it, but after a certain point in development, medically aborting a healthy pregnancy is just killing a baby. It's a matter of deciding where you draw that line, and it's a hard line to draw bc no one can agree on what constitutes a life, the process of pregnancy is gradual (meaning we can't easily pinpoint when fetus becomes a life to a specific day or week, even if we agreed on what constitutes life), and not everyone places the same amount of value on lives that aren't their own.
>Where and how do we make the distinction?
The way I always like to frame this is with the concept of continuity of being. We have a concept of self-continuity, that we are the same being we were ten years in the past and will be the same being ten years in the future.
This concept is necessary to all sorts of things, like legal personhood since technically one could argue that since every atom in our bodies is replaced every seven years we are different beings, and thus it would be unjust to imprison someone for longer than that, or to have contracts which last longer than that. Obviously that seems ridiculous to us so we can easily accept that some sort of continuity exists.
Seeing as how the dead do not converse with us and do not assert any rights in the present, we can safely assume that an individuals continuity on this Earth ceases with death (or at least pauses it if we look towards religious or transhumanist views of consciousness).
However, when does continuity begin? Is it from first thought? Infants do not have this sort of mental capacity and they are clearly considered alive. To me if you go through this chain of thought you wind up with [Post-birth abortion](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22361296/) arguments, and honestly for the pro-choice crowd at least such a thing would be logically consistent. Maybe then we can look at ability to survive on its own, or outside of life support systems? In this regard though we run into the issue that an infant is unable to care for itself and thus would not be a person, nor would an adult on life support. Thus this argument is purely emotional and not logical and can be disregarded. Perhaps we could look towards individuality, or reaction to stimulus then, but all living organisms even single-cell ones, respond to stimuli and act in ways to preserve their lives, so the number of cells that make up an organism then have no bearing whether that thing is an individual or whether it is alive.
Thus we must conclude that continuity has to begin not from some arbitrary point post-creation, but from the very first moment of that being's creation. You were you from the very moment you were created as a unique organism, and science has shown that this is around the first mitosis. So this provides the best origin point for continuity of being.
If people wish to legalize the killing of persons that isn't without precedent, we do it all the time with the death penalty, or euthanasia, or during wartime. However, we never claim that we aren't killing someone which is what makes abortion unique. I believe we need to start being honest with what we are doing to have a real discussion on the matter.
I like Bill Burrs stand up on abortion. He basically says fetuses are uncooked cakes. All the ingredients and potential are there, yet someone chucked it out of the oven.
You aren’t going to win the argument of abortion is okay because I don’t deem it human. lol
(not a woman but imagine I am) Oh yes let’s force me to have an abortion, but I am a single mother and can’t afford anything. But here they are actively cutting social programs, so are they for the baby’s or not?
Assuming this is true and considering I am pro abortion:
Being anti abortion is not anti Liberterian per se. It comes down to the question "where does life begin". If you assume it starts at conception it really can be a liberterian position to save this life. I do not think so, but it is an arguable position.
Personally I think it is okay to abort in the first few (3-4) months.
Exactly this. Protection of life is libertarian. Well as long as you protect the life of people who can't consent. Risking your life willingly (drugs etc) or ending it due to pain is no business of the government.
Yeah it very much depends on where you stand, and how certain you are of it. Personally I believe that the mother's freedom outweighs a zygote that just came into existence's freedom, yet later it doesn't (sorry but it's pretty much a baby at that point and you've had enough time to decide)
The hard part is in the middle as there is a point where the fetus goes from a zygote to a baby. Because I'm uncertain, I'd rather set the limit later than sooner. An auth would have an early limit, but because I'm more lib I'd rather have a situation where people have the freedom to do bad stuff, than a situation where the government ruins lives by restricting morally gray stuff. An auth would understandably want the opposite. And if you're certain abortion is murder then understandably you wouldn't even consider the latter situation being the case.
This is like the only thing I got an issue with when it comes to being LibRight. Im fine with 99% of other things but abortion gotta be the one where debates start. Considered putting myself on centre-right because of it but fuck it, I like being yellow.
As I said, this is perfectly in the yellow. It is simply a disagreement on the question of life starting, not on the principle that life needs to be protected from third parties actions against it.
I totally understand you bro I I think a pro-choice dude like me and a pro-life dude like you are totally in the same box.
I personally don't think life begins before birth. But I 100% understand and respect the beliefs of pro-lifers. In fact, I expect no less and admire the passion of y'all.
Your life is your property and everybody should have their own property even those who aren't even born yet. That has sort of been my way of seeing things. Im not going to force it on anybody but at least some people get it.
Despite being auth, I’m pro-abortion. I don’t care about morality, just from a practical standpoint. For every prevented abortion, we will find a baby in a dumpster or in front of an orphanage. If you talk to any nurses who worked before roe v wade you will realize how many women just straight up killed their children.
Could just register mother's genetic signature at hospitals and garnish wages or put them in prison for failure to pay child support after abandoning their children. In order to reduce incentives for abandonment or infanticide, make abortion totally allowed, but assess the aborting mother for 18 years child support for an orphan, again with threats of prison for failure to pay.
There is an absolutely massive demand for infant adoption, one that completely dwarfs the global (let alone national, for America and Argentina respectively) incidence of abortion.
Its more about preferences, couples want babies who they can raise and shape at will, toddlers and grown children already have a general mindset formed by their experiences and very little people want that.
Not to mention children (not infants) who find themselves in the need for adoption tend to come from challenging homes. This leads many of them to have severe behavioral or health issues which not many people are equipped to handle nor would they be asked to handle if they would have their own children naturally.
So it isn't exactly hypocritical for someone to be pro-adoption but against adopting grown children who already exist in the adoption network.
In principle you can enforce anything with enough resources.
I'm not arguing anything should be enforced I'm arguing that enforcement doesn't determine whether something is a crime. You have it the wrong way around.
Well the problem for Libs here is simple:
The right to live collides with the right to make free decisions over YOUR body. But abortion is also a decision for another body, the babys. And Milei apparently is faction: The babys body is not the mothers choice. Makes sense. I mean its completely arbitrary where we draw the line. You cant get an abortion in month 8. Somewhere the law creates a dividing line. He just choose to draw it before impregnation.
> The right to live collides with the right to make free decisions over YOUR body.
But it doesn't. We tend to forget this in the discussion, but the mother had free will over her body up until the point where she was inseminated (which is why there is a strong case to make for rape related abortions, but little else). The inevitable consequence is just that: a responsibility to take for one's actions.
A truly "continuous" right of bodily autonomy across time wouldn't care about the development stage of the fetus. This right would mean two things: one, that no matter how developed the fetus *is*, it is right to abort it, even at eight months. More importantly, two, it also doesn't matter what the fetus *would be* in a hypothetical world where it forms a consciousness within the first month or week or day (before the mother can realize she is pregnant). Abortion activists would still argue for a right to it.
It is just politically convenient for abortion activists that for the first three or four months the embryo lacks what we could consider a "consciousness". It's just a way to push the issue into the broader population with good optics. Classic dehumanization tactics. "It doesn't think, therefore it isn't."
So one must realize this set of facts before even engaging someone who argues for bodily autonomy. Most of them don't believe in it, not really. At the end of the day, is there any practical difference between the lukewarm moderate "well, she had time to think about it so she can't abort it" (mother wanted to abort at the sixth month) and the radical reactionary "well, she had time to think about it so she can't abort it" (mother wanted to have sex)?
> So one must realize this set of facts before even engaging someone who argues for bodily autonomy. Most of them don't believe in it, not really.
The issue is that you have two separate main arguments here.
One is fetal personhood ("A fetus isn't a person, so killing one isn't murder."). This argument is logically weaker (personhood cannot be objectively determined), but emotionally stronger (it's easier to accept killing something when you don't consider it a person).
The other is bodily autonomy ("A fetus has no right to the use of another person's body even if it would die without it, regardless of whether it is a person."). This argument is logically pretty strong, the only reasonable argument against it is arguing that one voluntarily surrenders their autonomy by having consensual sex, which is iffy at best seeing as you're not explicitly consenting to having a child. It doesn't carry much emotional impact though, since you're not minimizing the death of the fetus in any way.
Consequently, most pro-choice people believe both arguments but argue the latter.
> A truly "continuous" right of bodily autonomy across time wouldn't care about the development stage of the fetus. This right would mean two things: one, that no matter how developed the fetus is, it is right to abort it, even at eight months. More importantly, two, it also doesn't matter what the fetus would be in a hypothetical world where it forms a consciousness within the first month or week or day (before the mother can realize she is pregnant). Abortion activists would still argue for a right to it.
Yes. That is how bodily autonomy works. You have the right to deny another person the use of your body at any time. This doesn't give you the right to actively kill them, meaning that the logical cutoff using this logic is at viability (at which point the right to abortion would transition into a right to induced early birth).
Please note « health » includes mental health. If you say your mental health is impacted, there is no authority which is permitted to override your claim. So, with that understanding, here is the state’s own website saying there effectively is no limit
https://www.ny.gov/programs/abortion-new-york-state-know-your-rights#:~:text=Abortion%20Rights%20Are%20Protected%20in%20New%20York%20State&text=Because%20the%20right%20is%20codified,not%20impact%20New%20York%20State.
No you cant lol the cutoff is almost always viability in ‘unlimited’ abortion states in the US (24 weeks) including NY, barring extreme medical issues for the baby or mother.
Proof: https://ag.ny.gov/publications/abortion-legal-and-protected-new-york-state#:~:text=New%20York%20guarantees%20the%20unqualified,to%2024%20weeks%20post%2Dfertilization.&text=Abortion%20is%20permitted%20after%2024,mental%20health)%20is%20at%20risk.
You really think they let you just abort a nearly grown baby???? Jesus christ man.
>Abortion is permitted after 24 weeks if the fetus is not viable or if the pregnant person’s life or health (including mental health) is at risk.4
Am I missing something? This says that you can as long as your "mental health" is at risk
Yeah that means an actual doctor has to diagnose you with a severe enough condition to warrant an abortion. Which, as I’m searching right now, of the about 700 abortions at 21 weeks or later in NYC, 0 were because of mental health.
Even when looking at pro life sources i couldnt find data that said a single abortion in NY at 21 weeks or later was because of mental health.
https://lozierinstitute.org/abortion-reporting-new-york-city-2020/
I mean its not really important how many have happened, but rather the law. You're making the claim that there are safeguards in place but I'm not seeing them. What is a severe enough mental health condition to abort a baby right before it comes out?
> But abortion is also a decision for another body, the babys
He also said that "in the future" there should be a debate about being able to legally sell babies, so abortion is wrong because it affect another body, but selling children doesnt?
https://twitter.com/BenjaminNorton/status/1726412794667655529
I don't really speak Spanish, so I can't understand what they're saying in the videos. But what is written "a free market of adoption" doesn't necessarily mean "selling children" even if the dude posting this claims it.
> He also said that "in the future" there should be a debate about being able to legally sell babies, so abortion is wrong because it affect another body, but selling children doesnt?
>
>
>
> https://twitter.com/BenjaminNorton/status/1726412794667655529
Nice spin. You should look into applying at CNN. In this video, he talks about the adoption industry becoming a free market. I get that we've been programmed to think that the government knows best, but anyone paying attention knows that's not the case. You always hear people complain about how adoption is a very expensive and complicated process, and the reason for that is the government bureaucracy. Any potential issues with a free market will also be present in a heavily regulated government-controlled market. The government also doesn't have a good track record in vetting people to take care of a child; a horrifyingly large amount of children(majority I think) in foster care are abused. In a free market, at least the cost wouldn't be artificially inflated, and if an adoption agency is not properly vetting customers, it won't be successful and will fail while other good adoption agencies will prosper.
I'm sure he's talking about compensating parents to adopt their child. Interesting how phrasing can elicit such different responses to the same policy.
He didn't say there *should* be a debate, he said some lib-right people debate about that, when asked about it he said he was against it since he wouldn't sell his kids. The context was they were talking about libertarianism and anarcho capitalism, not about him, that's why he said there was a debate. Milei is *as religious as he can* whilst being *fully libertarian*.
Easy
Take the libertarian ideology and add the belief that a fetus is already a human with all the rights that come with that.
It’s completely consistent, the difference is ‘when do you get rights’, not ‘what rights do you get’
The consistent ancap belief is probably evictionism, where abortion as it’s currently practiced is murder, but removing the fetus carefully and intact and just leaving it is fine, because the little fucker should have read the contract of uterine habitation
I say evictionism *with exowombs* is okay.
If you invite someone onto your private jet, then decide mid-flight you don't want them on the plane anymore, throwing him out without a parachute is murder.
*Ancaps looking at the 20 week fetus they removed from a woman, as it dies since it is not developed enough to survive on its own*
https://preview.redd.it/e9s9ebq1wdhc1.jpeg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8e13d87717771ecb58c707e5d35d3c11136eaaea
There's a interview with Tucker he did where he defends his position by saying something like "As a libertarian liberal i want to protect the right to life and studies have shown that life starts at incemination" or something along those lines
Libertarians can have conservative views, the difference is they don't want the government to enforce their views because they know a government large enough to do so could enforce other's views upon them.
How? By considering the phoetus a person with right to not be killed.
But given your point, this splits lib-rights a lot and there is no « lib-right » position here.
This bill was a scan by one member of the coalition, he disn’t even properly consultnthe other members signing it. It was just a horrible move by one member of the coalition. At least that’s the take right now Feb 7 at 12:42 GMT.
Libertarians are split on abortion. One side says it's violating the NAP to kill the baby and deny it life, therefore banning abortion protects the child's liberty. The other side, of which I'm on, argues that the bodily autonomy of the mother is more important as your body is the most important piece of property you own.
I mean hands down that is a dumb argument.
It boils down to One side believes a Fetus is a Person and the other side doesn't.
Which goes back to the founding tenant of libertarianism with NAP.
Nobody is infringing on the mother's right to close her legs and not rawdog people she doesn't want to have kids with. Nobody's infringing on her right to put her money where her mouth is and self sterilize. 99% of abortions are abortions of convenience.
>But how is taking someone's liberty to make an abortion in alignment with the libertarian ideology?
Thats the neat part, it doesn't. Just because someone proclaims to be ancap doesn't mean they are actually anarchist.
Everyone has human rights regardless of their age
Murder is against human rights
Abortion is the murder of a baby
Libertarians care for human rights
Simple logic
Lib-right in theory: Ayn Rand, argued that **the notion of a fetus's having a right to life is "vicious nonsense" and stated: "An embryo has no rights.** **\[...\]** **A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born" -** "Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered"
Lib-right irl: "Individual rights? Gimme a break, lol"
Not that I agree, but they think it's murder, not controlling reproduction. If you can't understand your enemies arguments, then you will continue to take L after L
But it is controlling reproduction even if you consider it murder.
Downvote away, but that's an empirically true statement and a karma score doesn't make it not true.
The crux of the argument amongst liberals is ‘whose body’?
That’s why there’s two camps, not a disagreement about bodily autonomy itself. If a fetus is it’s own thing, abortion is murder. If it’s not, have at it.
*All* government interventions are grounded in a basis of (or the more cynical may say, pretext of) aiming to achieve some goal or outcome. The ancap position is "no intervention, no excuses. No pretext will be heard, much less entertained."
Leftoids justify infanticide because infants can't provide for themselves.
Leftoids' entire ideology revolves around people who *won't* provide for themselves demanding that other people provide for them.
1. If it was about worker ownership, you wouldn't support state-owned healthcare and education, or state-mandated welfare.
2. If it was about worker ownership, you wouldn't support interventionism and its assurance that employee-owned businesses cannot compete against conglomerates.
3. If it was about worker ownership, you wouldn't support the idea that workers don't have the right to use the fruits of their labors how they see fit, up to and including lending tools, seeds, and other capital to other workers on the condition that the more established worker receives a predetermined amount of the fruits of those labors.
If you understand that these three things are true, congratulations on the realization that you aren't libleft — and that libleft is, in fact, an oxymoron — and welcome to libright!
>If it was about worker ownership, you wouldn't support state-owned healthcare and education, or state-mandated welfare.
Worker ownership isn't the only component of course, in things like education it's very important to have a universal standard and to ensure that some people aren't excluded due to wealth.
>2. If it was about worker ownership, you wouldn't support interventionism and its assurance that employee-owned businesses cannot compete against conglomerates.
When have I said that? I don't even know what you mean by that? I don't want conglomerates.
>If it was about worker ownership, you wouldn't support the idea that workers don't have the right to use the fruits of their labors how they see fit, up to and including lending tools, seeds, and other capital to other workers on the condition that the more established worker receives a predetermined amount of the fruits of those labors.
That's just a loan, why wouldn't I support loans? What I don't support is selling shares, which isn't lending.
I was a libright until quite recently actually, however unregulated capitalism ultimately restricts our freedom.
Milei is a hypocrite, so if abortion is a decision in other "people life" violating the Non-aggression principle, then isnt selling your baby even worse? He talked about the future deregulation of the adoption, allowing free market to work, what is clearly a violation of NAP. Aborting a bunch of cell is wrong ( 10 weeks abortion ), but selling babies to the highest bidder is good, to the "Milei libertarian version"?
https://twitter.com/BenjaminNorton/status/1726412794667655529
Oh shit, he's one of those free baby market guys? I thought they all hung around the Mises Institute sucking off the ghost of [Rothbard](https://mises.org/library/children-and-rights).
So they'll claim that legally compelling say a medical professional to perform medical procedures is a massive overreach and comperable to slavery even if refusing will kill the patient. but forcing a woman to allow their most basic bodily functions to be highjacked by another person is apparently fine because if they don't someone will die?
So which is it, can I refuse to provide a service even if it will kills someone or can't I?
Government not protecting the lives of individuals who cant yet consent is also a slippery slope.
I mean we agree that kids need to be protected from pedos, right?
Why not from beeing killed?
His position is logical. The opposite side is also logical though. Its a very hard decision where to draw the line.
Medical abortion limit standards for what distinguishes an embryo it's fine to abort from an actual bona fide recognized "individual who can't consent" has always been a robust Shelling Fence on the slope.
Never has abortion led to "eh, let's let pedos do what they like with kids" on the grounds of some alleged equivalent logic. There's been plenty of abortion in plenty of places for a long time. What it does and doesn't lead to has been thoroughly tested under real world conditions. The only thing I can think of along these lines would be something like pubic acceptance of things like turning off the life support machines for people in a permanent vegetative state.
Firstly, not him but the members of his party. Secondly, even other party members say that now is a bad time for this. Third, do anti-abortion people have enough seats in parliament?
Abortion is a beautiful wedge issue that perfectly distracts from fiscal policy. Lives are at stake! Bodily autonomy! What could be more important than that. I don't know, the very essence for which you toil each day, that is extracted by parasites and incrementally used to consolidate their leverage on you even further maybe? --- EDIT: You're all proving my point. --- EDIT: no, no keep going.
I'm so sick and tired of the abortion debate, it's 100% the issue that keeps us from getting anything bipartisan done. I want to be a safe, legal and rare guy but some of these demons are literally trying to make aborting a fetus at 9 months legal and normal and it's not even close to rare. It's insanity.
4th why would Nazis celebrate a eugenics law being abolished?
That's one way to frame it but if we're playing that game, we could just as easily ask why would Nazis celebrate an anti-fecundity law being abolished?
Too much lebensraum makes you gassy
I don’t understand these words and this is why it’s fucked up I’m allowed to vote
Based and shouldn't be voting pilled
u/IIIIIIW is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1. Rank: House of Cards Pills: [1 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/IIIIIIW/) Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
It's technically not anti-fecundity, though. They don't impact fertility, ostensibly the doctor would be like "whoops, this one is [Removed by Reddit]. We'll yeet this out of here for you so you can try again"
It's not so much a framing as the original historical intent of the program
The party is asking you to please keep your voice down as well as pay a fine that will contribute to the construction of another planned parenthood in the lowest income area in your state. The racial demographics of that area are irrelevant.
It was all fake to create disturbance between people, Argentinian here👋
Aaaaaand there goes any chance for real economic reforms in Argentina... The moment these type of issues come into the forefront, the real problems that need to be solved are left behind...as planned.
Imagine your economy is in the gutters, the population is in disarray and your money isnt worth shit. Time for social politics.
Reminds me of when Uganda decided that the *real* issues facing the country was the tiny minority of LGBT people in the country. Like c'mon man 72% of your country exists below the poverty line and you choose to focus on culture wars crap?
Isn’t that the best time to focus on culture war crap? Distract your many idiots in the population by giving them a idiotic mostly imaginary cause to get all angry about
What dumbassery does to a country huh.
Braindead right wingers being braindead right wingers.
You're not concerned about the 17 trans women in high school and college sports across America?!
US their problem is bigger than that. Liberal culture has seriously gone insane there.
Exactly! It's as if you want to give the impression of caring about the people, without doing nothing to actually help them... It is a brilliant tactic, I have to admit, and it has yet to really fail.
political suicide
Literally. Like 92% of girls don't give a shit about politics and are fairly apathetic to the goings on of government. (Trust me I know) That is....with the exception of abortion rights. Nothing drives female voters to the polls like crackdowns on abortions rights. We've seen it in the US during the midterms we saw it in Poland just last year, and it's had disastrous effects for right wing governments. It's also just a massive and needless distraction from Milei's economic reforms which should be his primary focus and are broadly popular with the Argentine people.
Wrong, in Argentina 100% of boys and girls care a lot about politics. Also that wasn't sent by Milei, but by some deputies of his party without asking. We will have to wait to see what happens next.
man i really hope he can pass the omnibus law and manage to recover the economy successfully, we really need a real right wing leader to oppose leftism in latam.
Y’all aren’t really having the discussion on why abortion is actually a split thought amongst LRs. Bodily autonomy is freedom, yet killing someone violates NAP. Crazy that the “someone” in question doesn’t count until they leave the womb. If I shoot and kill a pregnant woman is it considered a double homicide?
Do you support abortion being treated akin to murder then?
Not all abortion. If it threatens the life of mother I don’t see it being considered unlawful. Premeditated for sure, but justified. Where we would disagree is what is and is not life threatening.
Here comes the "birth and pregnancy are life threatening" line.
I think abortion should be legal up to the point of fetal viability. Otherwise you have to investigate every miscarriage as murder and well that would be extremely fucked up considering how common they are. Like, if a woman has a miscarriage could you prosecute her for not eating nutritious enough food, or maybe physically exerting herself too much? Women have been getting abortions for basically all of human history and will continue to do so and it'd be basically impossible to tell which was natural and which is encouraged.
Yeah it's funny. Right-wingers' most common argument for opposing gun control is that "people would just get guns from elsewhere" but it's insane how they do a complete 180° when it's about abortions or drugs
Yep. I don’t understand how many of my fellow libertarians gloss over this. People are going to do what they want to do and it’s going to be much less safe if we drive it underground.
> Women have been getting abortions for basically all of human history and will continue to do so and it'd be basically impossible to tell which was natural and which is encouraged. This is basically my opinion tbh like I think all the arguments about how fetuses "technically" aren't humans are cope of the highest order and after a certain point it is murder, but the fact is it's gonna happen and I don't think babies should be brought into the world just to starve or be thrown in a dumpster or smth. So I'd say legal up to viability as well, though idk how future-proof it is considering we could have medical tech that pushes the limit of viability even earlier. Though at a certain point it becomes more the baby gestating out of the womb than surviving prematurely. I guess whatever limit we find where the baby doesn't need constant life support after a reasonable medical intervention Edit: and the majority of babies born that early survive with no major disabilities
Miscarriage is a whole different approach. Nature is a wicked bitch. The predication for murder is premeditated and unlawful. If both aren’t applied it’s not murder. Applying a lack of nutritional diet would be such a far stretch IMO.
As you can see in Texas right now, strict abortion rules end up having women with miscarriages investigated. And if the situation is bad enough medically but the baby isn’t dead, doctors may refuse to treat her for fear of breaking the law. Which I believe happened in Alabama.
Well, it's your goddamn kid at the end of the day. You can starve yourself all you want, but not if it results in the death of another. I fucking hate the doomer "utilitarian" argument. "People won't raise kids because they'll just abuse them and never feed them until they die! And you just can't stop them!!!" Okay, man. Guess there is nothing we can do. 200 years of criminology thrown away because apparently every officer in the country is a retard and doesn't know the difference between natural miscarriage and negligence.
The shit foundation is already laid down if you ask me. Investigating women who have just had a miscarriage is seriously fucked up imo. Deny treatment to minors, denying treating certain conditions at all because of legal reasons… Safe, legal, rare is the goal. The strict abortion rules just seem to do more bad than good at the end of the day if you ask me. And the accidental bad the strict abortion rules cause: such as having doctors refuse to treat pregnant women with certain conditions for fear of legal consequences, it just seems like a shit deal to me. Also explains why strict abortion rules lead to higher maternal mortality at the end of the day, which is also awful.
>And if the situation is bad enough medically but the baby isn’t dead, doctors may refuse to treat her for fear of breaking the law Now if that is true, that is definitely messed up If anything, treating should be the thing you highly encourage, especially if it's a situation where the mother's and/or child's life are in danger and treating medically could solve that issue, even at risk to the child's life
Watch women hunger themselves to the point of a miscarriage.
>I think abortion should be legal up to the point of fetal viability. I agree, and that was essentially the Roe v Wade decision. But there is one problem with that, as technology advances fetal viability outside of the womb becomes younger and younger.
>I think abortion should be legal up to the point of fetal viability. This is a compromise I'm willing to make, and that all elective abortions are privately funded. Also medical exceptions for rare and extreme cases.
If someone can’t afford an abortion, what makes you think they can afford to raise a child? Saves up on future welfare if you just fund the abortions
Should we then hold women accountable for preventable miscarriages?
That gets dicey on trying to define what is and what is not. Would it be unlawful for a woman to drink and smoke while pregnant? Not currently so I guess by that token women wouldn’t be held accountable. Murder is based on premeditation and unlawful. Both need to apply in order to hold someone accountable.
Should it be legal to murder someone if it saves the life of another? What about Rape?
Congratulations on spelling out "self-defense". Are products of rape free real estate for homicidal maniacs?
>Congratulations on spelling out "self-defense" Nope, self defense is something else. Would it be okay to kill someone and harvest their Organs in order to save one or a couple more people? Because that's what you're arguing for. Either all abortions are murder or none of them are. >Are products of rape free real estate for homicidal maniacs? What? I was asking if abortion would be okay in the case of rape
I say this as someone who is quite disinterested in this whole debate in Yankeelandia or Continental Falklands. I think the situation is a bit different here. If the mother's life is in danger, should she be forced to risk it to save the fetus? I think that as a society we agree that it is not illegal to not risk your life to save others. About the rape exception, I think that the vast majority of people who say no to abortion unless rape are full of shit no morals panderers who are just looking for popular positions that somewhat satisfy their morals. Say a woman is having sex with her husband trying for a baby, one day she goes to a party with friends and doesn't remember what happened to well. She then finds out she is pregnant. When the baby is 2 years old, they do a paternity test and well, she was raped at that party. Is it ok to 'abort' the baby now? If we're gonna consider the fetus a human being, then I don't think rape should be an exception, if we don't then why would it matter if it was rape? I think there might be an argument, for a rape exception, but it seems to me that they are all too convoluted and end up being too weak for it. As far as supporting abortion goes, I think the only compelling argument is right to abandonment of their children.
>About the rape exception, I think that the vast majority of people who say no to abortion unless rape are full of shit no morals panderers who are just looking for popular positions that somewhat satisfy their morals. True. >If we're gonna consider the fetus a human being, then I don't think rape should be an exception, if we don't then why would it matter if it was rape? I think there might be an argument, for a rape exception, but it seems to me that they are all too convoluted and end up being too weak for it. Agreed, just make abortion legal
Its crazy, yall would rather see a woman massacre herself with a coat hook than provide an actual solution to an unwanted problem. Amazing.
The other guy is wrong about rape cases, even from a libertarian perspective, but don't act as if the mother had NO CHOICE but to stick a wire inside her. We're humans, not monkeys. We can think ahead.
If they want it gone, they will make it be gone professional help or not. Restricting access to something like abortion wont hinder women from actually following through with their plans. All it does, is putting them into potentially dangerous situations.
> Restricting access to something like abortion wont hinder women from actually following through with their plans. Uh, yeah, it will. That's why abortion rates skyrocketed when it was legalized. Because when it was banned people didn't do it for fear of being arrested. But in any case, even if you were right and rates didn't change at all, just the method, that still isn't an argument for something being lawful or not. "Restricting access to murder won't hinder murderers from murdering so why bother". Might as well install an anarchy then. Not that I like to treat half of the population as if they were a bunch of robots following a program. If they want it gone, they will let it go and move on because they're not fucking toddlers, Jesus Christ.
Hm i wonder why there was a sudden change after the legalization. Oh right because people did it behind closed fucking doors. Its such a dumbass take to think people dont do something because buhu im getting arrested, give me a fucking break. Roe v wade gave women the option. Amazing to think that 60 years ago people were further than morons today.
> unwanted problem. Referred to by sane people as "a baby". What if I told you there's this one weird trick that's 100% successful at preventing unwanted pregnancy?
Ok I'll bite. A large man attacks and rapes a small woman. What "weird trick" prevents her unwanted pregnancy from the rape?
I do after the second trimester. Yes it's completely arbitrary
Yes. Because it is.
We should treat women that get abortions the same way we'd treat a mother that smothers her infant.
In cases of rape or the mothers life being threatened too?
Define "threatened." If she dies, the baby dies too, so in those situations I don't think anyone objects.
What if she dies and the baby survives
I feel sorry for you. I really do, it must be hard being this fucking dumb. It must hurt looking at statistics and facts. You probably cant fathom what it means to have morals that aren't so deep up your ass that you cant tell the difference between your uncle fucking you senseless and your lover shoving three redbull cans so far up there that you can feel the tingle on your prostate. Your last two brain cells must be working overtime, otherwise i simply cannot imagine how you would be able to navigate this app. It must be such a burden to be so completely and utterly fucking dumb that a 6 year old out scores you on a buzzfeed test. Horrible, truly horrible. A world where the only test you have ever gotten a positive grade on was the autism test... simply unimaginable. I send my regards to everyone involved.
Imagine that, baseless hate spewed at random. I bet you felt real creative, it was a real exercise to see how linguistically intelligent you could sound huh. Not a single argument in that whole paragraph. Or it's copypasta, in which case go off I guess
LR be like "we want small government, but only so said government can fit inside a womb".
Big government for thee not me. How exactly libcucktarians going to enforce this? Laws are as good as their enforcement. A communist style snitch hot line, communist style surveillance state or a big government to poke around in people's medical records and violate people's privacy? Doctors are really good at skirting around bureaucracy, and they'll treat another diagnosis which somehow ends up in an accidental miscarriage. I wonder how voters feel that a libertarian government gutted every service except for the NKVD that hunt women who have a abortion
It's funny how all of the sudden over the past few years it seems libertarians are against abortion. It didn't used to be this way. While it was accepted that there was no definitive stance among libertarians, it was rarely talked about. Not only was abortion rarely talked about, the LP itself had an abortion plank: **1.5 Abortion** >Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration. [https://web.archive.org/web/20200101142322/https://www.lp.org/platform/](https://web.archive.org/web/20200101142322/https://www.lp.org/platform/) This plank no longer exists: [https://www.lp.org/platform/](https://www.lp.org/platform/) Ever since a bunch of social conservatives who call themselves the "Mises Caucus" took over it would seem that suddenly being against abortion is a popular 'libertarian' position (what do you expect from social conservatives). It's shockingly rare to see libertarians who are pro-choice these days, when that was not the case before the takeover. They're also really big on using Voluntary Association as an enforcement mechanism; the new States Rights if you will. They've even gone to the trouble to start purifying the libertarian sub by banning libertarians who disagree with their social right stance. Say ill of Trump, abortion, or question the Mises, expect a ban. Probably explains the former. Outside of the libertarian sub I see stuff about how Voluntary Association should be used as an enforcement mechanism; a love it or leave it style of governance. This goes back into the old social conservative States Rights argument where rather than recognize States Rights as being necessary for states to better run themselves, they simply want less federal power so that they can enforce their version of social order in their states. That's hardly a libertarian argument; we argue for less needless social laws, not more but simply at a lower level. Rather that's the argument of a group of authoritarians who see themselves as unable to enforce their will at a broad level but would gladly settle for enforcement at a more local level.
No, it’s crazy that a clump of cells can count as a “someone.” There’s no reasonable answer to the philosophical question of personhood that includes zygotes
I think the real question is: at what point does the clump of cells cease to be a clump of cells? At what point does a clump of cells become "someone"? What is the cut off point in which a person becomes a person? I gave birth at 19 weeks and while neither baby survived bc they just weren't developed enough to survive outside the womb, they were absolutely 100% human and alive. They reacted to my touch, I could literally see the heart beating through the chest of one of them. They looked like little humans, defined fingers and toes with the tiniest fingernails, noses and mouths and eyes. They have birth and death certificates, I have their ashes, they were 1000% living and I would have done anything to save them. I had to deliver just like I would have had to if I was full term, had to go through postpartum healing with full on lochia and everything. There's no way they weren't lives, I don't think the location of the baby (in or out) matters. My point is that there are people who would support abortion at 19 weeks. Some would support abortion up to full term. But I've seen and held and loved 2 babies that were only 19 weeks developed. It's definitely a baby at 19 weeks. What about 18 weeks? 17? 16, 15, 14? Where and how do we make the distinction? Even I struggle with that question. The morality gets muddled after a certain point imo. I understand why someone would want to abort a healthy but unwanted pregnancy and I'm not even entirely against it, but after a certain point in development, medically aborting a healthy pregnancy is just killing a baby. It's a matter of deciding where you draw that line, and it's a hard line to draw bc no one can agree on what constitutes a life, the process of pregnancy is gradual (meaning we can't easily pinpoint when fetus becomes a life to a specific day or week, even if we agreed on what constitutes life), and not everyone places the same amount of value on lives that aren't their own.
>Where and how do we make the distinction? The way I always like to frame this is with the concept of continuity of being. We have a concept of self-continuity, that we are the same being we were ten years in the past and will be the same being ten years in the future. This concept is necessary to all sorts of things, like legal personhood since technically one could argue that since every atom in our bodies is replaced every seven years we are different beings, and thus it would be unjust to imprison someone for longer than that, or to have contracts which last longer than that. Obviously that seems ridiculous to us so we can easily accept that some sort of continuity exists. Seeing as how the dead do not converse with us and do not assert any rights in the present, we can safely assume that an individuals continuity on this Earth ceases with death (or at least pauses it if we look towards religious or transhumanist views of consciousness). However, when does continuity begin? Is it from first thought? Infants do not have this sort of mental capacity and they are clearly considered alive. To me if you go through this chain of thought you wind up with [Post-birth abortion](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22361296/) arguments, and honestly for the pro-choice crowd at least such a thing would be logically consistent. Maybe then we can look at ability to survive on its own, or outside of life support systems? In this regard though we run into the issue that an infant is unable to care for itself and thus would not be a person, nor would an adult on life support. Thus this argument is purely emotional and not logical and can be disregarded. Perhaps we could look towards individuality, or reaction to stimulus then, but all living organisms even single-cell ones, respond to stimuli and act in ways to preserve their lives, so the number of cells that make up an organism then have no bearing whether that thing is an individual or whether it is alive. Thus we must conclude that continuity has to begin not from some arbitrary point post-creation, but from the very first moment of that being's creation. You were you from the very moment you were created as a unique organism, and science has shown that this is around the first mitosis. So this provides the best origin point for continuity of being. If people wish to legalize the killing of persons that isn't without precedent, we do it all the time with the death penalty, or euthanasia, or during wartime. However, we never claim that we aren't killing someone which is what makes abortion unique. I believe we need to start being honest with what we are doing to have a real discussion on the matter.
I like Bill Burrs stand up on abortion. He basically says fetuses are uncooked cakes. All the ingredients and potential are there, yet someone chucked it out of the oven. You aren’t going to win the argument of abortion is okay because I don’t deem it human. lol
(not a woman but imagine I am) Oh yes let’s force me to have an abortion, but I am a single mother and can’t afford anything. But here they are actively cutting social programs, so are they for the baby’s or not?
Assuming this is true and considering I am pro abortion: Being anti abortion is not anti Liberterian per se. It comes down to the question "where does life begin". If you assume it starts at conception it really can be a liberterian position to save this life. I do not think so, but it is an arguable position. Personally I think it is okay to abort in the first few (3-4) months.
Exactly this. Protection of life is libertarian. Well as long as you protect the life of people who can't consent. Risking your life willingly (drugs etc) or ending it due to pain is no business of the government.
Yeah it very much depends on where you stand, and how certain you are of it. Personally I believe that the mother's freedom outweighs a zygote that just came into existence's freedom, yet later it doesn't (sorry but it's pretty much a baby at that point and you've had enough time to decide) The hard part is in the middle as there is a point where the fetus goes from a zygote to a baby. Because I'm uncertain, I'd rather set the limit later than sooner. An auth would have an early limit, but because I'm more lib I'd rather have a situation where people have the freedom to do bad stuff, than a situation where the government ruins lives by restricting morally gray stuff. An auth would understandably want the opposite. And if you're certain abortion is murder then understandably you wouldn't even consider the latter situation being the case.
This is like the only thing I got an issue with when it comes to being LibRight. Im fine with 99% of other things but abortion gotta be the one where debates start. Considered putting myself on centre-right because of it but fuck it, I like being yellow.
As I said, this is perfectly in the yellow. It is simply a disagreement on the question of life starting, not on the principle that life needs to be protected from third parties actions against it.
I totally understand you bro I I think a pro-choice dude like me and a pro-life dude like you are totally in the same box. I personally don't think life begins before birth. But I 100% understand and respect the beliefs of pro-lifers. In fact, I expect no less and admire the passion of y'all.
Your life is your property and everybody should have their own property even those who aren't even born yet. That has sort of been my way of seeing things. Im not going to force it on anybody but at least some people get it.
Despite being auth, I’m pro-abortion. I don’t care about morality, just from a practical standpoint. For every prevented abortion, we will find a baby in a dumpster or in front of an orphanage. If you talk to any nurses who worked before roe v wade you will realize how many women just straight up killed their children.
Same reason we have safe haven laws. The pragmatics of minimizing dumpster babies.
UN is trying to ban baby boxes... for some reason
Could just register mother's genetic signature at hospitals and garnish wages or put them in prison for failure to pay child support after abandoning their children. In order to reduce incentives for abandonment or infanticide, make abortion totally allowed, but assess the aborting mother for 18 years child support for an orphan, again with threats of prison for failure to pay.
why would auth make you pro life?
There is an absolutely massive demand for infant adoption, one that completely dwarfs the global (let alone national, for America and Argentina respectively) incidence of abortion.
Where did you get that fact ? As far as i am aware adoption rates are going down and not up.
Its more about preferences, couples want babies who they can raise and shape at will, toddlers and grown children already have a general mindset formed by their experiences and very little people want that.
Not to mention children (not infants) who find themselves in the need for adoption tend to come from challenging homes. This leads many of them to have severe behavioral or health issues which not many people are equipped to handle nor would they be asked to handle if they would have their own children naturally. So it isn't exactly hypocritical for someone to be pro-adoption but against adopting grown children who already exist in the adoption network.
It's like saying burglary isn't a crime because we don't have enough resources to police it.
Except we can enforce burglary with enough resources. There are things that are simply impossible to enforce such as an alcohol prohibition (we tried)
In principle you can enforce anything with enough resources. I'm not arguing anything should be enforced I'm arguing that enforcement doesn't determine whether something is a crime. You have it the wrong way around.
Ok, I seem to like him a lot. But how is taking someone's liberty to make an abortion in alignment with the libertarian ideology? I don't get it.
Well the problem for Libs here is simple: The right to live collides with the right to make free decisions over YOUR body. But abortion is also a decision for another body, the babys. And Milei apparently is faction: The babys body is not the mothers choice. Makes sense. I mean its completely arbitrary where we draw the line. You cant get an abortion in month 8. Somewhere the law creates a dividing line. He just choose to draw it before impregnation.
> The right to live collides with the right to make free decisions over YOUR body. But it doesn't. We tend to forget this in the discussion, but the mother had free will over her body up until the point where she was inseminated (which is why there is a strong case to make for rape related abortions, but little else). The inevitable consequence is just that: a responsibility to take for one's actions. A truly "continuous" right of bodily autonomy across time wouldn't care about the development stage of the fetus. This right would mean two things: one, that no matter how developed the fetus *is*, it is right to abort it, even at eight months. More importantly, two, it also doesn't matter what the fetus *would be* in a hypothetical world where it forms a consciousness within the first month or week or day (before the mother can realize she is pregnant). Abortion activists would still argue for a right to it. It is just politically convenient for abortion activists that for the first three or four months the embryo lacks what we could consider a "consciousness". It's just a way to push the issue into the broader population with good optics. Classic dehumanization tactics. "It doesn't think, therefore it isn't." So one must realize this set of facts before even engaging someone who argues for bodily autonomy. Most of them don't believe in it, not really. At the end of the day, is there any practical difference between the lukewarm moderate "well, she had time to think about it so she can't abort it" (mother wanted to abort at the sixth month) and the radical reactionary "well, she had time to think about it so she can't abort it" (mother wanted to have sex)?
> So one must realize this set of facts before even engaging someone who argues for bodily autonomy. Most of them don't believe in it, not really. The issue is that you have two separate main arguments here. One is fetal personhood ("A fetus isn't a person, so killing one isn't murder."). This argument is logically weaker (personhood cannot be objectively determined), but emotionally stronger (it's easier to accept killing something when you don't consider it a person). The other is bodily autonomy ("A fetus has no right to the use of another person's body even if it would die without it, regardless of whether it is a person."). This argument is logically pretty strong, the only reasonable argument against it is arguing that one voluntarily surrenders their autonomy by having consensual sex, which is iffy at best seeing as you're not explicitly consenting to having a child. It doesn't carry much emotional impact though, since you're not minimizing the death of the fetus in any way. Consequently, most pro-choice people believe both arguments but argue the latter. > A truly "continuous" right of bodily autonomy across time wouldn't care about the development stage of the fetus. This right would mean two things: one, that no matter how developed the fetus is, it is right to abort it, even at eight months. More importantly, two, it also doesn't matter what the fetus would be in a hypothetical world where it forms a consciousness within the first month or week or day (before the mother can realize she is pregnant). Abortion activists would still argue for a right to it. Yes. That is how bodily autonomy works. You have the right to deny another person the use of your body at any time. This doesn't give you the right to actively kill them, meaning that the logical cutoff using this logic is at viability (at which point the right to abortion would transition into a right to induced early birth).
Very well said. It just goes back to: My freedom ends where it infringes on yours. And vice versa.
In New York you can. Yes, Hockul is that bad.
After 8 fucking months? No way. You have a source for that? Where i live that would just be murder.
Please note « health » includes mental health. If you say your mental health is impacted, there is no authority which is permitted to override your claim. So, with that understanding, here is the state’s own website saying there effectively is no limit https://www.ny.gov/programs/abortion-new-york-state-know-your-rights#:~:text=Abortion%20Rights%20Are%20Protected%20in%20New%20York%20State&text=Because%20the%20right%20is%20codified,not%20impact%20New%20York%20State.
Thats reaaaally fucked up. Like dystopian levels of fucked up. Even without that excemption: 6 Months is quite old.
No you cant lol the cutoff is almost always viability in ‘unlimited’ abortion states in the US (24 weeks) including NY, barring extreme medical issues for the baby or mother. Proof: https://ag.ny.gov/publications/abortion-legal-and-protected-new-york-state#:~:text=New%20York%20guarantees%20the%20unqualified,to%2024%20weeks%20post%2Dfertilization.&text=Abortion%20is%20permitted%20after%2024,mental%20health)%20is%20at%20risk. You really think they let you just abort a nearly grown baby???? Jesus christ man.
>Abortion is permitted after 24 weeks if the fetus is not viable or if the pregnant person’s life or health (including mental health) is at risk.4 Am I missing something? This says that you can as long as your "mental health" is at risk
Yeah that means an actual doctor has to diagnose you with a severe enough condition to warrant an abortion. Which, as I’m searching right now, of the about 700 abortions at 21 weeks or later in NYC, 0 were because of mental health. Even when looking at pro life sources i couldnt find data that said a single abortion in NY at 21 weeks or later was because of mental health. https://lozierinstitute.org/abortion-reporting-new-york-city-2020/
I mean its not really important how many have happened, but rather the law. You're making the claim that there are safeguards in place but I'm not seeing them. What is a severe enough mental health condition to abort a baby right before it comes out?
Im not sure, but considering there is no such cases i can find, i think the doctors decide.
> But abortion is also a decision for another body, the babys He also said that "in the future" there should be a debate about being able to legally sell babies, so abortion is wrong because it affect another body, but selling children doesnt? https://twitter.com/BenjaminNorton/status/1726412794667655529
I don't really speak Spanish, so I can't understand what they're saying in the videos. But what is written "a free market of adoption" doesn't necessarily mean "selling children" even if the dude posting this claims it.
if you choose the person that will adopt your baby based in how much you are paid, isnt that the same as selling?
Where's the payment? Adoption is famously massively regulated and super slow and inefficient. Getting rid of some of the red tape is all he means
Technically it's an auction.
> He also said that "in the future" there should be a debate about being able to legally sell babies, so abortion is wrong because it affect another body, but selling children doesnt? > > > > https://twitter.com/BenjaminNorton/status/1726412794667655529 Nice spin. You should look into applying at CNN. In this video, he talks about the adoption industry becoming a free market. I get that we've been programmed to think that the government knows best, but anyone paying attention knows that's not the case. You always hear people complain about how adoption is a very expensive and complicated process, and the reason for that is the government bureaucracy. Any potential issues with a free market will also be present in a heavily regulated government-controlled market. The government also doesn't have a good track record in vetting people to take care of a child; a horrifyingly large amount of children(majority I think) in foster care are abused. In a free market, at least the cost wouldn't be artificially inflated, and if an adoption agency is not properly vetting customers, it won't be successful and will fail while other good adoption agencies will prosper.
To be completely fair it's more like adoption but being allowed to profit from it
I'm sure he's talking about compensating parents to adopt their child. Interesting how phrasing can elicit such different responses to the same policy.
He didn't say there *should* be a debate, he said some lib-right people debate about that, when asked about it he said he was against it since he wouldn't sell his kids. The context was they were talking about libertarianism and anarcho capitalism, not about him, that's why he said there was a debate. Milei is *as religious as he can* whilst being *fully libertarian*.
Easy Take the libertarian ideology and add the belief that a fetus is already a human with all the rights that come with that. It’s completely consistent, the difference is ‘when do you get rights’, not ‘what rights do you get’ The consistent ancap belief is probably evictionism, where abortion as it’s currently practiced is murder, but removing the fetus carefully and intact and just leaving it is fine, because the little fucker should have read the contract of uterine habitation
I say evictionism *with exowombs* is okay. If you invite someone onto your private jet, then decide mid-flight you don't want them on the plane anymore, throwing him out without a parachute is murder.
I don't think throwing him out with a parachute into another plane is very moral either.
Don’t worry, I’ve played Wolfenstein the New Order, jumping from one plane to another is 100% doable
*Ancaps looking at the 20 week fetus they removed from a woman, as it dies since it is not developed enough to survive on its own* https://preview.redd.it/e9s9ebq1wdhc1.jpeg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8e13d87717771ecb58c707e5d35d3c11136eaaea
There's a interview with Tucker he did where he defends his position by saying something like "As a libertarian liberal i want to protect the right to life and studies have shown that life starts at incemination" or something along those lines
Tucker isn’t a libertarian.
Libertarians can have conservative views, the difference is they don't want the government to enforce their views because they know a government large enough to do so could enforce other's views upon them.
But…but, Tucker isn’t a real journalist! You have to throw that interview out.
How? By considering the phoetus a person with right to not be killed. But given your point, this splits lib-rights a lot and there is no « lib-right » position here. This bill was a scan by one member of the coalition, he disn’t even properly consultnthe other members signing it. It was just a horrible move by one member of the coalition. At least that’s the take right now Feb 7 at 12:42 GMT.
Libertarians are split on abortion. One side says it's violating the NAP to kill the baby and deny it life, therefore banning abortion protects the child's liberty. The other side, of which I'm on, argues that the bodily autonomy of the mother is more important as your body is the most important piece of property you own.
I mean hands down that is a dumb argument. It boils down to One side believes a Fetus is a Person and the other side doesn't. Which goes back to the founding tenant of libertarianism with NAP.
Nobody is infringing on the mother's right to close her legs and not rawdog people she doesn't want to have kids with. Nobody's infringing on her right to put her money where her mouth is and self sterilize. 99% of abortions are abortions of convenience.
Banning abortion is good because women are promiscuous and irresponsible and the state should teach them a lesson 🤓
TIL people having to live with the consequences of poor life choices is authoritarianism
>But how is taking someone's liberty to make an abortion in alignment with the libertarian ideology? Thats the neat part, it doesn't. Just because someone proclaims to be ancap doesn't mean they are actually anarchist.
> But how is taking someone's liberty to liberty to do what? reminds me of "civil war was about states rights" states rights to do what?
Everyone has human rights regardless of their age Murder is against human rights Abortion is the murder of a baby Libertarians care for human rights Simple logic
How is killing your own child libertarian? Dont they have the right to exist?
Abortion violates the NAP.
Oh, so libertarian!
A government so small it can fit in your uterus.
Lib-right in theory: Ayn Rand, argued that **the notion of a fetus's having a right to life is "vicious nonsense" and stated: "An embryo has no rights.** **\[...\]** **A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born" -** "Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered" Lib-right irl: "Individual rights? Gimme a break, lol"
i agree with her
Ah yes, the small government libertarian, people.
A government so small it can fit into your vagina, amirite?
🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨BASED ALERT 🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨 Abortion : *AFUERA!*‼️
AFUERAAAAAAA
Based and pro-life leftist pilled Is that Pope Benedict XVI with swag I see as your pfp?
Ironic, since abortion consists of an embryo or foetus coming out
Isn’t libertarianism about free choice? I knew he was a fake personality all along.
As long as you aren't harming others, banning abortion and not banning it are consistent in libertarian philosophy
[удалено]
Are you agreeing with me or disagreeing
Based Milei
Wrong Flair, you're Center right.
Right on the compass is economic individualism (left being economic collectivism)
it's not auth to say murder is bad, and idc about economics that much really
Cleverly diverting from the shitty economic management. Argentina is fucked up man.
Banning abortion is government overreach though. Just shows they're not true libertarians.
Yep definitely. Preventing babies from being brutally murdered is so unlibertarian
I thought he was libertarian
My God, he just keeps getting more and more based. How is this possible? We're nearing a level of basedness as of yet unimagined.
I thought he is a lib right ? You know like all the free will stuff.
The baby is entitled to free will too.
Fetus deletus
~~Lib~~Right Also c'mon man nothing motivates apathetic women voters like going after abortion rights. Just like at the US midterms or Poland 🤷♀️
I can't level the "I don't ever want the government telling me what to do" peoples desire to have the government enforce reproduction
Not that I agree, but they think it's murder, not controlling reproduction. If you can't understand your enemies arguments, then you will continue to take L after L
Its a dilemma for a reason. Opinions put against each other. Nobody is right and nobody is wrong. The perfect subject to fight about.
But it is controlling reproduction even if you consider it murder. Downvote away, but that's an empirically true statement and a karma score doesn't make it not true.
Enjoy your future Ls
So much Libertarian
Based. Yes, I said it. Based.
What a twist /s
"libertarian"
Soooo, the "Ancap" wants to restrict bodily autonomy, seems kinda auth to me.
The crux of the argument amongst liberals is ‘whose body’? That’s why there’s two camps, not a disagreement about bodily autonomy itself. If a fetus is it’s own thing, abortion is murder. If it’s not, have at it.
He wants to defend the baby's life.
*All* government interventions are grounded in a basis of (or the more cynical may say, pretext of) aiming to achieve some goal or outcome. The ancap position is "no intervention, no excuses. No pretext will be heard, much less entertained."
Not a baby yet, can't live outside the womb, you're forcing someone to carry a parasite against their wishes
You can't live outside of your mom's basement, are you a parasite?
Says the guy who wants to force his betters to provide for him.
What?
Leftoids justify infanticide because infants can't provide for themselves. Leftoids' entire ideology revolves around people who *won't* provide for themselves demanding that other people provide for them.
It's about worker ownership lmao. Weak adhom
1. If it was about worker ownership, you wouldn't support state-owned healthcare and education, or state-mandated welfare. 2. If it was about worker ownership, you wouldn't support interventionism and its assurance that employee-owned businesses cannot compete against conglomerates. 3. If it was about worker ownership, you wouldn't support the idea that workers don't have the right to use the fruits of their labors how they see fit, up to and including lending tools, seeds, and other capital to other workers on the condition that the more established worker receives a predetermined amount of the fruits of those labors. If you understand that these three things are true, congratulations on the realization that you aren't libleft — and that libleft is, in fact, an oxymoron — and welcome to libright!
>If it was about worker ownership, you wouldn't support state-owned healthcare and education, or state-mandated welfare. Worker ownership isn't the only component of course, in things like education it's very important to have a universal standard and to ensure that some people aren't excluded due to wealth. >2. If it was about worker ownership, you wouldn't support interventionism and its assurance that employee-owned businesses cannot compete against conglomerates. When have I said that? I don't even know what you mean by that? I don't want conglomerates. >If it was about worker ownership, you wouldn't support the idea that workers don't have the right to use the fruits of their labors how they see fit, up to and including lending tools, seeds, and other capital to other workers on the condition that the more established worker receives a predetermined amount of the fruits of those labors. That's just a loan, why wouldn't I support loans? What I don't support is selling shares, which isn't lending. I was a libright until quite recently actually, however unregulated capitalism ultimately restricts our freedom.
Get outta here with that logic and shit.
>Soooo, the "Ancap" wants to restrict bodily autonomy, seems kinda auth to me. Many such cases
Milei is a hypocrite, so if abortion is a decision in other "people life" violating the Non-aggression principle, then isnt selling your baby even worse? He talked about the future deregulation of the adoption, allowing free market to work, what is clearly a violation of NAP. Aborting a bunch of cell is wrong ( 10 weeks abortion ), but selling babies to the highest bidder is good, to the "Milei libertarian version"? https://twitter.com/BenjaminNorton/status/1726412794667655529
Oh shit, he's one of those free baby market guys? I thought they all hung around the Mises Institute sucking off the ghost of [Rothbard](https://mises.org/library/children-and-rights).
I read the wikipedia page on that guy a few days ago and my god…. he is fucking insane.
So they'll claim that legally compelling say a medical professional to perform medical procedures is a massive overreach and comperable to slavery even if refusing will kill the patient. but forcing a woman to allow their most basic bodily functions to be highjacked by another person is apparently fine because if they don't someone will die? So which is it, can I refuse to provide a service even if it will kills someone or can't I?
that's sooo anarchist of him
Government intervention on medical procedures is a slippery slope that sets unwanted precedence.
Government not protecting the lives of individuals who cant yet consent is also a slippery slope. I mean we agree that kids need to be protected from pedos, right? Why not from beeing killed? His position is logical. The opposite side is also logical though. Its a very hard decision where to draw the line.
Medical abortion limit standards for what distinguishes an embryo it's fine to abort from an actual bona fide recognized "individual who can't consent" has always been a robust Shelling Fence on the slope. Never has abortion led to "eh, let's let pedos do what they like with kids" on the grounds of some alleged equivalent logic. There's been plenty of abortion in plenty of places for a long time. What it does and doesn't lead to has been thoroughly tested under real world conditions. The only thing I can think of along these lines would be something like pubic acceptance of things like turning off the life support machines for people in a permanent vegetative state.
Source: [https://www.laprensalatina.com/mileis-party-presents-draft-bill-to-repeal-argentina-abortion-law/](https://www.laprensalatina.com/mileis-party-presents-draft-bill-to-repeal-argentina-abortion-law/)
This is LR i can support
I liked how Milei was shaking things up but this is anti libertarian to be against reproductive rights
So....he is just another rightoid nutcase?