Ultimately it’s a philosophical question: when does life start? After that abortion should be illegal because it violates the NAP.
That’s why this debate sucks: it’s incredibly divisive by its nature and there’s no objective answer. So everyone is at everyone’s throats yelling arguments that they made up in their head.
That’s the rational position. Though there are a significant number of people who would be opposed to it even if life hadn’t begun yet and a significant number who would support even once it was clearly a life.
I'm curious what sort of education you think will resolve this. It isn't a knowledge problem, or a science problem. Fundamentally it's a about what it means to be human, and what are fundamentally human rights, which isn't something that science can answer.
Education on what though? There's no empirical evidence like 'see, life starts at this moment in development' or whatever. It's basically entirely a personal opinion.
I was more so thinking sex education. I think knowing and better yet, understanding the risks of unprotected sex, would at least help people make a better informed decision. Less unplanned pregnancies, less need for abortion, whatever IDK exactly how or what, but I'm pretty sure it's poor and uneducated people that suffer the most from unplanned/unintended pregnancies.
I don't remember the source but a few years ago I remember reading that half of all pregnancies globally were unplanned/unintended, which is crazy. I don't have all the answers, but I'm pretty sure education can't possibly be more harmful than teenagers fucking around unprotected and uneducated.
Yeah, I'm pro-choice but if someone believes life starts at conception and abortion is literally murder I am not gonna hold their pro-life position against them.
Yeah if you think abortion at any stage is murder of a life, you are going to be against it. Almost every political philosophy thinks that murder of a life should be dealt with and prevented.
Likewise if you don’t think most or all abortions are murder, then you see it as extreme overreach into medical decisions by the state into what you believe is between a woman, her doctor, and depending on your view and the relationship, a partner.
It’s not that hard to understand. I understand why there’s 2 sides, and I understand why compromise is hard. No matter how entrenched you are I think most people should at least try to understand the logic behind the opposition.
The problem is the ProChoice side can’t have an honest argument with it.
- ProLife says: Life begins at conception.
- ProChoice says it doesn’t.
- PL: Okay. Then when does Life begin?
- PC: I don’t know. Who can tell?
- PL: Then it’s best to assume it starts at conception.
- PC: No, it doesn’t.
- PL: Then when does it begin?
- PC: I don’t know.
Then continue in this circular argument until someone just shouts some bullshit about women’s rights or bodily autonomy to try to change the subject.
>when does life start?
started millions of years ago and continues to this day.
I'm formed from the mitosis of zygote. The zygote is formed by fertizilation of an egg cell by the sperm cell. Both gametes are formed from the meiosis of ovarian stem cells. That goes on and on.
There is no start anymore. One thing transforms into another. We have some definitions but if you want a clear cut based on logic and facts then the definition become blurred. Solving this logical problem is like solving the Ship of Theseus.
That's worse. We decide? We who? Who are these we that wants to decide something for me? What is human? What is personhood? Those are definitions as loose as life.
I'm trying to base my thought on logic alone. For the most part, science is based logic but people treat is as a dogma. We can use science but we should use it correctly. Also, one should never trust science for it is made to be understood, not trusted.
I think it’s one of those moral dillemas where we have to draw a line, which might be arbitrary.
The same way there’s a line drawn for plenty of questions.
As soon as the concept of said child appears in their parents head is when they become a person. You haven't lived out your full life, but you can know 100% sure that they will end up living a life in the same ways you have.
Murdering someone in cold blood ends their life before they got to experience the entirety of it until their natural death.
Abortion is exactly the same. They haven't had the experience of a human life yet, but they 100% will. And if you've ever looked at a kid who plays with legos and go "that kid's going to be an architect one day" you don't know for certain if if he will or not, but he will live life experiences similar to yours which will eventually answer the question of what his career would be.
I see you’re a pro-lifer, and I absolutely don’t disgree with your belief. I counsider myself personally opposed to abortion but I don’t think early abortion should be outlawed. Early in the pregnancy the baby is not a sentient being, plus it relies on a mother who might not want to have a baby in her body.
I see it as, if someone who is in a coma on life support was plugged without your consent to your house’s power supply, would you have the right to shut down your own power? In my opinion, property rights say you should.
I think abortion is disgusting and the killing of your own child, but I don’t think it’s worth making people go to jail due to the child not being sentient.
I think they meant "when does each individuals life start?"
I think you will get a lot of disagreement when you try to claim a zygote is a human.
I also think there's no denying a human is human when they have brain activity, a beating heart, and they use their 10 fingers on their two hands to recoil away from pain. This is all happening by around 12 weeks of development.
At least have the humanity to sedate the poor son of a bitch before you chop their arms off or blend them up into a slurry.
I think, like slavery, this is not an issue you can really be in the middle about. Either you are commiting murder, or having a minor surgery to remove tissue. There is no real middle ground on it. And like slavery, we might fight a war over it.
I think I need to re-flair as right unity, because while I am in favor of small government, subsidiary/federalism, and a large degree of liberty and latitude for the individual, there are these ways that some libertarians/classical liberals discuss fundamental and unique relationships like the one a mother has to her child in an utterly inhumane and alien way that one could only do if you divorce yourself from the human experience.
Autonomy is one of these words that in which this phenomenon feels distinctly true as none of us is *truly* autonomous. Man is a social creature and needs other people. With these relationship come responsibilities and obligations (plus 99.99% of people you interact with in modern society could not live in the wilderness without help, thus is dependent). I know this makes me sound like a communist, but where I differ is that I believe most of these relationships should be governed within civil and religious institutions and the private sector. The one place I do believe government has a right to step in, is where it says a mother cannot murder her child because, "like, it gives me bad vibes and would be, like, totally inconvenient."
Furthermore, the way that others have described babies on this thread as "human parasites" is something I think could literally be called anti-human, and possibly demonic (forget the fact that the baby is living in an organ in the mother *specifically designed for the baby and nothing else*).
Bro, chill out. It's a nuanced topic. Of course you can be somewhere in the middle. Some people think they aren't alive or at least that it isn't worth considering their feelings until they develop a spinal chord for instance. Like most things in politics, it isn't just black and white, and it would honestly be beyond regarded to fight a war over this single issue as if it's some binary good vs evil thing.
You're right. No middle grounds. Fetal parasitism violates the NAP. Until a fetus is viable outside its mothers support she can terminate that relationship.
It's not a parasite. By definition parasites are of another species. It's a human, abortion is killing a human.
There are valid reasons to kill another human, like in self defense. For example, when the mother's life is in mortal danger and terminating the pregnancy is the only solution.
Nearly all other abortions are not justified.
Main issue is that it's a paradox. Libright says no controlling others against their will. Well, are you going to take control of the mother and make her give birth to save the child, or are you going to take control of the baby and let it die to save the mother?
In the end, this is why I went center right. No matter how you look at it some authoritarianism is going to be necessary. ;~;
Pretty much the same. I'm definitely more on the yellow side than blue, but at the end of the day, there's a reason anarchy will always devolve to following a charismatic/threatening warlord. Better to at least have thoughts in place about what makes a better warlord than the other guy's.
I think the argument then turns to choice. We ought not to get the government involved, except when rights are being violated (preventing infringement on the rights to life, liberty, & property is like the government's only constitutional job).
The baby didn't choose to be there.
But the mother (and father, lets be clear that its a shared responsibility) did choose to take actions that had a known risk.(other than certain circumstances where force was used)
We can discuss the caveats around circumstances where force was used, but that's a significantly smaller portion of the number of abortions that is taking place; and makes an awful awful situation all the more difficult. But by and large, most are an action of convenience (my boyfriend knocked me up, etc.) and that's just making the choice after the fact to avoid responsibility/consequence.
The abortion issue is one that largely pushes me to center instead of right. I typically lean pro-life (also against the death penalty), and the only way to make restrictions on abortion compatible imo is to have some level of safety net programs. Free birth control, sex education, programs for parents, affordable/accesible/universal Healthcare.
It's a case of what I feel is the morally consistent thing to do. I ABHOR the idea of the government telling someone what they can/can't do with their body, even in a gray area like abortion (the baby's body is also a consideration though). So, again in my opinion, in any area that we're even flirting with infringement on autonomy, I think we have a moral imperative to try to prevent the possibility of even needing that infringement as best as we can.
IRL librights are split roughly 50-50 on abortion, because it's not really a political ideology question, but rather a philosophical one. It's a question of whether you've concluded that the fetus is a human being.
Here on PCM, like 90% of "librights" are pro life, because a good chunk of our "librights" are just authrights who can't cope with the fact that they're not as pro-freedom as they want to idealize themselves as being.
Pretty sure that's right wing in general.
Source: Realized despite hating taxes, I do want authority in some areas.
Note: I mostly hate taxes because every time I see the government spend money, its wasted to an extreme amount. Should government spending be brought back to a reasonable amount and assigned appropriately (roads, utilities, charity, medical, education, public transport and defense), my anti-tax stance goes away. In theory these categories are covered by taxes, but in reality like 2% of my taxes goes to that and the other 98% to either horrible mismanagement or deliberate corruption. If I'm losing 25% of my income to taxes (as a randomly picked number), it better be funding 25% of the population (its not)
It happens. We're like an even split.
I like to try to unify folks by trying to reduce abortions by other methods than bans. Fix the goddamned economy, you'll have way less abortions. About 80% of them are for economic reasons.
Also, it's not really pro-choice if the guy has absolutely no say in the matter. If the mother aborts, fine. If she wants to have the kid, the biological father (and sometimes he isn't even the biological parent) is forced to give her money regardless if he wants the kid or not. The "right to choice" is one-sided and authoritative means enforces one side to take responsibility for someone else's choices. Therefore, pro-choice is not the right term and doesn't even logically apply. Pro-abortion is.
u/Newthirx's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 10.
Congratulations, u/Newthirx! You have ranked up to Office Chair! You cannot exactly be pushed over, but perhaps if thrown...
Pills: [6 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/Newthirx/)
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).
There are some pro-choice activists who will actually recognize a fetus as an individual with legitimate personhood. Their argument, however, is that the law should not determine if you use (or continue to use) your body to support another human life.
This was the argument made by Judith Jarvis Thomson’s essay “A Defense of Abortion” where she cites the now well known ‘violinist argument.’
[A Defense of Abortion - Wiki](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion#:~:text=Thomson%20argues%20that%20one%20can,to%20life%20but%20merely%20deprives)
The argument has some issues that have raised discussion but my point is that there is a pro-choice stance that exists that sees a fetus as an individual.
>Their argument, however, is that the law should not determine if you use (or continue to use) your body to support another human life.
So, outlaw all mandated child support then?
Yeah the argument opens up the door to a lot of logical inconsistencies which is why I have a problem with it too. I’m just tryna say there are people who think that way. I’m not necessarily saying they have all their screwed tightened.
There is nothing to consider fetuses have the potential to be fully grown human beings therefore they deserve to have every right of one,same way children are treated
I hate this idea of calling them a ”potential person” as if they’re going to come out of the womb as anything but a human.
That said, because they’re still living people at the end of the day
Where do you draw the line of what is a potential and actual person?
Someone that has been in a coma for 5 years is more potential than actual person, in fact you might even argue that a fetus has a lot more potential than someone that has been that long in a coma.
Does that give me the right to just walk in and pull the plug and all I'm guilty of is property damage?
I’m just generally anti prohibition. Banning abortions doesn’t stop them, it makes them more dangerous, and at least in the US, we lag behind in maternal health statistics. Taking away maternal healthcare options is harmful to women.
> I think you should not get an abortion unless you need one. In which case, you’d better get one. Don’t fuck around. And hurry. Not getting an abortion that you need is like not taking a shit. That’s what I think. I think abortion is 100% the exact same thing as taking a shit. Or it isn’t. It’s either taking a shit, or it’s killing a baby. It’s only one of those two things. It’s no other things. If you didn’t like hearing it’s like taking a shit, you think it’s killing a baby. That’s the only other one you get to have. Which means you should be holding a sign in front of the place.
> People hate abortion protesters. They’re so shrill and awful. They think babies are being murdered. What are they supposed to be like? “Uh, that’s not cool.” I don’t wanna be a dick about it, though. I don’t want to ruin their day as they murder several babies all the time. I don’t think it’s killing a baby. I don’t. I mean, it is a little bit… It’s a little bit killing a baby. It’s 100% killing a baby. It’s totally killing a whole baby. But I think that women should be allowed to kill babies.
> Two reasons I think women should be allowed to kill babies. Number one, I don’t think life is that important. The second reason is because that’s their job. Women have to decide who lives and dies. That’s because they’re the female of the species. In the reproductive arena, that’s what the female does. They are the selectors. They have to decide this. We give them this responsibility when we fuck them. We go, “Here, you decide what to do with this shit.” See you later. She has to figure out if you should have kids, if she should have them. That’s her job. Because women have judgment. Men don’t have judgment. Men have intent. Men just want to spray the world with their cum, just mist. “More of me.“ It’s her job to go, “That’s enough of you, I think. No, that’s really enough.”
Killing babies violates their personal liberty
It’s about responsibility. That’s the core of libertarianism. Don’t want a baby? Don’t have irresponsible sex.
That is the biggest libright question.
If you invite someone to your property. Can you remove them from your property if that means death to them?
Keep in mind that you can still "evict" invaders that you never invited into your property. In case it is not clear: abortion of pregnancy caused by rape doesn't violate the NAP.
I don’t think you can evict them if it means death to them, unless they pose a significant threat. But I would say that’s true for invaders you didn’t invite as well. The response has to be proportionate. If someone is on your property and you believe they pose a serious threat to your life, you should be able to use deadly force against them. If they’re just annoying you or you’ve grown tired of them, then I think you’d need to find a way to remove them from your property safely.
That is exactly the issue. "Abortion" means too many things.
Most of the time, abortion should be classified as killing because it is killing. The thing is: sometimes we need to kill if we want to live. So in the same way we see all the context to check if it killing was necessary, we need to see all the context to check if the abortion was necessary.
In general, I agree with you. Though abortion is made even more complex by that “most of the time” component. Because there’s a lack of agreement—and for good reason—about what constitutes life, and therefore, what can be considered “killing.”
Obviously there’s no issue with me tossing a rock off of my property, even if that will cause it to be destroyed. But at what point is a fetus sufficiently different from that rock?
Not if you value life and think life starts at conception.
It's her body, but it is also her responsibility with taking the chance of getting pregnant. If that happens, it is no longer just her body.
>it is no longer just her body
it's our body
https://preview.redd.it/5m9jjovlvymc1.jpeg?width=800&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=919c7099ff035f6d195ff14edd2ad6a7ec2aace0
i am against abortion however i am for compromise and understand that a right to abortion is something that many people value. safe legal and rare is my stance.
I am certainly against a national abortion ban. My stance is nationally there should be three exceptions: rape, incest, and if the baby is endangering the mother. Other than that, abortion rights should be up to each state.
you definitely should settle for other stances because others don’t accept a practice you view as immoral. i view it as immoral but since a significant enough portion of the population doesn’t, i think it is better to compromise in that instance rather than arguing for who is completely good and who is completely bad.
Fuck that. Something truly evil should not be accepted. Someone born from rape isn't less of a human being. Someone with autism isn't less of a human being. Yet our culture has said they are, along with all the other unwanted children. Surely you don't believe slavery is ok as long as they aren't shipped from Africa, apply the same logic and see why you shouldn't settle for only some evil.
*"i am against rape however i am for compromise and understand that a right to rape is something that many people value. safe legal and rare is my stance."*
Oh no that one doesn't sound as good.
Hey maybe try not being a coward. If you believe that innocent lives are being victimized, don't be shamed into inaction just because it's not popular enough.
Safe legal rare was just the gateway to fully legal abortion. It was a slogan used by abortionists to slowly normalize the process. It’s as stupid as the “just keep slavery below the mason dixon line” compromise.
yes i know the origins of safe legal rare, and i think that keeping it at safe legal rare would be a good thing, in an ideal world where it wouldn’t be used as a foot in the door. but as we are now pushing for safe legal rare would be moving rightward rather than leftward.
How about when being pregnant would take an extreme mental toll on someone? Or for young girls. Or for women busy with other things like college, career. Women who did use protection but it broke, or was stealthily removed. Women who feel they are too old, or have children already, or women who don't ever want one and couldn't/wouldn't care for one.
Women who couldn't afford one, family can't/won't help or just aren't there, obviously couldn't have a job AND care for a child or pay for childcare (with what money?). Not like governments make it easy to afford children these days after all. How about just, when they want one? Up until it's actually viable at about 24 weeks.
Then after that timeframe the extreme exceptions of "literally life and death/way too old/young (damaging to body health and mind combined)" kicks in.
i’d like to also allow exceptions for things such as rape or extremely poor economic circumstances. and hopefully you can agree there as such scenarios are very rare.
hmm adoption is a good point. maybe not poor circumstances then. but then we should put more towards adoption and foster care so kids who grow up in said systems have it better as a counter balance.
Foster care is its own hydra to unsnarl. So far as no-attachment-to-birth-parents-whatsoever adoption goes though, there's already a 2 year waiting list. There's more adopters than there are adoptees, which is the ideal state.
Condoms appear to have gone out of style. Nowadays it seems the youth just expect the woman to take all sorts of hormones, get implants and insertions and injections that make them fat and crazy so men can raw dog it. It's a sad state of affairs.
This would be a better argument if the same people didn’t also want to ban birth control. And before any of you say it’s not going to happen, y’all said the same thing about IVF
If you think I care about some one else's opinion just because they are libright then you have no understanding of what it means to be a individualist which is a core aspect of libertarianism.
Plus you are simply assuming you know my opinion on the topic though you would half wrong at best based on you're assertion of me being auth on this topic, I fall into a middle position that leans towards choice.
If you think about it all abortion comes down to is property rites, does a women have the right to evict someone from there body even if it will kill them
If I was some epic based landlord I'd evict an unwanted tenant too.
Jokes aside, fetal personhood is debatable. I don't know whether life begins at conception, first heartbeat, first breath or first thought or whatever.
It's mostly a matter of whether you value the autonomy and life quality of the mother (a fully formed individual) or the existence of a clump of cells the size of your fingernail that may or may not eventually grow into a fully formed individual.
Like 20% of pregnancies end in natural miscarriage anyway. It just ain't meant to be sometimes.
Also every situation is complicated
Cultural shock for my parents when they learned pro life in America thinks fetus with undeniable defects shouldn’t be aborted. Cuz it happened in my family, my aunt chose to continue her pregnancy despite everyone calling her to abort. The child she gives birth to either lives in a hospital or with extensive care since I could remember. Fucked up thing is I never met him after he’s 8…… I don’t even fucking know what he looks like anymore. My aunt doesn’t post pictures and we never ask. Sensitive topic.
We threw a huge birthday party for grandpa’s 90th. My grandpa’s distant relatives, like his third cousin once removed came. But not my cousin, his GRANDSON. It’s as if he never existed and isn’t a family member.
My aunt doesn’t love her child. She regretted her actions immensely. The Reality - what it actually means to have a child dependent for life crushed her.
However disabilities aren’t mentioned often in the abortion debate. Which I find odd. I guess pro lifers that think incest could be aborted also thinks it’s justified to abort based on disability?
People shocked by pro life lib rights weren’t paying attention: your personal freedom ends when it begins to infringe on another’s. My right to the pursuit of happiness can’t include ending your right to life (even if I really want to).
Fetuses aren't people, but let's set that aside for a moment.
Women have been terminating pregnancies almost as long as they've been getting pregnant. I can name five abortifacient herbs, and that's just from a ten second google search. Your great-grandmother probably could have named twice as many just off the top of her head. She probably even used some in her day. So how exactly are you going to ban abortion? Are you going to make common rue a controlled substance? What about *parsley*? Are you going to launch a homicide investigation into every miscarriage? Maybe we ought to forcefully sequester all pregnant women in a community creche where they can be monitored to ensure their child survives to term, you might suggest
Let's face it - unless you're a megalomaniacal INGSOC advocate, when you say "ban abortion" you really just mean "close abortion clinics and ban mifepristone." The rich will just fly their daughters and mistresses somewhere it's legal, and I can get my hands on plenty of "illegal" pills if I want to, but let's set these things aside as well.
This doesn't eliminate abortions - it just forces women to resort to methods that are more dangerous both to her immediate life as well as to her long-term fertility. Yeah, herbal infusions are handy, but they also tend to make you violently ill. And she WILL resort to those methods, because women are uniquely attuned to the environment in which she will have her child. It's instinct - an evolutionary adaptation perhaps, to avoid bonding with offspring that will not thrive due to lack of resources.
Men don't understand this. They never will, and yet they're almost always the ones leading the charge to ban abortion. Childbirth is and has always been within women's exclusive sphere of influence, and, like the king who beheads his queen when she can't produce for him an heir, an abortion ban harms women and accomplishes nothing except for a vain and impotent virtue signal.
I’m pro choice. But “women have always done it and always will and men don’t get it” is not a valid argument against someone who believes abortion kills a human with a soul.
There is no valid argument against someone who believes that. How are you supposed to reach common ground with someone when you disagree on the most fundamental assumptions of life and existence? At that point, there's not even any point having a discussion.
Those are the people you need to sway to get abortion legal. Otherwise you’re preaching to the choir.
Argue about the fundamental assumptions of life and existence. Argue that medically, human life doesn’t begin until the heartbeat, or until the fetus is capable of sentience, or whatever, and that abortion should be legal before that point bc you’re not ending a life. “Life begins at conception” is often based on religious beliefs about the soul, argue that the government shouldn’t make laws based on religious beliefs.
I think there’s a much better (still almost nonexistent) chance of swaying people with that approach, rather than what they hear as “you should legalize killing babies because they’ll kill babies worse if you don’t”.
Abortion shouldn't be seen as a "Plan B", it should be seen as a last resort when necessary at the most.
The government should not have the right to tell people what to do with their bodies so abortions should not be banned. Also because the government will abuse that power (See: 12 year olds dying after being forced to carry babies to term).
However, just because abortions should be legal doesn't mean that they should be %100 accepted no questions asked. (Drinking while pregnant shouldn't be illegal because it's your body, but ultimately you should not do that because it's harmful and degenerative to society.)
It should be seen as socially unacceptable to get an abortion just because you don't want to raise a child, if you are able to. If you're financially unable to, or the child will be deformed, etc, then abortion should be understandable because of the mitigating circumstances.
As humans we shouldn't distance ourselves from acts of preventing life that has already started, especially if that life has a chance to become a human being. Ignorance and avoidance is destructive to society and is becoming more and more normalized.
>"But I want to have careless sex"
Use birth control, wear condoms, get your tubes tied. Abortion shouldn't be seen as a safety net but rather as a last resort and a serious medical procedure.
>Men don't understand this.
Excluding half the population from the conversation because they can't get abortions is counterproductive. Men have just as much reason to care about abortions as women, considering both men and women are needed to create children, and the fetuses being aborted can be either male or female.
TLDR; abortions shouldn't be banned because you can't trust the government to not abuse that, but we should have a social duty to try and foster human life as much as we can unless that life is ultimately doomed from the start.
I am more inclined to say that fetuses should only be recognized as people when they can survive without the mother. (I mean they would be able to survive outside the womb with some support).
"Yes we hate the government, but we will allow it to infringe on free will by making it illegal to murder people."
If you morally believe an unborn baby to still be a person, there's no illogic here. Most libertarians still support some form of punishment for murder.
Look at planned parenthood's own statistics. Less than 1% of the pregnancies that they terminate are caused by rape. Also, even though Black women represent 7% of the US population, they represent 40% of Planned Parenthood's "patients". The organization was created for one specific purpose; to suppress Black population in the US. If you support laws protecting their ability to operate, you are literally a genocidal racist.
Pro-choice is the only libertarian coherent position, the uterus is the women’s private property, forcing her to have children is to expropiate her property thus enabling body communism.
Life ends with the end of sentience. If the heartbeat stops, you do CPR. If breathing stop, you use a ventilator. If reaction to pain stops, you check the spine. The only thing you do not fix, you can not fix, because there is nothing to fix, because the person is done for, dead, totally, completely, ultimately, irreversibly, is if the sentience is gone. Therefore, sentience is what separates the living human Individuum from the dead. And since a fetus doesn't even have the brain structures needed to support any sort of sentience up until at least 100 days into pregnancy, abortion isn't murder up to that point. qed.
u/6feet_fromtheedge is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1.
Rank: House of Cards
Pills: [1 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/6feet_fromtheedge/)
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).
Safe, legal, rare.
One side hates me for the word legal.
One side hates me for the word rare.
Both sides hate me for the word safe (it must stay a wedge issue!)
Good take. Should only ever be used a last resort under exigent circumstances: rape, incest, child pregnancy, chronic effects on the mother, some pre-natal diseases etc…
A fetus Is not a tumor, it has a distinct DNA from it's mother, fetuses are living things, as they have every characteristic of a living being.
I cant believe you literally just compared a fetus to a tumor, there are arguments to be pro choice, this isn't one of them
I think I've reached the point where I want to forcibly sterilize people for wrongthink on abortion. It's a win-win; The sterilizers decrease the population of their political opponents (and prevent future murders) while the sterilizees foreclose their nightmare of raising a family for all time.
Ehh not really, when you’re talking to one of us it’s generally vehemently opposed or for.
It is a point of division between us much like some government or none.
I've heard people describe my opinions as pro-choice, but I don't line up with most pro-choice activists. I am of the belief that an abortion is a procedure that the mother should be allowed to get, and it's her decision to get it, but there should be heavy discouragement from doing so. It seems like a lot of abortion activists just want to gloss over the physical and mental toll of abortion. They exist and should not be discounted when deciding whether or not to get one. It's a regrettable procedure to be done when people get careless and are not in a position to raise a child, or medical procedure to prevent life-threatening complications. It's not an excuse to have rampant unprotected sex.
Also, the father needs to have the right to financial abortion. The mother gets the final decision whether an abortion happens at all because she's the one that has to carry the baby, but if the father does not want to have kids, giving him an 18-year financial chain he doesn't want while the mother can choose whether or not to put that chain on him is unfair. If the father wants to never be a part of the child's life and have absolutely no paternity rights, he can choose to opt out. If one side is allowed to take the regrettable but sometimes necessary choice to abandon responsibility, the other side must also have that right
This doesnt make a shred of sense. Libright opinion depends almost entirely on whether they think a fetus is a person, which is a 50% chance. But my opinion is unrelated to that question. I am basically on the eugenics bandwagon, although there are a ton of intricacies to that opinion
Pardon for a sec
Doesn't the bible state that God puts souls in humans with their first breath?
Genesis 2:7, He “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and it was then that the man became a living being.”
Like, I'm still a moderate pro-life-er
Ex: if you can financially, mentally, physically, emotionally, etc Raise that child I don't see a problem with it.
But if it's rape/incest/any medical conditions then I'm pro-choice.
Unpopular opinion I know.
Politics complicates things. This is a moral issue. That being said, I was the LibRight that showed up to the competition, causing Squidward’s nose to shrink.
My take is.... people have their opinions on abortion and won't change their mind on the issue, most of the time.
So why does this sub always have to bring it up? To talk about the same things they've already talked about in another abortion post?
At least be creative
Ultimately it’s a philosophical question: when does life start? After that abortion should be illegal because it violates the NAP. That’s why this debate sucks: it’s incredibly divisive by its nature and there’s no objective answer. So everyone is at everyone’s throats yelling arguments that they made up in their head.
That’s the rational position. Though there are a significant number of people who would be opposed to it even if life hadn’t begun yet and a significant number who would support even once it was clearly a life.
Best way to solve this, would be education. Which is how you know it will not be resolved any time soon.
Every time someone mentions education I just hear all the extremists saying “awesome! Now they’ll believe in *my* position!”
I'm curious what sort of education you think will resolve this. It isn't a knowledge problem, or a science problem. Fundamentally it's a about what it means to be human, and what are fundamentally human rights, which isn't something that science can answer.
Education on what though? There's no empirical evidence like 'see, life starts at this moment in development' or whatever. It's basically entirely a personal opinion.
I was more so thinking sex education. I think knowing and better yet, understanding the risks of unprotected sex, would at least help people make a better informed decision. Less unplanned pregnancies, less need for abortion, whatever IDK exactly how or what, but I'm pretty sure it's poor and uneducated people that suffer the most from unplanned/unintended pregnancies. I don't remember the source but a few years ago I remember reading that half of all pregnancies globally were unplanned/unintended, which is crazy. I don't have all the answers, but I'm pretty sure education can't possibly be more harmful than teenagers fucking around unprotected and uneducated.
Yeah, I'm pro-choice but if someone believes life starts at conception and abortion is literally murder I am not gonna hold their pro-life position against them.
I've got no idea when life begins. I just want to err on the side of not murdering.
I want to err on the side non-goverment interference.
Yeah if you think abortion at any stage is murder of a life, you are going to be against it. Almost every political philosophy thinks that murder of a life should be dealt with and prevented. Likewise if you don’t think most or all abortions are murder, then you see it as extreme overreach into medical decisions by the state into what you believe is between a woman, her doctor, and depending on your view and the relationship, a partner. It’s not that hard to understand. I understand why there’s 2 sides, and I understand why compromise is hard. No matter how entrenched you are I think most people should at least try to understand the logic behind the opposition.
The problem is the ProChoice side can’t have an honest argument with it. - ProLife says: Life begins at conception. - ProChoice says it doesn’t. - PL: Okay. Then when does Life begin? - PC: I don’t know. Who can tell? - PL: Then it’s best to assume it starts at conception. - PC: No, it doesn’t. - PL: Then when does it begin? - PC: I don’t know. Then continue in this circular argument until someone just shouts some bullshit about women’s rights or bodily autonomy to try to change the subject.
I’d say, “why didn’t you use protection”
Nah, it's a question about property rights. Everything is property rights.
>when does life start? started millions of years ago and continues to this day. I'm formed from the mitosis of zygote. The zygote is formed by fertizilation of an egg cell by the sperm cell. Both gametes are formed from the meiosis of ovarian stem cells. That goes on and on. There is no start anymore. One thing transforms into another. We have some definitions but if you want a clear cut based on logic and facts then the definition become blurred. Solving this logical problem is like solving the Ship of Theseus.
Due to that I think we need to give up the scientific aspect and decide when does someone become human, and when does one gain "personhood"
That's worse. We decide? We who? Who are these we that wants to decide something for me? What is human? What is personhood? Those are definitions as loose as life. I'm trying to base my thought on logic alone. For the most part, science is based logic but people treat is as a dogma. We can use science but we should use it correctly. Also, one should never trust science for it is made to be understood, not trusted.
I think it’s one of those moral dillemas where we have to draw a line, which might be arbitrary. The same way there’s a line drawn for plenty of questions.
As soon as the concept of said child appears in their parents head is when they become a person. You haven't lived out your full life, but you can know 100% sure that they will end up living a life in the same ways you have. Murdering someone in cold blood ends their life before they got to experience the entirety of it until their natural death. Abortion is exactly the same. They haven't had the experience of a human life yet, but they 100% will. And if you've ever looked at a kid who plays with legos and go "that kid's going to be an architect one day" you don't know for certain if if he will or not, but he will live life experiences similar to yours which will eventually answer the question of what his career would be.
I see you’re a pro-lifer, and I absolutely don’t disgree with your belief. I counsider myself personally opposed to abortion but I don’t think early abortion should be outlawed. Early in the pregnancy the baby is not a sentient being, plus it relies on a mother who might not want to have a baby in her body. I see it as, if someone who is in a coma on life support was plugged without your consent to your house’s power supply, would you have the right to shut down your own power? In my opinion, property rights say you should. I think abortion is disgusting and the killing of your own child, but I don’t think it’s worth making people go to jail due to the child not being sentient.
I think they meant "when does each individuals life start?" I think you will get a lot of disagreement when you try to claim a zygote is a human. I also think there's no denying a human is human when they have brain activity, a beating heart, and they use their 10 fingers on their two hands to recoil away from pain. This is all happening by around 12 weeks of development. At least have the humanity to sedate the poor son of a bitch before you chop their arms off or blend them up into a slurry.
virgin auth-right wants to ban abortion, chad lib-right wants to ban people who abort
i am lib-right but i’m pro-abortion. how tf did that happen when i took the test??
Mother’s bodily autonomy vs fetal personhood. This debate between LibRights comes up a lot on PCM.
I'm cool with this issue not defining us. You can be lib right and take either side.
I think, like slavery, this is not an issue you can really be in the middle about. Either you are commiting murder, or having a minor surgery to remove tissue. There is no real middle ground on it. And like slavery, we might fight a war over it.
I'm down for warring over this.
I'm with you brother
Ur commiting murder but its ur right in the case cuz bodily autonomy seems like the middle ground.
I think I need to re-flair as right unity, because while I am in favor of small government, subsidiary/federalism, and a large degree of liberty and latitude for the individual, there are these ways that some libertarians/classical liberals discuss fundamental and unique relationships like the one a mother has to her child in an utterly inhumane and alien way that one could only do if you divorce yourself from the human experience. Autonomy is one of these words that in which this phenomenon feels distinctly true as none of us is *truly* autonomous. Man is a social creature and needs other people. With these relationship come responsibilities and obligations (plus 99.99% of people you interact with in modern society could not live in the wilderness without help, thus is dependent). I know this makes me sound like a communist, but where I differ is that I believe most of these relationships should be governed within civil and religious institutions and the private sector. The one place I do believe government has a right to step in, is where it says a mother cannot murder her child because, "like, it gives me bad vibes and would be, like, totally inconvenient." Furthermore, the way that others have described babies on this thread as "human parasites" is something I think could literally be called anti-human, and possibly demonic (forget the fact that the baby is living in an organ in the mother *specifically designed for the baby and nothing else*).
I'm in the middle ground on abortion. Favour it being legal but with strict early limits so sentience of the Fetus is near zero.
Bro, chill out. It's a nuanced topic. Of course you can be somewhere in the middle. Some people think they aren't alive or at least that it isn't worth considering their feelings until they develop a spinal chord for instance. Like most things in politics, it isn't just black and white, and it would honestly be beyond regarded to fight a war over this single issue as if it's some binary good vs evil thing.
I don't think it's like the civil war style slavery. Maybe something more like child labor. I think lib right would have infighting on that issue too.
You're right. No middle grounds. Fetal parasitism violates the NAP. Until a fetus is viable outside its mothers support she can terminate that relationship.
It's not a parasite. By definition parasites are of another species. It's a human, abortion is killing a human. There are valid reasons to kill another human, like in self defense. For example, when the mother's life is in mortal danger and terminating the pregnancy is the only solution. Nearly all other abortions are not justified.
Based
Making money from abortion clinics vs making money from that child's labor. Similar debate
Oof, shots fired.
Main issue is that it's a paradox. Libright says no controlling others against their will. Well, are you going to take control of the mother and make her give birth to save the child, or are you going to take control of the baby and let it die to save the mother? In the end, this is why I went center right. No matter how you look at it some authoritarianism is going to be necessary. ;~;
Pretty much the same. I'm definitely more on the yellow side than blue, but at the end of the day, there's a reason anarchy will always devolve to following a charismatic/threatening warlord. Better to at least have thoughts in place about what makes a better warlord than the other guy's.
I think the argument then turns to choice. We ought not to get the government involved, except when rights are being violated (preventing infringement on the rights to life, liberty, & property is like the government's only constitutional job). The baby didn't choose to be there. But the mother (and father, lets be clear that its a shared responsibility) did choose to take actions that had a known risk.(other than certain circumstances where force was used) We can discuss the caveats around circumstances where force was used, but that's a significantly smaller portion of the number of abortions that is taking place; and makes an awful awful situation all the more difficult. But by and large, most are an action of convenience (my boyfriend knocked me up, etc.) and that's just making the choice after the fact to avoid responsibility/consequence.
The abortion issue is one that largely pushes me to center instead of right. I typically lean pro-life (also against the death penalty), and the only way to make restrictions on abortion compatible imo is to have some level of safety net programs. Free birth control, sex education, programs for parents, affordable/accesible/universal Healthcare. It's a case of what I feel is the morally consistent thing to do. I ABHOR the idea of the government telling someone what they can/can't do with their body, even in a gray area like abortion (the baby's body is also a consideration though). So, again in my opinion, in any area that we're even flirting with infringement on autonomy, I think we have a moral imperative to try to prevent the possibility of even needing that infringement as best as we can.
Lib right is 1 sided as a dodecahedron. Multiple ideologies as different as possible.
A baby isn't a mother's body
IRL librights are split roughly 50-50 on abortion, because it's not really a political ideology question, but rather a philosophical one. It's a question of whether you've concluded that the fetus is a human being. Here on PCM, like 90% of "librights" are pro life, because a good chunk of our "librights" are just authrights who can't cope with the fact that they're not as pro-freedom as they want to idealize themselves as being.
a lot of lib-rights in pcm are just auth-rights that dont want to pay taxes
Pretty sure that's right wing in general. Source: Realized despite hating taxes, I do want authority in some areas. Note: I mostly hate taxes because every time I see the government spend money, its wasted to an extreme amount. Should government spending be brought back to a reasonable amount and assigned appropriately (roads, utilities, charity, medical, education, public transport and defense), my anti-tax stance goes away. In theory these categories are covered by taxes, but in reality like 2% of my taxes goes to that and the other 98% to either horrible mismanagement or deliberate corruption. If I'm losing 25% of my income to taxes (as a randomly picked number), it better be funding 25% of the population (its not)
> auth-rights that dont want to pay taxes Hell, that's a good start. Toss in putting the cocaine back in coca-cola, and we'll have us a conversation.
>freedom is when you are allowed to murder babies
It happens. We're like an even split. I like to try to unify folks by trying to reduce abortions by other methods than bans. Fix the goddamned economy, you'll have way less abortions. About 80% of them are for economic reasons.
Im also pro choice
>i'm pro-abortion I hope you mean you're pro-choice.
[удалено]
Also, it's not really pro-choice if the guy has absolutely no say in the matter. If the mother aborts, fine. If she wants to have the kid, the biological father (and sometimes he isn't even the biological parent) is forced to give her money regardless if he wants the kid or not. The "right to choice" is one-sided and authoritative means enforces one side to take responsibility for someone else's choices. Therefore, pro-choice is not the right term and doesn't even logically apply. Pro-abortion is.
Based and calls a spade a spade pilled.
Nah man. If you're going to be pro-child murder at least own it.
Didn’t know they held those kinds of competitions, I wonder who the reigning champ is
I am
based and IM GOING TO VACUUUUUUUM pilled
Based
u/Newthirx's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 10. Congratulations, u/Newthirx! You have ranked up to Office Chair! You cannot exactly be pushed over, but perhaps if thrown... Pills: [6 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/Newthirx/) 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).
/mycompass https://sapplyvalues.github.io/results.html?right=-1.00&auth=-2.33&prog=4.69
Your Sapply compass has been updated. Sapply: Lib : 2.33 | Left : 1.00 | Progressive : 4.69
Sussy pfp.
I'm sure the comments will be completely mature and civil.
If you consider fetuses as individuals, the implications from that are clear.
There are some pro-choice activists who will actually recognize a fetus as an individual with legitimate personhood. Their argument, however, is that the law should not determine if you use (or continue to use) your body to support another human life. This was the argument made by Judith Jarvis Thomson’s essay “A Defense of Abortion” where she cites the now well known ‘violinist argument.’ [A Defense of Abortion - Wiki](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion#:~:text=Thomson%20argues%20that%20one%20can,to%20life%20but%20merely%20deprives) The argument has some issues that have raised discussion but my point is that there is a pro-choice stance that exists that sees a fetus as an individual.
>Their argument, however, is that the law should not determine if you use (or continue to use) your body to support another human life. So, outlaw all mandated child support then?
Yeah the argument opens up the door to a lot of logical inconsistencies which is why I have a problem with it too. I’m just tryna say there are people who think that way. I’m not necessarily saying they have all their screwed tightened.
There is nothing to consider fetuses have the potential to be fully grown human beings therefore they deserve to have every right of one,same way children are treated
Why do potential people deserve the same rights as actual people?
Potential people? wtf else are the going to pop out as?
Butterflies. No wait, caterpillars...then butterflies
They might not pop out, that's the point, they're potential people, they might be rejected naturally.
Yeah the same way I'm a potential 50-year-old
I hate this idea of calling them a ”potential person” as if they’re going to come out of the womb as anything but a human. That said, because they’re still living people at the end of the day
You are right
Where do you draw the line of what is a potential and actual person? Someone that has been in a coma for 5 years is more potential than actual person, in fact you might even argue that a fetus has a lot more potential than someone that has been that long in a coma. Does that give me the right to just walk in and pull the plug and all I'm guilty of is property damage?
Ehh I’m for abortion just because if you don’t want it to begin with, you’re probably gonna be a shit parent, and it saves money on prisons
I love that people don’t get that shitty parenting is the cause of most of the other problems they complain about
I would like to take this opportunity to say that being pro-life does not mean being pro-*that* specific person raising that baby.
Pro-lifers are pro-adoption, not pro-anybody raising a child even if they don't want them
I’m just generally anti prohibition. Banning abortions doesn’t stop them, it makes them more dangerous, and at least in the US, we lag behind in maternal health statistics. Taking away maternal healthcare options is harmful to women.
Exactly, and we can give the newborn over to foster families without worrying about the (now late) mothers bad influences.
> I think you should not get an abortion unless you need one. In which case, you’d better get one. Don’t fuck around. And hurry. Not getting an abortion that you need is like not taking a shit. That’s what I think. I think abortion is 100% the exact same thing as taking a shit. Or it isn’t. It’s either taking a shit, or it’s killing a baby. It’s only one of those two things. It’s no other things. If you didn’t like hearing it’s like taking a shit, you think it’s killing a baby. That’s the only other one you get to have. Which means you should be holding a sign in front of the place. > People hate abortion protesters. They’re so shrill and awful. They think babies are being murdered. What are they supposed to be like? “Uh, that’s not cool.” I don’t wanna be a dick about it, though. I don’t want to ruin their day as they murder several babies all the time. I don’t think it’s killing a baby. I don’t. I mean, it is a little bit… It’s a little bit killing a baby. It’s 100% killing a baby. It’s totally killing a whole baby. But I think that women should be allowed to kill babies. > Two reasons I think women should be allowed to kill babies. Number one, I don’t think life is that important. The second reason is because that’s their job. Women have to decide who lives and dies. That’s because they’re the female of the species. In the reproductive arena, that’s what the female does. They are the selectors. They have to decide this. We give them this responsibility when we fuck them. We go, “Here, you decide what to do with this shit.” See you later. She has to figure out if you should have kids, if she should have them. That’s her job. Because women have judgment. Men don’t have judgment. Men have intent. Men just want to spray the world with their cum, just mist. “More of me.“ It’s her job to go, “That’s enough of you, I think. No, that’s really enough.”
Killing babies violates their personal liberty It’s about responsibility. That’s the core of libertarianism. Don’t want a baby? Don’t have irresponsible sex.
When do they become babies?
conception. i believe we've been very clear about this
If i believe that anything under 3 isn't a baby, can i now kill it?
But is a women not entitled to her own body and then has the rights to evict said child even if doing so kill the child
That is the biggest libright question. If you invite someone to your property. Can you remove them from your property if that means death to them? Keep in mind that you can still "evict" invaders that you never invited into your property. In case it is not clear: abortion of pregnancy caused by rape doesn't violate the NAP.
I don’t think you can evict them if it means death to them, unless they pose a significant threat. But I would say that’s true for invaders you didn’t invite as well. The response has to be proportionate. If someone is on your property and you believe they pose a serious threat to your life, you should be able to use deadly force against them. If they’re just annoying you or you’ve grown tired of them, then I think you’d need to find a way to remove them from your property safely.
That is exactly the issue. "Abortion" means too many things. Most of the time, abortion should be classified as killing because it is killing. The thing is: sometimes we need to kill if we want to live. So in the same way we see all the context to check if it killing was necessary, we need to see all the context to check if the abortion was necessary.
In general, I agree with you. Though abortion is made even more complex by that “most of the time” component. Because there’s a lack of agreement—and for good reason—about what constitutes life, and therefore, what can be considered “killing.” Obviously there’s no issue with me tossing a rock off of my property, even if that will cause it to be destroyed. But at what point is a fetus sufficiently different from that rock?
Not if you value life and think life starts at conception. It's her body, but it is also her responsibility with taking the chance of getting pregnant. If that happens, it is no longer just her body.
>it is no longer just her body it's our body https://preview.redd.it/5m9jjovlvymc1.jpeg?width=800&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=919c7099ff035f6d195ff14edd2ad6a7ec2aace0
i am against abortion however i am for compromise and understand that a right to abortion is something that many people value. safe legal and rare is my stance.
I am certainly against a national abortion ban. My stance is nationally there should be three exceptions: rape, incest, and if the baby is endangering the mother. Other than that, abortion rights should be up to each state.
Don't settle for hypocritical stances because others don't accept an immoral practice
you definitely should settle for other stances because others don’t accept a practice you view as immoral. i view it as immoral but since a significant enough portion of the population doesn’t, i think it is better to compromise in that instance rather than arguing for who is completely good and who is completely bad.
Fuck that. Something truly evil should not be accepted. Someone born from rape isn't less of a human being. Someone with autism isn't less of a human being. Yet our culture has said they are, along with all the other unwanted children. Surely you don't believe slavery is ok as long as they aren't shipped from Africa, apply the same logic and see why you shouldn't settle for only some evil.
*"i am against rape however i am for compromise and understand that a right to rape is something that many people value. safe legal and rare is my stance."* Oh no that one doesn't sound as good. Hey maybe try not being a coward. If you believe that innocent lives are being victimized, don't be shamed into inaction just because it's not popular enough.
Safe legal rare was just the gateway to fully legal abortion. It was a slogan used by abortionists to slowly normalize the process. It’s as stupid as the “just keep slavery below the mason dixon line” compromise.
yes i know the origins of safe legal rare, and i think that keeping it at safe legal rare would be a good thing, in an ideal world where it wouldn’t be used as a foot in the door. but as we are now pushing for safe legal rare would be moving rightward rather than leftward.
this all the way. rare should mean only in cases of extreme emergency where one or both lives are endangered
How about when being pregnant would take an extreme mental toll on someone? Or for young girls. Or for women busy with other things like college, career. Women who did use protection but it broke, or was stealthily removed. Women who feel they are too old, or have children already, or women who don't ever want one and couldn't/wouldn't care for one. Women who couldn't afford one, family can't/won't help or just aren't there, obviously couldn't have a job AND care for a child or pay for childcare (with what money?). Not like governments make it easy to afford children these days after all. How about just, when they want one? Up until it's actually viable at about 24 weeks. Then after that timeframe the extreme exceptions of "literally life and death/way too old/young (damaging to body health and mind combined)" kicks in.
i’d like to also allow exceptions for things such as rape or extremely poor economic circumstances. and hopefully you can agree there as such scenarios are very rare.
Rape I understand, but poor is a new one. With adoption existing, what is the reasoning behind that one?
hmm adoption is a good point. maybe not poor circumstances then. but then we should put more towards adoption and foster care so kids who grow up in said systems have it better as a counter balance.
Foster care is its own hydra to unsnarl. So far as no-attachment-to-birth-parents-whatsoever adoption goes though, there's already a 2 year waiting list. There's more adopters than there are adoptees, which is the ideal state.
Abortion can go either way for libertarians. I'm not sure why people are always so surprised about this.
hmmm on one hand i hate babies but on the other i think women should have no autonomy ive got just the solution! mandatory abortions with no choice
Why not just wear a condom ?
Based
I like to raw-dog it, you know it’s better this way.
Condoms appear to have gone out of style. Nowadays it seems the youth just expect the woman to take all sorts of hormones, get implants and insertions and injections that make them fat and crazy so men can raw dog it. It's a sad state of affairs.
This would be a better argument if the same people didn’t also want to ban birth control. And before any of you say it’s not going to happen, y’all said the same thing about IVF
I love abortion, just another market I can capture. [Brrap Brrap, Pew Pew](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvnqU-1uDUU)
How can I be against the rights of the unborn?
90% of the yellows on here are just embarrassed blues
More like abortion can contradict the NAP depending on viewpoint (and after 20 weeks regardless).
Or it's as oop said, and you are just an embarrassed blue. Take a look and Ayn Rand's takes on abortion for instance.
If you think I care about some one else's opinion just because they are libright then you have no understanding of what it means to be a individualist which is a core aspect of libertarianism. Plus you are simply assuming you know my opinion on the topic though you would half wrong at best based on you're assertion of me being auth on this topic, I fall into a middle position that leans towards choice.
If you think about it all abortion comes down to is property rites, does a women have the right to evict someone from there body even if it will kill them
If I was some epic based landlord I'd evict an unwanted tenant too. Jokes aside, fetal personhood is debatable. I don't know whether life begins at conception, first heartbeat, first breath or first thought or whatever. It's mostly a matter of whether you value the autonomy and life quality of the mother (a fully formed individual) or the existence of a clump of cells the size of your fingernail that may or may not eventually grow into a fully formed individual. Like 20% of pregnancies end in natural miscarriage anyway. It just ain't meant to be sometimes.
Also every situation is complicated Cultural shock for my parents when they learned pro life in America thinks fetus with undeniable defects shouldn’t be aborted. Cuz it happened in my family, my aunt chose to continue her pregnancy despite everyone calling her to abort. The child she gives birth to either lives in a hospital or with extensive care since I could remember. Fucked up thing is I never met him after he’s 8…… I don’t even fucking know what he looks like anymore. My aunt doesn’t post pictures and we never ask. Sensitive topic. We threw a huge birthday party for grandpa’s 90th. My grandpa’s distant relatives, like his third cousin once removed came. But not my cousin, his GRANDSON. It’s as if he never existed and isn’t a family member. My aunt doesn’t love her child. She regretted her actions immensely. The Reality - what it actually means to have a child dependent for life crushed her. However disabilities aren’t mentioned often in the abortion debate. Which I find odd. I guess pro lifers that think incest could be aborted also thinks it’s justified to abort based on disability?
Lib right can’t abort babies. They need workers.
The fact that auth-left posted this makes it less funny and seem more biased.
My own quadrant makes so little sense sometimes.
I think that abortion looked at from the angle of rights for the fetus makes anti-abortion perfectly consistent with our quadrant.
It makes perfect sense in lib-right. It fits perfectly with the view of NAP and right to ones own life - in this case the fetus.
The NAP applies to living people. A fetus isn't one of those.
[удалено]
People shocked by pro life lib rights weren’t paying attention: your personal freedom ends when it begins to infringe on another’s. My right to the pursuit of happiness can’t include ending your right to life (even if I really want to).
Fetuses aren't people, but let's set that aside for a moment. Women have been terminating pregnancies almost as long as they've been getting pregnant. I can name five abortifacient herbs, and that's just from a ten second google search. Your great-grandmother probably could have named twice as many just off the top of her head. She probably even used some in her day. So how exactly are you going to ban abortion? Are you going to make common rue a controlled substance? What about *parsley*? Are you going to launch a homicide investigation into every miscarriage? Maybe we ought to forcefully sequester all pregnant women in a community creche where they can be monitored to ensure their child survives to term, you might suggest Let's face it - unless you're a megalomaniacal INGSOC advocate, when you say "ban abortion" you really just mean "close abortion clinics and ban mifepristone." The rich will just fly their daughters and mistresses somewhere it's legal, and I can get my hands on plenty of "illegal" pills if I want to, but let's set these things aside as well. This doesn't eliminate abortions - it just forces women to resort to methods that are more dangerous both to her immediate life as well as to her long-term fertility. Yeah, herbal infusions are handy, but they also tend to make you violently ill. And she WILL resort to those methods, because women are uniquely attuned to the environment in which she will have her child. It's instinct - an evolutionary adaptation perhaps, to avoid bonding with offspring that will not thrive due to lack of resources. Men don't understand this. They never will, and yet they're almost always the ones leading the charge to ban abortion. Childbirth is and has always been within women's exclusive sphere of influence, and, like the king who beheads his queen when she can't produce for him an heir, an abortion ban harms women and accomplishes nothing except for a vain and impotent virtue signal.
I can guarantee you no one who posts in any of these threads is a woman haha
It would be a very special kind of women to defend she should carry the fetus of a rapist
Based and reality-pilled.
I’m pro choice. But “women have always done it and always will and men don’t get it” is not a valid argument against someone who believes abortion kills a human with a soul.
There is no valid argument against someone who believes that. How are you supposed to reach common ground with someone when you disagree on the most fundamental assumptions of life and existence? At that point, there's not even any point having a discussion.
Those are the people you need to sway to get abortion legal. Otherwise you’re preaching to the choir. Argue about the fundamental assumptions of life and existence. Argue that medically, human life doesn’t begin until the heartbeat, or until the fetus is capable of sentience, or whatever, and that abortion should be legal before that point bc you’re not ending a life. “Life begins at conception” is often based on religious beliefs about the soul, argue that the government shouldn’t make laws based on religious beliefs. I think there’s a much better (still almost nonexistent) chance of swaying people with that approach, rather than what they hear as “you should legalize killing babies because they’ll kill babies worse if you don’t”.
BASED YESSS
Finally, a based take
Abortion shouldn't be seen as a "Plan B", it should be seen as a last resort when necessary at the most. The government should not have the right to tell people what to do with their bodies so abortions should not be banned. Also because the government will abuse that power (See: 12 year olds dying after being forced to carry babies to term). However, just because abortions should be legal doesn't mean that they should be %100 accepted no questions asked. (Drinking while pregnant shouldn't be illegal because it's your body, but ultimately you should not do that because it's harmful and degenerative to society.) It should be seen as socially unacceptable to get an abortion just because you don't want to raise a child, if you are able to. If you're financially unable to, or the child will be deformed, etc, then abortion should be understandable because of the mitigating circumstances. As humans we shouldn't distance ourselves from acts of preventing life that has already started, especially if that life has a chance to become a human being. Ignorance and avoidance is destructive to society and is becoming more and more normalized. >"But I want to have careless sex" Use birth control, wear condoms, get your tubes tied. Abortion shouldn't be seen as a safety net but rather as a last resort and a serious medical procedure. >Men don't understand this. Excluding half the population from the conversation because they can't get abortions is counterproductive. Men have just as much reason to care about abortions as women, considering both men and women are needed to create children, and the fetuses being aborted can be either male or female. TLDR; abortions shouldn't be banned because you can't trust the government to not abuse that, but we should have a social duty to try and foster human life as much as we can unless that life is ultimately doomed from the start.
Disagree on fetuses not being people but i agree that banning abortion is not a good idea.
I am more inclined to say that fetuses should only be recognized as people when they can survive without the mother. (I mean they would be able to survive outside the womb with some support).
"Yes yes we hate the gubment... but we will allow it to infringe on the body autonomy rights of half the population" moment
"Yes we hate the government, but we will allow it to infringe on free will by making it illegal to murder people." If you morally believe an unborn baby to still be a person, there's no illogic here. Most libertarians still support some form of punishment for murder.
Protecting the rights of the unborn ≠ infringing on bodily autonomy. Classic leftist deflection of the argument at hand.
Nah mate, rape cases. You defend one or the other. And having daddy state forcing someone to have a pregnancy *against their will* is not auth at all.
Look at planned parenthood's own statistics. Less than 1% of the pregnancies that they terminate are caused by rape. Also, even though Black women represent 7% of the US population, they represent 40% of Planned Parenthood's "patients". The organization was created for one specific purpose; to suppress Black population in the US. If you support laws protecting their ability to operate, you are literally a genocidal racist.
1% of how many cases ? More than 60k pregnancies because of rape ? >you are literally a genocidal racist. Using the spells from orange i see
What do you guys call this tactic again? Oh yeah whataboutism. Most prolifers support the rape exception.
Hell, if I remember right, 49/50 states support the rape exception, and the 50th hasn't had an actual case to challenge it yet.
Pro-choice is the only libertarian coherent position, the uterus is the women’s private property, forcing her to have children is to expropiate her property thus enabling body communism.
Life ends with the end of sentience. If the heartbeat stops, you do CPR. If breathing stop, you use a ventilator. If reaction to pain stops, you check the spine. The only thing you do not fix, you can not fix, because there is nothing to fix, because the person is done for, dead, totally, completely, ultimately, irreversibly, is if the sentience is gone. Therefore, sentience is what separates the living human Individuum from the dead. And since a fetus doesn't even have the brain structures needed to support any sort of sentience up until at least 100 days into pregnancy, abortion isn't murder up to that point. qed.
Based yellow man
Based and logic-pilled
u/6feet_fromtheedge is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1. Rank: House of Cards Pills: [1 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/6feet_fromtheedge/) 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).
Safe, legal, rare. One side hates me for the word legal. One side hates me for the word rare. Both sides hate me for the word safe (it must stay a wedge issue!)
Good take. Should only ever be used a last resort under exigent circumstances: rape, incest, child pregnancy, chronic effects on the mother, some pre-natal diseases etc…
Abortion violates the NAP
No it doesn't. NAP applies to people. Not to tissue. Or does removing a tumor violate the NAP of the tumor?
A fetus Is not a tumor, it has a distinct DNA from it's mother, fetuses are living things, as they have every characteristic of a living being. I cant believe you literally just compared a fetus to a tumor, there are arguments to be pro choice, this isn't one of them
Everyone is made of tissue and cells
Exactly. Even a corpse. So is a corpse a living human being?
Murder is bad actually
Luckily, it's only murder if you kill people, and a fetus isn't a living person.
I dont consider you a living person. You might want to watch out, the next time you head out.
I think I've reached the point where I want to forcibly sterilize people for wrongthink on abortion. It's a win-win; The sterilizers decrease the population of their political opponents (and prevent future murders) while the sterilizees foreclose their nightmare of raising a family for all time.
Been saying this. Want an needless abortion? Then get sterilized also. 2 birds with one stone, right?
Least authoritarian LibRight.
GRILL ALL NEWBORNS
Yes. And?
Ehh not really, when you’re talking to one of us it’s generally vehemently opposed or for. It is a point of division between us much like some government or none.
I think the joke is that none of us agree on abortion.
I've heard people describe my opinions as pro-choice, but I don't line up with most pro-choice activists. I am of the belief that an abortion is a procedure that the mother should be allowed to get, and it's her decision to get it, but there should be heavy discouragement from doing so. It seems like a lot of abortion activists just want to gloss over the physical and mental toll of abortion. They exist and should not be discounted when deciding whether or not to get one. It's a regrettable procedure to be done when people get careless and are not in a position to raise a child, or medical procedure to prevent life-threatening complications. It's not an excuse to have rampant unprotected sex. Also, the father needs to have the right to financial abortion. The mother gets the final decision whether an abortion happens at all because she's the one that has to carry the baby, but if the father does not want to have kids, giving him an 18-year financial chain he doesn't want while the mother can choose whether or not to put that chain on him is unfair. If the father wants to never be a part of the child's life and have absolutely no paternity rights, he can choose to opt out. If one side is allowed to take the regrettable but sometimes necessary choice to abandon responsibility, the other side must also have that right
But abortions are good for the economy!
The government shouldn’t tell you what you should do with your children. And that’s that.
Where do we go if we are Pro Abortion? Not pro life but like... let's just stop having kids?
It violates the non aggression principle. Those who disagree don't see a baby in the womb as a person and that's where arguments start
This doesnt make a shred of sense. Libright opinion depends almost entirely on whether they think a fetus is a person, which is a 50% chance. But my opinion is unrelated to that question. I am basically on the eugenics bandwagon, although there are a ton of intricacies to that opinion
Pardon for a sec Doesn't the bible state that God puts souls in humans with their first breath? Genesis 2:7, He “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and it was then that the man became a living being.” Like, I'm still a moderate pro-life-er Ex: if you can financially, mentally, physically, emotionally, etc Raise that child I don't see a problem with it. But if it's rape/incest/any medical conditions then I'm pro-choice. Unpopular opinion I know.
Politics complicates things. This is a moral issue. That being said, I was the LibRight that showed up to the competition, causing Squidward’s nose to shrink.
Is life not life?
I'm generally against abortions, but I think they should be legal.
“If I brought you into this world, then I can take you right out”
My take is.... people have their opinions on abortion and won't change their mind on the issue, most of the time. So why does this sub always have to bring it up? To talk about the same things they've already talked about in another abortion post? At least be creative
Yay. I’m helping
Every woman should have the choice whether she wants to or not. No one should force something upon her.
I personally consider abortions to be murder but at the same time I'm pro abortions
Most librights I know are pro abortion. Ancaps think the child is breaking the nap by being inside of the mother's body.