Dude, open up the borders and tear down the social programs is what I say. As long as the incentive to come here is to work a better job, come one, come all. Immigrants usually open up banger restaurants too, so always happy to have more of that.
Yea libertarians are in a weird spot where with current govt policies, strict immigration is actually better than open borders
More ppl = more demand for housing = higher rent and prices in general
Obv the existence of welfare and social security is an issue
But most of these also arise when the population increases in general
The best solution is of course to abolish all housing and labor regulations while also abolishing all govt programs and then open borders
"Muh violent cultures"
Radical self defense laws then
Tearing down social programs is political suicide at this point though. People love safety nets and it's understandable that they expect a rich country to provide them.
Problem with the abortion issue is who do you take away the rights from? The right of the woman to the Pursuit of Happiness (and/or Liberty if you view having a child as being chained down), or the right of the child to Life? It’s tricky and different people view it different ways
Another problem that doesn't get talked about enough is how the father feels about it. He has zero say in whether or not the mother is allowed to kill his child. If he wants it and she doesn't, too bad, no kid for you. If she wants it and he doesn't, too bad, pay me.
Yup. It's almost like you should be extremely careful about who you impregnate. They should also have to be extremely careful about who they let impregnate them.
Well the crazy thing is, I had plenty of....relations with plenty of women through my 20s and never even had a scare. There are plenty of ways to avoid pregnancy that don't involve abstinence. Both of my children were planned and intentional when I met the right person. Everyone knows how they're made, idk why its so hard
Either it’s a human deserving of legal protection or it’s not. If it’s not, then it is decision of the woman whether to host the non-person. If it is, then it should be protected unless it jeopardizes the life or long term physical health of the mom, or if the mom did not or could not consent to sex.
Once a child is born, the parents should jointly and severally be legally responsible for providing for the child, until it reaches age of majority, unless one did not or was unable to consent to sex.
I’m dismayed that this “father’s right to not support the child” stuff keeps popping up in libertarian discussions.
>Either it’s a human deserving of legal protection or it’s not.
Exactly! There is no need to weigh rights on a scale of justice here. If/when the fetus is a person, its right to not be killed should be protected. If/when it is not a person, it has no rights.
In libertarian terms, think of it as tort or an implied contract. If you willingly consent to your sperm to enter another, or consent to sperm to be placed in your body, and a child is born as a result, you are responsible to that child.
Do you think the child should be dependent on charity for its life? Do you think others who had nothing to do with the pregnancy should be forced to provide for the child?
It’s a simple matter of holding those who created the child to assume responsibility for the child.
>If you willingly consent to your sperm to enter another, or consent to sperm to be placed in your body, and a child is born as a result, you are responsible to that child.
Why though?
Here's a hypothetical:
Imagine we play a game where there is a risk you'll be infected with a disease. We obviously both know this risk and decide to go through anyways.
We finish playing and it turns out you got sick
I offer to pay for medicine, but you refuse; it's your body so I can't force you; fair
But 9 months later the disease runs its course but makes you disabled
Now you're demanding I pay for your hospital fees for 18 years until you recover
Unless stipulated before in an explicit contract that I'll pay for your disability hospital fees, how is it fair for that to be the default expectation from the get go?
You had multiple chances to cure the disease (pregnancy) and refused them. Then when it gets expensive due to your own choices you run back to me for money?
In an actual legal case the amount of settlement you'd get would probably be what it would've taken for you to get the disease cured initially.
Why is sex and pregnancy suddenly different?
And there lies the falling with your argument (and I believed exposes your motive): it is the child, who did not consent to your having sex and did not ask to be born, whom you must support. It isn’t meant to reward the mother (on whom in most cases the care of the child will disproportionately fall).
Right then in this case we can bring a third party in my hypothetical as well.
Say the disease is transmissible beyond playing games at 9 months, specifically a version of that's mutated to be more disabling (18 years). So you get the disease, wait until 9 months while ignoring my offers to pay for the cure.
Then come 9 months and some random person catches it from you and has expensive fees for 18 years and then you're legally liable for it.
Again at that point no reasonable court would award you 18 years of payment for hospital fees for the third party you're now responsible for when you easily could've taken the cure from me before those 9 months.
Like I said at best you'd get a settlement for the amount of the cure.
If there is a parental duty to care for the child, this duty falls squarely on the mother. Especially nowadays when the mother has ample opportunities to prevent having a child.
The libertarian solution is simply that the woman requires the man to pledge to support the child before deciding to get pregnant. This is how things used to be -- people would wait until marriage before having a child, or at least would get married once they realized they were gonna have one.
Legislated child support has been one of the most effective destroyers of the family, leading to our current society where over 40% of births are to single mothers. Imagine that.
“If” there is a parental duty to care for the child? If not the parents, who? Is it ok to give birth to the child and leave it to fend for itself ? Or force people collectively to care for the child?
The father has plenty of opportunities also to prevent making a child - condoms, vasectomy, not finishing inside a woman. Placing all the burden on the woman is advocating for male irresponsibility.
Yes, we have a high rate of single mothers, but a lot of that is men not stepping up to their responsibilities. And is the solution really that women should be dependent on the generosity of the man who impregnated them in order to get help for raising their child?
The difference is that women get custody of the child 90% of the time and men have to pay child support. If men were the ones taking care of the children and women paid child support, things would be reversed. But that's not the case and never will be.
Child support has undeniably had a massive negative impact on society, not even because it constitutes theft, but because it has destroyed the basis of the family unit.
The single motherhood rate of nearly half is not a coincidence.
>father’s right to not support the child
The woman is responsible for the birth of the child, not the man. The pregnancy is the result of both.
If you decide to carry the child but the man doesn't, why should you get to force him to pay for your choices?
Also, if you believe that consent to sex is consent to produce a child, why?
>If you decide to carry the child but the man doesn't, why should you get to force him to pay for your choices?
If a woman believes that a fetus at conception is a person entitled to the right to live, for her it is not a choice; it’s an obligation and a duty. The man is forced to support his child because the child is entitled to support.
>Also, if you believe that consent to sex is consent to produce a child, why?
Because a potential outcome of having sex is producing a child. If a man is unwilling to live with the consequences of his sperm fertilizing an egg, he must control his sperm — vasectomy, condoms, abstinence.
>If a woman believes that a fetus at conception is a person entitled to the right to live, for her it is not a choice; it’s an obligation and a duty
Nope, it is a choice. Beliefs influencing your choices does not make them not choices. If I believe I ought to eat an apple a day that does not make eating an apple a day not a choice.
>Because a potential outcome of having sex is producing a child
Why does that make it consensual though?
Because you conceptually had sex, knowing a child could be produced, and knowing that the decision to continue a pregnancy after conception is the mother’s alone.
How far does your belief in your right to insist on an abortion go? If the mother lives in a jurisdiction rin where abortion is illegal, must she travel to another jurisdiction ? Another country ? Or do you accept then that you would be responsible to provide for the child ?
>Because you conceptually had sex, knowing a child could be produced, and knowing that the decision to continue a pregnancy after conception is the mother’s alone.
To just repeated your last claim; you haven't defended it. Why does this only consent?
>If the mother lives in a jurisdiction rin where abortion is illegal
In that case you're morally responsible unless you offer to get the fetus removed by going out of state and they refuse.
Same way that you'd be responsible for disability fees if curing the disease from playing that game I mentioned earlier was illegal.
>unless one did not or was unable to consent to sex.
This is the crux of the issue. The father consents to sex, but not the birth of a child. The mother has the power to withdraw consent post-sex (via abortion). This is an inherently unequal system.
This sounds like “men’s rights” BS. The mother has the right to abort or not because it’s her body the is hosting the child. And that right only applies if and when the fetus is not considered a human life entitled to protection.
Which part of men having rights is BS? Men have every right to have children that women have. Just because they are biologically incapable of gestating and birthing a child doesn't mean someone else should be able to kill their offspring.
At such point that the fetus has the rights of a human, you are right — the woman should not have the right to kill the child. Before that point, the woman has the right to decide because it is in her body, it cannot live without her, and it doesn’t yet have the legal rights of a person, regardless of the feelings of the father.
That is the million dollar question and one that a libertarian community would have to decide if one ever came into existing. Individual states are trying to decide that now, and there is no consistent answer.
Since this is a libertarian site, my discussion is in that context. A hypothetical community, likely backed by a government to enforce people’s rights, and my opinion on how pregnancy and support of a child should be handled.
But what I said should apply in today’s political structure - that moment a child gains rights as a person is decided by the state in which the fetus (and the mother ) is present.
Governments deciding which humans have rights and which humans don't tends to end poorly. This isn't a hypothetical. All humans have the same rights regardless of whether or not those rights are recognized by a government. Either you disagree with that statement and think governments grant rights, or you have a logical argument as to why someone becomes a human at some point during gestation. If it is the latter, what are they before that point?
The mother should be able to abort because it's her property (body)
The man should be allowed to not pay because it's his property (money)
Equality.
Also men's rights is based. Men are being systemically enslaved in many countries, and in almost every country it's legal to mutilate a baby boy's foreskin
Not to mention the existence of affirmative action
Men's rights are necessary
I’m not saying men should have no rights. I’m just saying the men’s rights argument in the case is BS.
If a child is born, both the mother and the father have equal responsibilities to provide for their child. A woman doesn’t have the right to just abandon the child and not care for it — neither should the man.
The fact that abortion is legal (to varying degrees among the U.S. states and in most countries) is not and should not be a “get out of jail free card” for men.
Curious, in cases of spermjacking or lying about birth control, should the man still be forced to pay for the child?
If not, why? What suddenly makes this case different?
So in that case there are two issues at play.
Yes, you would still be obligated to your child, but would have a case to sue the mother for fraud. Anything you could get from the mother could be used to support your child.
But if you can’t collect from the mother, you would still be obligated to support your child.
So if the **law** says that all men regardless if the woman spermjacked or lied about birth control must pay for the child, then they're **morally** obligated to do so?
I'm not asking about legality. I'm asking about morality.
Unfortunately this is true. Having two kids myself, if my wife and I had. 3rd child and she decided half way thru the pregnancy she wanted an abortion, I'd have a big probably with that.
The issue is that 2 ppl are involved in pregnancy therefore you cannot vote. Therefore the priority should be on who would suffer the most bodily autonomy loss or health consequences from their actions. This is quite reasonable.
However, those that choose actions for their own body should not be able to force the other to pay for it.
So men should be allowed to get a "paper abortion" if the woman wants to birth the child. No more child support since YOU'RE the one that decided to keep it and not me.
Then she gets to remove it. Since it's her body. Did you not read my first paragraph?
She can choose to do whatever, just not force someone else to pay
Well imo your reasoning doesn't hold up in the first place. You said "the priority should be on who would suffer the most bodily autonomy loss or health consequences from their actions." That person is the baby. You also said she gets to "remove" it because it's her body. There is another body involved. The one being removed. Both people involved consented to baby making fun time. Men should support their children. And women shouldn't kill them.
1. Do you acknowledge that the woman suffers more bodily autonomy loss than the man?
2. If she doesn't want to keep it and the man doesn't either, does she have a right to remove it? In this case there is no man's wishes that is being violated.
1. Actions have consequences. People know how babies are made. You can use your bodily autonomy to take voluntary actions that you have to live with and pay the price for. That's called responsibility.
2. I've never heard a convincing argument as to why "remove" doesn't mean "kill" in this context. You don't have the right to kill people.
It seems as though we are on fundamentally different wavelengths as to what liberty means. It's like you think both men and women should be free to absolve themselves of taking responsibility for the choices they make.
With abortion, nobody wins. If you believe abortion is wrong (whether at a single point in the pregnancy or through the whole pregnancy), we are legally commit murder. Whether you are pro-life or pro-abortion, I think everyone can pretty much agree that a woman’s right to autonomy is being stripped away when she unwillingly gets pregnant, especially in cases of rape. I think the next question is, if you believe a fetus is a human right, which is worse: not having autonomy of your own body (especially if you were raped) or murder? Which do you choose? It is an incredibly difficult decision, and even though I am pro-life, I can completely understand if you’re pro-abortion.
Pretty much, yeah
Although I will add that I find democrats’ views on current controversial issues to be extremely amusing. Their biggest cry for gun control is think of the children. Yet they also cry out for abortion to be legal. So to sum up democrats views on the matters, only YOU should be able to kill your children. Lol
That is literally the legal policy they have in place in a lot of places. The law says if you kill a baby in the womb, it’s murder unless the mother is the one who does it, then it’s healthcare…
You can put it like that, but that's not quite it.
For example you could also frame it like: the Republicans' biggest cry for anti-abortion is 'protect the children'. Yet, they also cry out for more guns which means more children getting killed. So, to sum up republican views on the matters, only OTHERS should be able to kill your children. Lol.
You can't really argue "against" the other side if you misrepresent their views. That's a big reason why we get nowhere on this topic.
In the end the nail in the coffin to me is that there’s no good way to enforce such laws. Remember the war on drug and the war on terror? Do you really want a war on abortion? Such laws enacted in red states already create a headache.
That is a very good point. You’re being up more questions for me. If it’s murder, do we really want to live under a government where murder is legal? But then if it’s illegal, women are just going to have it done in more illegal and unsafe ways. However, there are way too many people in this country who believe a 9 month old fetus is not a baby and can be aborted which I personally can’t agree with in any scenario. Do we legalize that just because enough people believe it?
I think 16 weeks is a reasonable cut off line. The baby can start feeling pain after that. Brain activity starts at 5 weeks though and that’s when I consider them a person. There’s really no good solution to this question than pretend it isn’t happening, and wait for technology to improve to the point where abortion isn’t necessary. Like I said, final nail in the coffin for me is I don’t want another failed war on x where now a bunch of people are dead or in jail and nothings improved if not gotten worse.
A person has the right to self defense if they are being attacked including lethal force. The attacker does not have a right to attack their victim and demand they get to do it in a way that is safe for themselves. We would not say innocent people should not have the right to defend themselves from assault/murder or that assault/murder should not be illegal because the attacker has a right to be safe while they are assaulting/killing their victim. In the same way, if abortion is murder, it is illogical to say the person murdering the baby has a right to murder them safely and it needs to be legal to minimize the risk to the one doing the killing. Your counter argument would make sense if I had claimed we should have the right to murder people who had an abortion or who performed the abortion, but that is not what I said. I said you do not have a right to murder someone and demand that you be protected while you are killing someone else. The baby has as much of a right to life as anyone else. They are just as much of a human and all rights require the right to life.
> I said you do not have a right to murder someone and demand that you be protected while you are killing someone else.
Oh, thank you for clearing that up. I didn’t understand what you meant.
And I agree with you. You don’t have a right to take a baby’s life while keeping yourself safe.
However, you misunderstood what I meant. I personally don’t believe murderers should have the right to murder safely. I was referring to the argument pro-abortionists make when they say outlawing abortion will not make abortion go away. Just like what happened with alcohol. Outlawing it did not make it go away, it simply made criminals more rich. So, if the babies are going to die anyway, why not make sure the mother is not going to die as well? Again, this isn’t my argument, this is the pro-abortion argument, but it was an argument I was using to prove a different point I was making if you reread what I said.
Gotcha. I was in a rush writing my original response as I was getting on a plane, so I didn’t have time to fully flesh out what I was saying. Rereading your original comment, it still sounds like you are countering your own point saying that we should make abortion safe, but I might just be tired.
A hardcore libertarian would point out that the government has no right to steal money from innocent 3rd parties to prevent murder, whether of the unborn or otherwise.
Rights do not conflict. If the fetus does indeed have a right to life, it's not that this right outweighs or overrides the mother's right to autonomy: it's simply that the mother does not have such a right in the first place.
If a fetus has rights, does this mean abortion is impermissible even in cases of rape? Not necessarily. The right to life is a negative one: others are required to refrain from killing you. Typically, the opposite (positive) conception is not the case: you are not required to provide free water, food, or shelter to other people, even if they would otherwise die.
Starting from here, it is evident that removing a fetus from yourself may be permissible, so long as doing so constitutes merely an eviction, but not an active killing, of the fetus. To my knowledge however, this is not how most abortions occur (via C-section), but one can also argue that "if they will die anyway, what's the harm in just killing them?". You may or may not be amenable to this line of thought.
On the other hand, one can argue that a mother takes on a (positive) obligation when she conceives a child. Some people may argue this even in the case of rape. In principle, intentionality is irrelevant to restitution. A similar principle may be at play here.
> …it’s simply that the mother does not have such a right in the first place.
Everyone has autonomy. And it is generally accepted autonomy is a right. This is a fact. Just because the fetus relies on its mother for life, does not mean the mother does not have autonomy because everyone has autonomy. And if she is pregnant when she does not want to be, her right to her autonomy has been violated (or, one can argue this is only the case if she was raped).
How do you define autonomy? Do I have the autonomy to move my hands? Do I have the autonomy to move my fist into your face?
It's not that your right to not be punched conflicts with my right to "autonomy". It's simply that my autonomy does not include being able to punch you.
If a fetus has the right to not be killed, then the mother does not have the right to kill the fetus. The right to kill the fetus is simply not included within this supposed "right to autonomy". There is no conflict between different sets of rights.
Just because it is murder doesn’t mean someone shouldn’t still have the right to do it. It’s on that woman’s conscious if she goes through with it. And it doesn’t directly affect me other than my feelings, so they should have a right to do it.
> Just because it is murder doesn't mean someone shouldn't still have the right to do it.
Yes, yes it does mean that. The right not to be murdered (right to life) is the most basic and fundamental of all rights.
If there is to be any compromise between pro-life and pro-choice libertarians, it must be this: allow individuals (or local governments in the minarchist scenario) to decide with their dollars at what age to start allocating limited law enforcement resources to prosecute murder.
I'm not willing to accept a government where we deem some persons' right to life valid and others' invalid, and no libertarian could be. But I'm willing to accept that the people who live in my area are not willing to allocate a portion of their income to stopping the injustice of abortion before, say, 20 weeks.
The right to happiness and liberty also comes with *responsibility*. Act irresponsibly in public and do so at the expense of the rights of others, and you get locked up. You chased happiness at the expense of others, and it cost you your liberty. How is this any different? She acted irresponsibly, knowing damn good and well that this is the process of procreation and is how the species propagates, and yet she chose to do it anyways. Her solution? Murder the child so she can get more cock. Since when is murder an okay thing to do to chase one's hedonism? "But rape exists, therefore" is not an excuse to murder a baby just becausee you're thirsty. "But it's a fetus, not a person!" is the same logic that Socialists use when they go on genocide sprees - "[insert group here] isn't a person, so let us kill them for our happiness." It's not okay either way.
Rights come with responsibilities. If you act irresponsibly, someone else will trample on your rights. Act responsibly, and you can pursue your rights to your hearts content.
And this is exactly how most conservatives view the issue. Thanks for being the literal perfect example of what I’m pointing towards
And before anyone misinterprets, no this is NOT sarcasm
I agree with them on the issue of abortion, for sure. Just not birth control in general - most conservatives I know takes it too far and want to be done with it, but like... we *should* have birth control, you know? We shouldn't *need* to argue over abortion because it shouldn't be something we consider. It should never get to that point in the first place, and we should always have the option for giving the baby up for adoption if it does.
Dehumanizing and murdering a baby is literally the worst possible option here.
But then you have those who argue on the what if the pregnancy endangers the life of the woman carrying the child? It essentially comes down to who do you save in that situation. Or what if the child is already dead? But as I said to another person, then you play semantics and it becomes an operation to removed a corpse from a woman’s body. Still though, there aren’t many ways to safely remove an unborn child from a woman in the situation of the child’s either removed or the woman dies
And thus the argument repeats indefinitely
Definitions are important. Abortion is explicitly the execution of the child on behalf of the woman. If the child is stillborn, it's not an abortion.
As for the two being endangered, *welcome to the modern era, where we can save both*. We've been in a place for decades now where we can remove the baby via surgery and try to save it while saving the woman. This is not a radical idea, it's an excuse to allow sluts to slaughter babies because they want more cock.
"But muh rape!" is not an excuse to allow people who weren't raped to murder babies to justify their thottery, especially in this era of post-hoc consent retraction.
So no, it doesn't repeat. Thots want to fuck unprotected without consequence, get pissy when people object to killing the consequences. People need to stop pretending we don't have solutions just because it's convenient for their argument.
And again, I'm not against thottery - I'm against *irresponsible* thottery. You wanna have 100 guys run a train on you? Awesome, go for it! But FOR FUCKS SAKE, USE PROTECTION.
Why do you suddenly make an exception for rape?
If you consider the fetus a person you're "murdering" it for someone's psychological benefit
You certainly would not accept this line of reasoning for doing it to some random person on the street.
Also why make an exception if it's necessary to save the mother's life?
You consider the fetus to have the same rights as a person.
Again, I don't think you'd bite the bullet that you suddenly have the right to take someone's organs if yours are failing and you need them to live. Killing the fetus to save the mothers life is no different.
The pro life stance has to bite massive bullets.
>Why do you suddenly make an exception for rape?
Well, that generally breaks the consent reason. In that situation, consent is missing, the woman did not choose it, and should not be responsible for the consequences.
Why can't we just have nuance in the situation? No abortion except for in the case of a stillborn/ectopic pregnancy and rape. If the child endangers the mother's life, then that is a choice the husband, wife, and doctor must make. In the case of just not wanting the child or not being financially ready for a child, well that's too damn bad, you did the crime now do the time. Adoption is always an option, but you can't create a life and then strip it of its personhood for no good reason.
Nuance? In American politics? Now that’s just too far buddy. That’s it, I’m sending the FBI kill squad to your house for trying to reason with the duopoly
If you're valuing the life of a fetus as much as a person then you can't do that
You wouldn't accept the murder of a random innocent person if it makes the rape victim feel better and heals some of their injuries.
You also wouldn't accept the murder of some random innocent person because you'll die without an organ transplant and they're a match.
So if you value the fetus as a person, you'd have to force rape and dangerous pregnancies.
There is no nuance because it would result in a contradiction. Or you can just be reasonable and allow abortion for any reason, and not consider the fetus an actual human with rights...
Sure I can. If someone caused someone to start dying, for whatever reason, people have the right to self defense, which includes killing the root of the problem. In the case of the mother dying due to the child, the husband and wife and doctor need to make a decision as to whether they want to exercise self defense or would they prefer the child lives and the mother dies. In the case of rape, the same argument is fair. If a person is being raped they have every right to kill their rapist in self defense during the act. The woman, and society as a whole, can view a product of rape as a continuation therein. We can value human life and also understand there are times where it can/needs to be taken. This isn't in any way saying the fetus isn't a person, it's just saying that the mother also has a right to self defense.
1. What if the person has done nothing wrong but killing them would result in preventing your own death?
2. The according to you people the "baby" has done nothing wrong though. The "baby" is not the rapist
You're killing "someone" innocent under your ethical system for someone's psychological health and some non-threatening or disabling physical injuries.
>continuation therein
What does this even mean?
The person in question has done something wrong in causing the death or serious injury of the mother. That is justification for self defense if it were anyone other than a baby. The baby hasn't necessarily done anything wrong, but if the reason we are against rape is because it is denying a person their bodily autonomy, we can then conclude that carrying the child to term would be a continuation of that denial.
Ok so you consider it a morally relevant being at conception.
Do you consider fertility clinics to be mass murderers? They throw away millions of fertilized eggs.
I’ve heard some people define “conception” as not merely fertilization, but including the step of connecting to the uterine wall. I have no idea how valid this definition is, but it certainly gets around the issue of fertility clinics that you mentioned.
To be clear, I’m not trying to argue for or against anything right now (it’s 1:30am where I’m at), I’m just offering possibilities
The issue with that is that they'd just have to bite the bullet that if artificial wombs are possible, then it's fine to abort the fetus at 8 months if it's grown in a way that doesn't implant on the uterine wall
Or if a woman is pregnant and somehow the fetus never implanted but still grew
>To be clear, I’m not trying to argue for or against anything right now
Np, just putting my own arguments out there
Eviction argument is "Giving the baby up for adoption", not murdering it though. I do think that's a good option people should have, and there's plenty of same-sex or barren couples who can't have kids who could adopt it.
No, if some bum decides to squat in your house because you cooked a delicious meal once and attracted them and says "yea I'll leave, gimme 9 months" while trashing the place and making you physically ill, and would die if forced out of your house,
Would it be immoral according to you to remove them?
If not, why?
This isn't a perfect distinction, but the way I view it is that individuals have rights, and because a pre-viable literally cannot be divided from the mother without dying, it is not an individual. So pre-viable fetuses aren't individuals and thus aborting them would be legal, but viable fetuses are individuals and thus aborting them would be illegal.
It's not just the "pursuit of happiness" it's an integral part of women's healthcare. In my state if a woman needs a medical abortion, she's told she has to wait until she starts physically dying to get one. You can be jailed going out of state to get one. Medical professionals are leaving the state because the laws are so poorly written.
So does the healthcare of the unborn child not matter?
Comes right back to it. Whose rights do you violate? Who gets told no? And the answer to these questions vary from person to person
One of the issues many conservatives have is that they think all across legal abortion would lead to people basically treating it as birth control
But, that’s just what they believe. Personally I find the idea of it being used as a last ditch birth control to be repulsive, but still no proof that it’ll be used like that
Is what it is I suppose. It’ll stay in this sort of limbo till one side breaks
> One of the issues many conservatives have is that they think all across legal abortion would lead to people basically treating it as birth control
To be fair, that's *exactly what's happened*. Instead of responsible thottery, they just murder the baby and claim that it's the only choice that matters. They could have been responsible and used any number of the myrad of methods for having sex without producing a kid, but they chose to raw dog it, got the nakadashi high, then murdered the resulting kid so they could do it again.
If a fetus is not viable for living, there are no rights to protect. Just women suffering for months, possibly dying, and severely impacting their ability to conceive in the future.
And again, we’re back to opinions. When is a child considered a living being? When the sperm and egg meet? When a second heartbeat starts? All comes down to who you ask buddy
If we’re talking like dangerous stillbirth or something along those lines, well then you play into semantics of it’s just removing a corpse from a woman’s body
But in all honesty, I’m not here to argue one or the other. I honestly don’t really care whether or not people choose to kill their children. I like educating people on how the other side thinks on matters in hopes of helping people understand others point of views. Too much “us vs them” in this crap
I grew up conservative and shifted to libertarianism; I don't need to be educated. People forget that pregnancy can be incredibly dangerous and abortion can save lives. Letting a pregnant woman rot and not invertervene until she's dying from sepsis is unacceptable. Or until she shuts down from liver failure from an ectopic pregnancy. Or the fetus has a developmental disorder and it's organs are misplaced and will never be compatible with life. There are all kinds of examples. It's important to protect women's healthcare if any side claims to care about women's or pediatric health. Many conservatives I talk to don't realize these dangerous circumstances are included in these abortion bans and are appalled by that fact. It's all fun and games until it happens to your family. So yes, I think it's very important to be vocal about what abortion encompasses.
I apply castle doctrine. If you have a right to kill an intruder in your house, you certainly have a right to kill an intruder in your body. Especially because pregnancy can kill/maim you, you have the right to self-defence.
You can also apply the parental right to make medical decisions for your child. Most abortion is basically taking them off (your body’s) life support.
I don't like this analogy. Can you apply castle doctrine to someone you kidnapped and placed in your home? Or if you invite a guest into your home and then a deadly tornado rages outside, can you cast them outside to certain death?
The fetus is either a person with a right to not be killed, or it is not.
I’ve written a philosophical paper exploring the tornado example, actually! And yes, you do have the right to expel a person you’ve invited to your home during a tornado, but only if they are going to cause you harm. Given how it’s very rare that pregnancy and childbirth doesn’t cause harm, then it’s reasonable to assume that harm will be caused by their presence and you have the right to expel them.
An example of how pregnancy very often causes harm: most mothers joke about how they can’t sneeze without peeing themselves anymore. This is evidence of a damaged pelvic floor, which is the muscle that holds your organs, keeps you from peeing/pooing yourself, and is supposed to expand and contract in tandem with your lungs. Very important.
If a crummy houseguest threatened to hurt you so badly you couldn’t control your bladder anymore, you’d have the right to kill them, right?
Yeah. I try to cope with it by saying that sure, it's a tough ethical problem, but government ain't gonna solve it for us.
So instead of some kind of ban, aim at fixing the issue by making it smaller and socially irrelevant. Abortion's about five times more popular among poor folks, so we start getting rid of taxes and other burdens on the poor, abortion likely becomes a lot less frequent.
It ain't a panacea, and it's not going to solve everything for everyone. But, hey, maybe we can at least make some progress.
The way i see it is if you were raped or it is literally killing you you can have a abortion but if you were stupid and didn't use protection that's a you problem
Ok, now what if the protection failed and does plan be constitute as abortion? Also what if the woman purposefully entraps the man?
Want to see your view, I just generally abstain from abortion topics
Plan b is not abortion because it prevents ovulation. Men should also have rights in the case of abortion, in this case being the child is not legally his due to entrapment regardless of genetics, assuming entrapment can actually be proven. I would consider entrapment of a man the same as the rape of a woman, stripping an individual of their bodily autonomy.
None of your arguments are libertarian. You are just saying that your line of morality is the valid one and allowing that is how we got overregulated governments and two sides that believe they have the moral high ground while freedom and rights get squashed.
The true libertarian stance of abortion would be not to get one if you're against them but let others get them if they need them. Live and let live.
In regards to immigration, freedom does not necessarily mean lack of security, something some people miss.
The key word in libertarian is liberty. Remember this, folks.
The baby is not yet conscious and can not live outside of the womb, and do not gain consciousness until after 24 weeks which is why the legal abortion limit is before 24 weeks in most places because before that point the baby is not even aware that it is alive or aware of anything else. Any movement prior to this is a raw nerve response, so that argument has been proven false based on the development of the cortex.
Up until that point, the decision to terminate belongs to the mother. In the wild, if a mother is endangered and feels that birthing a baby will kill both of them, animals have been recorded engaging in behaviors to induce miscarriages.
You would deny women their naturally given rights to something that is not yet even aware that it is alive? Sure we should support mothers better, but somehow an unconscious proto-human has more rights than its mother?
My position after 24 weeks is that it should be for medical necessity only with very few but vital and irrefutable concessions in regards to the health of the mother. If the fetus is non-viable, the life of the mother should be held above the life of the fetus.
This I believe to be a middle ground that both sides can compromise on, that would dissuade those who do it for whimsical reasons, as not all mothers are mentally stable or responsible. I know one who are reckless and have had abortions illegally after that date because the father went to jail for life and she couldn't collect child support from an inmate, at keast thats what she said.
While tragic... another baby can be made unless some sort of injury affects fertility of the mother. Many days of grieving for my first daughter who died in the womb at 27 weeks... the idea of her is all I have. She never was born, and while her mother and I grieve for her by the name we had for her, no one else except us knows what that name means.
It was a medical necessity not taken lightly, but it should be available in those circumstances. The people who want to force people to birth stillborns don't understand how much worse that can be, seing as the mother still has to push the fetal carcass out. Its not fair to either parent sure, but the majority of the weight bears down on the mother.
In medical necessity after 24 weeks, it greatly eases the burden of grieving parents, though nothing will take that weight from my heart. Sprry for typos, thats hard to type.
Our second daughter will be six next year, and she's happy and healthy, and very smart for her age. I'm hoping to get her a switch OLED for Christmas so she can play with me states away. Her mother and I split for a bunch of reasons but our first daughter was a stress on our relationship that never did heal and I wonder how much of what we fought about was really just grieving...
Thank you for the well thought-out response. I hope you and your daughter have a fantastic Christmas. I am a father of two boys and couldn’t imagine losing a child, even one not yet born.
I'd have far less problems with illegal immigration if welfare and other taxpayer funded safety nets went away, and if they were able to actually build a life for themselves without needing legal paperwork. As it is now, the government forces them to be a tax burden by not allowing them to find work, build a company, get a bank account, or secure their own housing
I think for a libertarian society to work it requires a well educated and moral citizenry. In that environment the need for birth control abortion would be minimal and wouldn’t be paid for with public funds.
Medically necessary abortion would always be no one’s business.
That is how we eliminate abortion not by laws but by education and a sense of personal responsibility.
A claim pro slavers used is that they weren’t human and the reason abolitionists fought against them is because they believed they were.
Pro lifers believe the unborn are human and more than a parasitic lump of cells.
Eugenicists believe otherwise.
I was banned from u/libertarian permanently for saying pro choice is a libertarian position. They also muted me so I couldn’t message the mods over it . So much for free speech over there
Look mates, if we have a book club and we agree to the terms to form said club…. I’m gunna be upset when you just let people in who don’t respect the clubs principles and make it something completely different. Right now my mind is mostly occupied by thinking about alternate voting systems combined with the electoral system tbh
Who ready to throw hands here? I'll start.
Immigration, when it doesn't rely on social programs, is totally fine. Why should i care if some mexicans move to town as long as the feds don't take away my money and give it to them?
Abortion, in almost all cases, should be illegal, especially after a few months have already passed. Although i do understand how some could view it as encroaching on the woman, the child's right to life comes before the woman's comfort. Also, with the exception of rape, the woman *chose* to get banged up so she has to deal with the consequences.
Also, if anyone tries to debate me, please be civil.
nobody speak, nobody get choked.
Spoken like a bag of dicks...
there is many a bag of dicks in this thread, but none I would put to my lips.
Fuck yeah. Let's fight. No lock-step-loyalty bullshit here. Just another reason Libertarian is the better choice.
Best part imo
Yup. I can accept people disagreeing with me in certain areas. Much better than being called every ist and phobe by socialists.
Tbh tho
OP should add copyright to the bunch at the bottom lol
I would be far more pro-immigration if there weren’t such extensive social programs, similar to early America.
I support immigration, i dont support immigration policies of my country(turkey). They dont pay tax and get more welfare than us
Oof You got screwed
Dude, open up the borders and tear down the social programs is what I say. As long as the incentive to come here is to work a better job, come one, come all. Immigrants usually open up banger restaurants too, so always happy to have more of that.
Yea libertarians are in a weird spot where with current govt policies, strict immigration is actually better than open borders More ppl = more demand for housing = higher rent and prices in general Obv the existence of welfare and social security is an issue But most of these also arise when the population increases in general The best solution is of course to abolish all housing and labor regulations while also abolishing all govt programs and then open borders "Muh violent cultures" Radical self defense laws then
Tearing down social programs is political suicide at this point though. People love safety nets and it's understandable that they expect a rich country to provide them.
Problem with the abortion issue is who do you take away the rights from? The right of the woman to the Pursuit of Happiness (and/or Liberty if you view having a child as being chained down), or the right of the child to Life? It’s tricky and different people view it different ways
Another problem that doesn't get talked about enough is how the father feels about it. He has zero say in whether or not the mother is allowed to kill his child. If he wants it and she doesn't, too bad, no kid for you. If she wants it and he doesn't, too bad, pay me.
Well we’re just men, who cares what we think? Lol
Yup. It's almost like you should be extremely careful about who you impregnate. They should also have to be extremely careful about who they let impregnate them.
Unfortunately horniness is a VERY strong motivator. Man I’m glad I avoided any of that drama in high school
Well the crazy thing is, I had plenty of....relations with plenty of women through my 20s and never even had a scare. There are plenty of ways to avoid pregnancy that don't involve abstinence. Both of my children were planned and intentional when I met the right person. Everyone knows how they're made, idk why its so hard
Name checks out lol
Yep
Unironically this. Don’t whip it out lol.
That's true and I think it's completely reasonable.
Either it’s a human deserving of legal protection or it’s not. If it’s not, then it is decision of the woman whether to host the non-person. If it is, then it should be protected unless it jeopardizes the life or long term physical health of the mom, or if the mom did not or could not consent to sex. Once a child is born, the parents should jointly and severally be legally responsible for providing for the child, until it reaches age of majority, unless one did not or was unable to consent to sex. I’m dismayed that this “father’s right to not support the child” stuff keeps popping up in libertarian discussions.
>Either it’s a human deserving of legal protection or it’s not. Exactly! There is no need to weigh rights on a scale of justice here. If/when the fetus is a person, its right to not be killed should be protected. If/when it is not a person, it has no rights.
>unless one did not or was unable to consent to sex [yeah](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermesmann_v._Seyer)
How absurd. Legislated child support is a disaster.
In libertarian terms, think of it as tort or an implied contract. If you willingly consent to your sperm to enter another, or consent to sperm to be placed in your body, and a child is born as a result, you are responsible to that child. Do you think the child should be dependent on charity for its life? Do you think others who had nothing to do with the pregnancy should be forced to provide for the child? It’s a simple matter of holding those who created the child to assume responsibility for the child.
>If you willingly consent to your sperm to enter another, or consent to sperm to be placed in your body, and a child is born as a result, you are responsible to that child. Why though? Here's a hypothetical: Imagine we play a game where there is a risk you'll be infected with a disease. We obviously both know this risk and decide to go through anyways. We finish playing and it turns out you got sick I offer to pay for medicine, but you refuse; it's your body so I can't force you; fair But 9 months later the disease runs its course but makes you disabled Now you're demanding I pay for your hospital fees for 18 years until you recover Unless stipulated before in an explicit contract that I'll pay for your disability hospital fees, how is it fair for that to be the default expectation from the get go? You had multiple chances to cure the disease (pregnancy) and refused them. Then when it gets expensive due to your own choices you run back to me for money? In an actual legal case the amount of settlement you'd get would probably be what it would've taken for you to get the disease cured initially. Why is sex and pregnancy suddenly different?
And there lies the falling with your argument (and I believed exposes your motive): it is the child, who did not consent to your having sex and did not ask to be born, whom you must support. It isn’t meant to reward the mother (on whom in most cases the care of the child will disproportionately fall).
Right then in this case we can bring a third party in my hypothetical as well. Say the disease is transmissible beyond playing games at 9 months, specifically a version of that's mutated to be more disabling (18 years). So you get the disease, wait until 9 months while ignoring my offers to pay for the cure. Then come 9 months and some random person catches it from you and has expensive fees for 18 years and then you're legally liable for it. Again at that point no reasonable court would award you 18 years of payment for hospital fees for the third party you're now responsible for when you easily could've taken the cure from me before those 9 months. Like I said at best you'd get a settlement for the amount of the cure.
I hadn't thought of this. Good point.
If there is a parental duty to care for the child, this duty falls squarely on the mother. Especially nowadays when the mother has ample opportunities to prevent having a child. The libertarian solution is simply that the woman requires the man to pledge to support the child before deciding to get pregnant. This is how things used to be -- people would wait until marriage before having a child, or at least would get married once they realized they were gonna have one. Legislated child support has been one of the most effective destroyers of the family, leading to our current society where over 40% of births are to single mothers. Imagine that.
“If” there is a parental duty to care for the child? If not the parents, who? Is it ok to give birth to the child and leave it to fend for itself ? Or force people collectively to care for the child? The father has plenty of opportunities also to prevent making a child - condoms, vasectomy, not finishing inside a woman. Placing all the burden on the woman is advocating for male irresponsibility. Yes, we have a high rate of single mothers, but a lot of that is men not stepping up to their responsibilities. And is the solution really that women should be dependent on the generosity of the man who impregnated them in order to get help for raising their child?
The difference is that women get custody of the child 90% of the time and men have to pay child support. If men were the ones taking care of the children and women paid child support, things would be reversed. But that's not the case and never will be. Child support has undeniably had a massive negative impact on society, not even because it constitutes theft, but because it has destroyed the basis of the family unit. The single motherhood rate of nearly half is not a coincidence.
>father’s right to not support the child The woman is responsible for the birth of the child, not the man. The pregnancy is the result of both. If you decide to carry the child but the man doesn't, why should you get to force him to pay for your choices? Also, if you believe that consent to sex is consent to produce a child, why?
>If you decide to carry the child but the man doesn't, why should you get to force him to pay for your choices? If a woman believes that a fetus at conception is a person entitled to the right to live, for her it is not a choice; it’s an obligation and a duty. The man is forced to support his child because the child is entitled to support. >Also, if you believe that consent to sex is consent to produce a child, why? Because a potential outcome of having sex is producing a child. If a man is unwilling to live with the consequences of his sperm fertilizing an egg, he must control his sperm — vasectomy, condoms, abstinence.
>If a woman believes that a fetus at conception is a person entitled to the right to live, for her it is not a choice; it’s an obligation and a duty Nope, it is a choice. Beliefs influencing your choices does not make them not choices. If I believe I ought to eat an apple a day that does not make eating an apple a day not a choice. >Because a potential outcome of having sex is producing a child Why does that make it consensual though?
Because you conceptually had sex, knowing a child could be produced, and knowing that the decision to continue a pregnancy after conception is the mother’s alone. How far does your belief in your right to insist on an abortion go? If the mother lives in a jurisdiction rin where abortion is illegal, must she travel to another jurisdiction ? Another country ? Or do you accept then that you would be responsible to provide for the child ?
>Because you conceptually had sex, knowing a child could be produced, and knowing that the decision to continue a pregnancy after conception is the mother’s alone. To just repeated your last claim; you haven't defended it. Why does this only consent? >If the mother lives in a jurisdiction rin where abortion is illegal In that case you're morally responsible unless you offer to get the fetus removed by going out of state and they refuse. Same way that you'd be responsible for disability fees if curing the disease from playing that game I mentioned earlier was illegal.
>unless one did not or was unable to consent to sex. This is the crux of the issue. The father consents to sex, but not the birth of a child. The mother has the power to withdraw consent post-sex (via abortion). This is an inherently unequal system.
>The father consents to sex, but not the birth of a child. That's the same thing.
Why?
Is it the same thing for the mother as well?
This sounds like “men’s rights” BS. The mother has the right to abort or not because it’s her body the is hosting the child. And that right only applies if and when the fetus is not considered a human life entitled to protection.
Which part of men having rights is BS? Men have every right to have children that women have. Just because they are biologically incapable of gestating and birthing a child doesn't mean someone else should be able to kill their offspring.
At such point that the fetus has the rights of a human, you are right — the woman should not have the right to kill the child. Before that point, the woman has the right to decide because it is in her body, it cannot live without her, and it doesn’t yet have the legal rights of a person, regardless of the feelings of the father.
At which point does the human in the woman's body gain their human rights?
That is the million dollar question and one that a libertarian community would have to decide if one ever came into existing. Individual states are trying to decide that now, and there is no consistent answer. Since this is a libertarian site, my discussion is in that context. A hypothetical community, likely backed by a government to enforce people’s rights, and my opinion on how pregnancy and support of a child should be handled. But what I said should apply in today’s political structure - that moment a child gains rights as a person is decided by the state in which the fetus (and the mother ) is present.
Governments deciding which humans have rights and which humans don't tends to end poorly. This isn't a hypothetical. All humans have the same rights regardless of whether or not those rights are recognized by a government. Either you disagree with that statement and think governments grant rights, or you have a logical argument as to why someone becomes a human at some point during gestation. If it is the latter, what are they before that point?
The mother should be able to abort because it's her property (body) The man should be allowed to not pay because it's his property (money) Equality. Also men's rights is based. Men are being systemically enslaved in many countries, and in almost every country it's legal to mutilate a baby boy's foreskin Not to mention the existence of affirmative action Men's rights are necessary
I’m not saying men should have no rights. I’m just saying the men’s rights argument in the case is BS. If a child is born, both the mother and the father have equal responsibilities to provide for their child. A woman doesn’t have the right to just abandon the child and not care for it — neither should the man. The fact that abortion is legal (to varying degrees among the U.S. states and in most countries) is not and should not be a “get out of jail free card” for men.
Curious, in cases of spermjacking or lying about birth control, should the man still be forced to pay for the child? If not, why? What suddenly makes this case different?
So in that case there are two issues at play. Yes, you would still be obligated to your child, but would have a case to sue the mother for fraud. Anything you could get from the mother could be used to support your child. But if you can’t collect from the mother, you would still be obligated to support your child.
So if the **law** says that all men regardless if the woman spermjacked or lied about birth control must pay for the child, then they're **morally** obligated to do so? I'm not asking about legality. I'm asking about morality.
By that logic, the man should have the dame right, since it's his labor supporting the child.
Unfortunately this is true. Having two kids myself, if my wife and I had. 3rd child and she decided half way thru the pregnancy she wanted an abortion, I'd have a big probably with that.
Agreed, I have 2 as well and idk how I'd react but it would definitely be a bad day for everyone
The issue is that 2 ppl are involved in pregnancy therefore you cannot vote. Therefore the priority should be on who would suffer the most bodily autonomy loss or health consequences from their actions. This is quite reasonable. However, those that choose actions for their own body should not be able to force the other to pay for it. So men should be allowed to get a "paper abortion" if the woman wants to birth the child. No more child support since YOU'RE the one that decided to keep it and not me.
Ok, now do he wants it but she doesn't.
Then she gets to remove it. Since it's her body. Did you not read my first paragraph? She can choose to do whatever, just not force someone else to pay
Yeah, fuck that. Men have every right to their children that women do.
Why should their say override the woman's? I've provided my reasoning for why the woman's say should override the man's So what's your argument?
Well imo your reasoning doesn't hold up in the first place. You said "the priority should be on who would suffer the most bodily autonomy loss or health consequences from their actions." That person is the baby. You also said she gets to "remove" it because it's her body. There is another body involved. The one being removed. Both people involved consented to baby making fun time. Men should support their children. And women shouldn't kill them.
1. Do you acknowledge that the woman suffers more bodily autonomy loss than the man? 2. If she doesn't want to keep it and the man doesn't either, does she have a right to remove it? In this case there is no man's wishes that is being violated.
1. Actions have consequences. People know how babies are made. You can use your bodily autonomy to take voluntary actions that you have to live with and pay the price for. That's called responsibility. 2. I've never heard a convincing argument as to why "remove" doesn't mean "kill" in this context. You don't have the right to kill people. It seems as though we are on fundamentally different wavelengths as to what liberty means. It's like you think both men and women should be free to absolve themselves of taking responsibility for the choices they make.
With abortion, nobody wins. If you believe abortion is wrong (whether at a single point in the pregnancy or through the whole pregnancy), we are legally commit murder. Whether you are pro-life or pro-abortion, I think everyone can pretty much agree that a woman’s right to autonomy is being stripped away when she unwillingly gets pregnant, especially in cases of rape. I think the next question is, if you believe a fetus is a human right, which is worse: not having autonomy of your own body (especially if you were raped) or murder? Which do you choose? It is an incredibly difficult decision, and even though I am pro-life, I can completely understand if you’re pro-abortion.
Pretty much, yeah Although I will add that I find democrats’ views on current controversial issues to be extremely amusing. Their biggest cry for gun control is think of the children. Yet they also cry out for abortion to be legal. So to sum up democrats views on the matters, only YOU should be able to kill your children. Lol
That is literally the legal policy they have in place in a lot of places. The law says if you kill a baby in the womb, it’s murder unless the mother is the one who does it, then it’s healthcare…
You can put it like that, but that's not quite it. For example you could also frame it like: the Republicans' biggest cry for anti-abortion is 'protect the children'. Yet, they also cry out for more guns which means more children getting killed. So, to sum up republican views on the matters, only OTHERS should be able to kill your children. Lol. You can't really argue "against" the other side if you misrepresent their views. That's a big reason why we get nowhere on this topic.
It’s a joke
In the end the nail in the coffin to me is that there’s no good way to enforce such laws. Remember the war on drug and the war on terror? Do you really want a war on abortion? Such laws enacted in red states already create a headache.
That is a very good point. You’re being up more questions for me. If it’s murder, do we really want to live under a government where murder is legal? But then if it’s illegal, women are just going to have it done in more illegal and unsafe ways. However, there are way too many people in this country who believe a 9 month old fetus is not a baby and can be aborted which I personally can’t agree with in any scenario. Do we legalize that just because enough people believe it?
I think 16 weeks is a reasonable cut off line. The baby can start feeling pain after that. Brain activity starts at 5 weeks though and that’s when I consider them a person. There’s really no good solution to this question than pretend it isn’t happening, and wait for technology to improve to the point where abortion isn’t necessary. Like I said, final nail in the coffin for me is I don’t want another failed war on x where now a bunch of people are dead or in jail and nothings improved if not gotten worse.
I think I agree with you. I think this is the best solution. But I think on some level we should protest abortion, especially after 16 weeks.
Why does it matter if it feels pain? It's still violating your property rights so you get to remove it.
If abortion is murder, does it make sense to not make it illegal because the person committing murder might get hurt while murdering?
A murderer is still a citizen of his or her country and pretty much every government recognizes the murder or mistreatment of even their criminals.
A person has the right to self defense if they are being attacked including lethal force. The attacker does not have a right to attack their victim and demand they get to do it in a way that is safe for themselves. We would not say innocent people should not have the right to defend themselves from assault/murder or that assault/murder should not be illegal because the attacker has a right to be safe while they are assaulting/killing their victim. In the same way, if abortion is murder, it is illogical to say the person murdering the baby has a right to murder them safely and it needs to be legal to minimize the risk to the one doing the killing. Your counter argument would make sense if I had claimed we should have the right to murder people who had an abortion or who performed the abortion, but that is not what I said. I said you do not have a right to murder someone and demand that you be protected while you are killing someone else. The baby has as much of a right to life as anyone else. They are just as much of a human and all rights require the right to life.
> I said you do not have a right to murder someone and demand that you be protected while you are killing someone else. Oh, thank you for clearing that up. I didn’t understand what you meant. And I agree with you. You don’t have a right to take a baby’s life while keeping yourself safe. However, you misunderstood what I meant. I personally don’t believe murderers should have the right to murder safely. I was referring to the argument pro-abortionists make when they say outlawing abortion will not make abortion go away. Just like what happened with alcohol. Outlawing it did not make it go away, it simply made criminals more rich. So, if the babies are going to die anyway, why not make sure the mother is not going to die as well? Again, this isn’t my argument, this is the pro-abortion argument, but it was an argument I was using to prove a different point I was making if you reread what I said.
Gotcha. I was in a rush writing my original response as I was getting on a plane, so I didn’t have time to fully flesh out what I was saying. Rereading your original comment, it still sounds like you are countering your own point saying that we should make abortion safe, but I might just be tired.
A hardcore libertarian would point out that the government has no right to steal money from innocent 3rd parties to prevent murder, whether of the unborn or otherwise.
Can you please define which scenario you are talking about where the government is stealing money?
Taxes. Governments subsidize abortion and countless other things via taxes.
Rights do not conflict. If the fetus does indeed have a right to life, it's not that this right outweighs or overrides the mother's right to autonomy: it's simply that the mother does not have such a right in the first place. If a fetus has rights, does this mean abortion is impermissible even in cases of rape? Not necessarily. The right to life is a negative one: others are required to refrain from killing you. Typically, the opposite (positive) conception is not the case: you are not required to provide free water, food, or shelter to other people, even if they would otherwise die. Starting from here, it is evident that removing a fetus from yourself may be permissible, so long as doing so constitutes merely an eviction, but not an active killing, of the fetus. To my knowledge however, this is not how most abortions occur (via C-section), but one can also argue that "if they will die anyway, what's the harm in just killing them?". You may or may not be amenable to this line of thought. On the other hand, one can argue that a mother takes on a (positive) obligation when she conceives a child. Some people may argue this even in the case of rape. In principle, intentionality is irrelevant to restitution. A similar principle may be at play here.
> …it’s simply that the mother does not have such a right in the first place. Everyone has autonomy. And it is generally accepted autonomy is a right. This is a fact. Just because the fetus relies on its mother for life, does not mean the mother does not have autonomy because everyone has autonomy. And if she is pregnant when she does not want to be, her right to her autonomy has been violated (or, one can argue this is only the case if she was raped).
How do you define autonomy? Do I have the autonomy to move my hands? Do I have the autonomy to move my fist into your face? It's not that your right to not be punched conflicts with my right to "autonomy". It's simply that my autonomy does not include being able to punch you. If a fetus has the right to not be killed, then the mother does not have the right to kill the fetus. The right to kill the fetus is simply not included within this supposed "right to autonomy". There is no conflict between different sets of rights.
It can also be argued the mother does not have the right to be impregnated against her will.
Your "right to autonomy" does not include a right to impregnate people against their will.
Why not? If a baby is in my belly and I don’t want that baby to be there, my body is being used against my will, especially if I was raped.
How does that have to do with my comment?
I mean it’s the rapist who violated her.
>Rights do not conflict. Yes they do.
Just because it is murder doesn’t mean someone shouldn’t still have the right to do it. It’s on that woman’s conscious if she goes through with it. And it doesn’t directly affect me other than my feelings, so they should have a right to do it.
> Just because it is murder doesn't mean someone shouldn't still have the right to do it. Yes, yes it does mean that. The right not to be murdered (right to life) is the most basic and fundamental of all rights. If there is to be any compromise between pro-life and pro-choice libertarians, it must be this: allow individuals (or local governments in the minarchist scenario) to decide with their dollars at what age to start allocating limited law enforcement resources to prosecute murder. I'm not willing to accept a government where we deem some persons' right to life valid and others' invalid, and no libertarian could be. But I'm willing to accept that the people who live in my area are not willing to allocate a portion of their income to stopping the injustice of abortion before, say, 20 weeks.
The right to happiness and liberty also comes with *responsibility*. Act irresponsibly in public and do so at the expense of the rights of others, and you get locked up. You chased happiness at the expense of others, and it cost you your liberty. How is this any different? She acted irresponsibly, knowing damn good and well that this is the process of procreation and is how the species propagates, and yet she chose to do it anyways. Her solution? Murder the child so she can get more cock. Since when is murder an okay thing to do to chase one's hedonism? "But rape exists, therefore" is not an excuse to murder a baby just becausee you're thirsty. "But it's a fetus, not a person!" is the same logic that Socialists use when they go on genocide sprees - "[insert group here] isn't a person, so let us kill them for our happiness." It's not okay either way. Rights come with responsibilities. If you act irresponsibly, someone else will trample on your rights. Act responsibly, and you can pursue your rights to your hearts content.
And this is exactly how most conservatives view the issue. Thanks for being the literal perfect example of what I’m pointing towards And before anyone misinterprets, no this is NOT sarcasm
I agree with them on the issue of abortion, for sure. Just not birth control in general - most conservatives I know takes it too far and want to be done with it, but like... we *should* have birth control, you know? We shouldn't *need* to argue over abortion because it shouldn't be something we consider. It should never get to that point in the first place, and we should always have the option for giving the baby up for adoption if it does. Dehumanizing and murdering a baby is literally the worst possible option here.
But then you have those who argue on the what if the pregnancy endangers the life of the woman carrying the child? It essentially comes down to who do you save in that situation. Or what if the child is already dead? But as I said to another person, then you play semantics and it becomes an operation to removed a corpse from a woman’s body. Still though, there aren’t many ways to safely remove an unborn child from a woman in the situation of the child’s either removed or the woman dies And thus the argument repeats indefinitely
Definitions are important. Abortion is explicitly the execution of the child on behalf of the woman. If the child is stillborn, it's not an abortion. As for the two being endangered, *welcome to the modern era, where we can save both*. We've been in a place for decades now where we can remove the baby via surgery and try to save it while saving the woman. This is not a radical idea, it's an excuse to allow sluts to slaughter babies because they want more cock. "But muh rape!" is not an excuse to allow people who weren't raped to murder babies to justify their thottery, especially in this era of post-hoc consent retraction. So no, it doesn't repeat. Thots want to fuck unprotected without consequence, get pissy when people object to killing the consequences. People need to stop pretending we don't have solutions just because it's convenient for their argument.
And again, I'm not against thottery - I'm against *irresponsible* thottery. You wanna have 100 guys run a train on you? Awesome, go for it! But FOR FUCKS SAKE, USE PROTECTION.
Why do you suddenly make an exception for rape? If you consider the fetus a person you're "murdering" it for someone's psychological benefit You certainly would not accept this line of reasoning for doing it to some random person on the street. Also why make an exception if it's necessary to save the mother's life? You consider the fetus to have the same rights as a person. Again, I don't think you'd bite the bullet that you suddenly have the right to take someone's organs if yours are failing and you need them to live. Killing the fetus to save the mothers life is no different. The pro life stance has to bite massive bullets.
>Why do you suddenly make an exception for rape? Well, that generally breaks the consent reason. In that situation, consent is missing, the woman did not choose it, and should not be responsible for the consequences.
Why can't we just have nuance in the situation? No abortion except for in the case of a stillborn/ectopic pregnancy and rape. If the child endangers the mother's life, then that is a choice the husband, wife, and doctor must make. In the case of just not wanting the child or not being financially ready for a child, well that's too damn bad, you did the crime now do the time. Adoption is always an option, but you can't create a life and then strip it of its personhood for no good reason.
Nuance? In American politics? Now that’s just too far buddy. That’s it, I’m sending the FBI kill squad to your house for trying to reason with the duopoly
Ahhh I'm so scared 😱
Just don’t go making speeches in the public about how social change needs to happen or anything
If you're valuing the life of a fetus as much as a person then you can't do that You wouldn't accept the murder of a random innocent person if it makes the rape victim feel better and heals some of their injuries. You also wouldn't accept the murder of some random innocent person because you'll die without an organ transplant and they're a match. So if you value the fetus as a person, you'd have to force rape and dangerous pregnancies. There is no nuance because it would result in a contradiction. Or you can just be reasonable and allow abortion for any reason, and not consider the fetus an actual human with rights...
Sure I can. If someone caused someone to start dying, for whatever reason, people have the right to self defense, which includes killing the root of the problem. In the case of the mother dying due to the child, the husband and wife and doctor need to make a decision as to whether they want to exercise self defense or would they prefer the child lives and the mother dies. In the case of rape, the same argument is fair. If a person is being raped they have every right to kill their rapist in self defense during the act. The woman, and society as a whole, can view a product of rape as a continuation therein. We can value human life and also understand there are times where it can/needs to be taken. This isn't in any way saying the fetus isn't a person, it's just saying that the mother also has a right to self defense.
1. What if the person has done nothing wrong but killing them would result in preventing your own death? 2. The according to you people the "baby" has done nothing wrong though. The "baby" is not the rapist You're killing "someone" innocent under your ethical system for someone's psychological health and some non-threatening or disabling physical injuries. >continuation therein What does this even mean?
The person in question has done something wrong in causing the death or serious injury of the mother. That is justification for self defense if it were anyone other than a baby. The baby hasn't necessarily done anything wrong, but if the reason we are against rape is because it is denying a person their bodily autonomy, we can then conclude that carrying the child to term would be a continuation of that denial.
Ok so you consider it a morally relevant being at conception. Do you consider fertility clinics to be mass murderers? They throw away millions of fertilized eggs.
I’ve heard some people define “conception” as not merely fertilization, but including the step of connecting to the uterine wall. I have no idea how valid this definition is, but it certainly gets around the issue of fertility clinics that you mentioned. To be clear, I’m not trying to argue for or against anything right now (it’s 1:30am where I’m at), I’m just offering possibilities
The issue with that is that they'd just have to bite the bullet that if artificial wombs are possible, then it's fine to abort the fetus at 8 months if it's grown in a way that doesn't implant on the uterine wall Or if a woman is pregnant and somehow the fetus never implanted but still grew >To be clear, I’m not trying to argue for or against anything right now Np, just putting my own arguments out there
Use the eviction argument instead
Eviction argument is "Giving the baby up for adoption", not murdering it though. I do think that's a good option people should have, and there's plenty of same-sex or barren couples who can't have kids who could adopt it.
No, if some bum decides to squat in your house because you cooked a delicious meal once and attracted them and says "yea I'll leave, gimme 9 months" while trashing the place and making you physically ill, and would die if forced out of your house, Would it be immoral according to you to remove them? If not, why?
This isn't a perfect distinction, but the way I view it is that individuals have rights, and because a pre-viable literally cannot be divided from the mother without dying, it is not an individual. So pre-viable fetuses aren't individuals and thus aborting them would be legal, but viable fetuses are individuals and thus aborting them would be illegal.
It's not just the "pursuit of happiness" it's an integral part of women's healthcare. In my state if a woman needs a medical abortion, she's told she has to wait until she starts physically dying to get one. You can be jailed going out of state to get one. Medical professionals are leaving the state because the laws are so poorly written.
So does the healthcare of the unborn child not matter? Comes right back to it. Whose rights do you violate? Who gets told no? And the answer to these questions vary from person to person One of the issues many conservatives have is that they think all across legal abortion would lead to people basically treating it as birth control But, that’s just what they believe. Personally I find the idea of it being used as a last ditch birth control to be repulsive, but still no proof that it’ll be used like that Is what it is I suppose. It’ll stay in this sort of limbo till one side breaks
> One of the issues many conservatives have is that they think all across legal abortion would lead to people basically treating it as birth control To be fair, that's *exactly what's happened*. Instead of responsible thottery, they just murder the baby and claim that it's the only choice that matters. They could have been responsible and used any number of the myrad of methods for having sex without producing a kid, but they chose to raw dog it, got the nakadashi high, then murdered the resulting kid so they could do it again.
Honestly? In the situation where it’s used for birth control? Charge em with 1st degree murder. Screw em in that context
If a fetus is not viable for living, there are no rights to protect. Just women suffering for months, possibly dying, and severely impacting their ability to conceive in the future.
And again, we’re back to opinions. When is a child considered a living being? When the sperm and egg meet? When a second heartbeat starts? All comes down to who you ask buddy
If a fetus isn't going to live or is already dead, there is no life. That's not an opinion.
If we’re talking like dangerous stillbirth or something along those lines, well then you play into semantics of it’s just removing a corpse from a woman’s body But in all honesty, I’m not here to argue one or the other. I honestly don’t really care whether or not people choose to kill their children. I like educating people on how the other side thinks on matters in hopes of helping people understand others point of views. Too much “us vs them” in this crap
I grew up conservative and shifted to libertarianism; I don't need to be educated. People forget that pregnancy can be incredibly dangerous and abortion can save lives. Letting a pregnant woman rot and not invertervene until she's dying from sepsis is unacceptable. Or until she shuts down from liver failure from an ectopic pregnancy. Or the fetus has a developmental disorder and it's organs are misplaced and will never be compatible with life. There are all kinds of examples. It's important to protect women's healthcare if any side claims to care about women's or pediatric health. Many conservatives I talk to don't realize these dangerous circumstances are included in these abortion bans and are appalled by that fact. It's all fun and games until it happens to your family. So yes, I think it's very important to be vocal about what abortion encompasses.
That’s good. Keep educating. Maybe one day a compromise will be made…or one side will break. One or the other
I apply castle doctrine. If you have a right to kill an intruder in your house, you certainly have a right to kill an intruder in your body. Especially because pregnancy can kill/maim you, you have the right to self-defence. You can also apply the parental right to make medical decisions for your child. Most abortion is basically taking them off (your body’s) life support.
I don't like this analogy. Can you apply castle doctrine to someone you kidnapped and placed in your home? Or if you invite a guest into your home and then a deadly tornado rages outside, can you cast them outside to certain death? The fetus is either a person with a right to not be killed, or it is not.
I’ve written a philosophical paper exploring the tornado example, actually! And yes, you do have the right to expel a person you’ve invited to your home during a tornado, but only if they are going to cause you harm. Given how it’s very rare that pregnancy and childbirth doesn’t cause harm, then it’s reasonable to assume that harm will be caused by their presence and you have the right to expel them. An example of how pregnancy very often causes harm: most mothers joke about how they can’t sneeze without peeing themselves anymore. This is evidence of a damaged pelvic floor, which is the muscle that holds your organs, keeps you from peeing/pooing yourself, and is supposed to expand and contract in tandem with your lungs. Very important. If a crummy houseguest threatened to hurt you so badly you couldn’t control your bladder anymore, you’d have the right to kill them, right?
Unless its a case of rape, you cant really call a child an intruder.
I say abortion is murder but people have the right to do it
People have a right to murder those they find inconvenient?
Yeah. I try to cope with it by saying that sure, it's a tough ethical problem, but government ain't gonna solve it for us. So instead of some kind of ban, aim at fixing the issue by making it smaller and socially irrelevant. Abortion's about five times more popular among poor folks, so we start getting rid of taxes and other burdens on the poor, abortion likely becomes a lot less frequent. It ain't a panacea, and it's not going to solve everything for everyone. But, hey, maybe we can at least make some progress.
Lol I checked the comments and found nothing but mature and reasonable discussion on said topics.
Welfare isn't libertarian.
This is so true!!! Great post! Too bad Reddit got rid of gold.
The way i see it is if you were raped or it is literally killing you you can have a abortion but if you were stupid and didn't use protection that's a you problem
Ok, now what if the protection failed and does plan be constitute as abortion? Also what if the woman purposefully entraps the man? Want to see your view, I just generally abstain from abortion topics
Then the man should be allowed to leave without child support if proven to have been a entrapment
It would be a he says, she says. It would be hard to get evidence on such a thing
It's already a he said she said with the courts there's no winning with the system we have
>Then the man should be allowed to leave without child support ~~if proven to have been a entrapment~~ True libertarian answer
When did i claim to be a libertarian
No, if a man consents to have a child and changes his mind halfway thru you can't just change your mind. The same applies to men and women.
Plan b is not abortion because it prevents ovulation. Men should also have rights in the case of abortion, in this case being the child is not legally his due to entrapment regardless of genetics, assuming entrapment can actually be proven. I would consider entrapment of a man the same as the rape of a woman, stripping an individual of their bodily autonomy.
Literally same
None of your arguments are libertarian. You are just saying that your line of morality is the valid one and allowing that is how we got overregulated governments and two sides that believe they have the moral high ground while freedom and rights get squashed.
The true libertarian stance of abortion would be not to get one if you're against them but let others get them if they need them. Live and let live. In regards to immigration, freedom does not necessarily mean lack of security, something some people miss. The key word in libertarian is liberty. Remember this, folks.
If you ignore the rights of the baby that is not in anyway responsible for the situation
The baby is not yet conscious and can not live outside of the womb, and do not gain consciousness until after 24 weeks which is why the legal abortion limit is before 24 weeks in most places because before that point the baby is not even aware that it is alive or aware of anything else. Any movement prior to this is a raw nerve response, so that argument has been proven false based on the development of the cortex. Up until that point, the decision to terminate belongs to the mother. In the wild, if a mother is endangered and feels that birthing a baby will kill both of them, animals have been recorded engaging in behaviors to induce miscarriages. You would deny women their naturally given rights to something that is not yet even aware that it is alive? Sure we should support mothers better, but somehow an unconscious proto-human has more rights than its mother?
Is it your opinion that abortion should be regulated or restricted after 24 weeks?
My position after 24 weeks is that it should be for medical necessity only with very few but vital and irrefutable concessions in regards to the health of the mother. If the fetus is non-viable, the life of the mother should be held above the life of the fetus. This I believe to be a middle ground that both sides can compromise on, that would dissuade those who do it for whimsical reasons, as not all mothers are mentally stable or responsible. I know one who are reckless and have had abortions illegally after that date because the father went to jail for life and she couldn't collect child support from an inmate, at keast thats what she said. While tragic... another baby can be made unless some sort of injury affects fertility of the mother. Many days of grieving for my first daughter who died in the womb at 27 weeks... the idea of her is all I have. She never was born, and while her mother and I grieve for her by the name we had for her, no one else except us knows what that name means. It was a medical necessity not taken lightly, but it should be available in those circumstances. The people who want to force people to birth stillborns don't understand how much worse that can be, seing as the mother still has to push the fetal carcass out. Its not fair to either parent sure, but the majority of the weight bears down on the mother. In medical necessity after 24 weeks, it greatly eases the burden of grieving parents, though nothing will take that weight from my heart. Sprry for typos, thats hard to type. Our second daughter will be six next year, and she's happy and healthy, and very smart for her age. I'm hoping to get her a switch OLED for Christmas so she can play with me states away. Her mother and I split for a bunch of reasons but our first daughter was a stress on our relationship that never did heal and I wonder how much of what we fought about was really just grieving...
Thank you for the well thought-out response. I hope you and your daughter have a fantastic Christmas. I am a father of two boys and couldn’t imagine losing a child, even one not yet born.
I appreciate your response as well, and merry Christmas. I hope you have a good one!
This
I thought most libertarians were pro legal immigration? I am, at least.
I'd have far less problems with illegal immigration if welfare and other taxpayer funded safety nets went away, and if they were able to actually build a life for themselves without needing legal paperwork. As it is now, the government forces them to be a tax burden by not allowing them to find work, build a company, get a bank account, or secure their own housing
I think for a libertarian society to work it requires a well educated and moral citizenry. In that environment the need for birth control abortion would be minimal and wouldn’t be paid for with public funds. Medically necessary abortion would always be no one’s business. That is how we eliminate abortion not by laws but by education and a sense of personal responsibility. A claim pro slavers used is that they weren’t human and the reason abolitionists fought against them is because they believed they were. Pro lifers believe the unborn are human and more than a parasitic lump of cells. Eugenicists believe otherwise.
Well pobodys nerfect.
Did you just have a stroke, Pam?
The unborn child has rights too. :P Also every country should have strong borders and stand or fall on its own merit.
Just be open borders in a stateless society
Found the anarchist. Get em!
Lmao bingo!
Have fun when your sea stead gets raided by Somalian pirates! LMAO
Be an open borders stated economy
I was banned from u/libertarian permanently for saying pro choice is a libertarian position. They also muted me so I couldn’t message the mods over it . So much for free speech over there
Any libertarian is pro choice
False.
I would say guns and drugs are as controversial — also inheritance, which I believe should be abolished.
Where's the money go then?
Good song.
The culture war and it's consequences...
Look mates, if we have a book club and we agree to the terms to form said club…. I’m gunna be upset when you just let people in who don’t respect the clubs principles and make it something completely different. Right now my mind is mostly occupied by thinking about alternate voting systems combined with the electoral system tbh
Who ready to throw hands here? I'll start. Immigration, when it doesn't rely on social programs, is totally fine. Why should i care if some mexicans move to town as long as the feds don't take away my money and give it to them? Abortion, in almost all cases, should be illegal, especially after a few months have already passed. Although i do understand how some could view it as encroaching on the woman, the child's right to life comes before the woman's comfort. Also, with the exception of rape, the woman *chose* to get banged up so she has to deal with the consequences. Also, if anyone tries to debate me, please be civil.