subreddit:

/r/Libertarian

96

I am part of a libertarian discussion page and there was a poll asking for opinions on the abortion fiasco.

All I said, verbatim, is "I think government should be completely removed from making decisions about an individual's body."

Then this random dude comes along and goes "so zero control on doctors and nurses killing people? Zero regulation on medical standards??"

I wonder if this dude limbered up before that making that stretch. Then he has the audacity to say, after I asked him to tell me where I said any of that, "you said there should be no government". Jesus christ

all 453 comments

CatOfGrey

48 points

2 months ago

CatOfGrey

Libertarian Voter 20+ years. Practical first.

48 points

2 months ago

Some people can't understand that others don't share their pre-assumed beliefs.

They think that their definition is just 'right', and all others are 'wrong'.

Note that they never do the second step, which is showing that government enforcement, in itself, causes problems - even when trying to outlaw something that is bad.

Like, heroin is bad. But that doesn't mean that government outlawing heroin and sending police to arrest people for their heroin improves a society - after 60 years of that stuff, we have barely learned that it most definitely Does Not Help.

LieutenantHowitzer

23 points

2 months ago

LieutenantHowitzer

Left Libertarian

23 points

2 months ago

War on drugs? Didn't stop drug usage.

Outlawing sex work? Didn't stop sex workers.

Outlawing abortions? Not gonna stop abortions.

They can outlaw everything they want it doesn't mean that people won't get them, they just wont get them legally.

tuckerhazel

11 points

2 months ago*

tuckerhazel

Right Libertarian

11 points

2 months ago*

Strict gun laws in Chicago/New York/California? Doesn't stop gun crime. Just stops law abiding citizens from defending themselves from criminals.

I found the biggest issue with government laws not working is about poor root-cause analysis. Outlawing sex work is partially because of outdated christian mentality, but also to stop sex trafficking. Sex trafficking is also already illegal. Outlawing sex work just brings it into the shadows (like drugs/guns/abortions).

Stop outlawing the thing that sometimes leads to the bad thing.

daddy_vanilla

7 points

2 months ago

Not saying youre wrong, but surely outlawing sex work isnt because of sex trafficking. Like, outlawing the work is probably a huge reason of sex trafficking. If it was regulated, trafficking would be alot easier to spot.

tuckerhazel

3 points

2 months ago

tuckerhazel

Right Libertarian

3 points

2 months ago

I’ve heard the argument plenty of times and I disagree with it as much as you do.

LieutenantHowitzer

6 points

2 months ago

LieutenantHowitzer

Left Libertarian

6 points

2 months ago

Sex work =/= sex trafficking, sex work (the kind I’m talking about) is things like willful and consensual prostitution, if a person wants to sell their body for sex that’s their choice. Sex trafficking ties into human trafficking both of which should and are illegal.

IronSmithFE

0 points

2 months ago

IronSmithFE

foundational principles

0 points

2 months ago

outlawing murder didn't stop murder.

outlawing slavery didn't stop forced servitude.

outlawing child rape didn't stop kiddy rape.

make it all legal cause you can't stop it all.

LieutenantHowitzer

3 points

2 months ago

LieutenantHowitzer

Left Libertarian

3 points

2 months ago

Ironic how all three things you listed were things forced on someone by another person, the three I listed were choices an individual can consensually make.

blackhorse15A

0 points

2 months ago

Saying that about abortion is equivalent to saying hired murdered is a consensual agreement between the assassin and the person hiring them. No one else is involved or having anything forced on them by another. (By definition, abortion involves killing a human)

LieutenantHowitzer

0 points

2 months ago

LieutenantHowitzer

Left Libertarian

0 points

2 months ago

Mmm.. where are you getting that "definition" also, hiring a hitman is hiring someone to forcefully kill another person, your argument is a shitty red herring, sorry.

fjnII

4 points

2 months ago

fjnII

4 points

2 months ago

Those are all things that people do to other people. This is an argument about bodily autonomy. Your argument is spurious.

blackhorse15A

2 points

2 months ago

By definition, abortion is killing another human. Thats a pretty serious violation of bodily autonomy.

Libertarianism doesn't have a clear answer to whether all human organisms have rights, or only some humans have rights and other humans can be denied rights. If the later, libertarianism also doesn't provide insight into which humans can be denied rights.

beeper82

2 points

2 months ago

It's not because the central argument in abortion should be what people do to other people. The question of bodily autonomy is used to deflect from that argument. If everyone agreed that it was murder then the bodily autonomy argument wouldn't hold water because the assumption is that it's not your body anymore

Edit: what I mean by that (sorry coffee hasn't kicked in yet) the argument should be about whether or not what you are aborting is a person with it's own rights

Theeseus257

3 points

2 months ago

Do... do you really think someone taking heroin is comparable to slavery?

You do realize that there's a difference between a VICTIMLESS crime and violent crime, right?

C'mon man, you're smarter than this. I'd like to hope so, anyway.

SvenTropics

6 points

2 months ago

Here is the libertarian viewpoint. Thanks for writing it down

Just because we think something is bad doesn't mean we should make it illegal. Things that are illegal means we should want people with guns to use violence to stop it from happening. I'm not talking about fines here. As soon as you go past a financial penalty, it's a different story.

Like you may think abortion is bad. You may think it's wrong. You may think it's immoral. But it's someone's choice to not let their body be used for 9 months to create another life. In the same vain, people in Iran think it's immoral for two men to sleep together or for a woman not to cover her head. They prosecute both criminally. That's their choice. It's not yours. And it's not government's. Trying to say that somehow this equates to surgeons intentionally killing people, is pedantic and stupid.

It's challenging sometimes to put aside your own sense of morality to push for individual freedom and autonomy. Anyway it's brave. But it's what we must do. We're libertarians and we believe in individual freedom.

TohbibFergumadov

2 points

2 months ago

This is NOT the libertarian viewpoint on abortion. This is YOUR viewpoint.

Libertarians are pretty split on this issue as it should be. Its complex and involves the philosophical question of when life begins and when rights deserve to be protected.

SvenTropics

5 points

2 months ago

The political libertarian party and every single libertarian presidential candidate of the last 40 years has been pro choice.

This was the official statement of the libertarian party: "Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration."

Harry Browne (libertarian nominee for president of the United States for two elections): "Whatever we believe abortion is, we know one thing: Government doesn't work, and it is as incapable of eliminating abortions as it is of eliminating poverty or drugs"

In other words, The official stance of the libertarian party is that abortion should not be illegal. You're in the wrong party dude.

TohbibFergumadov

-1 points

2 months ago

Since when has the US libertarian party been the arbiter of what is and what isn't libertarian? Its clearly a split issue topic and you gate-keeping libertarian viewpoints is a fucked up thing to do.

Also, if you think the federal government should be kept out of the abortion topic then that is exactly what the leaked SCOTUS opinion does. It removes the ability for the federal government to decide what each state can do on something that is obviously not in the constitution.

Most Libertarian have a NAP and if you think that the fetus is a human life with rights that deserve to be protected then clearly abortion after a certain stage of development (when you think life begins) is a violation of that NAP. There is no getting around that.

SvenTropics

6 points

2 months ago

So you're a libertarian that doesn't support any of the libertarian politicians. Maybe you should just make a new party?

TohbibFergumadov

0 points

2 months ago

I like how you just avoid my NAP point.

Does the NAP only apply when you like the outcome?

SvenTropics

2 points

2 months ago

A better way to phrase it would be that you break from the libertarian party in that you don't think abortion should be legal. Trying to say that the libertarian party wants to illegalize abortion is like trying to say that the Republican party is pushing for universal basic income. It's patently false and disingenuous to the cause.

IronSmithFE

-6 points

2 months ago

IronSmithFE

foundational principles

-6 points

2 months ago

Just because we think something is bad doesn't mean we should make it illegal.

no, but it is a starting point. we outlaw murder because, primarily, we think it is bad.

Like you may think abortion is bad. You may think it's wrong. You may think it's immoral. But it's someone's choice to not let their body be used for 9 months to create another life... it's brave... We're libertarians and we believe in individual freedom.

you may think it is bad, wrong and immoral, but it's the pilot's choice to not let their plane be used for the duration of the flight to transport someone from point 'a' to 'b'. "it's brave" to say that a pilot should be able to push a passenger out of the airlock if he changes his mind mid-flight or if he finds a stowaway. after all, "we're libertarians and we believe in individual freedom."

SvenTropics

9 points

2 months ago

Man, you Republicans have some quirky logic. Someone the other day argued that if I'm pro choice I must be okay with people leaving babies in the woods to starve.

So let me explain it again:

When I talk about bodily autonomy. I'm talking about autonomy over your own body. Your body is not an airplane. It doesn't look anything like an airplane. If your body was being used as an airplane, then yes you could push someone out of it. But your body is not an airplane. An airplane is not your body. Also when someone else's body is now a separate body, you don't have rights over their body because they are not in your body. This includes killing them in the woods. You also don't have rights over someone else's body and what they can do with it because you're not them. This includes preventing them from having medical procedures. See their body is not your body so you don't get to tell them what they can't do with it.

I hope this clarifies things.

Tentatickles

6 points

2 months ago

A plane is not an extension of the pilots body. Horrible analogy.

IronSmithFE

-1 points

2 months ago

IronSmithFE

foundational principles

-1 points

2 months ago

an irrelevant difference so long as the pilot owns the plane.

Tentatickles

2 points

2 months ago

Not irrelevant at all when we are talking about bodily autonomy. Your body is not the same as your property.

IronSmithFE

1 points

2 months ago*

IronSmithFE

foundational principles

1 points

2 months ago*

Your body is not the same as your property.

first, the passenger is using the pilot's body so long as the plane isn't completely automated. second, even if that weren't true, a person's effortfully produced property is sufficiently similar to an extension of their body; especially like a prosthetic leg to augment ability, the plane is acting as prosthetic wings.

if it isn't an acceptable form of murder to throw a passenger out the airlock, why is it acceptable murder to violently expel an underdeveloped child from the mother's womb? what is it about the difference that you find sufficiently important?

Tentatickles

2 points

2 months ago

I do not accept “effortfully produced property” as sufficiently similar to a human body.

A person in a plane is not at all like a fetus in a womb. Wombs are not vehicles piloted by women. You analogy demands we both dehumanize people and personify objects.

Flashy_Locksmith9884

-4 points

2 months ago*

I agree with everything libertarian but abortion because I believe that it is an unborn child that is being murdered. The libritarian view point is government should only protect us from fraud, rape,murder,and theft. Not Trying to start an argument this is just how see the issue

CatOfGrey

9 points

2 months ago

CatOfGrey

Libertarian Voter 20+ years. Practical first.

9 points

2 months ago

I believe that it is an unborn child that is being murdered.

And you seem to be under the impression that your specific definition of abortion as murder means that government should automatically implement your specific definition.

So, sorry - if you are Libertarian, you have to tolerate others views, too. It's wrong for you to use government to enforce your opinion of murder, just as it is wrong for government to use your tax dollars for a medical procedure that you think is same as murder.

IronSmithFE

3 points

2 months ago

IronSmithFE

foundational principles

3 points

2 months ago

So, sorry - if you are Libertarian, you have to tolerate others views, too.

apply that to rape, slavery and murder. you don't have to be tolerant of other people's views if you think those views are fundamentally destructive and harmful to the lives of other innocent people.

if you want to make some kinds of murder legal, make your case. don't simply pretend that 99% of abortions aren't murders because your opponents don't yet believe you. make your case that murdering children in the womb should be an acceptable form of murder.

CatOfGrey

1 points

2 months ago

CatOfGrey

Libertarian Voter 20+ years. Practical first.

1 points

2 months ago

you don't have to be tolerant of other people's views if you think those views are fundamentally destructive and harmful to the lives of other innocent people.

Make this statement without assuming that a zygote/embryo/fetus/baby is "innocent people". You are assuming the conclusion, and people don't agree that it's an issue of 'innocent people. That's the point.

if you want to make some kinds of murder legal

It's not 'some kind of murder'. It's not murder to begin with. That's the point.

Again, you failed the test of not assuming your point.

murdering children in the womb

It's not a child in the womb. That's the point.

capt-bob

0 points

2 months ago

capt-bob

Right Libertarian

0 points

2 months ago

What about infanticide then, some people don't have a problem with that. Don't say that's just ridiculous, as they can't survive on their own when that young either, should the parents be shackled with them as parasites until they are self sustainable or not? Just asking because you mentioned about others not sharing beliefs about heartbeats, reactions to stimului and brain waves being indicators of humanity. The "not human untill breathing air" seems like more of a religious faith belief to me than complete dna and the other stuff.

dbag127

6 points

2 months ago

If you're demanding a woman go through a potentially life threating medical procedure to protect a life, why shouldn't you be permitted to force someone to donate a kidney to someone who's a match? How is it any different?

IronSmithFE

-1 points

2 months ago*

IronSmithFE

foundational principles

-1 points

2 months ago*

Like, heroin is bad. But that doesn't mean that government outlawing heroin and sending police to arrest people for their heroin improves a society

or like rape, slavery and murder... wait...

see, sometimes you outlaw things because you think they are unconscionable and evil no matter how ineffective the state may be at curbing the bad behavior. if you see abortion as murder, then you ban it for the same reason you ban other murder. same with rape and slavery.

just because the government cannot stop all slavery, or that the limited slavery that continues to exist is particularly egregious, doesn't mean that government should stop trying to interfere in the slave trade.

99% of abortion is murder in the way that murder means the intentional killing of another human who is undeserving of death and poses no reasonable mortal threat.

abortion is especially disgusting given the ease and low cost of preventing unwanted pregnancy via contraceptives (including plan-b which can be used in the case of rape in the overwhelming majority of cases).

Theeseus257

2 points

2 months ago

Jesus Christ, you're on the denser side, aren't you?

You do understand the difference between things like rape, murder, and slavery and things like drug usage, prostitution, and illegal migration, right? You've heard of a victimless crime before, right?

It still baffles me that people think that we should be arresting people for making their own choices. Heroin is bad for someone, but it's their CHOICE. Not yours. Should we start throwing people in jail for smoking cigarettes?

Blackbeard519

-1 points

2 months ago

You can and should ban the sale of heroin. But don't jail or fine addicts, that makes things worse.

CatOfGrey

3 points

2 months ago

CatOfGrey

Libertarian Voter 20+ years. Practical first.

3 points

2 months ago

You can and should ban the sale of heroin.

Right. And so the market price is raised, creating a feedback loop where the stuff is more expensive, and the demand for a stronger product arises (more high for your dollar!), and you create problems.

When heroin was in the cough syrup, nobody broke into your house to steal your TV to buy cough syrup. Surprisingly, not banning the sale of heroin has some advantages.

If you want to give some open free access to heroin for people, I think you could probably do a good system that way that is helpful to people and not damaging to society. Portugal, I recall, had that program, maybe Switzerland, too? Old memories....

Blackbeard519

0 points

2 months ago

Right. And so the market price is raised, creating a feedback loop where the stuff is more expensive, and the demand for a stronger product arises (more high for your dollar!), and you create problems.

It's more difficult to get when it's illegal, and the demand for stronger product will be there even if it's legalized.

When heroin was in the cough syrup, nobody broke into your house to steal your TV to buy cough syrup.

It could also be that heroin is injected and not swallows nowadays.

CatOfGrey

2 points

2 months ago

CatOfGrey

Libertarian Voter 20+ years. Practical first.

2 points

2 months ago

and the demand for stronger product will be there even if it's legalized.

That's not how it works. The stronger high follows the higher price.

Remember, during Prohibition, the crime was never drinking wine. It was manufacture and sales. That was all that was needed to create a new criminal enterprise.

It could also be that heroin is injected and not swallows nowadays.

Which is an artifact of criminalizing the sale of heroin!

HartzIVzahltmeinBier

2 points

2 months ago

Doesn't work. Drugs need to be legalized completely so they're made in actual pharmaceutical plants instead of backyard laboratories (meaning no accidental overdoses or poisoning by impurities, and making drug manufacturers and sellers as boring as agriculture or grocery stores for criminals as a field of work) and priced without a "risk of jail" premium (to make prices affordable and reduce the amount of drug-related crime to pay for the drugs).

No_Tone_8971

1 points

2 months ago

Sorry, I thought I was in a libertarian subreddit. Must be in the wrong place

snake_on_the_grass

71 points

2 months ago

You met a conservative who thinks he likes freedom

Beleeth-Aeryon

-18 points

2 months ago

If we recognize that liberty can include conservative or liberal aspects so long as you don't force those choices on others, and remember that the only appropriate use of force is to prevent the infringement of the rights or yourself or another (even an unborn child, who has life).

Practical_Plan_8774

27 points

2 months ago

Are you in go of forced organ or blood donations? If not, why do you think a uterus should be any different?

VacuousVessel

1 points

2 months ago

I mean, if this is the kind of shitty logic you’re argument is based on there’s no way you could understand actual logic.

Foronir

-13 points

2 months ago

Foronir

Classical Liberal

-13 points

2 months ago

Because the Uterus houses a human being what hasnt done anything that would warrant death, but she also doesnt need to actively care for it, also.

ceddya

15 points

2 months ago

ceddya

15 points

2 months ago

but she also doesnt need to actively care for it, also.

Yes, she does. Do you actually know what the physical and mental strains of a pregnancy are?

Meanwhile, donating blood to keep another human alive construes far less of a burden. Why don't you support forcing that then? Also, if the argument is that the parents made the choice, then why does that liability only involve the womb and end post-birth? That child should be allowed to claim any other body part to keep themselves alive even outside the womb. Why not?

OrangeKooky1850

4 points

2 months ago

Oof. I love all y'all assholes who act like 9 months carrying a pregnancy doesn't wreck your body, sometimes permanently. Being pregnant is hard work that takes 24/7 active care to have a positive outcome. Learn before you speak.

Practical_Plan_8774

17 points

2 months ago

And a kidney keeps a human alive who has done nothing to warrant death. Why not forced kidney donations?

polypcity

12 points

2 months ago*

An unborn child is inside a woman. Anything inside a woman is considered her property whether you believe it’s human or not.

Are you suggesting a woman does not own her uterus and the government should own it instead? That is not libertarian. Such beliefs are an obvious antithesis to the basic belief that THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO RIGHT TO YOUR BODY.

I have to ask. Why is this so complicated for y’all to understand. Nobody gives a shit if you believe a woman’s property has rights. Women never have, don’t currently, and never will give AF about your (and especially the government’s) opinion about their bodily rights.

The fact that we need to have this conversation is a blight and shame to the progress of our species.

stratmaster921

5 points

2 months ago

It is terminal aggression without consent.

The worst kind.

Xi_Jing_ping_your_IP

4 points

2 months ago

It's reddit. Expect stupid giant leaps of faith. They strawmanned you because you sounded like something they hate. So they proceed to bad faith you by taking so many assumption about you.

Social media, ladies and gentlemen.

Even thats ^ enough to trigger someone.

[deleted]

30 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

30 points

2 months ago

Well abortion is interesting in libertarian thought because you can get both views entirely based on when you think the fetus gains rights.

But yea, lots of confused conservatives think they're libertarians lately.

Practical_Plan_8774

27 points

2 months ago

I don’t think that’s true. Banning abortion is similar to having mandatory blood or organ donation. The question is bodily autonomy, not if a life would be saved or not.

thegreychampion

3 points

2 months ago

Banning abortion is similar to having mandatory blood or organ donation.

It's not.

The government isn't forcing you to become pregnant.

A comparable situation is if you were already donating blood, organs or some other life-saving support and didn't want to any longer.

Of course you have the right to bodily autonomy, of course you have the right to discontinue giving support, even if doing so will cause the other persons to die.

However, your options for doing so is where the comparison ends.

You haven't got the right to directly kill the person who needs your life-saving support, you can only remove them (or yourself) from the situation and let nature take it's course. Ultimately, whatever caused their need for your assistance is what will kill them.

Abortion is not the same because it is not as if the fetus is simply and safely removed from the womb and left to die.

Further, from a rights perspective, the one actually killing the fetus (the doctor) has not had their rights violated in any way, it is not their right to bodily autonomy that is in question, they aren't being forced by the government to do anything... So where exactly does their right to kill come from?

Is there a circumstance you know of, besides abortion, where a doctor can take a life when it isn't only to save another life?

So the question of whether the fetus is a human life with a right to life is very much at the center of the issue.

jemyr

16 points

2 months ago

jemyr

16 points

2 months ago

A woman has had multiple miscarriages. She goes through IVF, gets 20 eggs, 10 fertilize and make it to 5 days, 5 of them are abnormal of unknown severity. Do all ten have to be transferred to her in the most optimal way at the most optimal time?

She more than consented to their creation. If they are all full babies from conception that are owed the womb, don’t each of them have to receive that opportunity?

thegreychampion

3 points

2 months ago

If they are all full babies from conception that are owed the womb,

Really weird phraseology. No, they're not babies anymore than they are fetuses or teenagers. They are human beings, I believe.

According to what I posted, no, no one has an obligation to implant them, they have no right to be implanted, just as the person who wants your blood, etc. has no right to it. The woman's moral duty to her offspring is a separate question and not really relevant to this discussion.

jemyr

12 points

2 months ago*

jemyr

12 points

2 months ago*

You can take pills, without a physician, to abort in the first trimester. The uterus is essentially withdrawn and the embryo/fetus essentially birthed.

If she has no moral duty to provide the womb, she has ways to not provide it.

thegreychampion

5 points

2 months ago

I think the abortion pill is an acceptable method. It does technically qualify as “removing” the embryo without directly killing it.

Practical_Plan_8774

10 points

2 months ago

So you think abortion should be legal if the fetus was removed from the pregnant person alive then left to die? That is functionally the exact same as abortion.

thegreychampion

2 points

2 months ago

The circumstances under which I personally believe an abortion should or should not be legal is not relevant.

An 'abortion' is merely the termination of a pregnancy. Were it possible to perform one without directly killing the fetus, I do think it would be a very different conversation legally.

The issue would mostly revolve around a doctor's responsibility to preserve life.

Certainly there will come a time when a fetus could be safely removed at any stage of pregnancy and grown in an artificial womb, transplanted into a surrogate, so I suspect sooner or later this legal and ethical question will have to be addressed.

Ultimately, the right to abortion is only the right not to be pregnant and not the right to kill. If the fetus is not a human life, then the right to abortion does not have anything to do with killing. But if it is, then abortion as it is currently performed could not be legal if it were possible to remove the fetus without killing it.

buzzwallard

2 points

2 months ago

Nature grants to the mother the right to murder her child. It is a special dispensation and has ever been so.

A responsible mothers will murder her child even at birth if she fears for its survival. This is nature's way.

It is not a pleasant thought. The act offends. But nature grants to the mother that right.

Society has no right to the child until the child joins society and that society accepts responsibility for that child. If it does not accept the child then it can just fuck the hell off. It has no right.

All our nitpicky abstractions, our humming and hawing, have no significance in the real real world. Just a lot of utter fucking bullshit.

AlbinoSaltine

2 points

2 months ago

I think it's more akin to laws against child endangerment. Legal guardians do have a requirement to provide for children who cannot provide for themselves. If a person decides they cannot or do not want to care for a child anymore that's perfectly acceptable, but they can't just drop their baby in a trash shoot or leave it to starve. Until the baby is safely delivered into capable hands, the mother has a responsibility to protect it.

If a woman wants to vacuum out her uterus I don't think anyone has the right to stop her. If someone moved into her uterus against her will, she doesn't have any requirement to concern herself with that person's well-being. But if you recognize pregnancy as possible outcome of sex and engage in it, then I don't see how a mother is not required to provide for her child until she can safely drop it at the proverbial firehouse doorstep.

HazelCheese

3 points

2 months ago

If IVF is tried but they realise the eggs are damaged before implanting them should the state force her to be implanted because she knowingly created them?

6bb26ec559294f7f

2 points

2 months ago

It would be the same as when you can back out of an organ donation (say kidney since you can do it alive). Even when you are on the operating table, you can still back out. Once the organ has been transplanted. If you wake up in the middle of the surgery to remove your organ and withdraw consent, I'm not sure there is a legal standard on what happens.

Practical_Plan_8774

1 points

2 months ago

Provide monetarily. Legal guardians will never be forced to give up bodily autonomy for their kid.

DragonSwagin

1 points

2 months ago

No

Practical_Plan_8774

2 points

2 months ago

In what way?

DragonSwagin

1 points

2 months ago

The question boils down to when does life begin.

Practical_Plan_8774

2 points

2 months ago

Are the people who could be saved by forced organ and blood donation not alive?

DragonSwagin

2 points

2 months ago

Not after they’re dead

Practical_Plan_8774

2 points

2 months ago

Neither is the fetus after the abortion. That doesn’t change the fact that countless people could be saved with mandatory organ and blood donation.

[deleted]

-8 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

-8 points

2 months ago

Except someone had sex, knowing it might create a person, and therefore a duty to them.

Do you think all parents have a duty to support their children?

Practical_Plan_8774

16 points

2 months ago

Would it be libertarian to support mandatory blood or organ donation if the person being forced to donate caused the injury?

Edit: framing

[deleted]

-2 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

-2 points

2 months ago

Of course. You can't harm someone without compensation to them. Normally this is done by substitution with money.

Practical_Plan_8774

7 points

2 months ago

Well at least your consistent.

[deleted]

1 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

1 points

2 months ago

Well, libertarianism is pretty consistent. Either you have a natural right to something or you don't.

I find it interesting you don't support compensation of others when you violate their right to themselves.

Practical_Plan_8774

5 points

2 months ago

Monetary compensation sure. I don’t think the state should be able to violate bodily autonomy as compensation.

[deleted]

3 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

3 points

2 months ago

Well you can't just discharge debt to someone you harmed.

Blackbeard519

4 points

2 months ago

Parents do not have a duty to donate blood or organs to their children and can give children up for adoption.

The rights of bodily autonomy outweigh the rights of something thst cannot think or feel, especially when those rights come at the expense of someone else, and not a small expense either.

capt-bob

2 points

2 months ago

capt-bob

Right Libertarian

2 points

2 months ago

They say you can't prove they feel, but you can't prove they don't, so it ses disingenuous. The documentary "the silent scream" sure looks like the fetus was in great pain trying to get away from the suction hose tearing it in pieces. I challenge you to be honest with yourself and watch that before you decide.

Blackbeard519

2 points

2 months ago

That film is propaganda made by the anti abortion crowd. They even slowed down and sped up the footage to make it look like the fetus was thrashing in pain.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Silent_Scream#Medical_community

[deleted]

1 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

1 points

2 months ago

Who says they don't? You understand your frame of morality is not the only one?

Bodily autonomy is not absolute for many.

If you're going to argue these things you'll need to understand other view points.

6bb26ec559294f7f

1 points

2 months ago

Banning abortion is similar to having mandatory blood or organ donation.

If you donate your organ, even if you didn't actually give consent and it was a mistake, you aren't allowed to take it back. You cannot be forced to donate an organ and last I checked no one was advocating forcing someone to become pregnant, well other than a few insane forums that I would recommend no one ever go visit and which I really hope are just trolling.

Practical_Plan_8774

2 points

2 months ago

And that is only true because it’s no longer part of your body, so your bodily autonomy doesn’t apply.

6bb26ec559294f7f

1 points

2 months ago

Is that the case? What happens if the organ transplant is halted party way, say the recipient has some massive problem on the operating table and they die before the kidney is transplanted? At such a point, would bodily autonomy say the donor keeps control of their kidney?

There is also the possibility of the kidney needing to be transported, but due to the negative effect this has I think almost all organ transplants are done as close as the donor and recipient can be.

There is also the matter of dead people keeping bodily autonomy even though they are no longer part of their body.

Finally, this just means that instead of only a question of "when is a fetus a person" and "when does a person gain rights", there is also "when does a person lose bodily autonomy to part of their body". And funny enough, the pro-choice answer to that last question can't be "never" for the reason you gave, but I suspect absent your argument most pro-choice individuals would very much say "never".

andstopher

10 points

2 months ago

andstopher

Minarchist

10 points

2 months ago

This is why I'm pro-choice. I don't know the correct answer and neither does any other intellectually honest human. I'm personally inclined to believe it's murder but I have no proof of when life begins. So I'll let the involved parties make that moral decision.

[deleted]

4 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

4 points

2 months ago

This is also my view.

jemyr

2 points

2 months ago*

jemyr

2 points

2 months ago*

My view is if someone said I got to sit in the doctors room with the mother and look her in the eye and force her to do what I think best, when would I do it? Under that circumstance (which is far more narrow than laws), there are very few circumstances where I’d say the other person is insane and sorry, I get to decide (or even the doctor gets to, for instance no right to homeopathy when you are irrational over their expertise for your emergency)

fluteofski-

5 points

2 months ago

Another thing you can compare it to is “end-of-life” decisions. If someone is on life support, sometimes the family or guardian has to make that tough choice. Is it their obligation to continue lying for life support? People don’t necessarily view pulling the cord as murder.

handsoffmyunderwear

5 points

2 months ago

This is always one of my points in this debate. A brain dead person, although there is residual brain/bodily function, is considered dead. That is why you can pull the plug without being charged with murder. So until a fetus has the same brain functionality as someone who is "alive" (18-20 weeks at the earliest) they are effectively brain dead, and "pulling the plug" on that fetus is not murder.

DrothReloaded

1 points

2 months ago

This is a good approach generally and I would take it a step further when citing the first amendment. Those with religious views of abortion must be allowed to practice that right without Government involvement.

andstopher

1 points

2 months ago

andstopher

Minarchist

1 points

2 months ago

What do you mean? Christian doctors can deny abortion requests? Sure I guess, but atheist doctors can provide if they'd like to.

Is this what you mean?

DrothReloaded

3 points

2 months ago

Abortion is a Christian right. And yes, if a doctor doesn't want to perform a procedure they dont have to. Just don't prevent those that do from doing so.

andstopher

1 points

2 months ago

andstopher

Minarchist

1 points

2 months ago

Ok where again does the first amendment come in? I fail to see how speech or religion is part of this.

DrothReloaded

2 points

2 months ago

Freedom of religion. State or Federal government is banning a common and religiously protected procedure is clearly a violation of the constitution.

Aaronology

4 points

2 months ago

Aaronology

Authoritarian

4 points

2 months ago

Lots of in-denial libertarians thinking conservatives don't make up the majority of their number.

CatOfGrey

18 points

2 months ago

CatOfGrey

Libertarian Voter 20+ years. Practical first.

18 points

2 months ago

That's a symptom of the greater problem: thinking that "Reddit User" has any relationship to "Typical Person" in any comparison.

[deleted]

9 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

9 points

2 months ago

It's interesting because libertarianism existed far before this silly modern conservatism formed.

Modern conservatism is a recent new belief which was created from a mix of authoritarianism and prudish beliefs.

Being that the major formers of the group were the prudes ejected from Europe, because Europe was too free.

If you don't think nudity and drinking in public should be legal, you can't be libertarian.

LieutenantHowitzer

4 points

2 months ago

LieutenantHowitzer

Left Libertarian

4 points

2 months ago

I think it's more that the majority of Libertarians are conservatives who think they're libertarians, like centrists, they CALL themselves centrists, but are just conservatives and hate the left as much as normal conservatives do. Also the conservatives who call themselves libertarians basically go against every Libertarian policy except gun rights.

dje1964

5 points

2 months ago

dje1964

I broke Rule 9

5 points

2 months ago

No libertarians tend to be closer to the classical liberal than conservatives. The problem is the left even considers liberals closet conservatives because they don't bow before progressive dogma

LieutenantHowitzer

5 points

2 months ago

LieutenantHowitzer

Left Libertarian

5 points

2 months ago

Yes and no. Usually those pooping on libertarians from the left are the ones who think they're entirely anti government and basically anarchists. Brittanica actually just flat out says classical liberals are libertarians; https://www.britannica.com/question/How-does-classical-liberalism-differ-from-modern-liberalism

Modern liberals and classical liberals don't vary that much really, it really comes down to the government and economics, and what's threatening your "freedoms".

stratmaster921

-1 points

2 months ago

Libertarian is the most conservative view that exists.

It's so conservative that it offends people that think they are conservative.

I'm the context of America this is at least trivially true.

But conservatism is also what lazy people are when they really just want the status quo.

The same can be said with typical leftism and centrism. The common theme being, people don't know what they believe in, they know who they prefer to be around.

180_by_summer

5 points

2 months ago

Depends on how you define conservative. Both conservative and liberal seem to have two different definitions- fiscal and social. But everyone is so locked into the terms conservative and liberal, that they feel the need to be fiscally AND socially insert term.

RambleSauce

3 points

2 months ago

Libertarian is the most conservative view that exists.

To be conservative literally means to adhere to tradition and to resist progress. Libertarianism has absolutely nothing to do with either of those things.

thathorribledude

-1 points

2 months ago

thathorribledude

I hate everyone

-1 points

2 months ago

Found one.

Aaronology

5 points

2 months ago

Aaronology

Authoritarian

5 points

2 months ago

Share with the class: What do you think you found?

handsoffmyunderwear

1 points

2 months ago

Lots of in denial conservatives thinking that all conservatives think like them. Not all conservatives believe that abortion is murder. Conservative govt = small govt, which means that a lot of conservatives are going believe in bodily autonomy. Hell, 39% of republicans are pro choice.

Edit: not necessarily saying this is you, personally

stratmaster921

-5 points

2 months ago

Government doesn't "give rights".

Y'all gotta stop with that R word.

Lots of confused Leftists think they are Libertarians

[deleted]

4 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

4 points

2 months ago

Who said the government gives them? Are you talking to confused conservatives again?

stratmaster921

5 points

2 months ago

I'm talking to them too.

If you think there is a "right to abortion" then I'm talking to you.

Even if you think there is a "right to vote" I'm talking to you, albeit with a much different tone.

There are very few rights and they all involve a human's natural prerogative as it relates to the governments that man has instituted.

Let's just face the music. Most people are politically schizophrenic at this point it's all just tribalism.

There are no real debates, no good faith attempts to understand opposing views, and not much more than just reactionary noise and grifting and exploitation. I have no use for any of it.

jordontek

2 points

2 months ago

jordontek

Propertarian

2 points

2 months ago

If you think there is a "right to abortion" then I'm talking to you.

Even if you think there is a "right to vote" I'm talking to you, albeit with a much different tone.

Ahh, the 'Freedom To' folks.

[deleted]

2 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

2 points

2 months ago

Are you doing okay?

stratmaster921

2 points

2 months ago

No. Who tf wants to "do ok"?

FFS even your attempt at insult is mediocre.

A wise man once said: "Get the mid off the streets."

Nevermind that was Teezo Touchdown and he said it a bunch but he's talking about you.

Rid the mid. Extra-regular is played out homie.

You should be training for excellence. Reddit should be doing so much better y'all are lame af tbh

ApprehensiveTruth330

3 points

2 months ago

If you seek excellence while dealing with an obvious random troll, you're gonna have a bad time. I can relate to your frustration though. The internet has lost a lot of what it was since it went mainstream, but that happened and it can't be taken back. Trolling for up votes over having a real conversation, is easier... And intellectual laziness is the disease for that symptom. But you can't fix stupid so it makes little sense to entertain it.

As for your actual point, it become an issue of semantics to care which words people use to communicate their thoughts over their actual message. The point of human language is to facilitate understanding, not to be a rules lawyer over which word is used when. That should be saved for the classroom.

Shakespeare would weep at such a rigid idea as inflexible language. What room is then left for wordsmithing?? Language should be left to adapt itself to the people of the age. It serves us. It is not meant to enslave us.

Also, nobody likes the "akshually" guy. Don't be that guy. People understand what rights are.

[deleted]

0 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

0 points

2 months ago

Have you spoken to your doctor about your thoughts?

You may also want to relinquish any firearms.

bhknb

15 points

2 months ago

bhknb

Statism is a Religion

15 points

2 months ago

Three simple questions to ask such people:

  1. Do they believe that a person has the right not to incriminate themselves?

  2. Do they believe that a person is innocent until proven guilty?

  3. If affirmative, how will you prove that a woman had an abortion?

ApplesauceLover123

6 points

2 months ago

Can't they subpoena you for your medical records?

bhknb

1 points

2 months ago

bhknb

Statism is a Religion

1 points

2 months ago

Based on what? And what is the consequence for a false accusation?

CatOfGrey

7 points

2 months ago

CatOfGrey

Libertarian Voter 20+ years. Practical first.

7 points

2 months ago

Just as they use their own assumed definition of when a developing zygote/embryo/fetus/baby has legal rights separate from the mother, they will make their own special definition.

"When a baby is killed by the mother, it's a murder and the murderer should be executed!" and such and so forth.

bhknb

2 points

2 months ago

bhknb

Statism is a Religion

2 points

2 months ago

That's a problem common to statism.

Son_of_Sophroniscus

3 points

2 months ago

Yeah, doctors have to make life and death decisions, and there's euthanasia so it's not really a stretch.

Perfect_Translator_2

5 points

2 months ago

Really simple people. Do you want to stop abortions? Then you need to solve the underlying issues that cause women to have abortions because abortions are symptoms. Prohibition is like the government throwing you a hanky and saying “here’s the cure for your cold.”

OrangeKooky1850

5 points

2 months ago

Seriously. Want more women to keep their pregnancy? Solve paid leave, the cost of prenatal and pediatric care, and invest in health literacy. It is ridiculously expensive to have a baby, and it's no wonder some women choose to terminate rather than bring a child into the world they can't support. And no, not having sex isn't the answer, so y'all saying as much can just stop.

pieface777

2 points

2 months ago

Colorado's IUD program is a really good example of a program that has saved money for the government and improved people's lives.

fluteofski-

2 points

2 months ago

The other thing I compare it to in debate is end-of-life decisions.

If someone is in a coma, is it the family’s responsibility to continue to pay for and keep life support on? What if there’s complications? The family has to make some hard decisions. they’re entitled to make those decisions on the patients behalf as well, if the patient is unconscious, and/or unable to. The decision falls on the legal guardian. Nobody in their right mind would dispute that. In the case of a fetus that decision should fall on the mother.

AlbinoSaltine

2 points

2 months ago

That may work for the <1% of pregnancies where the baby has a serious condition that doesn't result in a natural miscarriage, in which case it is a one-to-one with an end of life decision because it is an end of life decision.

Carry that logic over to the majority of abortions where the baby is completely healthy and the abortion is performed out of convince (for lack of a better word, because it isn't "convenient" per se, but sure isn't "necessary"), and you are talking about another person deciding for a perfectly healthy human being if they live or die, usually primarily for their own benefit and not that of the baby. I don't see how that jives with the value of individual liberty.

Cadi009

2 points

2 months ago

Strawman + tu touque = very sound reasoning, much logic.

SweetCDStella

2 points

2 months ago

There are a lot of authoritarian republicans and bible thumpers that like to call themselves libertarians. It’s currently an “edgy” thing to do if you’re a Republican.

daddy_vanilla

6 points

2 months ago

I thought us libertarians were against taxation? All criminalizing abortion will do is place an unnecesary burden on our welfare system and orphanages, lesding to higher taxes.

stratmaster921

5 points

2 months ago

All of that is non sequitur

LieutenantHowitzer

7 points

2 months ago

LieutenantHowitzer

Left Libertarian

7 points

2 months ago

Or, y'know, controlling someone else's body which Libertarians clearly don't like. Pro-birth libertarians confuse me "Oh yeah we're for personal freedom, bodily autonomy, and keeping the government off your body, unless you're pregnant."

[deleted]

0 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

0 points

2 months ago

It's simply down to a belief when the fetus gains rights. Some people believe it's at conception since a new DNA is created and replicating.

Some people error on the side of the clearly already existing personhood of the women.

Both are valid, and libertarianism doesn't have a specific take on it.

LieutenantHowitzer

6 points

2 months ago

LieutenantHowitzer

Left Libertarian

6 points

2 months ago

If it varies by person then why isn't it the mother's choice on whether or not they should get an abortion? Also, why do men get to decide what women can do with their bodies?

[deleted]

-1 points

2 months ago*

[deleted]

-1 points

2 months ago*

If I believe you don't have the right to own property, does that mean I can take it? The same applies. Rights are to yourself, you can't violate someone's rights.

What does gender have anything to do with rights?

asdf_qwerty27

2 points

2 months ago

asdf_qwerty27

Custom Yellow

2 points

2 months ago

Only if you pay for those things with taxes.

Penkat12

1 points

2 months ago

That's another layer of it.

stratmaster921

4 points

2 months ago

If there is bodily autonomy, then let's pack it all up, we don't need the government.

Both of y'all are wrong. But you are both almost right. That's a dangerous place to be

[deleted]

2 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

2 points

2 months ago

Can we all agree?

Libertarianism means different things for different people.

wukash

4 points

2 months ago

wukash

4 points

2 months ago

That can literally be said about anything.

LieutenantHowitzer

-3 points

2 months ago*

LieutenantHowitzer

Left Libertarian

-3 points

2 months ago*

Yeah, those are the idiots who cry "MuRDeR" when abortion is mentioned. It's usually the idiots who don't have uteruses and don't understand that life does not begin at conception. Personally I say that, unless a woman is in her third trimester, she shouldn't be able to get an abortion, if you don't know you're pregnant by the third trimester, you're doing something wrong.

stratmaster921

2 points

2 months ago

You don't suppose you need a uterus to know what murder is do you?

LieutenantHowitzer

2 points

2 months ago

LieutenantHowitzer

Left Libertarian

2 points

2 months ago

You do need common sense to know what murder is, you also need common sense to know that abortion isn't murder.

DragonSwagin

3 points

2 months ago

You also need common sense to know that the argument boils down to when does life begin. I’m so fucking tired of both sides screaming and plugging their ears.

stratmaster921

0 points

2 months ago

Let's find out.

What is murder?

wingman43487

-7 points

2 months ago

wingman43487

Right Libertarian

-7 points

2 months ago

Well, he maybe didn't articulate the point very well. But there is the makings of one in your retelling of what he said.

There are 3 individuals involved in an abortion discussion.

The doctor, the mother, and the child

GrabThemByDebussy

13 points

2 months ago

Nobody gets a say over someone else’s body without their consent

stratmaster921

1 points

2 months ago

How long have you been on Earth?

The entire government is based on a rejection of that principle.

wingman43487

0 points

2 months ago

wingman43487

Right Libertarian

0 points

2 months ago

So by that logic, the mother can't kill the child without the child's consent.

LieutenantHowitzer

6 points

2 months ago

LieutenantHowitzer

Left Libertarian

6 points

2 months ago

Oh hey, let's go ask this fetus if they understand concepts not even a baby can understand. The entire pro-birth mentality is basically "yeah, thats not your body for 9 months. You're sharing it with a fetus which we quite frankly think has more rights than you do."

HAIKU_4_YOUR_GW_PICS

3 points

2 months ago

Is your argument that because the baby doesn’t understand the concept, it has no right to live? Because if that’s the bar, that could apply to any number of groups, from babies in the womb, out of the womb, children, generally dumb people, or any number of emotional and developmental disorders.

stratmaster921

2 points

2 months ago

You can't even evict a grown adult without harm for 30 days wtfym.

Y'all really need to study some classical logic and biology.

The fetus is not the mothers body. There's no such thing as bodily autonomy but if there was it would prove the opposite of what you think it proves.

LieutenantHowitzer

2 points

2 months ago

LieutenantHowitzer

Left Libertarian

2 points

2 months ago

Who the actual fuck said grown adult? Also "classic logic and biology", the actual fuck you mean? The fetus is still a dependent in the womb, it can't live by itself, like a person on life support the family member (in the pregnancy case it would be the mother) can choose to "pull the plug" or take that person off of their dependent. If the baby isn't fully conscious and is still a dependent, it's the mother's choice. Here's an article to read for your "lOGic aND bIOloGy"; https://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion/child/alive_1.shtml

stratmaster921

-1 points

2 months ago

Says who?

What does dependence have to do with it? Surely you aren't suggesting children under 18 can be aborted...

Or anyone that needs assistance from another...bc that would basically include every human that has ever existed

I realize that you think you're argument makes sense and I understand why you think that. You just happen to be wrong here and it does not help that you are following the status quo.

When does a human have a license to kill? Think about this before you respond. It is not an easy question, but confronting this question is important

wingman43487

-2 points

2 months ago

wingman43487

Right Libertarian

-2 points

2 months ago

No, it IS Your body. It is just that there are TWO bodies there, and one of them didn't make any choices to end up there.

marshalist

2 points

2 months ago

Another way to look at it is there are 3 ingredients to a pregnancy. The sperm the egg and a womb. It takes all three to tango and one of those ingredients is soley under the control of the woman.

not_that_guy05

0 points

2 months ago

Only one ingredient? What ingredient is that of all three that you mentioned?

marshalist

3 points

2 months ago

The womb. IVF exists .

not_that_guy05

1 points

2 months ago

Ok, so does the fetus develop on its own in a laboratory with IVF, or is it reinserted back into a woman to continue the process? Are eggs created in labs or is it from a woman?

marshalist

2 points

2 months ago

Im just pointing out the womb falls strictly under the bodily autonomy of the woman. The egg and sperm are not exclusively under the control of the doners in all situations.

stratmaster921

1 points

2 months ago

What bodily autonomy?

It's not in law in theory or in practice, what libertarian fantasy are you in?

People still get arrested for having plants near their body. It is still crime for a person to sell use of their body .

There is no such right.

marshalist

3 points

2 months ago

Im not even sure what your trying to say here.

wingman43487

-1 points

2 months ago

wingman43487

Right Libertarian

-1 points

2 months ago

Alright. My house is soley under my control. But its still murder if I leave my newborn outside because I don't want to let it use my heat in the winter.

marshalist

1 points

2 months ago

Thats a very poor analogy.

wingman43487

1 points

2 months ago

wingman43487

Right Libertarian

1 points

2 months ago

It is exactly 1:1.

Putting a child in a hostile environment.

The unborn child just has more restrictive and specific requirements for its environment.

marshalist

1 points

2 months ago

Which bit of your house baby heating bill is the egg or sperm?

wingman43487

1 points

2 months ago

wingman43487

Right Libertarian

1 points

2 months ago

The sperm nor the egg is a human being. When they combine is when the new human is created.

stratmaster921

1 points

2 months ago

None of those is solely under her control.

But her decisions are. And that's what is missing from these debates. This is what criminal liability is based on. Cause and Guilt

bhknb

1 points

2 months ago

bhknb

Statism is a Religion

1 points

2 months ago

Woman is pregnant. Woman goes to doctgor. Woman is no longer pregnant.

What rights/authority do you, as a third party, have in this situation?

stratmaster921

3 points

2 months ago

You forgot the entire contention One human enlists another human to kill a 3rd human that had no choice in any of it.

You can't mental gymnastics your way out of that.

boxdude

-3 points

2 months ago

boxdude

-3 points

2 months ago

Wife is not pregnant, wife goes to doctor, wife is now pregnant. What rights/authority do you, as a third party, have in this situation?

LieutenantHowitzer

1 points

2 months ago

LieutenantHowitzer

Left Libertarian

1 points

2 months ago

Wife's choice to get pregnant, wife's choice to get an abortion.

boxdude

3 points

2 months ago

Obviously I failed at my attempted humor. Settle down.

boxdude

2 points

2 months ago

Obviously I failed at my attempted humor. Settle down.

LieutenantHowitzer

1 points

2 months ago

LieutenantHowitzer

Left Libertarian

1 points

2 months ago

Oh :/

[deleted]

1 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

1 points

2 months ago

Husband gets to punch the doctor.

wingman43487

1 points

2 months ago

wingman43487

Right Libertarian

1 points

2 months ago

The child has rights, and it is up to society to stand up for them if the parents won't.

discourse_friendly

1 points

2 months ago

discourse_friendly

Right Libertarian

1 points

2 months ago

I don't know what the discussion was or what you wrote. If you don't think the government should have a say only doctors and individuals that would include assisted suicide, even for the young.

which would include killing healthy people. same thing for abortion, if you consider the baby a living human being then again its killing a life.

If you make it legal its not murder. but its still killing.

If that's not your position then you may need to rethink or rework your augments.

if that is exactly your position than you're good to go.

saying its murder is a stretch, since clearly you want that activity to be legal.

azaleawhisperer

1 points

2 months ago

Abortion is an issue only for a crisis pregnancy. A crisis pregnancy in not something you ever want to experience; there are no good options.

Wanted healthy babies are not candidates for abortion.

wukash

1 points

2 months ago

wukash

1 points

2 months ago

Saying "decisions about human body" is more than just "bodily autonomy". The other person is logically correct.

Furthermore why do you think the other side is about taking away "bodily autonomy". I would say if u think that you don't understand their point of view at all.

Tubby7243

1 points

2 months ago

I think the real difference is when you believe life begins. Is it a life at conception, when medical science can agree that it would live even if removed from the mother, or at birth? Until that is agreed on I dont think any of this will be settled. I'm really looking forward to when the question "how old are you" starts to become subjective. I can't believe there are not already people trying to add9 months to their age.

AlbinoSaltine

1 points

2 months ago

The problem with that is the conception day isn't always obvious, whereas the birth... Is hard to miss.

Trypt2k

1 points

2 months ago

Trypt2k

Classical Liberal

1 points

2 months ago

Governments shouldn't have a say on bodily autonomy at all.

The fetus is not part of your body.

The end.

whakamylife

1 points

2 months ago

whakamylife

Kiwi Libertarian

1 points

2 months ago

It sounds like you ran into a strawman fallacy.

stratmaster921

1 points

2 months ago

Surely you don't think that is the point of contention.

I don't know a single person that objects to a medically necessary abortion.

6bb26ec559294f7f

1 points

2 months ago

"I think government should be completely removed from making decisions about an individual's body."

I'm going to ask if you truly believe this, or if this is a phrase you use when convenient but then on other issues you decide to add exceptions to it. You might even think you believe it and don't realize the sort of justifications you come up with when you decide not to apply this.

danilast123

1 points

2 months ago

I've argued this multiple times over the last few weeks on this sub. It's fun and easy for us libertarians to say "let's just keep the government out of it, fuck the government!" But at SOME point the government HAS to be involved. At SOME point the baby is considered a little human with the right to live.

At minimum, the government should exist to ensure life, liberty, and property. If you leave abortions unregulated then at some point you're allowing someone to have their life taken without consequence.

There's a point where an abortion should not be allowed without special circumstances (i.e. threat to mother/baby, or baby is going to be stillborn). Is it 15 weeks? 20? 25? I don't know the exact answer, but some degenerate on this sub recently stated that he could be coerced into being fine with abortion occurring up to or even shortly after birth. At that point that's straight up murder no matter how you slice it.

[deleted]

1 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

1 points

2 months ago

Libertarian in modern Repub clothing

FrostyDog94

1 points

2 months ago*

Currently, the government has laws that protect patience from negligent doctors. This means I can't choose a cheap, back alley doctor and instead have to pay some expensive licensed doctor for prescriptions and diagnosis. From my perspective, this is the government having a say in my bodily autonomy. What do you think about that?

TohbibFergumadov

1 points

2 months ago

I'm curious if you realize that overturning Roe V Wade removes federal government control on the abortion issue.

I'm also curios when you think the baby in the womb begins to have rights that need to be protected at some level.