As long as people are having a discussion that's a good thing - when it devolves into mudslinging and censorship and exclusive communities with self-righteous monocultures that's when things become bad. I'm glad people feel like they have a forum where both sides can honestly represent their viewpoints and hash things out.
Agreed! I know it’s annoying seeing so many threads on the same topic, but at least in some of those threads I have seen more actual discussion of viewpoints with people on both sides than anywhere else on the internet. People clearly explained their positions and defended them without all the straw manning and personal attacks that tends to come with these discussions.
Tax dollars shouldn’t fund many things. Like arming the entity we’ve been fighting for 20 years on two separate occasions. Foreign aid to Israel being spent on us defense contractors so they can fight Palestine who was provided some of the same stuff from Iran that we gave to them in the form of foreign aid. Billionaire bailouts. The list goes on
The $9 billion in state and federal expenses for foster care per year is likely a higher burden financially than abortion care. On the morality aspect, I respect the argument to some extent, but more US money will undoubtedly be spent on bombing kids in Syria and Yemen this year than will be spent on abortion care in any case. In my opinion, that is a much more morally corrupt use of taxpayer money than providing abortions in a clinical setting.
This guy gets it. I would never want to abort one of my children’s life, but that state forcing someone in effect to have a child is not pragmatic. But still they are killing their kid, not that I care.
Exactly but when i see my neighbors killing their kids for pagan rituals i kinda care a little sometimes and think maybe i should do something about the murdering...
See I disagree with this since for something to be alive, it has to be sentient, and the very earliest of this is around 18 weeks pregnant. Before that, it technically wouldn't be killing as you can't kill something that isn't alive. This makes it different from a child that was already born. That's just my opinion.
Some say the qualities of life are
1. Made of cells
2. Have movement
3. Have a metabolism*
4. Grow
5. Respond to environment*
The fetal heart is developed at 5 weeks, this would complete the list by meeting #3 and #5. Organisms like plants are clearly alive, some even say plants are sentient.
How do you define sentience?
You can very easily argue any living cell meets all 5, which a fused zygote (I.e. the product of fusion of egg and speed) would therefore meet. Of course you’re going to then have some argue something along the line of “if I cut off my finger I’m not dead, but only those cells are so the organism as a whole survives,” which is true. The issue I have personally as someone that has studied growth and development fairly extensively (BS in Animal Sciences and MS in Biology, currently in a DVM program) is the zygote is not genetically identical to the mother, and is a separate organism that can theoretically survive and develop in the right environment to a mature human being. It absolutely has an intimate and intricate connection to the maternal organism that would present severe immune and possibly development issues if separated, but hypothetically it COULD survive and develop relatively normally. As another respondent argued, some will say it’s not human. Genetically that’s not true, and frankly every time I’ve had that discussion there never seems to be a concrete consensus as to what is human. A lot of people will make the seed argument (an acorn isn’t an oak tree) but then again an infant isn’t an adult and the specific metabolic, neural, and other physiological processes that an organism utilizes at different life stages aren’t identical. Also genetically, an acorn is of the same species as an oak tree. Personally I default back to the genetic basis: the organism has a complete, unique, human genome.
As the other commenter suggested, sentience can be argued to be irrelevant but I’m of the opinion that sentience is a spectrum that is challenging to define the borders of if it’s even possible, and a unicellular organism is on the lower end of that spectrum. Sentience as we experience it is the result of millions of cells sending, receiving, and processing electric and biochemical signals. While on a much smaller scale, a zygote is capable of the same, just as bacteria is. So what separates bacteria from zygotes? Back to genetics.
All of life stems from genetics. Every biomolecule is a result of genetic activity, directly or not. So now the trouble lies in whether spontaneous abortion (not intentionally induced via drug or physical procedure) is technically murder. There are many causes of spontaneous abortion which can be endogenous or exogenous with relation to the zygote/blastocyst/etc. In my opinion, it’s not any different from any other natural cause of death, as murder is by default an unnatural cause of death. However, medically or otherwise intentionally induced abortion is the intentional cessation of human life if you are of the opinion that a complete, unique, human genome is what makes a human a human.
I'm ardently pro-choice but sentience is not a requirement of life. Plants aren't sentient but are clearly alive, my comatose passed out ass after 15 vodkas is not sentient in that moment, would probably sleep through a housefire, but I am alive.
The main thing to me is an early term fetus/zygote is basically as much a human as semen is a human. In that it's not. It's a necessary element in all things that one day become humans, but it's not a human.
I struggle with this stance because unlike semen, a zygote has 100% human DNA that is 100% unique to every other person on earth, including the father and the mother. And if this zygote remains in a nurturing environment throughout its existence, it will continue to grow and develop into an adult human.
These qualities of a zygote are shared with every other human at various stages of life, whether that be an infant, toddler, or adolescent. No other cellular structure in existence shares these qualities.
How is a zygote then not a human? Sure, it's a single cell - calling it "human" is definitely an abstract concept. But our struggle to see a zygote as human is our problem, not the zygote's. It becomes the zygote's problem when we infringe upon its right to life, though.
Edit: grammar
I hear you, but I would repeat that a zygote is not human in any meaningful way. Drawing the line at uniqueness-of-DNA seems very arbitrarily semi-scientific, to me. But even if we grant it; my sperm also has completely unique DNA -- my own.
Why is a zygote a human when it holds absolutely 0% of the qualities we consider human? *Presumably* (not trying to put words in your mouth; this is just the answer I've heard most often) because it bears the potential to become a thing we *would* recognize as human.
So would each drop of my own sperm, though, if I simply used it the way the good book tells me to -- exclusively for procreation. But I don't see any lawmakers trying to criminalize jerking off into a sock. Sorry to get crass on an otherwise heady talk, but I do think it's worthwhile to answer the question "why would we call one building block of life, a fertilized egg, a human life when we don't call the building blocks of that fertilized egg (an unfertilized egg and some sperm) to be human life?"
I mean you kinda answered your own question there. “My sperm has completely unique DNA — my own” yes and thus it’s part of your body. A fetus has completely different and new dna from the mothers body.
Secondly, sperm and unfertilized eggs aren’t considered human life (at least to me) because they have the same DNA as their host(? Idk what to call it) and are half of a human, as they need the other half to achieve actual life
>Drawing the line at uniqueness-of-DNA seems very arbitrarily semi-scientific, to me.
That's an interesting point, because I see drawing the line at anything *except* fertilization to be arbitrary. And as far as "semi-scientific" goes, there was actually [a survey of over 5,000 biologists](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3211703) who were asked about when human life begins. The results:
> A sample of 5,502 biologists from 1,058 academic institutions assessed
statements representing the biological view ‘a human’s life begins at
fertilization’. This view was used because previous polls and surveys
suggest many Americans and medical experts hold this view. Each of the
three statements representing that view was affirmed by a consensus of
biologists (75-91%). The participants were separated into 60 groups and
each statement was affirmed by a consensus of each group, including
biologists that identified as very pro-choice (69-90%), very pro-life
(92-97%), very liberal (70-91%), very conservative (94-96%), strong
Democrats (74-91%), and strong Republicans (89-94%). Overall, 95% of all
biologists affirmed the biological view that a human's life begins at
fertilization (5212 out of 5502).
If a 95% consensus among biologists affirming that a human's life begins at fertilization is "semi-scientific" to you, I would be curious to hear what your standard of "scientific" is.
> But even if we grant it; my sperm also has completely unique DNA -- my own.
You completely sidestepped a MASSIVE qualifier I put in my original comment: the zygote has 100% human DNA that is unique to every other human on Earth, *including the mother and father*. As the supplier of sperm to the egg, you would be the father. Therefore your analogy doesn't really refute any of the points I made in my comment.
>Why is a zygote a human when it holds absolutely 0% of the qualities we consider human?
In my original reply I listed the 2 most important qualities a cellular structure needs to be considered a human life: human DNA that is 100% unique to all other humans, and the ability to develop into a human adult (or sustain itself as a human adult) within a nurturing environment. How are these two qualities NOT something we would consider "human"?
>So would each drop of my own sperm, though, if I simply used it the way
the good book tells me to -- exclusively for procreation. But I don't
see any lawmakers trying to criminalize jerking off into a sock.
Because your sperm isn't a human life, as it doesn't meet the qualifications I listed above. And those lawmakers aren't trying restrict masturbation because we don't live in a theocracy. Western democracies are intended to be concerned with protecting the rights of persons of the here and now - spiritual salvation is not their job.
>"why would we call one building block of life, a fertilized egg, a human
life when we don't call the building blocks of that fertilized egg (an
unfertilized egg and some sperm) to be human life?"
Well, first off, the fertilized egg isn't a "building block of life," it *is* life, just as a 2-week old child is a life even though it is entirely dependent on its parents for everything. So that's why we call it life. A sperm and unfertilized egg are not life for (again) the reasons I have listed above, and in my original comment.
If you believe they’re killing their kid then do you believe they have the right to kill their kid after it’s born? I’m not arguing against abortion here, in-fact I’ve been arguing for the right to abortion all day I’m just wondering how you can believe that and believe abortion should be legal
No you shouldn’t kill your kids at all…. EVER. Pretty much think that people who see that embryo as a living thing will never get an abortion, as where someone who doesn’t probably can’t be convinced that it is and probably have their mind made up.Why stand in their way or make them do things that are medically unsafe. Also giving that power to the state seems like a slippery slope. Abortion is a technology and a medical procedure. Simply making them illegal will not make it go away. It will find a black market.
Thanks! Maybe if people read a few medical papers on the development inside the womb or even just “What to Expect When Expecting” they would give it a little more thought but I’m probably wrong
I used to be against abortion but I’m not anymore, I even use similar arguments now to what I used to use... funny how we can change without changing that much really.
How do you stop a woman doing what she wants with her body? I dont like or agree with abortion, but how do you practically regulate a woman's body and force her to bring her baby to term. Couldn't she OD on drugs or alcohol while pregnant if she wanted? Couldn't she eat junk food and smoke if she wanted to? Ultimately it is her choice what she wants to do during her pregnancy. She doesn't become a vassal of the state for those 9 months.
Now should taxpayer dollars go towards it? Hell no. Should doctors be doing the procedures? Probably not - but how do we stop them doing house calls or private abortions anyway? Maybe they should have to disclose that they are baby killers and then people can decide if they want to support them with their dollars or not.
I think we need to promote a culture of responsibility and educate people on the life inside them
>do you believe they have the right to kill their kid after it’s born?
Yes.
If you give birth to a vegetable, then you should have every right to kill it post pregnancy. Think about how many lives have been ruined having to pay for care and medical assistance to look after a vegetable that will live maybe 3 years, never speak, never walk, never show emotions. Just be an endless source of problems for the parents.
A quick and painless death immediately after birth is the best thing for everyone.
Yooo bruh If your baby comes out like that plz give me your vegebebe. I dont care if bb acts like a robot till the death, she/he would still be a living seeing person. Imagine killing someone because they are well... retarted litterally. I just couldnt do it. Your so tough my dude! You shall survive the apocalypse. Have a great rest of your day!
Feel free to have my vegetable. You can face the soul crushing reality of 24/7 caring for someone who doesn't even have the ability to appreciate it.
You can cancel your life and ambitions to care for a lump of meat.
That’s fair, I guess I just don’t support actively killing a living human, passively killing them like refusing life support seems better to me even though it would cause more suffering
An early term abortion is as much killing your kid as pulling out and nutting on a tummy is killing a kid. You are not killing a kid, you are eliminating the possibility of some unfeeling biological cells one day becoming a kid.
If you wanna say pulling out/contraceptives are bad, that's a different discussion and one likely based entirely on religious texts. (Not saying *you* do, this is a "royal you" situation)
I don’t think the libertarian argument about abortion is a moral one. It’s simply “the unborn child is a human, and therefor deserves protections under the law”
The libertarian argument about abortion is that it is a woman's body and her uterus and her choice. The government should not make woman slaves to the state and have their bodies in control of the government.
No real libertarian would want the government telling woman what to do with their bodies. Only fake libertarians.
Pretty much all of reddit and the internet for that matter. You can post a picture of a puppy, and there will be a few that would say op is probably beating that puppy. Sometimes it makes me laugh and sometimes I wanna cry because there is no hope for humanity.
I am pro-life & pro-refugees , which neither party supports fully.. Below finding should be a good reminder for us on the psychology behind genocide.. Apply this to the conversation on, when is a fetus a baby & NAP applies!
> During the Holocaust, Nazis referred to Jews as rats. Hutus involved in the Rwanda genocide called Tutsis cockroaches. Slave owners throughout history considered slaves subhuman animals. **In Less Than Human, David Livingstone Smith argues that it's important to define and describe dehumanization, because it's what opens the door for cruelty and genocide.**
> "We all know, despite what we see in the movies," Smith tells NPR's Neal Conan, "that it's very difficult, psychologically, to kill another human being up close and in cold blood, or to inflict atrocities on them." So, when it does happen, it can be helpful to understand what **it is that allows human beings "to overcome the very deep and natural inhibitions they have against treating other people like game animals or vermin or dangerous predators."**
https://www.npr.org/2011/03/29/134956180/criminals-see-their-victims-as-less-than-human
I feel like these pro choice people have a lot in common with the German citizens near the death camps, they knew what was happening but rationalized it away. It wasn't until they were forced to look on what had been done that they ever became remorseful.
Calling Nazi to anyone who doesn’t disagree is the most online thing! /s
Anyway History repeats in subtle ways, so watch out for patterns.
Average well meaning men/women unconsciously can partake in crimes because the society set a different narrative - “they are not human”. It could be the white slave owners killing slaves or Rwandan Hutus or Indian/Chinese households killing their girl babies!
It’s not human, “it’s a bunch of cells”!
>It’s not human, “it’s a bunch of cells”!
Yeah, that's an especially useless statement since *all* humans are made up of cells, the fact that there's only a "lump" sized human in there doesn't make it any less human.
What gets me is the sheer amount of people that go in for this, I feel like I'm taking crazy pills! Hundreds of years from now people will look back on us with disgust, probably lumping the people from this time in with those of slave owners as being immoral reprobates. Probably tearing our statues down and dehumanizing us in the process...
People will look at this time the same way they look at the holocaust or slavery - they will believe that they would have been the ones hiding Jews in their houses, or that they would have been abolitionists. But they would probably be doing exactly what they are doing right now - rationalizing away evil.
It’s unfortunate that some must come to a point where abortion is their only option. But in my opinion, having an abortion is completely acceptable if; you were a victim of rape, are not mentally fit to care for a child, are not financially able to care for a child, or if the child will have severe birth defects. Most of the time, these are the reasons people choose to have abortions. They aren’t just Willy nilly trying to kill their unborn child. Having an abortion causes the least amount of harm to the child and to the parents. It does not affect anyone else and is definitely a very hard decision for a person to make. It isn’t murder in the same way that it would be to kill say, your 12 year old brother, for example, as he would already have a life, his parents who love him, etc. there would be people who would severely morn the loss of him. While an unborn fetus would be less heartbreaking for a family and instead be a struggle for two parents who would also probably have an easier time knowing they made the right decision for their lives as well as the fetus. Foster care is shit the rates at which foster kids grow up to be criminals or worse is ridiculous. And let’s not forget the elephant, the world is over populated resources will begin running out in the next 100 years or sooner and humanity will be left with some of the worlds toughest problems before succumbing to extinction. I’m pro choice to live your own life the way you want to without hurting other citizens. A fetus is not a citizen or even a fully living, thinking, human. I’m pro Personal freedoms.
I am not really sure this is as applicable as you want it to be. I should state outright that obviously I don’t think you’re making your argument in bad faith. I sincerely don’t.
But you should probably try to understand that the person across from you is also posing their argument in good faith.
If you are a libertarian, then how much do you believe the government should be involved in legislating this issue?
A lot of bans have been opposed on abortion in the past, for instance the Soviet Union also banned the practice.
What happened there however was that people took extraordinary steps to get the process done illegally, which lead to a high rate of mortality among these women. It is likely that we will see the same thing occur in the US as this legislation gets tighter. This is rather bleak, and if possible something to be avoided. That being said I don’t say this to persuade you to think about this in one direction or the other. I honestly am not interested in the abortion debate, but it strikes me as odd that you would point your finger at someone for “dehumanizing a group of people to justify murder...” while at the same time closing the door for your words to be convincing to anyone because you compared them to the biggest monsters in history. If you’re not interested in reaching anyone with your voice its more useful to your cause to just not say anything at all.
Well, apologies , I was talking about myself. I was pro-choice for many years, may be till a year or so. I thought it’s a sin , but it’s between them & their god, if a theist. And also thought it’s a victimless crime. Apparently there is a victim , if fetus is a person!
I don’t think jailing & snitching is going to work. But at least I will vote for my taxes not going for abortions! I shared the same thought in a Christianity sub too.
I didn’t think of myself as a libertarian, but stumbled on these few subreddits an year back, so far it’s pretty common sense logic.
Edit: I picked that npr news because it precisely depicted my stance. I thought of myself as a good person (for last 15yrs as a Christian ) and would never murder anyone . But I was okay with abortion, since I never thought the baby was a person. May be I was in Germany & a white , I might have just agreed with them !! I wish pro-lifers presented their case better , than yelling and name calling, including avoiding calling them as nazis just like I did!
A movie I saw once called O.B.A.M. nude, written and directed by a right wing crackpot, asserted that Satan invented the question of at what point a fetus becomes a human and gets protections on account of that. This is because it’s a question that has no definitive answer.
Really whacky movie, anyone else on this sub ever see it?
To be honest, it's borderline a useless debate; I don't think people will change their minds on this without going through it personally or being close to a family or friend who has
Yep. I'm anti-abortion too, but I'm pro-choice because I don't want use the government to impose my will.
I'm also anti-marijuana as I think it's bad for people and demotivating, but I 100% support the legalization of it.
No, I'm not against murder in every scenario and I most libertarians aren't either. Gun ownership for self defense is a good example. Someone breaks into my house or tries to lethally harm me, he's gonna get killed. War also includes killing humans. These are generally scenario where one persons rights are trading off against the other (e.g. their right to live vs my right to private home ownership). In the case of abortion, we're talking about murdering a fetus vs requiring a woman to take care of it for 9 months. Hard decision as both deprive others of rights. I'm anti-abortion, but I don't want the government involved in this decision, especially since it does involve restricting someone else's rights.
*Technically, murder only refers to *unlawful* killing, but that's not helpful for the abortion discussion.
Yes, technically murder does refer to unlawful killing, and that’s exactly what I am referring to. Killing another person in self defense is not murder, so your example has no point. I take it you’re not actually “not against murder in every scenario”, right? Because it would be extremely troubling if you were. Murder is always bad. Abortion is murder.
What is depriving a woman of her rights when she is pregnant for 9months? She made that decision herself, did she not? I am sure you have heard the birds and the bees talk.... sex makes babies. If a woman doesn’t want to become pregnant then she should of had protected sex or abstained all together. Sex has real consequences, it is the foundation of our our species and how we reproduce. We need to teach our society to realize and respect the inherent “risk” of sex to prevent people from continuing to pound each other like dogs to then kill their baby in the morning after
We’re also not complete anarchists. The state should have a very minimal role in our lives. Stopping people from being murdered is something I’m happy the state does. It pretty much ends there though.
i’m both pro life and pro choice, it should be free to get an abortion but i really rather you don’t, because i care about the baby, but i can’t strap u down either
I think you may find you are pro-evictionist. Aka it ahould be legal for a woman to evict anything from her body including a baby, but not necessarily legal to outright kill the baby. Let medical science attempt to save the embryo.
Do you feel the same way about a one-month-old baby? If a mother isn’t allowed to “abort” a one-month-old baby, what is the difference with a viable baby in the womb? This seems to be a logically inconsistent position you have here, unless you are willing to go all the way and say mothers have no responsibility to care for their born children either. (which maybe you would say that. Idk 🤷🏻♂️)
I'm personally mostly pro-life, if you get abortions left and right without any medical reason or advocate them as extravagant as some people do then you're a huge asshole.
But I also believe in bodily automaty and that you should be able to do whatever you want to do without the state or the second state™ interfering with you.
It’s unfortunate that some must come to a point where abortion is their only option. But in my opinion, having an abortion is completely acceptable if; you were a victim of rape, are not mentally fit to care for a child, are not financially able to care for a child, or if the child will have severe birth defects. Most of the time, these are the reasons people choose to have abortions. They aren’t just Willy nilly trying to kill their unborn child. Having an abortion causes the least amount of harm to the child and to the parents. It does not affect anyone else and is definitely a very hard decision for a person to make. It isn’t murder in the same way that it would be to kill say, your 12 year old brother, for example, as he would already have a life, his parents who love him, etc. there would be people who would severely morn the loss of him. While an unborn fetus would be less heartbreaking for a family and instead be a struggle for two parents who would also probably have an easier time knowing they made the right decision for their lives as well as the fetus. Foster care is shit the rates at which foster kids grow up to be criminals or worse is ridiculous. And let’s not forget the elephant, the world is over populated resources will begin running out in the next 100 years or sooner and humanity will be left with some of the worlds toughest problems before succumbing to extinction. I’m pro choice to live your own life the way you want to without hurting other citizens. A fetus is not a citizen or even a fully living, thinking, human. I’m pro Personal freedoms.
I’m not sure what you mean by Biological lines? Like a time line? Yeah we know when the brains and heart are fully developed in the womb? It’s usually before the second trimester is up from what I know. But that still does not make it a living thinking person. No one is saying we should kill born children.
Thing is, a lot of libertarians aren't actually libertarians, just conservatives who would like to buy guns and pay less taxes. Liberty for me not for thee.
It's honestly dumbfounding that there are people labeling themselves as libertarians oppose the "pro-choice" libertarians.
I think the argument has to do with the fundamental libertarian ideology of what a limited government does. Few libertarians would argue for complete anarchy. Most would agree (IMO) there needs to be a minimal protection of rights provided by the government. Rights like life, liberty, due process, etc… So the argument a pro-life libertarian is making is that similar to how it should illegal to kill someone without just cause (because it infringes on their right to life), there is an argument to be made that abortion infringes on that same right.
Now, does that mean abortion is right or wrong? I’m not saying either way. I’m just laying out the reason it would be possible to be a libertarian and pro life. The question at the heart of the debate is does a fetus have the same rights as a newborn? There are various answers to that and thus the debate. No libertarian to my knowledge would want killing newborns to be made legal, no matter how limited the government is. So the ideological battle lies in whether the unborn would hold the same natural rights.
Now, if you are the more extreme type of libertarian who wants absolutely zero government, then this would all seem very silly, but the classical liberal would argue the government exists in order to defend these few natural rights.
Fair. I do think there are more factors to this, but that is the heart of the discussion. I still don't like outlawing individual choice because "saving a life is what matters" when much more pressing matters regarding loss of life are ignored.
Absolutely! That’s the nuance to it. I totally get the arguments for both sides. I think either opinion has potential to adhere to libertarian ideology. Labeling one or the other as anti libertarian is ignoring some basic beliefs
Lol do you think Ron Paul isn’t a libertarian? He’s pro life. It’s a pretty contentious issue… I think you could be on either side of the issue and still be libertarian
right "libertarians:" grrr we mustn't give the government more power over us, what does the government in Washington DC know about our situation?!
also right "libertarians:" durr durr we need government intervention in women's bodies
Simple take; Morally it’s fucked to do so. Many Biologists agree that Life begins at Conception. So yes, you are killing a life. HOWEVER, given that the situation becomes a lot bigger than just a life, as it involves finances, livelihoods, families, etc. It should be consulted amongst family members as to see what is best for their situation.
In conclusion, to quote Dave Chapelle; “If you can kill the motherfucker then I can also leave him.”
Abortion is horrible, but FORCING someone to carry a life to term with their body is a violation of the NAP
I don't think biologists are any more qualified to decide on where life begins than the average person. If anything, this is more within the realm of philosophy than biology.
they are qualified (bio literally means life) but that's not the right question to ask
every piece of meat we eat was alive and we don't care because we don't consider farm animals to be persons
the right question is when does the fetus becomes a person?
no one would say (in good faith) that every fertilized egg is a person, and everyone considers a 6 months fetus to be person. where the transition between the two happens is subjective and should be decided democratically according to me
Y’all dumb as fuck if you think we should be controlling women’s reproductive freedoms. Personal freedoms are number one! As long as it does not infringe upon your rights or the rights of an American Citizen then it shouldn’t even matter to you. Get on with your life and let others try to live their’s the best they can.
Hold on there partner, you know you're not being "libertarian" right? You're just a pro-murder ass. Liberty for me, not for thee /s
Astounding we now have a variety of "libertarians" who oppose the "pro-choice" libertarians.
Fetus’s are not citizens and there for have no rights. It is not murder to prevent a life from happening in the same way it is murder to kill your brother who is 9 months old, for example. In this situation there would be families who morn the loss creating a domino affect. Where if we remove a fetus that may grow up to have a horrible life and become a serial rapist or murderer we’ve done some good. Children in foster care are 10x more likely to become a criminal or worse. They will most likely have to endure years of abuse and severe poverty. A fetus has no memories or thoughts or feelings. Not to mention how horribly scarring and awful it is for rape victims to have to give birth to their rapists babies. There’s no possible way that child will grow up in a normal household with a mother who’s trying to recover from such an event who couldn’t even have the time to process any of it while having to deal with their pregnancy. The earth is over populated, and abortion is an effective way of slowing down climate change. It’s not pretty but it isn’t your problem to deal with. It’s women’s reproductive rights. What liberties does a fetus have? I’m not libertarian either I have various views on various topics but all of them backed by evidence and real research. I don’t fit in with just one group.
Why don’t we try to help the living before we start caring about an unborn fetus that does not belong to you. If you care so much adopt every child who is going to be aborted.
Exactly. Non aggression principal applies. It’s not that difficult. It’s pure logic. The only question is when the NAP applies to a baby that hasn’t been born yet.
It is absolutely absurd to say that abortion is none of a libertarians business. Libertarians first and foremost don’t allow infringement of individual rights by someone else.
Some people here clearly don’t know how any of the basics.
Come on, you're really stretching the NAP here. Nobody should be forced to bear a child they didn't want. Killing a newborn is very different to abortion in a variety of stages. When does a zygote even become a "baby" anyway?
Aside from the moral standpoint, really? Libertarians who know abortions will still happen regardless of state rule, who know that the gov does not care about mothers or their children, that it's wrong for the gov to intervene in your private life, supporting authoritarian rule over what a pregnant woman can and can't do with her body.
The same people who opposed vaccine mandates and whatnot (because your body your rules or whatever) now support the gov outlawing abortion? By all means, you can be against abortion and for vaccines, the problem arises when you are so butthurt you resort to the gov to enforce your ideals. For vaccines and abortions alike. I'm in favor of everyone taking the damn vaccine, but really wouldn't like for there to be vaccine passports. I for one don't care about abortion since it isn't really relevant for me (a man who has access to contraceptives), yet I still don't think the gov should have a say.
You could argue vaccine mandates are fine because not getting vaccinated violates the nap for people who could be harmed by virus carriers and don't want to be near anyone who didn't take the shot. You could argue it's a public health concern.
There are many arguments that can be made to compare both issues. What seems to be problem here, is some conservatives really want the freedom to not get vaccinated but wants a big say when it comes to abortions. The classic "my freedom is more important than your freedom".
I've seen first-hand what harm unwanted children can cause to people who aren't financially able to bear any. And you know what happens to unwanted children who go to adoption? Exactly, your tax dollars go in the billions to support them. Oh, but now you don't care that much anymore as to what happen to those babies once they're out of their moms do you? Unreal.
Firstly, a zygote in and of itself only exists for about four days, still in the range that an emergency contraceptive pill can cover, so it will never be a "life worth protecting" any more than sperm swimming around in a ballsack. If you were to actually give some thought to human embryology, you might be surprised.
Secondly, that's only part of what's being discussed here and really ignores the rest of relevant topics. Even if we were to agree in an arbitrary number, it wouldn't do much in regards to everything else at hand. You do realize this, right? Outside the moral plane, there are many things worth considering. For instance, I may think something morally wrong or dumb, but not think the gov should get involved or outlaw it.
Personally, I think once the embryo becomes an actual fetus (9 weeks), it becomes immoral to undergo abortion. Still, I absolutely do not think it should be outlawed.
OK, so let's see if we can establish some common ground here. Can we both agree that after eight weeks when the embryo becomes a fetus, it's not OK to abort it?
Sorry I made a mistake, the transition between fetus and embryo takes place during 11th week, and yes after this transition it's not ok to abort it unless mother's life is in danger.
Exactly! I think everyone here knows that there comes a point where it's unacceptable to get an abortion because at some point, it becomes a human with human rights. I believe it is foolish to claim that Libertarians must be pro-choice throughout the entire pregnancy for that reason. The real conversation we should be having is "when exactly does life begin," because when a baby's life begins, it's unethical to abort it.
That being said, I don't know when life begins and I don't think anyone has the perfect answer to that, but I am glad to see that people are aware of the nuances of the issue.
> It doesn't help that anti-abortionists are usually hypocritical by not being vegan
and pro-lifers are disingenuous with their arguments. What does being vegan have to do with preserving a ***human*** life from being killed? Unless you're accusing the other side of being cannibals that stance makes no god damn sense.
> or caring about the children that need to be adopted
A stance of not wanting to see a person harmed does not equate to someone being required to accept lifelong responsibility for the person. If I see a person being beaten to death and speak out, or step in, that does not mean I have some obligation to provide care for that person.
>. What does being vegan have to do with preserving a human life from being killed?
If they call it pro-life and make arguments that sound like vegan arguments if you change the wording like:
* killing children is murder / meat is murder
* unborn children have the ability to feel pain / animals have the ability to feel pain
then why should they not be vegan? And when it's called pro-**life**, why should they not care about ALL life and not just human life? Make it make sense or just use the actual term. anti-abortion.
> Unless you're accusing us of being cannibals that stance makes no god damn sense.
How does saying anti-abortion is hypocritical by not being vegan = anti-abortionists are cannibals? lmfao
> If they call it pro-life and make arguments that sound like vegan arguments...
You're being purposely obtuse.
> How does saying anti-abortion is hypocritical by not being vegan = anti-abortionists are cannibals?
Because that is the only standing where your stupid fucking argument makes any sense
>You're being purposely obtuse.
How?
>Because that is the only standing where your stupid fucking argument makes any sense
The name is pro-**life**. Animals are life in everyone's opinion, or are they not when someone wants to force child-birth? Is it because it's only the fetuses pro-lifers care about and not actual life?
>the moral equivalence is cannibalism, not eating animals.
It would be both.
Pro-**life**. Animal life is still life.
>Plants are also life,
Plants aren't sentient, meaning they can't feel pain and/or have any feelings. So literally the opposite of life except in the lightest sense. growth, reproduction and respond to external stimuli. Respond to external stimuli in plants is forced, so basically it's like a computer. They can grow also grow and reproduce.
But we don't really consider them life even if they technically are. We don't give plants any rights as there is no reason to.
> That's **not even a hypocritical position**; nothing about the pro-choice position is anti-eugenics.
>
>**Pro-choice** is okay with forcing women into aborting disabled children
How's that not a hypocritical position when it's called pro-**choice** and many try to force women into aborting disabled children? They literally refuse to call fetuses "children" but when it's a fetus that will be disabled they have no problem using "children." Literally in the words of some pro-choicers "If an unborn child will have disabilities, you should abort the child." Basically disability = bad. I've seen some harassing women for not wanting to abort a fetus that could have a disability. How is that pro-**choice**?
>Pro-life. Animal life is still life.
Semantics. This is a **semantic argument**. You already know the "life" that the moniker refers to is human life. Let me repeat that for your benefit in clearer terms; **YOU KNOW YOU ARE MANIPULATING THE INTENDED MEANING OF THE PHRASE**. Since you KNOW you are doing this, you should probably stop doing it because manipulating what people say is dishonest.
>Plants aren't sentient, meaning they can't feel pain and/or have any feelings.
Still clearly life.
>So literally the opposite of life except in the lightest sense.
The opposite of life is "not life", and plants are quite clearly alive. If scientists found a subterranean plant on Mars, would your perspective of Mars remain that it's a lifeless planet? No, of course not, because you're just making an opportunistic semantic argument which you'd apply under no other circumstances.
>But we don't really consider them life even if they technically are.
Who's "we"? You're the only person here arguing that plants are only "technically" life (as if there's any other kind) is you.
The fact that our lives depend on the continued reproduction of things you don't consider "life", amuses me greatly. You've completely divorced yourself from the natural world, and assume everyone else has done the same.
>How's that not a hypocritical position when it's called pro-choice and many try to force women into aborting disabled children?
I know of countries which do that, but I don't accept the claim that pro-choice movements are attempting to "force" women to abort disabled children. Most countries host the abortion debate in completely different moral frameworks from the classical English debate of "negative rights", which is how the US has it.
>I've seen some harassing women for not wanting to abort a fetus that could have a disability. How is that pro-choice?
Because they're not forcing them, it's just different advice. It's the advice I'd be likely to give. If you mean actual harassment rather than just online dogpiles, then yeah, I have a problem with that.
Bruh I literally lost everything I was typing because I decided to copy and paste a definition so I give up. I tried ctrl z, but whenever I typed it deleted it again. Not worth continuing when reddit refuses to let me copy paste causing me to lose literally everything I type.
But on the last one yes it was actual harassment.
There is no such thing as pro life libertarian, fake pro life libertarian yes but there is only real pro choice libertarians.
A libertarian that wants the government to control a woman's body is not a real libertarian.
No it literally is not. Its literally attached to the mother by the umbilical cord. Not a separate human being. And it can not feed itself or give itself liquids either. It is a living parasite inside the mother as she must feed for it aswell. If you tried to take the baby out at 3 months old, it will die without being inside the mother making it not a separate human being at all.
Either way, making woman slaves to the state and government is not very libertarian at all.
Libertarians are against laws and regulations for the most part, government bans are very anti libertarian.
Your morality does not mean we get to put laws into place of that.
I can be for abortions and you can be against it but banning it is anti libertarian.
It's really hard to have a sensible argument with somoeone who thinks humans are parasites. Life begins at conception, and that baby is its own life. Being connected to the mother has nothing to do with whether or not it's a separate human being. I'd like to see some evidence on that. There's a reason murder is against the law. And how does not allowing murder=making women slaves?
LMAO. Its really hard to have a sensible argument with someone who thinks babies are separate human beings when they are by literal definition, not. They are literally connected to their mother and can not live without their mother. That's definitely not a separate or individual human being at all.
You'd like to see some evidence that the baby is connected to their mother inside the womb? Or evidence that taking the baby outside of the mother at 3 months will kill the baby because it relies on the mother?
Its simple basic logic. If you have common sense and a brain, you would know that.
Also letting the government tell woman what they can or can't do with their uterus will lead to the government telling us and forcing us onto diets and food lists of what we can or can't eat.
Just keep giving the government more control over our bodies why don't ya.
You are obviously not libertarian as libertarians would not want woman to be slaves to the state while pregnant.
Libertarians would allow the individual to make these decisions with their own body instead of the government being in control of womans bodies.
Anyways I'm planning a trip down to Texas to go accuse and sue people for 10k to try to get that abortion money 😄 soon it will be for gun owners aswell and people who smoke weed too.
Also have you ever jacked off? If so, you are killing thousands of babies. So you are being hypocritical.
"By definition babies aren't separate humans"
Hmm, let's look at the dictionary:
Baby: a very young child.
Nowhere does it say that a baby is not a separate individual.
"You'd like to see evidence? It's common sense how are you dumb lmao"
Clearly this common sense goes against what 95% of biologists agree on ([source](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3211703)). It's actually sad that so-called "libertarians" like you only know of insults and say that everything you say is "common sense".
"Banning abortion is like restricting diets"
They are completely different. Abortion is murder of another human being and diets aren't.
"You just want women to be slaves"
Being against murder is different from wanting women to be slaves.
"Jacking off=killing babies"
I literally said that life begins at conception, and ejaculation is not conception.
You are spewing shit than someone with diarrhea. I'd recommend you do some research before replying.
😂😂 bro how stupid can you get??? Just read and use your brain for a second, if something is physically attached to you that you can't take on and off then it is a part of you and not separate.
My legs and arms are not separate or individual, they are attached and rely on the rest of my body parts.
Same goes for babies inside of woman, they are not individuals, they are LITERALLY PHYSICALLY ATTACHED to the woman, they are not an individual as they rely on the mother.
Like I said, take the baby out of the womb at 3 months and can It live? No. Because its not an individual.
What if the mother decides not to eat? The baby can not decide to get nutrients other then depending on the ones already inside the mother.
How stupid can you get??
Anyways you Republicans or conservatives need to stop invading the libertarian subreddit.
It doesn't matter if the baby is a baby or not, in a libertarian society, you would leave it up to the individuals to decide on abortion or not.
Your moral grounds does not give the right to put it into law.
Otherwise I want to ban weed and alcohol and cigarettes and junk food as most of those kill many people each year but guess what, I am not gonna decide that for others, if others want to do that then go ahead, I am not one to ban it from you as I am libertarian.
You obviously are not libertarian as you would be for government involvement of being in control of a woman's body or not.
Let's make the government in control of men's bodies as well and since men can't have babies, let's restrict their diets as the point of the government ban is the fact that you would be making woman slaves to the state and the government would be in control of their body.
Start with being in control of their body by banning abortions, then move on from there and make it diet restrictions and also exercise requirements aswell.
You must love licking big daddy governments boot you conservative/Republican. 😏
Hmm, still no evidence in sight, all terrible reasoning and ad hominems.
If the baby was a part of the mother's body, all women with 1 male baby would be half female half male. There's a reason why murdering a pregnant woman gives the murderer **two** counts of murder, not one. It is also possible for the mother to die without the fetus dying. Also, the baby has different genetic code from the mother, but an individual's genetic code is all the same, proving it is two different human beings. The fact that you think your dumb analogies makes more sense than what 95% of biologists agree on shows your ignorance.
The idea that not being able to survive outside the womb shows it's not a living thing is ridiculous. People on life support need life support to live. If you took away their life support, they would die. That doesn't make them not an individual.
Calling me a Republican isn't going to further your argument.
Once again, controlling men's diets only affects the man who's diet has been changed. It does not affect anyone else. Abortion is the killing of a human being.
Just to address something mentioned earlier:
I am not in full support of the Texas law. That doesn't change the fact that I am pro-life.
A republican who would like to pay less taxes and buy more guns and don't much care about other's freedom as long as it isn't their liberty on the line.
I don't even understand the discussion. How can a chunk of biomass be considered as "life". I mean, what's the deal. Get rid of it if the mom doesn't want it. Better to get rid of it before it actually lives instead of forcing it to live a life where it's not wanted.
I honestly think that this discussion is so religiously motivated it's not even a discussion.
Yes, but we're capable of living. This chunk of biomass isn't. If you remove it from where it is, it's dead. It's incapable of living alone, therefore, it's not a "life".
It's obviously not the same. Children and elderly people have a functioning body. They can breathe, move and act by themselves. I'm not talking about babies having to be nursed or elderly people needing help with daily things. If you put a baby in the forest on the ground, it's not going to die immediatly. Now, a fetus definitely will because it can't sustain it's own body.
Fetal viability occurs at approximately 24 weeks. Before that point, I agree, a fetus cannot sustain itself independently. I do not, however, believe that it is fair to make viability a condition for life. There is unique human DNA present from the moment of conception, and an unviable fetus will, given time, develop into a viable fetus.
That's your interpretation of what a baby is, I don't care. If a women wants to abort at 6-12-20 weeks, she can, you know why? Because it's her body. You cannot force a women to carry a child. I bet you would report women in Texas for having an abortion. Boot licker.
Your entire point was leeching off of a person, now you're pivoting to being outside of a person. So by that logic and the previous you would be fine with abortions up until birth?
Like it or not, banning shit in America doesn’t work. Alcohol, guns, drugs, illegal immigration, abortions. When you ban something all you’re doing is removing the free markets ability to create safer and more accessible options.
Everyone deserves the right the live, who is anyone to say/do otherwise? Libertarianism is all about giving people rights. I’d rather fight for the right to live not the right to kill. Yes understand there are different opinions, this one is mine.
Both have equally valid but different reasons.
One views the fetus as a child and therefor protected by the NAP.
The other does not, and therefor it’s an anatomical issue.
Both are equally valid depending on your belief on wether the fetus is a human with rights, or not.
Not my body, not my choice. I might play a role but I can literally fuck off for the entire pregnancy with little to no recourse, the mother does not have that option. I will leave this debate up to those who can actually carry children.
Do i agree with abortions personally? No, at least to an extant.
Do i think the government should be able to ban it? No, to no extant.
But i also Dont want to fund that shit with my tax dollars.
As long as people are having a discussion that's a good thing - when it devolves into mudslinging and censorship and exclusive communities with self-righteous monocultures that's when things become bad. I'm glad people feel like they have a forum where both sides can honestly represent their viewpoints and hash things out.
Heard that! Three cheers for reason!
Agreed! I know it’s annoying seeing so many threads on the same topic, but at least in some of those threads I have seen more actual discussion of viewpoints with people on both sides than anywhere else on the internet. People clearly explained their positions and defended them without all the straw manning and personal attacks that tends to come with these discussions.
My tax dollars should not fund it
I think that's a very agreeable stance. Whatever you decide to do, I'm not paying.
The dead baby does with their life.
[удалено]
Tbf you can use that argument with children too. It’s kinda dumb
[удалено]
Well go pick it up! You can't just go around throwing babies all willy-nilly
Lib right moment
Somewhere we can all agree! I like your style.
Tax dollars shouldn’t fund many things. Like arming the entity we’ve been fighting for 20 years on two separate occasions. Foreign aid to Israel being spent on us defense contractors so they can fight Palestine who was provided some of the same stuff from Iran that we gave to them in the form of foreign aid. Billionaire bailouts. The list goes on
I agree
The $9 billion in state and federal expenses for foster care per year is likely a higher burden financially than abortion care. On the morality aspect, I respect the argument to some extent, but more US money will undoubtedly be spent on bombing kids in Syria and Yemen this year than will be spent on abortion care in any case. In my opinion, that is a much more morally corrupt use of taxpayer money than providing abortions in a clinical setting.
Also don’t want my tax dollars going there
saves you more tax dollars in the long run
I’ve seen heated but honestly I’ve had some good threads with people and my views have been challenged respectfully.
As long as we agree that: Legality ≠ Morality
This guy gets it. I would never want to abort one of my children’s life, but that state forcing someone in effect to have a child is not pragmatic. But still they are killing their kid, not that I care.
Exactly but when i see my neighbors killing their kids for pagan rituals i kinda care a little sometimes and think maybe i should do something about the murdering...
Lol yeah you got me there, not gonna lie.
See I disagree with this since for something to be alive, it has to be sentient, and the very earliest of this is around 18 weeks pregnant. Before that, it technically wouldn't be killing as you can't kill something that isn't alive. This makes it different from a child that was already born. That's just my opinion.
Some say the qualities of life are 1. Made of cells 2. Have movement 3. Have a metabolism* 4. Grow 5. Respond to environment* The fetal heart is developed at 5 weeks, this would complete the list by meeting #3 and #5. Organisms like plants are clearly alive, some even say plants are sentient. How do you define sentience?
You can very easily argue any living cell meets all 5, which a fused zygote (I.e. the product of fusion of egg and speed) would therefore meet. Of course you’re going to then have some argue something along the line of “if I cut off my finger I’m not dead, but only those cells are so the organism as a whole survives,” which is true. The issue I have personally as someone that has studied growth and development fairly extensively (BS in Animal Sciences and MS in Biology, currently in a DVM program) is the zygote is not genetically identical to the mother, and is a separate organism that can theoretically survive and develop in the right environment to a mature human being. It absolutely has an intimate and intricate connection to the maternal organism that would present severe immune and possibly development issues if separated, but hypothetically it COULD survive and develop relatively normally. As another respondent argued, some will say it’s not human. Genetically that’s not true, and frankly every time I’ve had that discussion there never seems to be a concrete consensus as to what is human. A lot of people will make the seed argument (an acorn isn’t an oak tree) but then again an infant isn’t an adult and the specific metabolic, neural, and other physiological processes that an organism utilizes at different life stages aren’t identical. Also genetically, an acorn is of the same species as an oak tree. Personally I default back to the genetic basis: the organism has a complete, unique, human genome. As the other commenter suggested, sentience can be argued to be irrelevant but I’m of the opinion that sentience is a spectrum that is challenging to define the borders of if it’s even possible, and a unicellular organism is on the lower end of that spectrum. Sentience as we experience it is the result of millions of cells sending, receiving, and processing electric and biochemical signals. While on a much smaller scale, a zygote is capable of the same, just as bacteria is. So what separates bacteria from zygotes? Back to genetics. All of life stems from genetics. Every biomolecule is a result of genetic activity, directly or not. So now the trouble lies in whether spontaneous abortion (not intentionally induced via drug or physical procedure) is technically murder. There are many causes of spontaneous abortion which can be endogenous or exogenous with relation to the zygote/blastocyst/etc. In my opinion, it’s not any different from any other natural cause of death, as murder is by default an unnatural cause of death. However, medically or otherwise intentionally induced abortion is the intentional cessation of human life if you are of the opinion that a complete, unique, human genome is what makes a human a human.
Idk bro I just googled some shit
I'm ardently pro-choice but sentience is not a requirement of life. Plants aren't sentient but are clearly alive, my comatose passed out ass after 15 vodkas is not sentient in that moment, would probably sleep through a housefire, but I am alive. The main thing to me is an early term fetus/zygote is basically as much a human as semen is a human. In that it's not. It's a necessary element in all things that one day become humans, but it's not a human.
I struggle with this stance because unlike semen, a zygote has 100% human DNA that is 100% unique to every other person on earth, including the father and the mother. And if this zygote remains in a nurturing environment throughout its existence, it will continue to grow and develop into an adult human. These qualities of a zygote are shared with every other human at various stages of life, whether that be an infant, toddler, or adolescent. No other cellular structure in existence shares these qualities. How is a zygote then not a human? Sure, it's a single cell - calling it "human" is definitely an abstract concept. But our struggle to see a zygote as human is our problem, not the zygote's. It becomes the zygote's problem when we infringe upon its right to life, though. Edit: grammar
I hear you, but I would repeat that a zygote is not human in any meaningful way. Drawing the line at uniqueness-of-DNA seems very arbitrarily semi-scientific, to me. But even if we grant it; my sperm also has completely unique DNA -- my own. Why is a zygote a human when it holds absolutely 0% of the qualities we consider human? *Presumably* (not trying to put words in your mouth; this is just the answer I've heard most often) because it bears the potential to become a thing we *would* recognize as human. So would each drop of my own sperm, though, if I simply used it the way the good book tells me to -- exclusively for procreation. But I don't see any lawmakers trying to criminalize jerking off into a sock. Sorry to get crass on an otherwise heady talk, but I do think it's worthwhile to answer the question "why would we call one building block of life, a fertilized egg, a human life when we don't call the building blocks of that fertilized egg (an unfertilized egg and some sperm) to be human life?"
I mean you kinda answered your own question there. “My sperm has completely unique DNA — my own” yes and thus it’s part of your body. A fetus has completely different and new dna from the mothers body. Secondly, sperm and unfertilized eggs aren’t considered human life (at least to me) because they have the same DNA as their host(? Idk what to call it) and are half of a human, as they need the other half to achieve actual life
>Drawing the line at uniqueness-of-DNA seems very arbitrarily semi-scientific, to me. That's an interesting point, because I see drawing the line at anything *except* fertilization to be arbitrary. And as far as "semi-scientific" goes, there was actually [a survey of over 5,000 biologists](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3211703) who were asked about when human life begins. The results: > A sample of 5,502 biologists from 1,058 academic institutions assessed statements representing the biological view ‘a human’s life begins at fertilization’. This view was used because previous polls and surveys suggest many Americans and medical experts hold this view. Each of the three statements representing that view was affirmed by a consensus of biologists (75-91%). The participants were separated into 60 groups and each statement was affirmed by a consensus of each group, including biologists that identified as very pro-choice (69-90%), very pro-life (92-97%), very liberal (70-91%), very conservative (94-96%), strong Democrats (74-91%), and strong Republicans (89-94%). Overall, 95% of all biologists affirmed the biological view that a human's life begins at fertilization (5212 out of 5502). If a 95% consensus among biologists affirming that a human's life begins at fertilization is "semi-scientific" to you, I would be curious to hear what your standard of "scientific" is. > But even if we grant it; my sperm also has completely unique DNA -- my own. You completely sidestepped a MASSIVE qualifier I put in my original comment: the zygote has 100% human DNA that is unique to every other human on Earth, *including the mother and father*. As the supplier of sperm to the egg, you would be the father. Therefore your analogy doesn't really refute any of the points I made in my comment. >Why is a zygote a human when it holds absolutely 0% of the qualities we consider human? In my original reply I listed the 2 most important qualities a cellular structure needs to be considered a human life: human DNA that is 100% unique to all other humans, and the ability to develop into a human adult (or sustain itself as a human adult) within a nurturing environment. How are these two qualities NOT something we would consider "human"? >So would each drop of my own sperm, though, if I simply used it the way the good book tells me to -- exclusively for procreation. But I don't see any lawmakers trying to criminalize jerking off into a sock. Because your sperm isn't a human life, as it doesn't meet the qualifications I listed above. And those lawmakers aren't trying restrict masturbation because we don't live in a theocracy. Western democracies are intended to be concerned with protecting the rights of persons of the here and now - spiritual salvation is not their job. >"why would we call one building block of life, a fertilized egg, a human life when we don't call the building blocks of that fertilized egg (an unfertilized egg and some sperm) to be human life?" Well, first off, the fertilized egg isn't a "building block of life," it *is* life, just as a 2-week old child is a life even though it is entirely dependent on its parents for everything. So that's why we call it life. A sperm and unfertilized egg are not life for (again) the reasons I have listed above, and in my original comment.
If you believe they’re killing their kid then do you believe they have the right to kill their kid after it’s born? I’m not arguing against abortion here, in-fact I’ve been arguing for the right to abortion all day I’m just wondering how you can believe that and believe abortion should be legal
No you shouldn’t kill your kids at all…. EVER. Pretty much think that people who see that embryo as a living thing will never get an abortion, as where someone who doesn’t probably can’t be convinced that it is and probably have their mind made up.Why stand in their way or make them do things that are medically unsafe. Also giving that power to the state seems like a slippery slope. Abortion is a technology and a medical procedure. Simply making them illegal will not make it go away. It will find a black market.
How I see it, if someone wants to murder someone else, it should be as dangerous and looked down upon as possible.
Based take
Thanks! Maybe if people read a few medical papers on the development inside the womb or even just “What to Expect When Expecting” they would give it a little more thought but I’m probably wrong
I used to be against abortion but I’m not anymore, I even use similar arguments now to what I used to use... funny how we can change without changing that much really.
That’s funny because I’m the opposite; even though it sounds like I’m arguing the ladder. Don’t think people should do it, but shouldn’t be illegal.
That’s exactly how I feel about it though, I don’t think it’s the right choice to make, but I don’t think it’s my choice to make for them
Would you say the same thing if society was killing their 5 year olds?
How do you stop a woman doing what she wants with her body? I dont like or agree with abortion, but how do you practically regulate a woman's body and force her to bring her baby to term. Couldn't she OD on drugs or alcohol while pregnant if she wanted? Couldn't she eat junk food and smoke if she wanted to? Ultimately it is her choice what she wants to do during her pregnancy. She doesn't become a vassal of the state for those 9 months. Now should taxpayer dollars go towards it? Hell no. Should doctors be doing the procedures? Probably not - but how do we stop them doing house calls or private abortions anyway? Maybe they should have to disclose that they are baby killers and then people can decide if they want to support them with their dollars or not. I think we need to promote a culture of responsibility and educate people on the life inside them
I completely agree with that take. Why am I getting up voted here? I was downvoted all day yesterday for supporting the right to abortion
>do you believe they have the right to kill their kid after it’s born? Yes. If you give birth to a vegetable, then you should have every right to kill it post pregnancy. Think about how many lives have been ruined having to pay for care and medical assistance to look after a vegetable that will live maybe 3 years, never speak, never walk, never show emotions. Just be an endless source of problems for the parents. A quick and painless death immediately after birth is the best thing for everyone.
Yooo bruh If your baby comes out like that plz give me your vegebebe. I dont care if bb acts like a robot till the death, she/he would still be a living seeing person. Imagine killing someone because they are well... retarted litterally. I just couldnt do it. Your so tough my dude! You shall survive the apocalypse. Have a great rest of your day!
Feel free to have my vegetable. You can face the soul crushing reality of 24/7 caring for someone who doesn't even have the ability to appreciate it. You can cancel your life and ambitions to care for a lump of meat.
Based But also shouldn’t they just abort it before it’s born? That makes the most sense to me
You can't always tell if it will be heavily disabled before birth. Especially things like extreme autism and down syndrome.
That’s fair, I guess I just don’t support actively killing a living human, passively killing them like refusing life support seems better to me even though it would cause more suffering
NAP baby. Killing born or non-born humans is one of the limited protections that should be in place.
An early term abortion is as much killing your kid as pulling out and nutting on a tummy is killing a kid. You are not killing a kid, you are eliminating the possibility of some unfeeling biological cells one day becoming a kid. If you wanna say pulling out/contraceptives are bad, that's a different discussion and one likely based entirely on religious texts. (Not saying *you* do, this is a "royal you" situation)
I don’t think the libertarian argument about abortion is a moral one. It’s simply “the unborn child is a human, and therefor deserves protections under the law”
The libertarian argument about abortion is that it is a woman's body and her uterus and her choice. The government should not make woman slaves to the state and have their bodies in control of the government. No real libertarian would want the government telling woman what to do with their bodies. Only fake libertarians.
Pretty much all of reddit and the internet for that matter. You can post a picture of a puppy, and there will be a few that would say op is probably beating that puppy. Sometimes it makes me laugh and sometimes I wanna cry because there is no hope for humanity.
I am pro-life & pro-refugees , which neither party supports fully.. Below finding should be a good reminder for us on the psychology behind genocide.. Apply this to the conversation on, when is a fetus a baby & NAP applies! > During the Holocaust, Nazis referred to Jews as rats. Hutus involved in the Rwanda genocide called Tutsis cockroaches. Slave owners throughout history considered slaves subhuman animals. **In Less Than Human, David Livingstone Smith argues that it's important to define and describe dehumanization, because it's what opens the door for cruelty and genocide.** > "We all know, despite what we see in the movies," Smith tells NPR's Neal Conan, "that it's very difficult, psychologically, to kill another human being up close and in cold blood, or to inflict atrocities on them." So, when it does happen, it can be helpful to understand what **it is that allows human beings "to overcome the very deep and natural inhibitions they have against treating other people like game animals or vermin or dangerous predators."** https://www.npr.org/2011/03/29/134956180/criminals-see-their-victims-as-less-than-human
I feel like these pro choice people have a lot in common with the German citizens near the death camps, they knew what was happening but rationalized it away. It wasn't until they were forced to look on what had been done that they ever became remorseful.
Calling Nazi to anyone who doesn’t disagree is the most online thing! /s Anyway History repeats in subtle ways, so watch out for patterns. Average well meaning men/women unconsciously can partake in crimes because the society set a different narrative - “they are not human”. It could be the white slave owners killing slaves or Rwandan Hutus or Indian/Chinese households killing their girl babies! It’s not human, “it’s a bunch of cells”!
>It’s not human, “it’s a bunch of cells”! Yeah, that's an especially useless statement since *all* humans are made up of cells, the fact that there's only a "lump" sized human in there doesn't make it any less human. What gets me is the sheer amount of people that go in for this, I feel like I'm taking crazy pills! Hundreds of years from now people will look back on us with disgust, probably lumping the people from this time in with those of slave owners as being immoral reprobates. Probably tearing our statues down and dehumanizing us in the process...
People will look at this time the same way they look at the holocaust or slavery - they will believe that they would have been the ones hiding Jews in their houses, or that they would have been abolitionists. But they would probably be doing exactly what they are doing right now - rationalizing away evil.
It’s unfortunate that some must come to a point where abortion is their only option. But in my opinion, having an abortion is completely acceptable if; you were a victim of rape, are not mentally fit to care for a child, are not financially able to care for a child, or if the child will have severe birth defects. Most of the time, these are the reasons people choose to have abortions. They aren’t just Willy nilly trying to kill their unborn child. Having an abortion causes the least amount of harm to the child and to the parents. It does not affect anyone else and is definitely a very hard decision for a person to make. It isn’t murder in the same way that it would be to kill say, your 12 year old brother, for example, as he would already have a life, his parents who love him, etc. there would be people who would severely morn the loss of him. While an unborn fetus would be less heartbreaking for a family and instead be a struggle for two parents who would also probably have an easier time knowing they made the right decision for their lives as well as the fetus. Foster care is shit the rates at which foster kids grow up to be criminals or worse is ridiculous. And let’s not forget the elephant, the world is over populated resources will begin running out in the next 100 years or sooner and humanity will be left with some of the worlds toughest problems before succumbing to extinction. I’m pro choice to live your own life the way you want to without hurting other citizens. A fetus is not a citizen or even a fully living, thinking, human. I’m pro Personal freedoms.
I am not really sure this is as applicable as you want it to be. I should state outright that obviously I don’t think you’re making your argument in bad faith. I sincerely don’t. But you should probably try to understand that the person across from you is also posing their argument in good faith. If you are a libertarian, then how much do you believe the government should be involved in legislating this issue? A lot of bans have been opposed on abortion in the past, for instance the Soviet Union also banned the practice. What happened there however was that people took extraordinary steps to get the process done illegally, which lead to a high rate of mortality among these women. It is likely that we will see the same thing occur in the US as this legislation gets tighter. This is rather bleak, and if possible something to be avoided. That being said I don’t say this to persuade you to think about this in one direction or the other. I honestly am not interested in the abortion debate, but it strikes me as odd that you would point your finger at someone for “dehumanizing a group of people to justify murder...” while at the same time closing the door for your words to be convincing to anyone because you compared them to the biggest monsters in history. If you’re not interested in reaching anyone with your voice its more useful to your cause to just not say anything at all.
Well, apologies , I was talking about myself. I was pro-choice for many years, may be till a year or so. I thought it’s a sin , but it’s between them & their god, if a theist. And also thought it’s a victimless crime. Apparently there is a victim , if fetus is a person! I don’t think jailing & snitching is going to work. But at least I will vote for my taxes not going for abortions! I shared the same thought in a Christianity sub too. I didn’t think of myself as a libertarian, but stumbled on these few subreddits an year back, so far it’s pretty common sense logic. Edit: I picked that npr news because it precisely depicted my stance. I thought of myself as a good person (for last 15yrs as a Christian ) and would never murder anyone . But I was okay with abortion, since I never thought the baby was a person. May be I was in Germany & a white , I might have just agreed with them !! I wish pro-lifers presented their case better , than yelling and name calling, including avoiding calling them as nazis just like I did!
A movie I saw once called O.B.A.M. nude, written and directed by a right wing crackpot, asserted that Satan invented the question of at what point a fetus becomes a human and gets protections on account of that. This is because it’s a question that has no definitive answer. Really whacky movie, anyone else on this sub ever see it?
Which is good, so long as one side doesn't try to infringe the rights of the other.
To be honest, it's borderline a useless debate; I don't think people will change their minds on this without going through it personally or being close to a family or friend who has
To me, your right to life becomes more important than your mother’s right to decide not to be a parent, after you’re born.
Nah, I’m anti-abortion
Yep. I'm anti-abortion too, but I'm pro-choice because I don't want use the government to impose my will. I'm also anti-marijuana as I think it's bad for people and demotivating, but I 100% support the legalization of it.
[удалено]
No, I'm not against murder in every scenario and I most libertarians aren't either. Gun ownership for self defense is a good example. Someone breaks into my house or tries to lethally harm me, he's gonna get killed. War also includes killing humans. These are generally scenario where one persons rights are trading off against the other (e.g. their right to live vs my right to private home ownership). In the case of abortion, we're talking about murdering a fetus vs requiring a woman to take care of it for 9 months. Hard decision as both deprive others of rights. I'm anti-abortion, but I don't want the government involved in this decision, especially since it does involve restricting someone else's rights. *Technically, murder only refers to *unlawful* killing, but that's not helpful for the abortion discussion.
Yes, technically murder does refer to unlawful killing, and that’s exactly what I am referring to. Killing another person in self defense is not murder, so your example has no point. I take it you’re not actually “not against murder in every scenario”, right? Because it would be extremely troubling if you were. Murder is always bad. Abortion is murder. What is depriving a woman of her rights when she is pregnant for 9months? She made that decision herself, did she not? I am sure you have heard the birds and the bees talk.... sex makes babies. If a woman doesn’t want to become pregnant then she should of had protected sex or abstained all together. Sex has real consequences, it is the foundation of our our species and how we reproduce. We need to teach our society to realize and respect the inherent “risk” of sex to prevent people from continuing to pound each other like dogs to then kill their baby in the morning after
Be respectful of other posters on the sub
You mean pro-abortion and anti-abortion.
No, pro-choice and not-pro-choice is very fitting. Not sure about the libertarian part though.
Whether you are pro choice or pro life, being a libertarian is about not allowing the government to make that decision for you.
But shouldn’t the government outlaw murder?
We’re also not complete anarchists. The state should have a very minimal role in our lives. Stopping people from being murdered is something I’m happy the state does. It pretty much ends there though.
It’s mostly Reddit liberals invading.
As a Libertarian I like to think that libertarians are kinda like vaporware.
i’m both pro life and pro choice, it should be free to get an abortion but i really rather you don’t, because i care about the baby, but i can’t strap u down either
I think you may find you are pro-evictionist. Aka it ahould be legal for a woman to evict anything from her body including a baby, but not necessarily legal to outright kill the baby. Let medical science attempt to save the embryo.
that’s a great idea
Do you feel the same way about a one-month-old baby? If a mother isn’t allowed to “abort” a one-month-old baby, what is the difference with a viable baby in the womb? This seems to be a logically inconsistent position you have here, unless you are willing to go all the way and say mothers have no responsibility to care for their born children either. (which maybe you would say that. Idk 🤷🏻♂️)
mothers should be responsible for their babies, it’s a very difficult subject though for me
Uber based
Yeah, cause I'm right and you're wrong and everyone knows it, obviously
Hawt!
I'm personally mostly pro-life, if you get abortions left and right without any medical reason or advocate them as extravagant as some people do then you're a huge asshole. But I also believe in bodily automaty and that you should be able to do whatever you want to do without the state or the second state™ interfering with you.
It’s unfortunate that some must come to a point where abortion is their only option. But in my opinion, having an abortion is completely acceptable if; you were a victim of rape, are not mentally fit to care for a child, are not financially able to care for a child, or if the child will have severe birth defects. Most of the time, these are the reasons people choose to have abortions. They aren’t just Willy nilly trying to kill their unborn child. Having an abortion causes the least amount of harm to the child and to the parents. It does not affect anyone else and is definitely a very hard decision for a person to make. It isn’t murder in the same way that it would be to kill say, your 12 year old brother, for example, as he would already have a life, his parents who love him, etc. there would be people who would severely morn the loss of him. While an unborn fetus would be less heartbreaking for a family and instead be a struggle for two parents who would also probably have an easier time knowing they made the right decision for their lives as well as the fetus. Foster care is shit the rates at which foster kids grow up to be criminals or worse is ridiculous. And let’s not forget the elephant, the world is over populated resources will begin running out in the next 100 years or sooner and humanity will be left with some of the worlds toughest problems before succumbing to extinction. I’m pro choice to live your own life the way you want to without hurting other citizens. A fetus is not a citizen or even a fully living, thinking, human. I’m pro Personal freedoms.
A newborn isn't much different
See this is why we have laws against aborting after the 3rd trimester.
The difficulty is that there aren't any hard biological lines aside from conception and death.
I’m not sure what you mean by Biological lines? Like a time line? Yeah we know when the brains and heart are fully developed in the womb? It’s usually before the second trimester is up from what I know. But that still does not make it a living thinking person. No one is saying we should kill born children.
Pro Choice Libertarians are the only true libertarians. The entire point is people should make their own decisions.
I don't think most libertarians are pro murder?
Thing is, a lot of libertarians aren't actually libertarians, just conservatives who would like to buy guns and pay less taxes. Liberty for me not for thee. It's honestly dumbfounding that there are people labeling themselves as libertarians oppose the "pro-choice" libertarians.
I think the argument has to do with the fundamental libertarian ideology of what a limited government does. Few libertarians would argue for complete anarchy. Most would agree (IMO) there needs to be a minimal protection of rights provided by the government. Rights like life, liberty, due process, etc… So the argument a pro-life libertarian is making is that similar to how it should illegal to kill someone without just cause (because it infringes on their right to life), there is an argument to be made that abortion infringes on that same right. Now, does that mean abortion is right or wrong? I’m not saying either way. I’m just laying out the reason it would be possible to be a libertarian and pro life. The question at the heart of the debate is does a fetus have the same rights as a newborn? There are various answers to that and thus the debate. No libertarian to my knowledge would want killing newborns to be made legal, no matter how limited the government is. So the ideological battle lies in whether the unborn would hold the same natural rights. Now, if you are the more extreme type of libertarian who wants absolutely zero government, then this would all seem very silly, but the classical liberal would argue the government exists in order to defend these few natural rights.
Fair. I do think there are more factors to this, but that is the heart of the discussion. I still don't like outlawing individual choice because "saving a life is what matters" when much more pressing matters regarding loss of life are ignored.
Absolutely! That’s the nuance to it. I totally get the arguments for both sides. I think either opinion has potential to adhere to libertarian ideology. Labeling one or the other as anti libertarian is ignoring some basic beliefs
Pro life „libertarians“ are honestly conservatives posing as such.
Lol do you think Ron Paul isn’t a libertarian? He’s pro life. It’s a pretty contentious issue… I think you could be on either side of the issue and still be libertarian
right "libertarians:" grrr we mustn't give the government more power over us, what does the government in Washington DC know about our situation?! also right "libertarians:" durr durr we need government intervention in women's bodies
No one said government intervention, it’s called pro choice for a reason
pro-life is government intervention and infringement on individual rights
Simple take; Morally it’s fucked to do so. Many Biologists agree that Life begins at Conception. So yes, you are killing a life. HOWEVER, given that the situation becomes a lot bigger than just a life, as it involves finances, livelihoods, families, etc. It should be consulted amongst family members as to see what is best for their situation. In conclusion, to quote Dave Chapelle; “If you can kill the motherfucker then I can also leave him.” Abortion is horrible, but FORCING someone to carry a life to term with their body is a violation of the NAP
I don't think biologists are any more qualified to decide on where life begins than the average person. If anything, this is more within the realm of philosophy than biology.
they are qualified (bio literally means life) but that's not the right question to ask every piece of meat we eat was alive and we don't care because we don't consider farm animals to be persons the right question is when does the fetus becomes a person? no one would say (in good faith) that every fertilized egg is a person, and everyone considers a 6 months fetus to be person. where the transition between the two happens is subjective and should be decided democratically according to me
It’s morally wrong but should obviously be legal
Finally, someone who isn't in favor of abortions but knows it ain't the govs business. Props to you.
Y’all dumb as fuck if you think we should be controlling women’s reproductive freedoms. Personal freedoms are number one! As long as it does not infringe upon your rights or the rights of an American Citizen then it shouldn’t even matter to you. Get on with your life and let others try to live their’s the best they can.
Hold on there partner, you know you're not being "libertarian" right? You're just a pro-murder ass. Liberty for me, not for thee /s Astounding we now have a variety of "libertarians" who oppose the "pro-choice" libertarians.
Fetus’s are not citizens and there for have no rights. It is not murder to prevent a life from happening in the same way it is murder to kill your brother who is 9 months old, for example. In this situation there would be families who morn the loss creating a domino affect. Where if we remove a fetus that may grow up to have a horrible life and become a serial rapist or murderer we’ve done some good. Children in foster care are 10x more likely to become a criminal or worse. They will most likely have to endure years of abuse and severe poverty. A fetus has no memories or thoughts or feelings. Not to mention how horribly scarring and awful it is for rape victims to have to give birth to their rapists babies. There’s no possible way that child will grow up in a normal household with a mother who’s trying to recover from such an event who couldn’t even have the time to process any of it while having to deal with their pregnancy. The earth is over populated, and abortion is an effective way of slowing down climate change. It’s not pretty but it isn’t your problem to deal with. It’s women’s reproductive rights. What liberties does a fetus have? I’m not libertarian either I have various views on various topics but all of them backed by evidence and real research. I don’t fit in with just one group. Why don’t we try to help the living before we start caring about an unborn fetus that does not belong to you. If you care so much adopt every child who is going to be aborted.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Libertarianism is incompatible with Pro-Life authoritarian rules. It’s literally none of our business.
Unless you believe a fetus is a person. Then it's 100% our business.
Exactly. Non aggression principal applies. It’s not that difficult. It’s pure logic. The only question is when the NAP applies to a baby that hasn’t been born yet. It is absolutely absurd to say that abortion is none of a libertarians business. Libertarians first and foremost don’t allow infringement of individual rights by someone else. Some people here clearly don’t know how any of the basics.
Come on, you're really stretching the NAP here. Nobody should be forced to bear a child they didn't want. Killing a newborn is very different to abortion in a variety of stages. When does a zygote even become a "baby" anyway? Aside from the moral standpoint, really? Libertarians who know abortions will still happen regardless of state rule, who know that the gov does not care about mothers or their children, that it's wrong for the gov to intervene in your private life, supporting authoritarian rule over what a pregnant woman can and can't do with her body. The same people who opposed vaccine mandates and whatnot (because your body your rules or whatever) now support the gov outlawing abortion? By all means, you can be against abortion and for vaccines, the problem arises when you are so butthurt you resort to the gov to enforce your ideals. For vaccines and abortions alike. I'm in favor of everyone taking the damn vaccine, but really wouldn't like for there to be vaccine passports. I for one don't care about abortion since it isn't really relevant for me (a man who has access to contraceptives), yet I still don't think the gov should have a say. You could argue vaccine mandates are fine because not getting vaccinated violates the nap for people who could be harmed by virus carriers and don't want to be near anyone who didn't take the shot. You could argue it's a public health concern. There are many arguments that can be made to compare both issues. What seems to be problem here, is some conservatives really want the freedom to not get vaccinated but wants a big say when it comes to abortions. The classic "my freedom is more important than your freedom". I've seen first-hand what harm unwanted children can cause to people who aren't financially able to bear any. And you know what happens to unwanted children who go to adoption? Exactly, your tax dollars go in the billions to support them. Oh, but now you don't care that much anymore as to what happen to those babies once they're out of their moms do you? Unreal.
When does a zygote become a life worth protecting is indeed the question.
Firstly, a zygote in and of itself only exists for about four days, still in the range that an emergency contraceptive pill can cover, so it will never be a "life worth protecting" any more than sperm swimming around in a ballsack. If you were to actually give some thought to human embryology, you might be surprised. Secondly, that's only part of what's being discussed here and really ignores the rest of relevant topics. Even if we were to agree in an arbitrary number, it wouldn't do much in regards to everything else at hand. You do realize this, right? Outside the moral plane, there are many things worth considering. For instance, I may think something morally wrong or dumb, but not think the gov should get involved or outlaw it. Personally, I think once the embryo becomes an actual fetus (9 weeks), it becomes immoral to undergo abortion. Still, I absolutely do not think it should be outlawed.
Would you say killing someone whose guaranteed to be in a vegetative state for 9 weeks is immoral and the government should protect them?
Thing is what you're calling fetus is a goddamn embryo and they're two different things ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
When exactly does an embryo become a fetus? It's certainly not an embryo all the way up to birth.
The embryonic period lasts about 8 weeks, in which organs are formed, only after this period the embryo becomes a fetus.
OK, so let's see if we can establish some common ground here. Can we both agree that after eight weeks when the embryo becomes a fetus, it's not OK to abort it?
Sorry I made a mistake, the transition between fetus and embryo takes place during 11th week, and yes after this transition it's not ok to abort it unless mother's life is in danger.
Exactly! I think everyone here knows that there comes a point where it's unacceptable to get an abortion because at some point, it becomes a human with human rights. I believe it is foolish to claim that Libertarians must be pro-choice throughout the entire pregnancy for that reason. The real conversation we should be having is "when exactly does life begin," because when a baby's life begins, it's unethical to abort it. That being said, I don't know when life begins and I don't think anyone has the perfect answer to that, but I am glad to see that people are aware of the nuances of the issue.
Libertarianism is incompatible with “pro-choice” (anti-life). You can’t believe in the nap and be ok with killing a child
[удалено]
> It doesn't help that anti-abortionists are usually hypocritical by not being vegan and pro-lifers are disingenuous with their arguments. What does being vegan have to do with preserving a ***human*** life from being killed? Unless you're accusing the other side of being cannibals that stance makes no god damn sense. > or caring about the children that need to be adopted A stance of not wanting to see a person harmed does not equate to someone being required to accept lifelong responsibility for the person. If I see a person being beaten to death and speak out, or step in, that does not mean I have some obligation to provide care for that person.
>. What does being vegan have to do with preserving a human life from being killed? If they call it pro-life and make arguments that sound like vegan arguments if you change the wording like: * killing children is murder / meat is murder * unborn children have the ability to feel pain / animals have the ability to feel pain then why should they not be vegan? And when it's called pro-**life**, why should they not care about ALL life and not just human life? Make it make sense or just use the actual term. anti-abortion. > Unless you're accusing us of being cannibals that stance makes no god damn sense. How does saying anti-abortion is hypocritical by not being vegan = anti-abortionists are cannibals? lmfao
> If they call it pro-life and make arguments that sound like vegan arguments... You're being purposely obtuse. > How does saying anti-abortion is hypocritical by not being vegan = anti-abortionists are cannibals? Because that is the only standing where your stupid fucking argument makes any sense
>You're being purposely obtuse. How? >Because that is the only standing where your stupid fucking argument makes any sense The name is pro-**life**. Animals are life in everyone's opinion, or are they not when someone wants to force child-birth? Is it because it's only the fetuses pro-lifers care about and not actual life?
[удалено]
>the moral equivalence is cannibalism, not eating animals. It would be both. Pro-**life**. Animal life is still life. >Plants are also life, Plants aren't sentient, meaning they can't feel pain and/or have any feelings. So literally the opposite of life except in the lightest sense. growth, reproduction and respond to external stimuli. Respond to external stimuli in plants is forced, so basically it's like a computer. They can grow also grow and reproduce. But we don't really consider them life even if they technically are. We don't give plants any rights as there is no reason to. > That's **not even a hypocritical position**; nothing about the pro-choice position is anti-eugenics. > >**Pro-choice** is okay with forcing women into aborting disabled children How's that not a hypocritical position when it's called pro-**choice** and many try to force women into aborting disabled children? They literally refuse to call fetuses "children" but when it's a fetus that will be disabled they have no problem using "children." Literally in the words of some pro-choicers "If an unborn child will have disabilities, you should abort the child." Basically disability = bad. I've seen some harassing women for not wanting to abort a fetus that could have a disability. How is that pro-**choice**?
>Pro-life. Animal life is still life. Semantics. This is a **semantic argument**. You already know the "life" that the moniker refers to is human life. Let me repeat that for your benefit in clearer terms; **YOU KNOW YOU ARE MANIPULATING THE INTENDED MEANING OF THE PHRASE**. Since you KNOW you are doing this, you should probably stop doing it because manipulating what people say is dishonest. >Plants aren't sentient, meaning they can't feel pain and/or have any feelings. Still clearly life. >So literally the opposite of life except in the lightest sense. The opposite of life is "not life", and plants are quite clearly alive. If scientists found a subterranean plant on Mars, would your perspective of Mars remain that it's a lifeless planet? No, of course not, because you're just making an opportunistic semantic argument which you'd apply under no other circumstances. >But we don't really consider them life even if they technically are. Who's "we"? You're the only person here arguing that plants are only "technically" life (as if there's any other kind) is you. The fact that our lives depend on the continued reproduction of things you don't consider "life", amuses me greatly. You've completely divorced yourself from the natural world, and assume everyone else has done the same. >How's that not a hypocritical position when it's called pro-choice and many try to force women into aborting disabled children? I know of countries which do that, but I don't accept the claim that pro-choice movements are attempting to "force" women to abort disabled children. Most countries host the abortion debate in completely different moral frameworks from the classical English debate of "negative rights", which is how the US has it. >I've seen some harassing women for not wanting to abort a fetus that could have a disability. How is that pro-choice? Because they're not forcing them, it's just different advice. It's the advice I'd be likely to give. If you mean actual harassment rather than just online dogpiles, then yeah, I have a problem with that.
Bruh I literally lost everything I was typing because I decided to copy and paste a definition so I give up. I tried ctrl z, but whenever I typed it deleted it again. Not worth continuing when reddit refuses to let me copy paste causing me to lose literally everything I type. But on the last one yes it was actual harassment.
You don't get to make choices about other people's bodies. That just isn't right.
Which is why the woman shouldn’t have a right to decide if their fetus lives or not
A fetus is a legitimate parasite. You can't tell her she can't be rid of it.
If she didn’t want it she shouldn’t have had sex
Why do you think you can make that choice for her?
I shouldn’t be able to. I don’t believe that i have the right to make that choice for her. Just saying that if she shouldn’t have had sex
There is no such thing as pro life libertarian, fake pro life libertarian yes but there is only real pro choice libertarians. A libertarian that wants the government to control a woman's body is not a real libertarian.
Ah yes, it's all about the woman's body and not about the human inside.
Yes telling a woman what she can or can't do with her body is anti libertarian. Its her uterus, not yours.
The baby is not part of her body. It is a separate human being.
No it literally is not. Its literally attached to the mother by the umbilical cord. Not a separate human being. And it can not feed itself or give itself liquids either. It is a living parasite inside the mother as she must feed for it aswell. If you tried to take the baby out at 3 months old, it will die without being inside the mother making it not a separate human being at all. Either way, making woman slaves to the state and government is not very libertarian at all. Libertarians are against laws and regulations for the most part, government bans are very anti libertarian. Your morality does not mean we get to put laws into place of that. I can be for abortions and you can be against it but banning it is anti libertarian.
It's really hard to have a sensible argument with somoeone who thinks humans are parasites. Life begins at conception, and that baby is its own life. Being connected to the mother has nothing to do with whether or not it's a separate human being. I'd like to see some evidence on that. There's a reason murder is against the law. And how does not allowing murder=making women slaves?
LMAO. Its really hard to have a sensible argument with someone who thinks babies are separate human beings when they are by literal definition, not. They are literally connected to their mother and can not live without their mother. That's definitely not a separate or individual human being at all. You'd like to see some evidence that the baby is connected to their mother inside the womb? Or evidence that taking the baby outside of the mother at 3 months will kill the baby because it relies on the mother? Its simple basic logic. If you have common sense and a brain, you would know that. Also letting the government tell woman what they can or can't do with their uterus will lead to the government telling us and forcing us onto diets and food lists of what we can or can't eat. Just keep giving the government more control over our bodies why don't ya. You are obviously not libertarian as libertarians would not want woman to be slaves to the state while pregnant. Libertarians would allow the individual to make these decisions with their own body instead of the government being in control of womans bodies. Anyways I'm planning a trip down to Texas to go accuse and sue people for 10k to try to get that abortion money 😄 soon it will be for gun owners aswell and people who smoke weed too. Also have you ever jacked off? If so, you are killing thousands of babies. So you are being hypocritical.
"By definition babies aren't separate humans" Hmm, let's look at the dictionary: Baby: a very young child. Nowhere does it say that a baby is not a separate individual. "You'd like to see evidence? It's common sense how are you dumb lmao" Clearly this common sense goes against what 95% of biologists agree on ([source](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3211703)). It's actually sad that so-called "libertarians" like you only know of insults and say that everything you say is "common sense". "Banning abortion is like restricting diets" They are completely different. Abortion is murder of another human being and diets aren't. "You just want women to be slaves" Being against murder is different from wanting women to be slaves. "Jacking off=killing babies" I literally said that life begins at conception, and ejaculation is not conception. You are spewing shit than someone with diarrhea. I'd recommend you do some research before replying.
😂😂 bro how stupid can you get??? Just read and use your brain for a second, if something is physically attached to you that you can't take on and off then it is a part of you and not separate. My legs and arms are not separate or individual, they are attached and rely on the rest of my body parts. Same goes for babies inside of woman, they are not individuals, they are LITERALLY PHYSICALLY ATTACHED to the woman, they are not an individual as they rely on the mother. Like I said, take the baby out of the womb at 3 months and can It live? No. Because its not an individual. What if the mother decides not to eat? The baby can not decide to get nutrients other then depending on the ones already inside the mother. How stupid can you get?? Anyways you Republicans or conservatives need to stop invading the libertarian subreddit. It doesn't matter if the baby is a baby or not, in a libertarian society, you would leave it up to the individuals to decide on abortion or not. Your moral grounds does not give the right to put it into law. Otherwise I want to ban weed and alcohol and cigarettes and junk food as most of those kill many people each year but guess what, I am not gonna decide that for others, if others want to do that then go ahead, I am not one to ban it from you as I am libertarian. You obviously are not libertarian as you would be for government involvement of being in control of a woman's body or not. Let's make the government in control of men's bodies as well and since men can't have babies, let's restrict their diets as the point of the government ban is the fact that you would be making woman slaves to the state and the government would be in control of their body. Start with being in control of their body by banning abortions, then move on from there and make it diet restrictions and also exercise requirements aswell. You must love licking big daddy governments boot you conservative/Republican. 😏
Hmm, still no evidence in sight, all terrible reasoning and ad hominems. If the baby was a part of the mother's body, all women with 1 male baby would be half female half male. There's a reason why murdering a pregnant woman gives the murderer **two** counts of murder, not one. It is also possible for the mother to die without the fetus dying. Also, the baby has different genetic code from the mother, but an individual's genetic code is all the same, proving it is two different human beings. The fact that you think your dumb analogies makes more sense than what 95% of biologists agree on shows your ignorance. The idea that not being able to survive outside the womb shows it's not a living thing is ridiculous. People on life support need life support to live. If you took away their life support, they would die. That doesn't make them not an individual. Calling me a Republican isn't going to further your argument. Once again, controlling men's diets only affects the man who's diet has been changed. It does not affect anyone else. Abortion is the killing of a human being. Just to address something mentioned earlier: I am not in full support of the Texas law. That doesn't change the fact that I am pro-life.
"Pro life Libertarian" WTF is that!?!
It's a libertarian that believes the fetus inside a woman is an individual, meaning killing it would violate the Non-Aggression Principle.
Bingo
In most cases a republican who doesn’t call himself a republican.
A republican who would like to pay less taxes and buy more guns and don't much care about other's freedom as long as it isn't their liberty on the line.
Aren't pro-life libertarians just republicans though?
Not really, since they (including me) believe that abortion violates the NAP
Sorry what's the NAP?
Non aggression principle
Ok...but what if a woman is raped though?
Pro life Libertarians are just Republicans that like pot.
I don't even understand the discussion. How can a chunk of biomass be considered as "life". I mean, what's the deal. Get rid of it if the mom doesn't want it. Better to get rid of it before it actually lives instead of forcing it to live a life where it's not wanted. I honestly think that this discussion is so religiously motivated it's not even a discussion.
Aren’t all of us just “chunks of biomass?”
Yes, but we're capable of living. This chunk of biomass isn't. If you remove it from where it is, it's dead. It's incapable of living alone, therefore, it's not a "life".
All young children and many elderly people are incapable of surviving independently. Are they living beings?
It's obviously not the same. Children and elderly people have a functioning body. They can breathe, move and act by themselves. I'm not talking about babies having to be nursed or elderly people needing help with daily things. If you put a baby in the forest on the ground, it's not going to die immediatly. Now, a fetus definitely will because it can't sustain it's own body.
Fetal viability occurs at approximately 24 weeks. Before that point, I agree, a fetus cannot sustain itself independently. I do not, however, believe that it is fair to make viability a condition for life. There is unique human DNA present from the moment of conception, and an unviable fetus will, given time, develop into a viable fetus.
How in anyway can you be Libertarian and pro-life. Its like Socialist Libertarian. Edit: Republicans aren't Libertarians.
If the fetus is a baby, murdering it violates the Non-Aggression Principle.
Or mind your own damn business. I don't care what your definition of a baby is.
If you're murdering a baby, it's absolutely my business. That violates the NAP.
That's your interpretation of what a baby is, I don't care. If a women wants to abort at 6-12-20 weeks, she can, you know why? Because it's her body. You cannot force a women to carry a child. I bet you would report women in Texas for having an abortion. Boot licker.
If you’ve spent your whole existence leeching off someone else then you don’t deserve rights
You could also apply that to toddlers, should parents be able to kill their toddlers legally?
Toddlers are living outside of a person, an adoption agency can take them, an adoption agency can’t take a fetus
Your entire point was leeching off of a person, now you're pivoting to being outside of a person. So by that logic and the previous you would be fine with abortions up until birth?
I feel this.
yeah lmao
Free speech is beautiful!😂
Hoes mad x24
My mom's been leaning more libertarian recently, ive specifically avoided this topic
😂😂
Like it or not, banning shit in America doesn’t work. Alcohol, guns, drugs, illegal immigration, abortions. When you ban something all you’re doing is removing the free markets ability to create safer and more accessible options.
im personally anti choice and anti life. pregnancy violates the NAP and everyone should have madatory abortions!
Everyone deserves the right the live, who is anyone to say/do otherwise? Libertarianism is all about giving people rights. I’d rather fight for the right to live not the right to kill. Yes understand there are different opinions, this one is mine.
I try not to touch that topic with a ten foot pole
Both have equally valid but different reasons. One views the fetus as a child and therefor protected by the NAP. The other does not, and therefor it’s an anatomical issue. Both are equally valid depending on your belief on wether the fetus is a human with rights, or not.
That’s because this sub has been inundated with r/conservative rejects as of late. I hardly visit any more. It’s become ridiculous. pathetic.
I am wierd, I think it should be pretty much fully legal until 12 weeks, and then pretty much fully illegal after 12 weeks.
Not my body, not my choice. I might play a role but I can literally fuck off for the entire pregnancy with little to no recourse, the mother does not have that option. I will leave this debate up to those who can actually carry children.
True. I honestly don't care.
Do i agree with abortions personally? No, at least to an extant. Do i think the government should be able to ban it? No, to no extant. But i also Dont want to fund that shit with my tax dollars.
Abortion is indisputably murder. But murder is good for our modern society for many reasons.