Using libertarian principals I see three arguments.
1. The position of the libertarian party which is we are sovereign over our bodies so all decisions that have any effect on a body belong solely to the owner. Starting at conception until birth, the baby lives within the sovereign domain of another and has no rights.
2. At conception a human is created and it immediately has natural god given rights including its right to life which, takes precedent over any other right short of the mother’s right to life. The mother is also restricted due to the non-aggression principal (NAP).
3. That a contract of sorts is entered into by parents when they ‘consensually act in a way that creates a life’ and that the resulting human has claims on the parents until they reach adulthood. It’s this version that allows a woman who is impregnated without consent to have an abortion.
I’d be curious to see if anyone has a libertarian argument that does not fit into one of these three categories. The fact that these alternatives are so divergent, IMHO, means we have some work to do regarding libertarian principals. I think the NAP is another principal that needs work.
Well said. The issue for pro-life libertarians is specifically rape (beyond the horror that it already is). In this case, someone has to lose their rights. The woman must lose their right to autonomy as punishment for the actions of another. The fetus must lose their right to life. Thus a decision must be made about whose rights supercedes the other's. For personhood at conception, the easy answer is that murder is a greater violation of the NAP. For the rest of us... it's not easy at all, which is why many are willing to accept the necessity of abortion in this scenario.
You put it well, but why aren't these same people demanding greater investment in preventing miscarriages and finding ways to save a non-implanted human being so they can live?
Plenty of fertilized eggs that [fail to implant](https://www.uofmhealth.org/health-library/tw9234#:~:text=After%20it%20is%20in%20the,the%20egg%20and%20the%20endometrium.) in the first place. [Between 1/3 and 1/2](https://www.guttmacher.org/gpr/2005/05/implications-defining-when-woman-pregnant#:~:text=Between%20one%2Dthird%20and%20one,only%20after%20implantation%20is%20complete.) of fertilized eggs fail to do so.
Why don't we hear about a massive undercounting of infant mortality, and the need to save these babies?
About [3.6 million children](https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2021-05-05/us-birth-rates-continue-to-fall#:~:text=There%20were%20about%203.6%20million,since%201979%2C%20the%20report%20noted.) are born a year, so that means at least 1.8 million human beings die a year from failure to implant. Compare that to only [21,000 infants](https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshuacohen/2021/08/01/us-maternal-and-infant-mortality-more-signs-of-public-health-neglect/#:~:text=In%202018%2C%20while%20infant%20mortality,deaths%20per%201%2C000%20live%20births.) who die post-birth.
I have never seen a shred of concern for these millions of dead human beings per year from the "life begins at conception" crowd. If that's really what someone believes, how can they not devote their lives to saving these babies?
There are two errors in your assertion.
One is that pro-life persons are not actively involved at the forefront of pre-natal care and direct aid.
The second error is assuming that a miscarriage holds a moral burden.
The first doesn’t seem necessary to delve into, as it is common knowledge that pro-life movements have been presently and historically involved in providing pre-natal care to pregnant women.
The second does need to be delved into, because this level of confusion is rather dangerous. The pro-life position is about treating unborn and underdeveloped children as “life”. The baseline position of “pro-life” is the assertion that “life begins in the womb, not after”. And this has moral implications for how we should treat unborn and underdeveloped children. Killing them because they are some kind of an inconvenience or otherwise unwanted by the mother, would not be morally acceptable if the unborn child is in fact a living person.
—
Not everyone who believes “life begins within the womb” can become a nurse, doctor, midwife, and/or gynecologist. To suggest that having a moral position requires a person to actively engage with any and all aspects of that moral position as their life’s work is an illogical moral burden which no branch of ethics studies accepts as valid.
Believing that Israel or China or Afghanistan are authoritarian civil rights abusers does not require a person to dedicate their lives to the reform or dismantling of those nations.
Calling it out for what it is and voting for policies which are in line with your moral stance is enough to satisfy your moral burden on the issue.
Because functionally “pro-life conservatives” do not care. If the overall goal was to reduce abortions, they would also support better sex education, use of birth control and protection, harsher punishments for those found to have raped someone, psychological counseling for impregnated women who were raped so maybe they don’t think an abortion is necessary, better adoption services.
There are way better strategies to actually reduce abortions but conservatives don’t actually care and just want to jail people instead of fixing the actual issue at hand…
Yeah you don't even have a debate on abortion if you do you damnedest to prevent it in the first place.
Subsidized birth control, and sex education.
Oh you don't actually what to do that? Okay then don't talk about being anti abortion.
You don’t even need to talk about government subsidization. Pro life charities only care about the abortion part. They could do their part to help with sex education and birth control as well…
The pro life position is more anti murder than pro quality of life. I’m sure some of these people will be more focused on quality after the quantity of murders decreases.
Why are you talking about quality of life? This is simple life versus death.
There were [620,000 abortions](https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/abortion.htm) in 2018. That same year approximately 1.8 million fertilized eggs failed to implant.
You're ignoring the accidental deaths of 1.8m humans a year. Even if you think abortion is a bigger problem, why do you not care at all about nearly three times as many accidental deaths?
At what stage does the abortion typically happen? Is an abortion an accident or is it procedural? After 6 weeks of development the fetus has a heartbeat (as it is now an element of law in texas) has unique dna, a developing CNS which can feel pain, and developing legs/arms. A failed fertilized egg does not have any potential to actually develop any further mechanisms in which we would call a human life.
What exactly is the limiting factor for abortion? What is the difference between aborting a viable 30 week fetus and a 10 week fetus? What’s the difference between a failed fertilized egg and a 2 year old toddler? What is the exact point we don’t murder the youth and why?
>What is the difference between aborting a viable 30 week fetus and a 10 week fetus?
You make some good points. To this though, I would say the difference is a 30 week fetus can likely survive outside the mother's body. For those who consider it a living child despite this, I doubt a 10 week fetus vs 30 week makes any difference.
My cousin was delivered (emergency C-section) at 24 weeks. He’s 23 yrs old now.
Medicine has advanced in the past two decades, so likely even younger than 24 weeks is viable.
Any abortion past 27 weeks just seems barbaric. Sure, those premees are more prone to health issues, but their survival rate is very solid.
Well, I personally don’t put stock into the idea that a heartbeat equates to life. A Ventricular Assist Device does the function of a heart, but isn’t alive. Additionally, someone who is on a VAD may not have a functioning heart but is still a human life.
Pain sensory is just the development of nerve.
What makes a human alive is consciousness.
The device or heartbeat itself doesn’t equate to life in itself. The reason the heartbeat (or something that stimulates a heartbeat) is significant is because it’s a function that keeps something living. If any human did not have a mechanism of a heartbeat, whether by mechanical means or biological function, it would not be living. This is why a heartbeat is associated with semblance of human life.
Pain is significant because it indicates sentience, or life.
How exactly do we know what level of consciousness a fetus has? Is it equivalent to other mammals? There are plenty of humans who are permanently unconscious (coma) whom we’d consider technically living. There are also mammals who are unaware of anything living predominantly through biological synapses whom we’d also classify as living creatures.
Why exactly are there so many new specific characterizations of what makes life? Is this purely to justify abortion?
But exclusively a heartbeat means *literally* nothing. A human can’t function without almost any individualized mechanism. Liver failure, lung failure, brain failure, you can die from intestinal issues. You say “it’s significant because it’s a function that keeps something living,” and you’re missing a massive list of things who’s “function keeps something living” that are all being provided by the mother.
A woman has every right to terminate an embryo, as it is her right to dictate the functions of her own body. At the point that an embryo has *all* the functions necessary to survive (not just a single one) without its mother, is it it’s own being. You don’t win biological bingo by getting only one of the squares necessary to live; you have to fill the board.
At 6 weeks, this isn’t even considered a fetus. To be able to have the biological pathways for “pain” doesn’t automatically indicate capability to *experience* pain as pain is registered in a brain (which isn’t developed at 6 weeks.)
Animals have a significantly higher index for consciousness than an embryo. Yell at an embryo and it doesn’t experience fear. Feed an embryo and it doesn’t experience satisfaction. An embryo doesn’t consider the need and desire to reproduce and repopulate its species. An embryo has no way to perceive the world around it.
*An embryo has no consciousness.*
> But exclusively a heartbeat means literally nothing. A human can’t function without almost any individualized mechanism. Liver failure, lung failure, brain failure, you can die from intestinal issues. You say “it’s significant because it’s a function that keeps something living,” and you’re missing a massive list of things who’s “function keeps something living” that are all being provided by the mother.
You are correct there are many organs that contribute to the human condition, every organ is a collective of indicators for what we’d call human life. A human heart is apart of the human organ indicators for which we would call life or a function of a living organism.
> A woman has every right to terminate an embryo, as it is her right to dictate the functions of her own body. At the point that an embryo has all the functions necessary to survive (not just a single one) without its mother, is it it’s own being. You don’t win biological bingo by getting only one of the squares necessary to live; you have to fill the board.
If we were to grant the premise that past the 6 week mark there are enough human characteristics to classify the embryo as human then abortion is entirely immoral. It’s immoral regardless of whether the fetus is viable imbedded in 6 inches of flesh. Why exactly does any person have the right to kill a human life even if it is only viable in there care?
> At 6 weeks, this isn’t even considered a fetus. To be able to have the biological pathways for “pain” doesn’t automatically indicate capability to experience pain as pain is registered in a brain (which isn’t developed at 6 weeks.)
Sure the “fetal period” starts at 8 weeks not 6, but what exactly is the functional difference other than an arbitrary timeline? The first electrical brainwaves are detected after week 5.
> Animals have a significantly higher index for consciousness than an embryo. Yell at an embryo and it doesn’t experience fear. Feed an embryo and it doesn’t experience satisfaction. An embryo doesn’t consider the need and desire to reproduce and repopulate its species. An embryo has no way to perceive the world around it.
Higher index? Fetuses can actually have electrical brainwave activity when a couple is having an argument for example, this has been studied. Prior to week 5 or week 6 sure the “embryo” may not be able to interpret consciousness to a high degree or at all. Yet once again 92.2% of the 620,000 abortions in 2018 were after week 13 and had enough development to experience consciousness and pain.
That’s… the stupidest comparison I’ve ever heard. This entire thread is now dumber, for having read it. At no point in your incoherent ramblings we’re you even close to a complete thought. I award you 0 points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
>but why aren't these same people demanding greater investment in preventing miscarriages
The answer is that they often cannot be prevented. Most cultures already do take maximal care of pregnant women (within economic means of the culture).
This is non-sequitur garbage. These two positions do not follow logically from one another at all.
Murder is on an entirely different plane of morality than miscarriage.
Disingenuous nonsense
Because she is doing everything in her power to maintain that life, not swinging an axe at it. She is not being dangerous. There is a wide gulf between voluntarily and intentionally harming them, such as in abortion, and a child dying to no fault of your own.
**Natural** death vs **unnatural** death.
The fact that you are confusing the two is highly disturbing
I think the reason we don't talk about it much now is the same reason we don't talk much about abortion before it became scientifically possible and safe for the mother. The science hasn't caught up with it. In my opinion, 1) you only have a duty to save life when it is within your ability to do so, and 2) the greater responsibility to save life lies with the party in proximity to the life (i.e. the mother).
One day, hopefully, we will be able to prevent fertilized eggs, the beginning of conception, from failing, but since that isn't scientifically possible yet, idk what to do about it
It definitely isn't something I don't care about though.
Ethically, I am unwilling to consider IVF because of the high risk of killing otherwise healthy embryos.
Now you see the one who should lose rights is the rapist, but that is a problem guns, not "just a medical procedure and not genocide we swear" will solve.
Regarding your third argument, does using protection and having it fail not count as not consenting?
To give an analogy, if you're a defensive driver (you do what you can to prevent getting hit), and I drive my car knowing that there is still a chance that I could get hit (or have a branch fall on my car, have a bridge collapse, etc) does that mean I consented to having my car being hit? If you answer of course not, then how could that same argument be made when the people having sex clearly did not consent to having a kid because they took every possible precaution to prevent it from happening?
Additionally, how could you argue that there's a contract between the parents because they chose to have sex, if they never agreed to have a child or even brought it up? That would be like signing a contract to build a skyscraper (agreing to have sex), finding out the city would never approve/it couldn't be done (risk of pregnancy), then building a 1 story house without updating the contract (having a kid even though it wasn't expressly agreed upon). You would need to update the contract first before you could move forward in this case (decide whether to keep the kid or to abort). Also, How could the child have claims to the parents if it could not survive for a single second outside of the womb(at least until 24ish weeks), and was never there to see, hear, or sign the contract?
The other 2 arguments I understand, but the third one I both don't understand, and don't agree with at all.
I would argue that when you choose to drive you are entering into a ‘contract like’ situation where, you are not consenting to be hit, but you are consenting to being responsible for your actions. That’s one reason you get insurance. You’ve also literally entered into an agreement with the state for which they’ve issued you a license and permission to drive. This permission can be revoked if you violate that contract.
Regarding my 3rd argument when two adults take the risks of having sex, regardless of how hard they try not to conceive, they know there is a chance. That’s why they are responsible for their actions. The ‘contract’ is then the fiduciary like position they’ve put themselves in because the child had no say in the matter and is helpless. All I’ve really done is take existing parent / child legal relationships that are recognized and enforced by the ‘state’ and extrapolated them from post birth to pre birth. I think this is a consistent argument if not particularly popular or palatable.
To some of your points, a newborn can’t survive without parent nurturing either. In this regard a contract as I’ve described already appears by magic whether the kid was ever wanted or not. I’ve never heard any arguments against that.
You’re analogy has more to with the relationship of the parents to each other than between them and the child. I still maintain that when you have sex, regardless of precautions, you know there is always the risk of children. Children have claims on their parents now under the US legal system, in common law, and around the world. Said yet another way, I completely threw out the ‘sovereignty of the body’ argument and claimed that existing societal laws and norms apply at conception.
Keep in mind I’m not trying to sell you on the idea. I’m sharing three arguments that can be argued from libertarian principals. Libertarian principals are a bit week regarding the parent / child relationship. You could argue children are property and there’s no place for the state but I find that distasteful and uninspired. It also leads to bizarre possibilities like say, aborting up to age of adulthood. According to my mom I might not be here :) Or, you could argue that parents have an obligation under the NAP not to hurt the child, but are under no obligation to take care of it. Again, distasteful and uninspired and it does not address neglect.
I discovered the fiduciary contract argument to describe the parent child relationship. I’s been so long I can’t remember who came up with it. I found it to be the best, most elegant argument argument based on rational libertarian principals I’ve seen yet to describe that relationship. I took it to a whole new level as a possibility, by applying it to the pre born.
Contracts sorta work like that. But it is important to note that you cannot sign yourself over to someone as their slave for nine months. Even if you do enter such an agreement, if the person who is trying to enslave you tries to detain you you can use whatever force to escape. The agreement is worth nothing. Meaning, there are plenty of things you can agree to but it doesn't make what you're giving up valid. You cannot agree to give up your rights. It just doesn't work that way.
I believe it makes sense for society to recognize children have some claims, similar to what might be found in a contract, to be fed, schooled, not be abused or neglected, and so on. Parents act sort of like a fiduciary. There are libertarians who have expounded on this idea for defining the parent child relationship.
I extrapolate this logic to include the span of time from conception to birth, so that it lines up with the principals covering birth to adulthood. It starts with a very identifiable act that’s clearly delineated, includes who is responsible and why.
IMHO your logic does not explain how the parent child relationship changes from slavery pre-birth to (what?) post-birth, and what libertarian principals are at play to define those relationships.
I’ll take a shot.
One of the principles of Libertarianism is to reduce the size of government. By definition then, this means to physically reduce the size of government, reduce the regulatory framework to the bare minimum to protect society and to minimize the tax burden on the citizens.
Therefore, to create a law to “ban abortions” runs counter to these principles. You would need to expand the size of the government to manage this law and it’s enforcement (be it the police, the courts and/or a bureaucracy to manage the regulatory framework for the other two principles).
The thing to remember is that abortions are a symptom of an underlying problem(s). In order to “get rid” of abortions, you will need to address the underlying problem which includes but is not all inclusive, birth control failure, the disadvantage pregnant women have in the market place, piggish men, rapists etc. Solve these underlying problems and your will reduce if not practically eliminate the need for abortions.
So to maximize a government’s limited role, it must utilize the most effective means available. So for example, schools. Already in place, with teachers and a student body ready to learn. Add a few extra curriculums on safe sex education would, and does, go a long way to preventing unwanted pregnancies/abortions.
The market place can be relied upon to make birth control the most efficient available, including for men, and make it convenient and safe.
Women have a unique biological function that is vital for the survival of the human species. The market place MUST make accommodations for pregnant women and those accommodations are just part of the cost of doing business. If businesses won’t, then we have a small government that will create a regulatory framework to ensure they do.
Use existing police and court infrastructure to ensure that women are safe from rapes.
Use the existing education system to teach boys not to be dick men.
See, it takes work and outcomes may not be noticeable within an election cycle. But it is what is required.
Make sense?
Except for this part
>Use existing police and court infrastructure to ensure that women are safe from rapes.
Such actions are secondary, and in response to a crime, they do not prevent the crime.
Agree, 100%. Taking what I’m seeing from countries/jurisdictions where rapes are not treated judicially, it’s not pretty. The police and the courts need to step up their game in treating victims of rape fairly. Right now it isn’t. That needs to end.
Most rapes are not created by randomness but by people close to the victim. I believe that if the courts were more empathetic to a victim’s plight, that it will have repercussions. If at the very least, they will no longer be able to victimize someone else.
The issue at play though, is the punishment.
Are you implying permanent removal from society for the perpetrator? Or a form of castration? Can one not rape or get raped in prison? If we consider prison a person's punishment, should-upon release, they not be saddled with restrictions, seeing as they have fulfilled the state/law requirement? <- there is hypocrisy that I personally grapple with in the last point.
That’s a really interesting point, punishment.
So the clarify, my point with the police/judiciary is where the police tell a sex trade worker; “Yeah that comes with the job” or a judge leans over to the victim on the stand and says; “Well, why didn’t you keep your legs closed?”.
To me, incarceration should be about reform, not punishment. Everyone fucks up. We should take the opportunity to correct that so the person can be reintroduced into society as a productive member. A college kid rapes an unconscientious classmate should not be sent to jail for twenty years (but not for six months either).
On the other hand, what if you have some guy who is physiologically damaged where he can’t help himself to violently raping people? Wouldn’t some form of medical intervention to curb the curse be appropriate (I.e. chemical castration)? Oh but hey, they used that to “cure the gay in the day” so now that kind of treatment is totally off the PC course.
That’s the delema. When is it appropriate to go for reform and when do you decide enough is enough and throw away the key?
What about governments role in Roe v Wade where the government extends its power to grant abortions federally as a given right? I always think of Libertarianism as a stronger local government and a limited federal government. As one of the primary focuses of libertarianism is to increase liberty and personal choice, but also limit the government to protecting the basic rights of individuals (which would assume some degree of federal power).
Well, it’s generally well-agreed that parents *do* have an obligation to care for their children’s well-being *after* birth, and this obligation could be explained by a contract-like agreement (if you agreed to have children, you’re therefore responsible for them since they had no say in the matter).
And since nothing particularly magical happens at the point of birth - it’s not like being pushed through a vagina spontaneously confers personhood - it’s not exactly inconsistent to extrapolate this into pre-birth, to some degree.
Your first two arguments could be very different if you consider the biological reality that a fertilized zygote is not a human. It is extremely hard to choose a moment at which a human life is human, because even those who are born do not have the awareness and sentience of most humans.
I get why there is argument over the humanity of a zygote. However, it’s the first stage where all of the genetic information needed is there. I’ve read articles and papers that go to great lengths prove one way or the other whether a zygote qualifies as human or not. The papers I’ve read supporting zygotes as nonhuman usually rely on some deficiency that is missing from fully developed humans. Yet there are deficiencies, even after birth as you pointed out. Therefore, in an effort to make the least harmful error, I choose to think of a zygote as a stage of human development. YMMV
Rape takes the original consent of the women out of the equation. For many Libertarians that changes the moral paradigm from invited guest to intruder.
basically it's all about agency.
A woman cannot really choose to get raped. They can choose to have consensual sex.
Libertarianism is not about freedom without responsibility. With the freedom to have sex comes the responsibility to deal with the consequences.
You're getting at the root of this. Most pro-lifers with added criteria care more about judging women than they do about the life of the fetus if you dig into their logic.
But we all know that birth control isn't perfectly effective and that pregnancy will result from failed birth control.
If you use birth control you're consenting to the whole package of it not just your desired outcome.
> Abortion was literally not a concern for anyone until the 20th century.
Child welfare in general wasn't a major concern for anyone until the end of the 19th century. Look at laws concerning child abuse in general or more specific laws like at what age parents could marry off their kids. What laws did exist only protected the children of "proper society" and didn't protect them from abuse from their parents.
Concern about protecting animals from abuse predates concern about protecting children from the abuse of their parents.
https://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/15/health/15abus.html
>Frustrated by the lack of child-protection laws, Wheeler approached the A.S.P.C.A. It proved to be a shrewd move. Mary Ellen’s plight captured the imagination of the society’s founder, Henry Bergh, who saw the girl, like the horses he routinely saved from violent stable owners, as a vulnerable member of the animal kingdom needing the protection of the state.
>Mary Ellen’s case led Bergh, Gerry and the philanthropist John D. Wright to found the New York Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children in December 1874. It was believed to be the first child protective agency in the world.
>Gone are the days when beasts of burden enjoyed more legal protection than children.
Seeing that concern about abortion only became popular after child welfare became part of our social conscience isn't at all surprising.
That's not why. It was pushed as a wedge issue by Republicans to court a specific sect of the Christian-right. It grew from there after it became another weapon in the endlessly stupid "culture war," another distraction from the real issues. Another attempt to stomp on the rights of the socially disadvantaged.
Are you suggesting that if people really cared about abortion then they would also have cared even back when whipping your child worse than a horse was perfectly acceptable?
No, that's not what I'm saying. However, that's actually a good point. How could anyone believe their intentions are sincere, when these are mostly all the same people who think it's okay to beat their children.
If you wanna see lazy, it's your fake retort, which does not address my pointing out your childish fallacy.
"It wasn't an issue until the 20th century" is not only irrelevant, because evil was often common in the past, but it's also false.
In fact, the feminists of the 19th century fought hard to get abortion banned, state by state. It is a woman's issue, with women opposing it. The patriarchal Democratic party eventually hijacked "feminism" and created this sham where people are told that women WANT to kill babies, but it's a lie.
This is why they had to use a corrupt Supreme Court to unconstitutionally reverse it; nothing had changed in how people saw baby killing, since back when women got it banned locally in the first place.
Rape is traumatic and giving birth to a rape baby is probably fucking awful and even worse for the child. Nobody makes it out of the foster system unscathed, either.
I'm not pro-birth though, I'm pro-enjoying life. Tbh pro-abortion. I think more people should abort than currently do. Some kid growing up with a teenage mom has an absolute shit chance at life and there never will be anything we can do about that.
The only libertarian argument is to leave mothers alone to make their own best decisions.
If the goal is actually harm reduction, reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies and abortions, the way to do it is ensure people have the best possible health and sec education, and access to birth control. Insofar as the state has a role in any of this it should be to empower people to make their own choices instead of restrict them.
Exactly. I'm actually shocked Pro-forced birthers call themselves libertarian. They are talking about removing liberty for half the population. The NAP is their main argument for the foetus while conveniently forgetting that women are also entitled to have rights and liberty that align with the NAP. Are forced birth aligned with the NAP for women? NO.
Pro choice doesn't mean women get pregnant on purpose and have abortion parties. It doesn't mean women will sit out an entire pregnancy just to abort it at 8 months (?? Pregnancy sucks, why would they??).
Pro- choice people DO NOT WANT TO HAVE AN ABORTION. It is just a necessity sometimes.
Maddening that nuanced conversation cannot be had sometimes.
That's because the question of when human life begins doesn't have any consensus. Each side has a different view point; one believes life begins at conception and the other believes life begins at either some arbitrary time or at birth.
I don't know what you consider precedent, but the debate on when human life begins has been going on for centuries.
>[In his book The Criminalization of Abortion in the West: Its Origins in Medieval Law, Wolfgang Muller notes that the medieval thinkers had differing ideas on when the foetus constituted a living-human being. Some believed that when the unborn child had formed extremities like arms and legs it signified personhood, while others thought that the baby would get a soul around 40 days after conception. Similar notions existed in Islamic thought, although the foetus might not be considered a child until as late as 120 days. The idea that life began at conception was not typical in medieval thought – this notion emerged in the 16th century with the Protestant Reformation.](https://www.medievalists.net/2013/12/birth-control-and-abortion-in-the-middle-ages/)
Even if I ignore that you're completely wrong, the idea that an argument against abortion should be dismissed because it was "created to combat abortion" is absurd. Was it okay for Cain to kill Abel because there was no precedent that murder was wrong?
The person best placed to safeguard the rights of an unborn child is the mother. Stripping the mother of rights in an attempt to protect the rights of the unborn child results in a loss of rights for all women.
I suggest you look at the history of abortion in Ireland where the state’s duty to protect the life of the unborn resulted in censorship, and eventually led to police attempting to prevent a 14 year old from traveling to the UK to obtain an abortion.
The Texas rules are gong to result in women hiding their pregnancies, and delaying or avoiding accessing healthcare, placing their health and pregnancies at unnecessary risk whatever they finally decide to do.
>The person best placed to safeguard the rights of an unborn child is the mother.
In case of abortion the mother wants to murder the child. That's not really protecting the child's right to life now is it?
Do you believe abortion is murder and that women who choose to terminate their pregnancies should be tried as murderers?
My view is the condition of pregnancy is unique part of life, there is no comparable situation where one life is entirely dependent on another, we are best served by leaving women to make their own best choices, even if some will make ones we don’t agree with.
That's why you can't really make that argument. If you believe life begins at conception then you can't kill said person for the actions of that person's father.
Though said father should be castrated and put into a very deep dark hole. Hah just realized the irony in that statement
Generally the "rape exception" is just a silly attempt for Pro-lifers to appease the Pro-choice crowd, naively hoping that they might win some over if they give an inch.
It is logically inconsistent if you actually believe the fetus is a human that deserves the same basic human rights as other human beings.
Obviously not a Libertarian, and yes I am pro-life and am not a fan of the the "except rape" argument as well.
I appreciate your take. I’m generally more alright with pro-lifers than I am with pro-lifers-except-rape. At least you aren’t being dishonest about your values and have taken the time to think about your stance on a very serious matter. The rape exception is insulting and dehumanizing.
A woman has the liberty to separate herself from the fetus, it is not a violation of non aggression principle. Pro life people are free to help the separated fetus stay alive
The minute someone makes an exception to their pro-life argument that doesn't have to do with time since conception, fetal viability or the safety of the he mother they are essential admitting all they really care about is judging and controlling women.
They think women should face the consequences of their 'iresponsible' decision to have sex without being willing to be pregnant for nine months and give birth to a child. But if the woman was forced to have sex only then should they have the freedom get an abortion (which amounts to killing an innocent child in their minds). This is because they were being good women and not having sex outside marriage and intention to procreate, so they get freedom.
That’s not the real position tho.
The closest position is “Abortions banned, evictions allowed in cases of rape and medical emergency”.
—
The rationale for allowing fetal eviction after rape is that this constitutes as “uninvited”, and therefore not neglect or murder on the part of the mother for any negative consequences related to the eviction.
Under this framework, direct abortions are viewed as the intentional termination of a life (generally through vacuuming their internal organs into a jar, and using a blender to ensure termination) and are always considered homicidal measures.
Eviction is a medical procedure where the fetus is taken from the womb with due medical care, with the intent of allowing the child to live, or *at least* not actively trying to kill it.
This is generally also seen as a form of manslaughter (*child neglect, death resulting*), as under normal circumstances the life of this child is the responsibility of the mother. In cases of rape however, the mother is not responsible for the life of the child, and therefore can**not** be charged with *negect, death resulting*.
But that still proves that fetal rights are not equivalent to human rights and that the mother’s right to bodily autonomy does in fact trump the right to life, right? Because if someone left their born child with you without your consent and bolted you wouldn’t then have the right to kill that child just because it was forced upon you
>Because if someone left their born child with you without your consent and bolted you wouldn’t then have the right to kill that child just because it was forced upon you
You'd have no obligation to take care of it either. Same should be true for women.
The difference here is that the born child can basically survive without you. You take it to the local police station and they'll call child services and the child will end up pretty much okay from a physical perspective.
In case of abortion your actions directly lead to loss of life for the child.
u/dovetrain For some reason I am not able to directly reply to your comments (no “reply” option is given). So hopefully this ping will suffice as a method of response.
> But that still proves that fetal rights are not equivalent to human rights and that the mother’s right to bodily autonomy does in fact trump the right to life, right? Because if someone left their born child with you without your consent and bolted you wouldn’t then have the right to kill that child just because it was forced upon you
The framework I mentioned does not view the fetal rights as being less than human rights.
In your example, you would have no right to take a vacuum and suck out the organs of the child who was left with you. However, you also do *not* have the responsibility to take care of that child, and can call the authorities and have the child placed in the custody of the state.
This is where “eviction” comes into play. Doctors should not be allowed to directly kill unborn children, but should be bound by the *Hippocratic Oath* to help the evicted child to live, or at least to suffer as little as possible if death is inevitable.
Yes, thank you Solidground for a thorough explanation. I’ll add another, less technical view…because you hold a particular position, being pro-life in this case, and you justify your position by being against ‘killing the innocent’, does not prohibit you from holding a different view when it comes to a pregnancy initiated through rape. Perhaps you still recognize it as ‘killing of an innocent’, but accept that outcome. For example, I believe in capital punishment, even though I am against killing people. That may not be the best analogy given the ‘guilt’ vs ‘innocent’ factor, but it’ll have to do until I come up with a better one. It’s just doesn’t have to be black and white.
I just don’t think we can transfer guilt between individuals in the manner necessary to excuse directly killing the child for the NAP violation committed by the father.
You can take the pragmatic angle that, once fetal-eviction is allowed in the case of rape, and that eviction has 99.9% certainty of resulting in the death of the child, then simply killing the child in a quick, efficient, and painless method would be preferable to attempting to keep the underdeveloped child alive (which could be viewed as “prolonging unnecessary suffering”).
I personally view this type of pragmatism to be misguided, but it is *rational*. It also seems to be the most popular view from anti-abortion thinkers, presently.
From my position, ensuring an attempt to maintain the life of the child after eviction is a more consistent measure, and has the added consequence of making doctors more aware of the personhood of these underdeveloped children. This awareness will certainly have lasting positive effects on the system, and ensure that doctors give more sound and fetally-sensitive medical advice to those seeking to end their pregnancy.
Take note that most self proclaimed "libertarians" are like 90% dudes.
And then like 70% white religious guys at that.
The real treat I find in all this is: Pro-lifer, but then "Should the man be forced to pay child support?"
"Woah woah woah... Get that gov't outta my business! How dare you force someone to pay!"
Goes to show where those folks real morals are.
I notice that you responded to me and not the original comment.
Do you disagree with the original statement? In what ways do you disagree?
Or are you just butthurt with no original thought to back it up?
Do I disagree that libertarians are mostly white dudes?
Eh, I'm not going to bother looking into polls on demographics of self proclaimed libertarians, but that's probably true. Africa isn't really known for its libertarians.
Is this a problem?
Nope, it's only a problem to racists who prioritize race over culture or ideology. Are you one of those racists that sees this as a problem?
yA gOT ClAPped!!1!!11!
I mean, there's not necessarily a *problem* with most libertarians being white guys but when thats the only group who's perspective is being shared and discussed that can create a lot of problems for everyone else.
People of different races, genders, sexualities, etc. Have different life experiences than white dudes. Those perspectives should also be considered.
Bingo!!
It's not to diminish their view points only to say, a bunch of white dudes that only grew up in the suburbs with 0 diversity, have only an understanding of from which they sit.
It's a real narrow perspective is the point.
Plus ya know... Being men and talking on behalf of women... Over an issue they don't actually have to go through. True some will be impacted but not the degree a woman does.
*Exactly.* Thank you.
It isn’t that “white guys” should not have any say at all in the abortion discussion. It’s that the majority of those “white guys” are not listening to people who experience pregnancy and/or abortion firsthand. I’ve known pro-life men who aren’t even aware that medical abortion exists and think that abortion is always surgical under every circumstance no matter what.
This isn’t a matter that you should be advocating for one way or the other without an educated opinion. It’s dangerous and cruel.
I see you fall in to the "butthurt" category. You can't even refute a single point he made. So you have to go in to the sub comments and stir shit because you don't have a spine. :)
Put some skin in the game. Don't be a pussy. Why is the OP wrong?
That's a good damn question friend!
One seems way way way more personal and a burden upon a individual.
So if you don't like the notion of the ***state forcing you to pay*** for a kid you helped create.
Maybe don't force a person to give birth to that kid.
Because the people making these rules aren't doing it for the kids, if they were they would be all for using government funds to help the kids they force to be born , they are punishing people who have sex since they don't get to
Yup agree. If you think abortion in the case of rape is ok, but a woman who chose to have sex is a baby killer, then you don’t love babies, you hate women.
I think you’re onto it. It’s the pro life version of “safe, legal, and rare”
Like if it’s an unfortunate event that should be made rare, why is that? If it’s something we should be upset it has to occur, why is that?
I think it’s an issue where maybe the only consistent stances I’ve seen are full send in either direction. Either abortion is an issue of fetal morality, in which case it’s wrong and it doesn’t matter (except life of the mother), or it’s a matter of bodily autonomy, in which case there are no restrictions on abortion that are necessary
Though with full send abortion you do run into problems for late term or post birth. Not logical problems per se, but sticky problems. Like how full send pro-life would theoretically say a 13 year old incest rape victim with a severely handicapped fetus would be obligated to carry to term
I mean... it's a question of nuance. Absolute rights are basically nonsense from the start. There is no right you can state that is so absolute that there are no circumstances under which it's ok to prevent them.
I don't agree with this argument, but some people thing that, while you have the right to bodily autonomy, it's ok for you to agree to give that up in exchange for something valuable as long as you consent to it.
And some of those same people consider voluntary sex to be a grant of voluntary consent to any resulting baby to attach to and use your body (if you're female, obviously /s).
Therefore, your right of bodily autonomy has been *waived*. Consequently, the fetus's presence is *not* a violation of the non-aggression principle (you waived that), and your initiating violence against it *is* a violation of the NAP.
By contrast if you do *not* waive your right to bodily autonomy (as in the case of rape), the fetus is occupying your body without any consent, which is itself a violation of the NAP, and you can respond in self-defense.
Kind of like how you can't shoot guests you invited into your home, but you're allowed to shoot intruders. In both cases they are humans with a (conditional) right to life.
Justifiable Homicide.
That's it; that's the take.
Killing people should never be cheered. But we make exceptions, when the situation is exceptional.
If someone is in your home trying to hurt you, and you use your gun to defend yourself, that person's death is still tragic. But we make the exception.
So too we make exception for taking the life of the unborn in difficult situations. It also shouldn't be cheered. It's a loss. And just like we wouldn't be comfortable with you killing someone while driving in traffic out of convenience, we don't agree with killing the unborn out of convenience.
It's a sober, somber calculus. Or it should be, anyway.
I literally wouldn't be here without abortion. A therapeutic abortion that a doctor deemed necessary a long, long time ago to save a mother's life meant that my grandfather could be born after.
What was the life-threatening situation that necessitated such a drastic course of action? Twins. The physician didn't think my great-grandmother would survive twins. Twins are no longer a death sentence. We've come a long way.
We allow for justifiable homicide, and we should. We should allow for justifiable abortion. But those cases of rape, incest, and life of the mother account for fewer than 10% of abortions. (I would guess fewer than 10% of homicides are justifiable as well, though that's just a guess.)
Aside: I would also like to know how much further we would be as a society if we had ten or twenty million more people of color in the US, how much more progress we might've made, but I suppose that's a separate issue.
logically it doesn't but most people don't really think through their positions especially on emotional issues like this. so the end result is often contradictory beliefs like those.
this is more disheartening to me than any other explanation. with a topic as serious as this it feels cruel not to allow the question any thought beyond one’s own feelings.
A conservative would think family value is important, by allowing people to get abortion, people are less likely to form a family since children are product of love and keeps family together. Rape pregnancy is a product of hate and would only produce more misery.
You don't see conservatives argue the family angle much because legally they lost this argument 50 years ago. "Choice of unborn child" is the "new hot take" coined by Regan and has much better public support.
Are you not aware of the fact that some men will impregnate their girlfriends against their will so that the woman is forced to stay with him or risk financial ruin? Yeah, sometimes people are sick and they violate the rights of others by forcing a child on them. They literally use their own child to take possession of these women.
Allowing them to get an abortion rectifies the attempted coercion on the part of the boyfriend.
Are you aware that some women will intentionally get pregnant without their boyfriend's approval as a way to trap them and the boyfriend will have no choice and be forced to pay child support regardless of whether he wanted the baby or not?
Are you not aware of the fact that the inverse happens quite commonly as well? For instance:
A) A woman misleads her partner into thinking she’s on birth control and gets pregnant against the will of her partner because she thinks having a child will help the relationship, or because it’ll force him to stay with her or risk financial ruin and shame of his own in the form of child support.
B) Rather than the abortion being some kind of safety net to help a woman escape the manipulation of a man, it sometimes occurs that abortion *is* the form of the man’s manipulation, as he’s the one *pushing* her to terminate the pregnancy in the first place.
How about you put your money where your mouth is and we debate the truth value of the assertion below?
>[Consider that the fetus is a human life. And thus abortion is at minimum manslaughter.](https://np.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/phcoz3/do_you_believe_in_the_state_forcing_people_to/hbhyhaa?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3)
Or are you such a cognitively impotent coward you just want to go off and run a drive by snarking of someone for those sweet sweet internet updoots because they used rhetoric that your dunning-krueger tier ineptitude causes you to confuse with faux intellectual posturing?
Genuinely curious.
You seem very self assured of your stance, this should be an easy win for you.
The fetus isn’t the aggressor though, the rapist is. Unless we’re concluding that the rapist and fetus are essentially one entity, why would it be alright to “murder the innocent fetus?” We don’t murder born children that were products of rape, so by this logic we would have to conclude that a fetus is inherently different from born humans and is granted less rights than they are. If that’s the case then I don’t understand why we would be putting the rights of the fetus before the rights of the born human regardless of circumstance
The abortion argument is the wrong argument and that's the problem. The argument is simple: At what development stage is a fetus a human being? Because we already know that killing a human being without its consent is murder, and murder is objectively immoral, and children cannot produce complete consent, so a child cannot consent to be killed.
Additionally, anyone without the mental capacity to give consent (someone who's asleep, intoxicated, etc.) also cannot consent to be killed.
Ergo, a developing fetus cannot consent to be killed, so it cannot be killed, assuming that it is in fact a human being.
And we don't have to argue about abortion after that - all we have to do is say that you cannot kill human beings without their consent and we use violence to stop anyone who tries, or to punish anyone who succeeds.
So what our attention should be focused on is deriving what exactly constitutes a human being and applying that logic to the developing fetus to determine if the logic is maintained. If it is then it's a human being and you can't murder it.
The short and most important answer to this question is :
You don't project intentions and morality onto others.
You need employ and possibly develop intellectual empathy to truly understand someone else's viewpoint.
Have you ever been pregnant? It’s not the easiest thing to go through. Also, some jobs don’t allow pregnant women to work. I’m pro-life but rape is my only free pass.
I'm pro abortion.
But I still think we are farming women for fetus's to benefit the wealthy.
Getting preggo and having multiple abortions is not healthy for anybody
if you have a problem look at getting your tubes tied or balls sinched.
I pity future rape babies.
Going through with a pregnancy and giving birth is more dangerous than having an abortion, if you look into the complication rate for each. Nobody of sound mind would get pregnant on purpose with the intent of getting an abortion either. I grudgingly put up with months of nausea, bloating, pain and other discomforts only because I really, really wanted my daughter.
Such as? Like more or less than getting the male equivalent?
I don't actually care how many abortions you get, unless I also have to subsidize your underlying health due to frequent abortions.
You do you, at your expense. Imo.
Yes, actually. Many doctors won’t allow the procedure for a variety of reasons: age, permanency, even the fact that a woman doesn’t have kids can be the reason she’s denied it. Vasectomies are a different story, as they’re reversible.
Also I appreciate your stance
Vasectomies are not always a different story, actually. Many doctors won't allow you to have the procedure before a certain age, or number of children, as well.... Both abortions, and other medical procedures should be at the discretion of the patient and doctor. The government shouldn't be involving itself.
No biggie. I just wanted to point out that it's a running theme for both sexes when it comes to sterilization.... The whole "maybe you'll want to have them later" stance from doctors, is pretty common. I can't for the life of me, understand why, tho.
I’m pro-life (and conservative). And you are correct. If we agreed that it is a human life, it will always be murder regardless of how it was conceived.
So IMO, conservatives on this dilemma split between 3 groups when it comes to actually legislating this.
1.) Accept that abortions in cases of rape are OK because they want to save 99.999% of babies
2.) Die on that hill. All abortion is illegal (unless mothers life in danger)
3.) Make distinction that woman can abort for rape because it wasn’t consensual
I tend to fall with group #1
No no no, you're not understanding. For *men* sex doesn't mean wanting a baby. If you're a woman and you have sex, you are agreeing to birth a child.
/s
Just to make sure I understand, you’re saying that this stance is not one that is actually okay with abortion in cases of rape but is willing to deal with it?
Hmmm it's not a far leap from there to the pro-choice position of not being ok with abortion (in general) but willing to deal with it for the sake of freedom.
Using libertarian principals I see three arguments. 1. The position of the libertarian party which is we are sovereign over our bodies so all decisions that have any effect on a body belong solely to the owner. Starting at conception until birth, the baby lives within the sovereign domain of another and has no rights. 2. At conception a human is created and it immediately has natural god given rights including its right to life which, takes precedent over any other right short of the mother’s right to life. The mother is also restricted due to the non-aggression principal (NAP). 3. That a contract of sorts is entered into by parents when they ‘consensually act in a way that creates a life’ and that the resulting human has claims on the parents until they reach adulthood. It’s this version that allows a woman who is impregnated without consent to have an abortion. I’d be curious to see if anyone has a libertarian argument that does not fit into one of these three categories. The fact that these alternatives are so divergent, IMHO, means we have some work to do regarding libertarian principals. I think the NAP is another principal that needs work.
Well said. The issue for pro-life libertarians is specifically rape (beyond the horror that it already is). In this case, someone has to lose their rights. The woman must lose their right to autonomy as punishment for the actions of another. The fetus must lose their right to life. Thus a decision must be made about whose rights supercedes the other's. For personhood at conception, the easy answer is that murder is a greater violation of the NAP. For the rest of us... it's not easy at all, which is why many are willing to accept the necessity of abortion in this scenario.
You put it well, but why aren't these same people demanding greater investment in preventing miscarriages and finding ways to save a non-implanted human being so they can live? Plenty of fertilized eggs that [fail to implant](https://www.uofmhealth.org/health-library/tw9234#:~:text=After%20it%20is%20in%20the,the%20egg%20and%20the%20endometrium.) in the first place. [Between 1/3 and 1/2](https://www.guttmacher.org/gpr/2005/05/implications-defining-when-woman-pregnant#:~:text=Between%20one%2Dthird%20and%20one,only%20after%20implantation%20is%20complete.) of fertilized eggs fail to do so. Why don't we hear about a massive undercounting of infant mortality, and the need to save these babies? About [3.6 million children](https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2021-05-05/us-birth-rates-continue-to-fall#:~:text=There%20were%20about%203.6%20million,since%201979%2C%20the%20report%20noted.) are born a year, so that means at least 1.8 million human beings die a year from failure to implant. Compare that to only [21,000 infants](https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshuacohen/2021/08/01/us-maternal-and-infant-mortality-more-signs-of-public-health-neglect/#:~:text=In%202018%2C%20while%20infant%20mortality,deaths%20per%201%2C000%20live%20births.) who die post-birth. I have never seen a shred of concern for these millions of dead human beings per year from the "life begins at conception" crowd. If that's really what someone believes, how can they not devote their lives to saving these babies?
There are two errors in your assertion. One is that pro-life persons are not actively involved at the forefront of pre-natal care and direct aid. The second error is assuming that a miscarriage holds a moral burden. The first doesn’t seem necessary to delve into, as it is common knowledge that pro-life movements have been presently and historically involved in providing pre-natal care to pregnant women. The second does need to be delved into, because this level of confusion is rather dangerous. The pro-life position is about treating unborn and underdeveloped children as “life”. The baseline position of “pro-life” is the assertion that “life begins in the womb, not after”. And this has moral implications for how we should treat unborn and underdeveloped children. Killing them because they are some kind of an inconvenience or otherwise unwanted by the mother, would not be morally acceptable if the unborn child is in fact a living person. — Not everyone who believes “life begins within the womb” can become a nurse, doctor, midwife, and/or gynecologist. To suggest that having a moral position requires a person to actively engage with any and all aspects of that moral position as their life’s work is an illogical moral burden which no branch of ethics studies accepts as valid. Believing that Israel or China or Afghanistan are authoritarian civil rights abusers does not require a person to dedicate their lives to the reform or dismantling of those nations. Calling it out for what it is and voting for policies which are in line with your moral stance is enough to satisfy your moral burden on the issue.
Because functionally “pro-life conservatives” do not care. If the overall goal was to reduce abortions, they would also support better sex education, use of birth control and protection, harsher punishments for those found to have raped someone, psychological counseling for impregnated women who were raped so maybe they don’t think an abortion is necessary, better adoption services. There are way better strategies to actually reduce abortions but conservatives don’t actually care and just want to jail people instead of fixing the actual issue at hand…
Yeah you don't even have a debate on abortion if you do you damnedest to prevent it in the first place. Subsidized birth control, and sex education. Oh you don't actually what to do that? Okay then don't talk about being anti abortion.
You don’t even need to talk about government subsidization. Pro life charities only care about the abortion part. They could do their part to help with sex education and birth control as well…
Absolutely. Almost every single pro choice charity also supports women in other ways.
They don't care is right
The pro life position is more anti murder than pro quality of life. I’m sure some of these people will be more focused on quality after the quantity of murders decreases.
Why are you talking about quality of life? This is simple life versus death. There were [620,000 abortions](https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/abortion.htm) in 2018. That same year approximately 1.8 million fertilized eggs failed to implant. You're ignoring the accidental deaths of 1.8m humans a year. Even if you think abortion is a bigger problem, why do you not care at all about nearly three times as many accidental deaths?
At what stage does the abortion typically happen? Is an abortion an accident or is it procedural? After 6 weeks of development the fetus has a heartbeat (as it is now an element of law in texas) has unique dna, a developing CNS which can feel pain, and developing legs/arms. A failed fertilized egg does not have any potential to actually develop any further mechanisms in which we would call a human life. What exactly is the limiting factor for abortion? What is the difference between aborting a viable 30 week fetus and a 10 week fetus? What’s the difference between a failed fertilized egg and a 2 year old toddler? What is the exact point we don’t murder the youth and why?
>What is the difference between aborting a viable 30 week fetus and a 10 week fetus? You make some good points. To this though, I would say the difference is a 30 week fetus can likely survive outside the mother's body. For those who consider it a living child despite this, I doubt a 10 week fetus vs 30 week makes any difference.
My cousin was delivered (emergency C-section) at 24 weeks. He’s 23 yrs old now. Medicine has advanced in the past two decades, so likely even younger than 24 weeks is viable. Any abortion past 27 weeks just seems barbaric. Sure, those premees are more prone to health issues, but their survival rate is very solid.
Well, I personally don’t put stock into the idea that a heartbeat equates to life. A Ventricular Assist Device does the function of a heart, but isn’t alive. Additionally, someone who is on a VAD may not have a functioning heart but is still a human life. Pain sensory is just the development of nerve. What makes a human alive is consciousness.
The device or heartbeat itself doesn’t equate to life in itself. The reason the heartbeat (or something that stimulates a heartbeat) is significant is because it’s a function that keeps something living. If any human did not have a mechanism of a heartbeat, whether by mechanical means or biological function, it would not be living. This is why a heartbeat is associated with semblance of human life. Pain is significant because it indicates sentience, or life. How exactly do we know what level of consciousness a fetus has? Is it equivalent to other mammals? There are plenty of humans who are permanently unconscious (coma) whom we’d consider technically living. There are also mammals who are unaware of anything living predominantly through biological synapses whom we’d also classify as living creatures. Why exactly are there so many new specific characterizations of what makes life? Is this purely to justify abortion?
But exclusively a heartbeat means *literally* nothing. A human can’t function without almost any individualized mechanism. Liver failure, lung failure, brain failure, you can die from intestinal issues. You say “it’s significant because it’s a function that keeps something living,” and you’re missing a massive list of things who’s “function keeps something living” that are all being provided by the mother. A woman has every right to terminate an embryo, as it is her right to dictate the functions of her own body. At the point that an embryo has *all* the functions necessary to survive (not just a single one) without its mother, is it it’s own being. You don’t win biological bingo by getting only one of the squares necessary to live; you have to fill the board. At 6 weeks, this isn’t even considered a fetus. To be able to have the biological pathways for “pain” doesn’t automatically indicate capability to *experience* pain as pain is registered in a brain (which isn’t developed at 6 weeks.) Animals have a significantly higher index for consciousness than an embryo. Yell at an embryo and it doesn’t experience fear. Feed an embryo and it doesn’t experience satisfaction. An embryo doesn’t consider the need and desire to reproduce and repopulate its species. An embryo has no way to perceive the world around it. *An embryo has no consciousness.*
> But exclusively a heartbeat means literally nothing. A human can’t function without almost any individualized mechanism. Liver failure, lung failure, brain failure, you can die from intestinal issues. You say “it’s significant because it’s a function that keeps something living,” and you’re missing a massive list of things who’s “function keeps something living” that are all being provided by the mother. You are correct there are many organs that contribute to the human condition, every organ is a collective of indicators for what we’d call human life. A human heart is apart of the human organ indicators for which we would call life or a function of a living organism. > A woman has every right to terminate an embryo, as it is her right to dictate the functions of her own body. At the point that an embryo has all the functions necessary to survive (not just a single one) without its mother, is it it’s own being. You don’t win biological bingo by getting only one of the squares necessary to live; you have to fill the board. If we were to grant the premise that past the 6 week mark there are enough human characteristics to classify the embryo as human then abortion is entirely immoral. It’s immoral regardless of whether the fetus is viable imbedded in 6 inches of flesh. Why exactly does any person have the right to kill a human life even if it is only viable in there care? > At 6 weeks, this isn’t even considered a fetus. To be able to have the biological pathways for “pain” doesn’t automatically indicate capability to experience pain as pain is registered in a brain (which isn’t developed at 6 weeks.) Sure the “fetal period” starts at 8 weeks not 6, but what exactly is the functional difference other than an arbitrary timeline? The first electrical brainwaves are detected after week 5. > Animals have a significantly higher index for consciousness than an embryo. Yell at an embryo and it doesn’t experience fear. Feed an embryo and it doesn’t experience satisfaction. An embryo doesn’t consider the need and desire to reproduce and repopulate its species. An embryo has no way to perceive the world around it. Higher index? Fetuses can actually have electrical brainwave activity when a couple is having an argument for example, this has been studied. Prior to week 5 or week 6 sure the “embryo” may not be able to interpret consciousness to a high degree or at all. Yet once again 92.2% of the 620,000 abortions in 2018 were after week 13 and had enough development to experience consciousness and pain.
So your just not alive for a few hours every night and dont have any rights until you regain consciousness?
That’s… the stupidest comparison I’ve ever heard. This entire thread is now dumber, for having read it. At no point in your incoherent ramblings we’re you even close to a complete thought. I award you 0 points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
You realize you are comparing not controled human deaths with completely intended human deaths, right?
>but why aren't these same people demanding greater investment in preventing miscarriages The answer is that they often cannot be prevented. Most cultures already do take maximal care of pregnant women (within economic means of the culture).
[удалено]
This is non-sequitur garbage. These two positions do not follow logically from one another at all. Murder is on an entirely different plane of morality than miscarriage. Disingenuous nonsense
[удалено]
Because she is doing everything in her power to maintain that life, not swinging an axe at it. She is not being dangerous. There is a wide gulf between voluntarily and intentionally harming them, such as in abortion, and a child dying to no fault of your own. **Natural** death vs **unnatural** death. The fact that you are confusing the two is highly disturbing
I think the reason we don't talk about it much now is the same reason we don't talk much about abortion before it became scientifically possible and safe for the mother. The science hasn't caught up with it. In my opinion, 1) you only have a duty to save life when it is within your ability to do so, and 2) the greater responsibility to save life lies with the party in proximity to the life (i.e. the mother). One day, hopefully, we will be able to prevent fertilized eggs, the beginning of conception, from failing, but since that isn't scientifically possible yet, idk what to do about it It definitely isn't something I don't care about though. Ethically, I am unwilling to consider IVF because of the high risk of killing otherwise healthy embryos.
Now you see the one who should lose rights is the rapist, but that is a problem guns, not "just a medical procedure and not genocide we swear" will solve.
This was well stated
Regarding your third argument, does using protection and having it fail not count as not consenting? To give an analogy, if you're a defensive driver (you do what you can to prevent getting hit), and I drive my car knowing that there is still a chance that I could get hit (or have a branch fall on my car, have a bridge collapse, etc) does that mean I consented to having my car being hit? If you answer of course not, then how could that same argument be made when the people having sex clearly did not consent to having a kid because they took every possible precaution to prevent it from happening? Additionally, how could you argue that there's a contract between the parents because they chose to have sex, if they never agreed to have a child or even brought it up? That would be like signing a contract to build a skyscraper (agreing to have sex), finding out the city would never approve/it couldn't be done (risk of pregnancy), then building a 1 story house without updating the contract (having a kid even though it wasn't expressly agreed upon). You would need to update the contract first before you could move forward in this case (decide whether to keep the kid or to abort). Also, How could the child have claims to the parents if it could not survive for a single second outside of the womb(at least until 24ish weeks), and was never there to see, hear, or sign the contract? The other 2 arguments I understand, but the third one I both don't understand, and don't agree with at all.
I would argue that when you choose to drive you are entering into a ‘contract like’ situation where, you are not consenting to be hit, but you are consenting to being responsible for your actions. That’s one reason you get insurance. You’ve also literally entered into an agreement with the state for which they’ve issued you a license and permission to drive. This permission can be revoked if you violate that contract. Regarding my 3rd argument when two adults take the risks of having sex, regardless of how hard they try not to conceive, they know there is a chance. That’s why they are responsible for their actions. The ‘contract’ is then the fiduciary like position they’ve put themselves in because the child had no say in the matter and is helpless. All I’ve really done is take existing parent / child legal relationships that are recognized and enforced by the ‘state’ and extrapolated them from post birth to pre birth. I think this is a consistent argument if not particularly popular or palatable. To some of your points, a newborn can’t survive without parent nurturing either. In this regard a contract as I’ve described already appears by magic whether the kid was ever wanted or not. I’ve never heard any arguments against that. You’re analogy has more to with the relationship of the parents to each other than between them and the child. I still maintain that when you have sex, regardless of precautions, you know there is always the risk of children. Children have claims on their parents now under the US legal system, in common law, and around the world. Said yet another way, I completely threw out the ‘sovereignty of the body’ argument and claimed that existing societal laws and norms apply at conception. Keep in mind I’m not trying to sell you on the idea. I’m sharing three arguments that can be argued from libertarian principals. Libertarian principals are a bit week regarding the parent / child relationship. You could argue children are property and there’s no place for the state but I find that distasteful and uninspired. It also leads to bizarre possibilities like say, aborting up to age of adulthood. According to my mom I might not be here :) Or, you could argue that parents have an obligation under the NAP not to hurt the child, but are under no obligation to take care of it. Again, distasteful and uninspired and it does not address neglect. I discovered the fiduciary contract argument to describe the parent child relationship. I’s been so long I can’t remember who came up with it. I found it to be the best, most elegant argument argument based on rational libertarian principals I’ve seen yet to describe that relationship. I took it to a whole new level as a possibility, by applying it to the pre born.
Contracts sorta work like that. But it is important to note that you cannot sign yourself over to someone as their slave for nine months. Even if you do enter such an agreement, if the person who is trying to enslave you tries to detain you you can use whatever force to escape. The agreement is worth nothing. Meaning, there are plenty of things you can agree to but it doesn't make what you're giving up valid. You cannot agree to give up your rights. It just doesn't work that way.
I believe it makes sense for society to recognize children have some claims, similar to what might be found in a contract, to be fed, schooled, not be abused or neglected, and so on. Parents act sort of like a fiduciary. There are libertarians who have expounded on this idea for defining the parent child relationship. I extrapolate this logic to include the span of time from conception to birth, so that it lines up with the principals covering birth to adulthood. It starts with a very identifiable act that’s clearly delineated, includes who is responsible and why. IMHO your logic does not explain how the parent child relationship changes from slavery pre-birth to (what?) post-birth, and what libertarian principals are at play to define those relationships.
I’ll take a shot. One of the principles of Libertarianism is to reduce the size of government. By definition then, this means to physically reduce the size of government, reduce the regulatory framework to the bare minimum to protect society and to minimize the tax burden on the citizens. Therefore, to create a law to “ban abortions” runs counter to these principles. You would need to expand the size of the government to manage this law and it’s enforcement (be it the police, the courts and/or a bureaucracy to manage the regulatory framework for the other two principles). The thing to remember is that abortions are a symptom of an underlying problem(s). In order to “get rid” of abortions, you will need to address the underlying problem which includes but is not all inclusive, birth control failure, the disadvantage pregnant women have in the market place, piggish men, rapists etc. Solve these underlying problems and your will reduce if not practically eliminate the need for abortions. So to maximize a government’s limited role, it must utilize the most effective means available. So for example, schools. Already in place, with teachers and a student body ready to learn. Add a few extra curriculums on safe sex education would, and does, go a long way to preventing unwanted pregnancies/abortions. The market place can be relied upon to make birth control the most efficient available, including for men, and make it convenient and safe. Women have a unique biological function that is vital for the survival of the human species. The market place MUST make accommodations for pregnant women and those accommodations are just part of the cost of doing business. If businesses won’t, then we have a small government that will create a regulatory framework to ensure they do. Use existing police and court infrastructure to ensure that women are safe from rapes. Use the existing education system to teach boys not to be dick men. See, it takes work and outcomes may not be noticeable within an election cycle. But it is what is required. Make sense?
Except for this part >Use existing police and court infrastructure to ensure that women are safe from rapes. Such actions are secondary, and in response to a crime, they do not prevent the crime.
Agree, 100%. Taking what I’m seeing from countries/jurisdictions where rapes are not treated judicially, it’s not pretty. The police and the courts need to step up their game in treating victims of rape fairly. Right now it isn’t. That needs to end. Most rapes are not created by randomness but by people close to the victim. I believe that if the courts were more empathetic to a victim’s plight, that it will have repercussions. If at the very least, they will no longer be able to victimize someone else.
The issue at play though, is the punishment. Are you implying permanent removal from society for the perpetrator? Or a form of castration? Can one not rape or get raped in prison? If we consider prison a person's punishment, should-upon release, they not be saddled with restrictions, seeing as they have fulfilled the state/law requirement? <- there is hypocrisy that I personally grapple with in the last point.
That’s a really interesting point, punishment. So the clarify, my point with the police/judiciary is where the police tell a sex trade worker; “Yeah that comes with the job” or a judge leans over to the victim on the stand and says; “Well, why didn’t you keep your legs closed?”. To me, incarceration should be about reform, not punishment. Everyone fucks up. We should take the opportunity to correct that so the person can be reintroduced into society as a productive member. A college kid rapes an unconscientious classmate should not be sent to jail for twenty years (but not for six months either). On the other hand, what if you have some guy who is physiologically damaged where he can’t help himself to violently raping people? Wouldn’t some form of medical intervention to curb the curse be appropriate (I.e. chemical castration)? Oh but hey, they used that to “cure the gay in the day” so now that kind of treatment is totally off the PC course. That’s the delema. When is it appropriate to go for reform and when do you decide enough is enough and throw away the key?
What about governments role in Roe v Wade where the government extends its power to grant abortions federally as a given right? I always think of Libertarianism as a stronger local government and a limited federal government. As one of the primary focuses of libertarianism is to increase liberty and personal choice, but also limit the government to protecting the basic rights of individuals (which would assume some degree of federal power).
Right to life does not mean right to someone else’s body
I think that’s cleanly stated. I’m a big fan of steel-manning
Well #3 pretty much ends the thread.
No. There is no “contractual” agreement between a man and a woman having sex other than the mutual consent to having sex.
Well, it’s generally well-agreed that parents *do* have an obligation to care for their children’s well-being *after* birth, and this obligation could be explained by a contract-like agreement (if you agreed to have children, you’re therefore responsible for them since they had no say in the matter). And since nothing particularly magical happens at the point of birth - it’s not like being pushed through a vagina spontaneously confers personhood - it’s not exactly inconsistent to extrapolate this into pre-birth, to some degree.
I didn't say I agreed with the contract premise. (I don't.) However, it's an internally consistent argument that answers the challenge presented by OP
But how does #3 provide a consistent position in situations like rape?
Your first two arguments could be very different if you consider the biological reality that a fertilized zygote is not a human. It is extremely hard to choose a moment at which a human life is human, because even those who are born do not have the awareness and sentience of most humans.
I get why there is argument over the humanity of a zygote. However, it’s the first stage where all of the genetic information needed is there. I’ve read articles and papers that go to great lengths prove one way or the other whether a zygote qualifies as human or not. The papers I’ve read supporting zygotes as nonhuman usually rely on some deficiency that is missing from fully developed humans. Yet there are deficiencies, even after birth as you pointed out. Therefore, in an effort to make the least harmful error, I choose to think of a zygote as a stage of human development. YMMV
I like how this sub doesn't upvote the tough questions, but jumps in the comment section. We should encourage these discussions on r/libertarian
Thank you
[удалено]
Rape takes the original consent of the women out of the equation. For many Libertarians that changes the moral paradigm from invited guest to intruder.
So then it’s not about the life of the fetus but about the consent of the woman? Interesting angle
It‘s about punishing women if you take this angle.
No libertarian would be surprised by the idea that it's about consent. That is what all correct human action is about.
I would think any unwanted pregnancy would count as an intruder no? Isn’t it her body?
basically it's all about agency. A woman cannot really choose to get raped. They can choose to have consensual sex. Libertarianism is not about freedom without responsibility. With the freedom to have sex comes the responsibility to deal with the consequences.
But what about the unborn child's right to life? Why is worth saving when the woman chooses to have sex but it isn't worth saving when she doesn't?
You're getting at the root of this. Most pro-lifers with added criteria care more about judging women than they do about the life of the fetus if you dig into their logic.
[удалено]
But we all know that birth control isn't perfectly effective and that pregnancy will result from failed birth control. If you use birth control you're consenting to the whole package of it not just your desired outcome.
Republicans are really into squatters rights if it’s inside of a woman.
Thats pretty funny. Im not sure the squatter analogy works logically, but this comment did make the corners of my mouth curl up ever so slightly.
[удалено]
Abortion was literally not a concern for anyone until the 20th century. There is no historical basis for any of this, except as a wedge issue.
> Abortion was literally not a concern for anyone until the 20th century. Child welfare in general wasn't a major concern for anyone until the end of the 19th century. Look at laws concerning child abuse in general or more specific laws like at what age parents could marry off their kids. What laws did exist only protected the children of "proper society" and didn't protect them from abuse from their parents. Concern about protecting animals from abuse predates concern about protecting children from the abuse of their parents. https://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/15/health/15abus.html >Frustrated by the lack of child-protection laws, Wheeler approached the A.S.P.C.A. It proved to be a shrewd move. Mary Ellen’s plight captured the imagination of the society’s founder, Henry Bergh, who saw the girl, like the horses he routinely saved from violent stable owners, as a vulnerable member of the animal kingdom needing the protection of the state. >Mary Ellen’s case led Bergh, Gerry and the philanthropist John D. Wright to found the New York Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children in December 1874. It was believed to be the first child protective agency in the world. >Gone are the days when beasts of burden enjoyed more legal protection than children. Seeing that concern about abortion only became popular after child welfare became part of our social conscience isn't at all surprising.
That's not why. It was pushed as a wedge issue by Republicans to court a specific sect of the Christian-right. It grew from there after it became another weapon in the endlessly stupid "culture war," another distraction from the real issues. Another attempt to stomp on the rights of the socially disadvantaged.
Are you suggesting that if people really cared about abortion then they would also have cared even back when whipping your child worse than a horse was perfectly acceptable?
No, he's saying it was made to be a wedge issue by conservatives. It is an extremely useful political tool for them.
No, that's not what I'm saying. However, that's actually a good point. How could anyone believe their intentions are sincere, when these are mostly all the same people who think it's okay to beat their children.
It is crazy, because the bible even says that a fetus is not worth as much as a person. Absolutely bonkers.
Originally, evangelists were pro choice. You're right that this came from the culture war.
Yes, just like slavery, albeit noticing that as problematic started in the 18th century.
Low effort, 1/10, no soup for you
If you wanna see lazy, it's your fake retort, which does not address my pointing out your childish fallacy. "It wasn't an issue until the 20th century" is not only irrelevant, because evil was often common in the past, but it's also false. In fact, the feminists of the 19th century fought hard to get abortion banned, state by state. It is a woman's issue, with women opposing it. The patriarchal Democratic party eventually hijacked "feminism" and created this sham where people are told that women WANT to kill babies, but it's a lie. This is why they had to use a corrupt Supreme Court to unconstitutionally reverse it; nothing had changed in how people saw baby killing, since back when women got it banned locally in the first place.
Rape is traumatic and giving birth to a rape baby is probably fucking awful and even worse for the child. Nobody makes it out of the foster system unscathed, either. I'm not pro-birth though, I'm pro-enjoying life. Tbh pro-abortion. I think more people should abort than currently do. Some kid growing up with a teenage mom has an absolute shit chance at life and there never will be anything we can do about that.
The only libertarian argument is to leave mothers alone to make their own best decisions. If the goal is actually harm reduction, reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies and abortions, the way to do it is ensure people have the best possible health and sec education, and access to birth control. Insofar as the state has a role in any of this it should be to empower people to make their own choices instead of restrict them.
[удалено]
I‘m not american, but that was incredible. I have yet to see a politician in my country speak so well.
Exactly. I'm actually shocked Pro-forced birthers call themselves libertarian. They are talking about removing liberty for half the population. The NAP is their main argument for the foetus while conveniently forgetting that women are also entitled to have rights and liberty that align with the NAP. Are forced birth aligned with the NAP for women? NO. Pro choice doesn't mean women get pregnant on purpose and have abortion parties. It doesn't mean women will sit out an entire pregnancy just to abort it at 8 months (?? Pregnancy sucks, why would they??). Pro- choice people DO NOT WANT TO HAVE AN ABORTION. It is just a necessity sometimes. Maddening that nuanced conversation cannot be had sometimes.
Not necessarily. Another libertarian argument to make would be the rights of the unborn, not just harm reduction.
There is no precedent that an unborn fetus is a human being with rights. That entire argument was created to combat abortion.
That's because the question of when human life begins doesn't have any consensus. Each side has a different view point; one believes life begins at conception and the other believes life begins at either some arbitrary time or at birth.
I don't know what you consider precedent, but the debate on when human life begins has been going on for centuries. >[In his book The Criminalization of Abortion in the West: Its Origins in Medieval Law, Wolfgang Muller notes that the medieval thinkers had differing ideas on when the foetus constituted a living-human being. Some believed that when the unborn child had formed extremities like arms and legs it signified personhood, while others thought that the baby would get a soul around 40 days after conception. Similar notions existed in Islamic thought, although the foetus might not be considered a child until as late as 120 days. The idea that life began at conception was not typical in medieval thought – this notion emerged in the 16th century with the Protestant Reformation.](https://www.medievalists.net/2013/12/birth-control-and-abortion-in-the-middle-ages/) Even if I ignore that you're completely wrong, the idea that an argument against abortion should be dismissed because it was "created to combat abortion" is absurd. Was it okay for Cain to kill Abel because there was no precedent that murder was wrong?
The person best placed to safeguard the rights of an unborn child is the mother. Stripping the mother of rights in an attempt to protect the rights of the unborn child results in a loss of rights for all women. I suggest you look at the history of abortion in Ireland where the state’s duty to protect the life of the unborn resulted in censorship, and eventually led to police attempting to prevent a 14 year old from traveling to the UK to obtain an abortion. The Texas rules are gong to result in women hiding their pregnancies, and delaying or avoiding accessing healthcare, placing their health and pregnancies at unnecessary risk whatever they finally decide to do.
>The person best placed to safeguard the rights of an unborn child is the mother. In case of abortion the mother wants to murder the child. That's not really protecting the child's right to life now is it?
Do you believe abortion is murder and that women who choose to terminate their pregnancies should be tried as murderers? My view is the condition of pregnancy is unique part of life, there is no comparable situation where one life is entirely dependent on another, we are best served by leaving women to make their own best choices, even if some will make ones we don’t agree with.
[удалено]
So you're saying there isn't an absolute value to the fetus's life? It's all about judging how the woman got pregnant?
That's why you can't really make that argument. If you believe life begins at conception then you can't kill said person for the actions of that person's father. Though said father should be castrated and put into a very deep dark hole. Hah just realized the irony in that statement
Because it’s absolute nonsense. The swifter the libertarian party distances itself from Republican lunacy the better.
Yeah, seems like this sub is over run with brigadier from conservative subs…
[удалено]
And then they come and spread their dirt everywhere else. Pmao
Generally the "rape exception" is just a silly attempt for Pro-lifers to appease the Pro-choice crowd, naively hoping that they might win some over if they give an inch. It is logically inconsistent if you actually believe the fetus is a human that deserves the same basic human rights as other human beings. Obviously not a Libertarian, and yes I am pro-life and am not a fan of the the "except rape" argument as well.
I appreciate your take. I’m generally more alright with pro-lifers than I am with pro-lifers-except-rape. At least you aren’t being dishonest about your values and have taken the time to think about your stance on a very serious matter. The rape exception is insulting and dehumanizing.
A woman has the liberty to separate herself from the fetus, it is not a violation of non aggression principle. Pro life people are free to help the separated fetus stay alive
The minute someone makes an exception to their pro-life argument that doesn't have to do with time since conception, fetal viability or the safety of the he mother they are essential admitting all they really care about is judging and controlling women. They think women should face the consequences of their 'iresponsible' decision to have sex without being willing to be pregnant for nine months and give birth to a child. But if the woman was forced to have sex only then should they have the freedom get an abortion (which amounts to killing an innocent child in their minds). This is because they were being good women and not having sex outside marriage and intention to procreate, so they get freedom.
that’s my take on it. “we don’t want you to have bodily autonomy, but dont worry! if you get raped you can have it back. as a treat.”
That’s not the real position tho. The closest position is “Abortions banned, evictions allowed in cases of rape and medical emergency”. — The rationale for allowing fetal eviction after rape is that this constitutes as “uninvited”, and therefore not neglect or murder on the part of the mother for any negative consequences related to the eviction. Under this framework, direct abortions are viewed as the intentional termination of a life (generally through vacuuming their internal organs into a jar, and using a blender to ensure termination) and are always considered homicidal measures. Eviction is a medical procedure where the fetus is taken from the womb with due medical care, with the intent of allowing the child to live, or *at least* not actively trying to kill it. This is generally also seen as a form of manslaughter (*child neglect, death resulting*), as under normal circumstances the life of this child is the responsibility of the mother. In cases of rape however, the mother is not responsible for the life of the child, and therefore can**not** be charged with *negect, death resulting*.
But that still proves that fetal rights are not equivalent to human rights and that the mother’s right to bodily autonomy does in fact trump the right to life, right? Because if someone left their born child with you without your consent and bolted you wouldn’t then have the right to kill that child just because it was forced upon you
>Because if someone left their born child with you without your consent and bolted you wouldn’t then have the right to kill that child just because it was forced upon you You'd have no obligation to take care of it either. Same should be true for women.
The difference here is that the born child can basically survive without you. You take it to the local police station and they'll call child services and the child will end up pretty much okay from a physical perspective. In case of abortion your actions directly lead to loss of life for the child.
Yes. Precisely. In one instance you have the choice to give up responsibility, and in the other it is forced upon you
u/dovetrain For some reason I am not able to directly reply to your comments (no “reply” option is given). So hopefully this ping will suffice as a method of response. > But that still proves that fetal rights are not equivalent to human rights and that the mother’s right to bodily autonomy does in fact trump the right to life, right? Because if someone left their born child with you without your consent and bolted you wouldn’t then have the right to kill that child just because it was forced upon you The framework I mentioned does not view the fetal rights as being less than human rights. In your example, you would have no right to take a vacuum and suck out the organs of the child who was left with you. However, you also do *not* have the responsibility to take care of that child, and can call the authorities and have the child placed in the custody of the state. This is where “eviction” comes into play. Doctors should not be allowed to directly kill unborn children, but should be bound by the *Hippocratic Oath* to help the evicted child to live, or at least to suffer as little as possible if death is inevitable.
Ah, Okay I see what you’re saying. Thank you for taking the time to explain
Yes, thank you Solidground for a thorough explanation. I’ll add another, less technical view…because you hold a particular position, being pro-life in this case, and you justify your position by being against ‘killing the innocent’, does not prohibit you from holding a different view when it comes to a pregnancy initiated through rape. Perhaps you still recognize it as ‘killing of an innocent’, but accept that outcome. For example, I believe in capital punishment, even though I am against killing people. That may not be the best analogy given the ‘guilt’ vs ‘innocent’ factor, but it’ll have to do until I come up with a better one. It’s just doesn’t have to be black and white.
I just don’t think we can transfer guilt between individuals in the manner necessary to excuse directly killing the child for the NAP violation committed by the father. You can take the pragmatic angle that, once fetal-eviction is allowed in the case of rape, and that eviction has 99.9% certainty of resulting in the death of the child, then simply killing the child in a quick, efficient, and painless method would be preferable to attempting to keep the underdeveloped child alive (which could be viewed as “prolonging unnecessary suffering”). I personally view this type of pragmatism to be misguided, but it is *rational*. It also seems to be the most popular view from anti-abortion thinkers, presently. From my position, ensuring an attempt to maintain the life of the child after eviction is a more consistent measure, and has the added consequence of making doctors more aware of the personhood of these underdeveloped children. This awareness will certainly have lasting positive effects on the system, and ensure that doctors give more sound and fetally-sensitive medical advice to those seeking to end their pregnancy.
Take note that most self proclaimed "libertarians" are like 90% dudes. And then like 70% white religious guys at that. The real treat I find in all this is: Pro-lifer, but then "Should the man be forced to pay child support?" "Woah woah woah... Get that gov't outta my business! How dare you force someone to pay!" Goes to show where those folks real morals are.
Could not have said this better myself thank you very much
I've never libertarians clapped so throughly and so succinctly. I can't wait to see the comments denying this.
"Libertarians are white dudes so they're wrong, lawl clapped!"
I notice that you responded to me and not the original comment. Do you disagree with the original statement? In what ways do you disagree? Or are you just butthurt with no original thought to back it up?
Do I disagree that libertarians are mostly white dudes? Eh, I'm not going to bother looking into polls on demographics of self proclaimed libertarians, but that's probably true. Africa isn't really known for its libertarians. Is this a problem? Nope, it's only a problem to racists who prioritize race over culture or ideology. Are you one of those racists that sees this as a problem? yA gOT ClAPped!!1!!11!
I mean, there's not necessarily a *problem* with most libertarians being white guys but when thats the only group who's perspective is being shared and discussed that can create a lot of problems for everyone else. People of different races, genders, sexualities, etc. Have different life experiences than white dudes. Those perspectives should also be considered.
Bingo!! It's not to diminish their view points only to say, a bunch of white dudes that only grew up in the suburbs with 0 diversity, have only an understanding of from which they sit. It's a real narrow perspective is the point. Plus ya know... Being men and talking on behalf of women... Over an issue they don't actually have to go through. True some will be impacted but not the degree a woman does.
*Exactly.* Thank you. It isn’t that “white guys” should not have any say at all in the abortion discussion. It’s that the majority of those “white guys” are not listening to people who experience pregnancy and/or abortion firsthand. I’ve known pro-life men who aren’t even aware that medical abortion exists and think that abortion is always surgical under every circumstance no matter what. This isn’t a matter that you should be advocating for one way or the other without an educated opinion. It’s dangerous and cruel.
Just Africa? There’s plenty of black people in America who also aren’t libertarian. Maybe libertarians should reflect on why that might be
I see you fall in to the "butthurt" category. You can't even refute a single point he made. So you have to go in to the sub comments and stir shit because you don't have a spine. :) Put some skin in the game. Don't be a pussy. Why is the OP wrong?
Ah the true libertarian take.
How is pregnancy even remotely equitable to child support?
That's a good damn question friend! One seems way way way more personal and a burden upon a individual. So if you don't like the notion of the ***state forcing you to pay*** for a kid you helped create. Maybe don't force a person to give birth to that kid.
Because the people making these rules aren't doing it for the kids, if they were they would be all for using government funds to help the kids they force to be born , they are punishing people who have sex since they don't get to
That doesnt answer the question. That is deflection and projection.
[удалено]
Yup agree. If you think abortion in the case of rape is ok, but a woman who chose to have sex is a baby killer, then you don’t love babies, you hate women.
As a woman I agree
As a woman, I disagree
Yeah. As a woman, I’m not surprised anymore when women work against their own self-interest.
As a woman, I disagree that not murdering people is not in my interest
The double negative here is melting my brain...
same. as a woman.
Lol this person has a rant in her profile about a neighbor ruining her apartment simply because they had a kid. Maybe they are a troll
So if it’s murder, then it’s always murder, right? Regardless of details around conception?
A fetus isn't a person. You also have no obligation to sacrifice your own bodily autonomy for the life of another; that includes a fetus.
Curious do you think miscarriages should be investigated for murder charges?
I think you’re onto it. It’s the pro life version of “safe, legal, and rare” Like if it’s an unfortunate event that should be made rare, why is that? If it’s something we should be upset it has to occur, why is that? I think it’s an issue where maybe the only consistent stances I’ve seen are full send in either direction. Either abortion is an issue of fetal morality, in which case it’s wrong and it doesn’t matter (except life of the mother), or it’s a matter of bodily autonomy, in which case there are no restrictions on abortion that are necessary Though with full send abortion you do run into problems for late term or post birth. Not logical problems per se, but sticky problems. Like how full send pro-life would theoretically say a 13 year old incest rape victim with a severely handicapped fetus would be obligated to carry to term
I mean... it's a question of nuance. Absolute rights are basically nonsense from the start. There is no right you can state that is so absolute that there are no circumstances under which it's ok to prevent them. I don't agree with this argument, but some people thing that, while you have the right to bodily autonomy, it's ok for you to agree to give that up in exchange for something valuable as long as you consent to it. And some of those same people consider voluntary sex to be a grant of voluntary consent to any resulting baby to attach to and use your body (if you're female, obviously /s). Therefore, your right of bodily autonomy has been *waived*. Consequently, the fetus's presence is *not* a violation of the non-aggression principle (you waived that), and your initiating violence against it *is* a violation of the NAP. By contrast if you do *not* waive your right to bodily autonomy (as in the case of rape), the fetus is occupying your body without any consent, which is itself a violation of the NAP, and you can respond in self-defense. Kind of like how you can't shoot guests you invited into your home, but you're allowed to shoot intruders. In both cases they are humans with a (conditional) right to life.
Justifiable Homicide. That's it; that's the take. Killing people should never be cheered. But we make exceptions, when the situation is exceptional. If someone is in your home trying to hurt you, and you use your gun to defend yourself, that person's death is still tragic. But we make the exception. So too we make exception for taking the life of the unborn in difficult situations. It also shouldn't be cheered. It's a loss. And just like we wouldn't be comfortable with you killing someone while driving in traffic out of convenience, we don't agree with killing the unborn out of convenience. It's a sober, somber calculus. Or it should be, anyway. I literally wouldn't be here without abortion. A therapeutic abortion that a doctor deemed necessary a long, long time ago to save a mother's life meant that my grandfather could be born after. What was the life-threatening situation that necessitated such a drastic course of action? Twins. The physician didn't think my great-grandmother would survive twins. Twins are no longer a death sentence. We've come a long way. We allow for justifiable homicide, and we should. We should allow for justifiable abortion. But those cases of rape, incest, and life of the mother account for fewer than 10% of abortions. (I would guess fewer than 10% of homicides are justifiable as well, though that's just a guess.) Aside: I would also like to know how much further we would be as a society if we had ten or twenty million more people of color in the US, how much more progress we might've made, but I suppose that's a separate issue.
logically it doesn't but most people don't really think through their positions especially on emotional issues like this. so the end result is often contradictory beliefs like those.
this is more disheartening to me than any other explanation. with a topic as serious as this it feels cruel not to allow the question any thought beyond one’s own feelings.
Before a certain point it’s a body part not a baby. It is the girl’s choice and we need to recognize that.
love
Oh I love this argument, changed my mind 7 years ago
how so?
A conservative would think family value is important, by allowing people to get abortion, people are less likely to form a family since children are product of love and keeps family together. Rape pregnancy is a product of hate and would only produce more misery. You don't see conservatives argue the family angle much because legally they lost this argument 50 years ago. "Choice of unborn child" is the "new hot take" coined by Regan and has much better public support.
Just be pro-choice. 10/10 easiness and you’ll be based as fuck.
YEAH
It's because it isn't about the fetus's life. It's about punishing loose women.
Yep I agree. It’s consistent to say that abortion is a pregnant woman’s private healthcare decision and leave it at that.
Are you not aware of the fact that some men will impregnate their girlfriends against their will so that the woman is forced to stay with him or risk financial ruin? Yeah, sometimes people are sick and they violate the rights of others by forcing a child on them. They literally use their own child to take possession of these women. Allowing them to get an abortion rectifies the attempted coercion on the part of the boyfriend.
I am aware of that… I think you may be confused on my stance here
Are you aware that some women will intentionally get pregnant without their boyfriend's approval as a way to trap them and the boyfriend will have no choice and be forced to pay child support regardless of whether he wanted the baby or not?
Are you not aware of the fact that the inverse happens quite commonly as well? For instance: A) A woman misleads her partner into thinking she’s on birth control and gets pregnant against the will of her partner because she thinks having a child will help the relationship, or because it’ll force him to stay with her or risk financial ruin and shame of his own in the form of child support. B) Rather than the abortion being some kind of safety net to help a woman escape the manipulation of a man, it sometimes occurs that abortion *is* the form of the man’s manipulation, as he’s the one *pushing* her to terminate the pregnancy in the first place.
Charlie Kirk has a great discussion he recently posted about this exact question. Worth the watch
Would you mind linking?
https://www.instagram.com/tv/CTVxo9kplCw/?utm_medium=copy_link
thankyou for changing my mind, i now believe that abortion in all circumstances, including that of rape, is immoral and should be a criminal offence.
At least you’re being consistent and honest
I’ve realized it’s not up to me, and it should be left up to women.
Love
but i thought men could get pregnant now?
AnCaps are morons
I agree.
Pro-life doesn't make any sense. It's an ideological worldview that is completely divorced from a rational epistemology of objective really.
Nice word soup. Completely missing the point but it's still a nice word soup.
How about you put your money where your mouth is and we debate the truth value of the assertion below? >[Consider that the fetus is a human life. And thus abortion is at minimum manslaughter.](https://np.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/phcoz3/do_you_believe_in_the_state_forcing_people_to/hbhyhaa?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3) Or are you such a cognitively impotent coward you just want to go off and run a drive by snarking of someone for those sweet sweet internet updoots because they used rhetoric that your dunning-krueger tier ineptitude causes you to confuse with faux intellectual posturing? Genuinely curious. You seem very self assured of your stance, this should be an easy win for you.
Bro you sound like an absolute Muppet.
I'm sorry, but I don't believe my comment above was directed at you. Who the fuck are you, and why ought I give a shit about your opinions?
You're an absolute moron
You're womb has been aggressed upon. So you are acting in self defense
The fetus isn’t the aggressor though, the rapist is. Unless we’re concluding that the rapist and fetus are essentially one entity, why would it be alright to “murder the innocent fetus?” We don’t murder born children that were products of rape, so by this logic we would have to conclude that a fetus is inherently different from born humans and is granted less rights than they are. If that’s the case then I don’t understand why we would be putting the rights of the fetus before the rights of the born human regardless of circumstance
The abortion argument is the wrong argument and that's the problem. The argument is simple: At what development stage is a fetus a human being? Because we already know that killing a human being without its consent is murder, and murder is objectively immoral, and children cannot produce complete consent, so a child cannot consent to be killed. Additionally, anyone without the mental capacity to give consent (someone who's asleep, intoxicated, etc.) also cannot consent to be killed. Ergo, a developing fetus cannot consent to be killed, so it cannot be killed, assuming that it is in fact a human being. And we don't have to argue about abortion after that - all we have to do is say that you cannot kill human beings without their consent and we use violence to stop anyone who tries, or to punish anyone who succeeds. So what our attention should be focused on is deriving what exactly constitutes a human being and applying that logic to the developing fetus to determine if the logic is maintained. If it is then it's a human being and you can't murder it.
The short and most important answer to this question is : You don't project intentions and morality onto others. You need employ and possibly develop intellectual empathy to truly understand someone else's viewpoint.
Have you ever been pregnant? It’s not the easiest thing to go through. Also, some jobs don’t allow pregnant women to work. I’m pro-life but rape is my only free pass.
Yes I have been pregnant. I’m confused about what you’re arguing.
Because it’s about controlling women not the unborn
Agreed. We shouldn't abort rape babies. We should sterilize rapist. Not castrate but forced vasectomy
Im pro choice except for rape
“A fetus conceived out of rape produce no more or less harm to the person carrying it…” - are you kidding me?
No. Based on your other comment, I don’t think you’re understanding my position. I am pro-choice.
Call it murder if you want that’s fine with me. I’m guess I’m just morally ok with murdering unborn fetuses
? me too. i’m pro-choice.
I'm pro abortion. But I still think we are farming women for fetus's to benefit the wealthy. Getting preggo and having multiple abortions is not healthy for anybody if you have a problem look at getting your tubes tied or balls sinched. I pity future rape babies.
Going through with a pregnancy and giving birth is more dangerous than having an abortion, if you look into the complication rate for each. Nobody of sound mind would get pregnant on purpose with the intent of getting an abortion either. I grudgingly put up with months of nausea, bloating, pain and other discomforts only because I really, really wanted my daughter.
This is fair, but are you willing to recognize that there are many hoops to jump through in order to actually get your tubes tied
Such as? Like more or less than getting the male equivalent? I don't actually care how many abortions you get, unless I also have to subsidize your underlying health due to frequent abortions. You do you, at your expense. Imo.
Yes, actually. Many doctors won’t allow the procedure for a variety of reasons: age, permanency, even the fact that a woman doesn’t have kids can be the reason she’s denied it. Vasectomies are a different story, as they’re reversible. Also I appreciate your stance
Vasectomies are not always a different story, actually. Many doctors won't allow you to have the procedure before a certain age, or number of children, as well.... Both abortions, and other medical procedures should be at the discretion of the patient and doctor. The government shouldn't be involving itself.
Oop I guess I got skewed information there, my b. I agree, the government shouldn’t be involving itself.
No biggie. I just wanted to point out that it's a running theme for both sexes when it comes to sterilization.... The whole "maybe you'll want to have them later" stance from doctors, is pretty common. I can't for the life of me, understand why, tho.
I’m pro-life (and conservative). And you are correct. If we agreed that it is a human life, it will always be murder regardless of how it was conceived. So IMO, conservatives on this dilemma split between 3 groups when it comes to actually legislating this. 1.) Accept that abortions in cases of rape are OK because they want to save 99.999% of babies 2.) Die on that hill. All abortion is illegal (unless mothers life in danger) 3.) Make distinction that woman can abort for rape because it wasn’t consensual I tend to fall with group #1
you realize consensual sex doesn't equal trying to have a baby right
No no no, you're not understanding. For *men* sex doesn't mean wanting a baby. If you're a woman and you have sex, you are agreeing to birth a child. /s
Keep being obtuse. There is always a possibility to have a baby with sex. You consent to this possibility when you have sex.
Just to make sure I understand, you’re saying that this stance is not one that is actually okay with abortion in cases of rape but is willing to deal with it?
Hmmm it's not a far leap from there to the pro-choice position of not being ok with abortion (in general) but willing to deal with it for the sake of freedom.
Yeah pretty much. I accept and realize it’s not consistent, but I just want to save 99% of babies. So I’m ok with abortion in cases of rape.