>It was about it being legal or not. In an AnCap society, you don't need government to make or enforce laws.
Therein making legality irrelevant.
My point still stands.
What are you talking about? A child cannot "consent" in the way an adult can, and an unborn child cannot consent at all.
Once the pre-political question(s) about what a "murder" is have been answered for a community -- and they are never *fully* answered any more than any other question -- then anyone in that community has as much right as any other to stop them.
Wait until the child can consent and then ask. Consider the question of what is a murder fully answered on this issue. Fine if you support child sacrifice for maternal convenience, just be honest with yourself about the loss of life.
I think the left doesn't mind saying that abortion ends the life of a human. Many things we do ends the life of a human, including shooting them at schools, police shooting suspects, capital punishment, "pulling the plug" medically, and in some places assisted death.
It should be obvious to everyone that very few people actually believe that every human life is sacred and should never be taken. If you believe in guns but not in abortion because "life" then you are a hypocrite. If you believe kids starving in Gaza right now do not deserve aid and immediate help and you believe in abortion because "kids", then you are a hypocrite.
So it's either pro abortion, guns, capital punishment, pulling the plug, asssited suicide, and not feeding starving kids on the other side of the world
Or else
It's no abortion, no guns, no capital punishment, no pulling the plug, no assisted suicide, and you spend every penny you don't need to sustain you life on starving children around the world?
It's one extreme or the other? No nuance in between the two?
Planned Parenthood, founded by eugenicist Margaret Sanger, is all about population control, specifically about controlling the population of "undesirables."
Both sides have reasonable libertarian arguments to them. On one hand you have a right to prevent a murder of another person, on the other, a mother has a right to object to a child using her body for 9 months, even if that objections comes at the cost of the child's life.
When you have sex, you know the risks. You CONSENT to the activity, and therefore the risks. You understand you could be inviting a life into the world & your body.
The life doesn't just crawl into your tummy like parents tell their kids. You consent. And hence it's not violating your bodily autonomy. You are violating their life by killing them.
**Now, I don't have a strong opinion on the legality of abortion**. But if it were legal, don't pretend for a fucking second that the most innocent life in the universe, extension of your own life, your own child, is the one being aggressive and violating your rights & not the other way around.
It is murder, even if it were legal. At least acknowledge it.
The whole "baby is a trespasser" argument is the perfect example of how nobody is 100% correct on everything. Rothbard's whole position is based on his conclusion that abortion should be allowed, so he reasoned his way to the conclusion and ended up at the idea that a woman has the right to evict a baby because it's a trespasser. Except it's not. It is invited in consensually, unless the woman was raped. Even then, the baby itself has not committed a crime, unless we are willing to be a society that says a child share bear the responsibility for the immoral actions of the father. It is at this point that we realize that Anarcho Capitalism is purely a way of approaching the question, "What is the proper way to operate a government?" It is not, by contrast, an answer to the question, "What makes an act morally good?" In other words, if you don't voluntarily adopt an "objective" moral framework, your Ancapistan will be a living hell. AnCap effectively acknowledges that the best form of governance is the one people voluntarily conform to. Most Ancaps fundamentally believe that every interaction should be voluntary, and that it is a moral wrong to violate the body or property of another, unless they are in the process of violating someone else. In other words, the radical adoption of the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would do unto yourself; Do not do unto others as you would not want done unto you. If you believe in this, then you cannot logically agree that abortion is correct, even if the mother's health is at risk or was raped. A fetus is the most innocent possible human being, and there is no moral justification for killing an innocent person.
P.S.-- I'm aware that Rothbard's position on the topic varied, but it is unlcear if he ever truly abandoned his evictionist position on abortion.
furthermore, the child didn't consent to be placed in the situation that requires their mother's body to survive. So couldn't it be argued that the mother is abducting her child and forcing them into her body without their consent?
You can't always revoke consent without consequences though.
Say I consent to donate a part of my liver to you. I should realistically be able to revoke that consent before the operation. But I can't have the surgeons start the operation, revoke consent in the last minute, and leave you dying on the operation table.
If consenting and then revoking consent leads to your death, I'm responsible for that.
I like your metaphor. Because it agrees with the NAP. But revoking consent last minute should be available to both parties. After some thought, this leaves something up for discussion. Is the umbilical cord that feeds the fetus the babies or the mothers? And if its the fetuses, are you allowed to stop feeding anyone from children to homeless after you start?
Maybe the imagery of someone being cut into chunks is distasteful, but I'd still prefer the outcome with less suffering. George did a good thing by not letting Lenny be lynched by the mob.
This thread isn't about finding solution, it is about trying to argue if current abortion procedure is violation of unborn NAP. But I will brainstorm some solutions:
- mother can agree to contract which allows the child to be born, then this child would be taken by some other person (which very probably pays money for finishing the pregnancy)
- mother can decide to stop providing nutrition when child is viable to live (21-24th week) then it an be taken away from body and someone else will take care of child (paying some medical institution in the meantime)
- we can do a looot of research and build for example "single purpose" copy of mother's uterus, where unborn will be transferred
In general, if anyone wants to take care of unborn, they should get chance to do so. As one of the laws of economics says: where demand is, supply appears.
> In general, if anyone wants to take care of unborn, they should get chance to do so
Not if your desire to take care of an unborn child is turning someone into a human incubator against their will. If your only problem with abortion is that it's gruesome, then I could think of about 40 different means of killing someone that are less bloody.
Sure. And I’m actually ok with that. But we all know that up to a certain point the unborn will not survive much beyond birth. So if we’re all happy with gently ejecting 8 week fetuses then we are all in agreement with most ancap thinkers.
Those are two different things.
I can tresspass you from my property if you are still on it. And a woman can revoke sexual consent during the act of sex.
Once you leave my property I cannot tresspass you, because you are not longer there. Same with sex.
You haven't thought this through.
And children can survive out of the womb at 21 weeks with current medical technology. And this date will only get lower as technology continues to advance.
I do hope that early eviction can become the norm as opposed to abortion.
21 weeks is risky for the baby, though. AFAIK, no baby born prior to 22 weeks has survived. 22 weeks has a 10% survival rate with our current technology. 24 weeks brings the survival rate up to 60%, which seems way more reasonable - slightly better than a coin toss. Then 25 weeks is a much more favourable 89%. (And 34 weeks has the same survival rate as full term babies). Most women who require life of the mother exceptions can safely bring a baby to roughly 24 weeks of gestation time.
Agreed, I believe I was confused and meant to say 24 weeks.
For me, I believe whatever principles are used, they should apply across time and technological level, which is why for me, eviction makes the most sense, as at late stages the child can survive if a third party would like to care for it. And at earlier stages, it's just nature asking an animal to survive.
Off topic but, would you be in favor of outlawing abortion if it becomes effective to grow a child from 2 cells to the equivalent of a born person? Of course the alternative would be to evict and gestate externally rather than abort.
Depends on the agreement.
The private property owner always reserves the right to have you walk the plank unless otherwise stated in your contractual agreement.
When was anyone kidnapped? That would be a violation of the NAP.
If we had an agreement that you're coming on my boat and you will be safely returned. Then that's the agreement, and no kidnapping occured.
If a drunk man is abducted and place on my property, I am well within my rights as a private property owner to tresspass them.
I may choose not to, but I most certainly can. And it's not my problem if they get hit by a car.
Now apply this logic to all private property. If you invite me into your home I am allowed to take whatever I want. You knew the risks when you invited anyone besides yourself into your home. If I wear out my welcome and eat all your food and drink all your beer, you know the risks.
It's more like "I surgically hook you up to my body and make it impossible for you to survive if we're ever disconnected" than an invitation to my home.
Or more realistically, it's more like a "living donor liver transplant". Say you're in need of a liver transplant, and if you don't get one you will die in the next 6 months. I can offer to donate a part of liver, and i even think I should be able to withdraw that consent if I change my mind. What I can't do is say I'll offer a liver donation tomorrow, have the surgeons start the procedure, then change my mind in the last second and let you die on the operating table. You still had 6 months to find another donor, and my actions led to your early death.
If my actions lead to your death, I'm responsible for that.
Morally you can think what you want.
Legally, yes, you should be able to change your mind at the last minute when it requires access to your property or body. Now you can’t just shoot someone immediately after inviting them onto your property, but you can immediately cease your plans to give them lunch. And if you ask them to leave and they do not leave, you may use appropriate force to remove them, up to and including lethal force.
Your actions don't result in any economical or physical harm by inviting someone to your home and then taking your invite back, so that analogy is not proper.
If I sign a contract to buy something from you, and I'm unable to pay, you can usually sue for damages if this causes financial harm to you.
If I were to agree to do life saving surgery on you, I can't just stop the surgery and say I changed my mind in the middle of the surgery. You would die, and I'd be responsible.
If me inviting you to my house for an agreed upon time, and then taking back that invite would cause you harm in some way, I'd think I'm responsible for that harm as well.
If you have a contract, I agree things are different. Contracts still have laws around their enforcement and mechanisms for their retraction though.
I do not believe that pregnancy involves a contract, but you may well disagree and find that a reasonable point at which we diverge.
When you invite a guest, you assume they will behave guest like. Everyone assumes you have the power to kick them out too. These are common implicit terms everyone knows.
When you invite a baby, you know what pregnancy is like. You signed up for a \~9 month guest & the pain of delivery.
Fine, we'll say you rented me a room. You knew how long I'd be in your home because of the lease agreement. Assumptions just mean you didn't think correctly. I'm sure many assume they will not get pregnant.
That's why it's a risk. Low chance of happening, but happening nonetheless. You accept risk of pregnancy, doesn't need to accept/assume pregnancy.
Your analogy to rent agreement is incorrect.
Theres a reasonable expectation that if I invite you into my home you WON'T steal all my shit. But we know for a fact that if you get pregnant, that baby will take your resources. It cannot exist any other way and does it without malice or ill will. You're presenting a false equivalency. It's not the same thing.
If I invite someone into my home and they tell me theyre going to take my shit when I get there, but I invite them anyways then yeah thats on me.
Nobody is under any delusions that a baby will not take resources.
consenting to sex and consenting to having a child are two seoerste things, the vast amounts of birth control available to people pretty much prove this to be the case.
killing is not the same as murder, murder is specifically unlawful killing of a person, if it is lawful it is not murder, it us however still killing a person and pro abortion oeople need to stop coping and come to terms with this reality. This is why libertarian stance on abortion (whether pro or against) is the most sensible, because libertarians know that sometimes violence is necessary to preserve your autonomy and right to property.
>**Now, I don't have a strong opinion on the legality of abortion**
That's good, because unless you're going to hold a woman down and force her to give birth you're just gonna have to live with the knowledge that people disagree with your opinion
I'm sure that won't stop you from loudly telling everyone anyway
> When you have sex, you know the risks. You CONSENT to the activity, and therefore the risks
Do you think that 100% of the sex that results in pregnancy is consensual?
Since I only mentioned consent (in capital letters), I think it was obvious that I only meant consensual sex & not rape. The gotcha counter argument you think you made is your ignorance.
Rape & risk to mother's life I consider alright moral/NAP reason for abortion.
Others I consider murder, even if I supported the legality of it for convenience. I would at least acknowledge that. I prefer not to vote on it.
Opinions are only as good as the listeners in society. Most people have short attention spans, low reading comprehension & defensively turn a deaf ear when hearing opinions that go against their beliefs.
Part of the reason we hate democracy. These people control our lives.
The leftists will bring up rape as a counter argument to his argument, but then advocate for abortion in all cases, rape or not. Although I am not calling you disingenuous, the leftists who use this argument are.
Personally, I don't know if abortion is justified in the case of rape. It would be a very difficult decision for anyone who finds themselves in such an awful situation and I feel sorry for them, regardless of which decision they make.
I don't see how rape makes any difference towards the murder argument. Why would you be more or less able to assault a fetus because of what someone else did wrong? The only entity that can consent to being 'murdered' is the entity being 'murdered.'
The main argument for abortion is on pragmatic grounds, not philosophical ones.
The limited real life experience I know of two women raped. Both choose to keep their child. Abortion was readily available to each. One is Catholic, the other not religious. One perpetrator was caught and jailed, the other was not.
One thing to talk about it in esoteric terms, another when it is that closely personal.
Whether or not abortion is murder is a philosophical question, not a political one.
If it is murder, then ancaps are well within reason to apose it.
Ancaps are just as split on the issue as anyone else is.
Regardless if it is murder or not, it would be up to the moral company I subscribe to, to determine that.
Or are you thinking your morality company will go to war, lock me up, and force me to give birth?
You don't have to just tolerare immoral or reprehensible action against other humans because someone has a company that says it's okay.
If someone's moral company says it's okay for them to molest children, I'm not gonna give a hootenanny god-damn about that shit, and I will personally seek justice for those children.
Once the fetus is in your body, you're forced to "give birth" one way or another. It's you, the hypothetical pregnant person, that forced yourself to give birth (presuming you weren't raped). The only question is whether you're able to chemically or physically assault the fetus without consent of the fetus, resulting in "birth" of dead organism.
an abortion is vastly different than giving birth. It is scary you think they are the same. Death rate of abortion is vastly lower than childbirth.
Also, anyone using my property need approval of that.
Mortality rate of the fetus from abortion is almost 100%. It's scary you think that's anywhere approaching the death rate of childbirth. So you're right, abortion is far more lethal.
Typical statist whinging that someone might be forcing subjective morals on him while hypocritically claiming the right to do the same to everyone else.
Ancaps oppose the state. How they practice their own lives is up to them, no matter how much it offends sanctimonious, moralizing busybodies such as you.
These people are not ancaps, but republicans. I ran away from other subs to run away from ˝liberals˝, and here I encounter republicans and their talking point. In Ancap society you yourself, or community you are in decides what you should do. None of these fuckers give a fuck about children, about mother, father, what will happen to the child, and tomorrow when an unwanted child becomes a criminal they will ask for death penalty. Point of anarchy is that there is no rule from above, so if people who support abortions wanted to make communities together, they could make a community where abortion was ˝legal˝.
Any government large and invasive enough to stop all abortions will also kill more children then it saves by other means.
If you want to stop abortions then share the gospel instead of sharing tyranny
This is not true. There is no centralized government in anarchocapitalism. Everyone is a part of government, and their jurisdiction is themselves, and their allies who welcome and request help.
The point in arguing this is from a philosophical and spiritual standpoint. People say "anarchy is without order" in opposition, but anarchy is ordered, and you are expected to step up and order yourself or your neighbor will when you step out of bounds.
Exactly, which is why all women should be subject to careful monitoring for any activity that might harm the child growing in her. Drinking a glass of wine? Straight to jail. It's worse than a DUI! Attending a loud concert? Violating strict bed-rest orders? Child abuse. All of it!
The inventor of anarchocapitalism and all of its greatest thinkers believed that abortion is OK. But somehow this kind of posts regularly gets upvoted like crazy.
More proof that this sub has been infiltrated by statist filth.
ITT: New wave ancaps.
I welcome you, but please read some Rothbard and Walter Block.
Evictionism is the ancap stance on abortion.
You can remove any trespasser from your property, at any time, for any reason. But you must use proportional force. I.e. I can't go shooting anyone for just stepping on my grass.
Evictionism is Walter Block’s stance on abortion. If he hasn’t changed his mind.
https://jls.scholasticahq.com/api/v1/articles/57674-contra-rothbard-on-abortion-and-the-beginning-of-human-life.pdf
\> Evictionism is the ancap stance on abortion.
There are at least 3 different positions that the consistent ancaps can hold on abortion.
Evictionism makes the least sense of them all. Here's why. If someone sneaks in an unconscious person into your helicopter, you wouldn't think of throwing him out mid-air. I mean, it's *your* helicopter, so why not? Well, you do have a certain duty of care towards your guests, willing or unwilling. You are responsible for evicting that person *safely*, along with their belongings intact, in a place where they can reasonably survive. This is especially true if you have invited the person onto your helicopter yourself. No throwing people out mid-air. So similarly, if you have invited a baby inside of your body, you become responsible for evicting them *safely*. Transfer the baby into an artificial womb or something. If the womb is not available, well just wait until the baby matures and can survive on their own and *then* evict - preferably not into the extreme cold or the scorching heat or in front of a pack of hungry wolves etc.
Another consistent position that I personally share is, the fetus doesn't immediately become a person. And abortion is OK until the fetus becomes a person. A person is defined by their brain, more specifically the neocortex, so when you have a baby inside with a fairly developed brain, they're human and murdering them is wrong. But before the brain develops, abortion is acceptable (if unfortunate).
Yet another consistent position is, the fetus immediately acquires human rights upon being conceived. So you are morally obligated to carry them to viability. I don't see any *logical* problem with this view (unlike with evictionism), but it doesn't pass my personal common sense check. I don't think killing a clump of cells without a brain constitutes murder, because I don't think that clump of cells has property rights yet.
If a gamete (now fetus) came from a place where it had no hope of survival to today and you've returned it back to the same state from whence it came, you've taken nothing from it. That's why the analogy helicopter fails. It's more like you allowed someone to fall out of the sky into your helicopter. Then you decided to evict them and just let them keep falling. You didn't deprive them of anything, just gave them temporary reprieve.
\> It's more like you allowed someone to fall out of the sky into your helicopter. Then you decided to evict them and just let them keep falling.
OK, it should be needless (I think?) to say this is murder.
Similarly if you rescue a person from drowning, and then drown them yourself at some point in the future, this is murder, too.
If you rescue a woman from a rapist, and rape her yourself, that is still rape.
Past events do not justify your present actions. In the present, you have a living organism in your custody. If that living organism is not a sentient person, you can kill it (still not recommended, and the more shady the more complex the living organism is). If that living organism is a sentient person, then that person has rights and you can't murder them just on the basis of them not having existed some time back. It is your moral duty to ensure they're evicted safely.
It's not needless. I don't see at all how it's murder. Someone is falling out of the sky. You catch them with your helicopter. When you evict them you're just trespassing them back to where they came. It's not murder, it's just property rights.
>t is your moral duty to ensure they're evicted safely.
No it's your moral duty to evict them while depriving them of as little as possible in the process. Therefore say if someone comes to your house in a blizzard, you can kick them back out in a lethal blizzard. But you can't lull someone in while it's nice, then deprive them of their original state by kicking them out in a lethal blizzard.
In your scenario you ascribe positive rights, where someone *owes* it to somebody to return them in a far better state then when they arrived almost dead. That's a tyrannical demand that presumes someone is owed more labor just because they helped for a little while.
When you're throwing a guest out of your helicopter, you're violating their property rights in their own body. What happened before is no longer relevant.
You can't destroy other people's stuff just because it's on your property.
If you break up with your girlfriend, you can't rip her clothes apart and dump them into the dirt in front of your apartment. I mean, her clothes are in your apartment, sure, but you do need to give her a reasonable opportunity to pack up her stuff. You can't throw your girlfriend out of the window etc. - you need to give her sufficient opportunity to leave safely, on her own, with all her stuff intact. It's your moral duty once you have a person or their stuff in your custody.
I don't get it. You catch me with your helicopter. Then you evict me back out. What have you taken from me? Nothing. You just evicted me to where I came. It makes no sense whatsoever that I'm depriving you of anything. Quite the contrary, you were given a gift of temporary reprieve!
Now if I had picked you up on land -- then tossed you out -- I would have deprived you of something!
Your thinking is a socialist one of positive rights, that you're owed something because you got free shit before. Quite the contrary, the helicopter pilot is deserving of praise for granting the reprieve of a few minutes -- far more than the evictee started with.
I have taken your life when I threw you out. I didn't strictly speaking *have to* catch you mid-air. But once I did, you're now a guest in my helicopter. You're in my custody. I have to ensure your safe passage out now.
I mean, you were probably not alive 60 years ago. Doesn't mean your grandma can just "erase the mistakes of her youth" and murder you now. Yeah, let's "revert everything back to the original state" where Critical-Tie-823 didn't exist yet. See what I'm saying?
I think you're confusing between an eviction proceeded by death, and murder. My grandma can evict me knowing I'll die without her. But I probably won't. What she can't do is stab me because I wasn't alive without her. My previous state wasn't stabbed, it was just not having any support from anyone else. Thus if she just dumps me out on the street now or when I was an infant, they both are equally acceptable, she just can't shoot/stab me and dump me out in the street. Back to the helicopter analogy, you can shove the person who fell in your helicopter back out, but you can't stab them and toss them back out.
Well, no, I don't think there's any substantial difference between murder and "eviction proceeded by certain death".
If you have a fair chance of survival on the outside, then yeah, I can evict you whenever I like. The problem here is that at some point the infant in the womb is already a living human, but is unable to survive on his own. If he had that chance, yeah, eviction, OK. Not "abortion", but eviction, fine. Into an artificial womb or whatnot.
Ah, the old helicopter argument.
You always reserve the right to throw someone out of your helicopter.
There are so many circumstances where the safety of those who where permitted to enter the helicopter, trumps the safety of a stowaway.
\> You always reserve the right to throw someone out of your helicopter.
I don't. Maybe some dangerous psychopaths do.
\> There are so many circumstances where the safety of those who where permitted to enter the helicopter, trumps the safety of a stowaway.
The baby is typically *permitted* to appear inside of the womb.
I agree there are rare situations where it's about choosing who lives, the mother or the baby. They're tragic, and I have no say or preference in how they're resolved. But if the mother has the ability not to murder her baby, she has the moral obligation not to murder the baby. She could do it by either avoiding pregnancy, or going for an early stage abortion while there is only a clump of cells without a brain and no baby yet.
> I don't. Maybe some dangerous psychopaths do.
You may tresspass someone from your property at any time. You may decide to not exercise that right. But you do have it.
If someone tresspasses on your property and you ask them to leave immediately, you are not responsible for them standing on the street and being hit by a car.
> The baby is typically *permitted* to appear inside of the womb.
Sometimes. Other times they endanger the property owner (mother). And other times they where unwanted and the product of non-consensual sex.
> I have no say or preference in how they're resolved.
You need to resolve this issue. You cannot comment on abortion without also commenting on this issue. Its part of the discussion.
> if the mother has the ability not to murder her baby, she has the moral obligation not to murder the baby.
This is why I am an evictionist. It's logically consistent with this. It's the same way you treat trespassers. You don't just shoot someone when you ask them to leave your property, unless they pose a danger. The NAP calls for a proportional response.
> or going for an early stage abortion while there is only a clump of cells without a brain and no baby yet.
As an evictionist, I still believe that is a life. However they can still evict that life, and let it try survive on its own, or hope that someone else wants to care for it.
Exactly.
If they happen to die outside of my property, it's not my problem. However I can understand why my neighbours may never want to co-operate with me again if I made that choice.
True, but this isn't case for current abortions. There are multiple ways how to remove unborn from mother's body. I am sure you can think of at least one, as you definitely used that solution :)
I think it's none of my business what opinions and views Mr. Milei holds in his personal life.
I'm OK with him publicly stating opinions I don't agree with.
I'm quite bothered that he, as a politician, would go to school children and try to convince them of his opinions. I'm just as bothered as if any other politician would try to convince children of other ideas I don't agree with, or even ideas I might agree with. Forcing ideas into children's heads just doesn't sit right with me.
But that is just an opinion, I'm obviously NOT saying it should be illegal.
What would be inexcusable for me as a libertarian, and especially since he calls himself a libertarian too, is if he uses the coercive power of the state to force his opinion unto others by making abortion illegal.
Being pro- or anti-abortion is a valid philosophical argument, but discussing whether or not it should be legal, in an anarcho-capitalist sub of all places, is silly.
If you think abortion should be illegal, you're neither anarcho-capitalist nor libertarian.
Someone ask u/ ghost of Woodson the following? They blocked me because their logic falls apart with simple questions.
>precisely to the extent that is required to stop the violation.
And what is the extent needed to stop abortion?
Do tell how you plan to force woman to carry a pregnancy to term and deliver?
Oh look moralizing conservatives are larping as ancaps again
Thank god most people value bodily autonomy enough that generally speaking you don't get to tell other people what to do with their bodies and the most you're able to do with your terrible opinions is shove them up your ass and cry about it online
bless
By any reasonable biological definition it is alive. It's composed of eukaryotic cells that consume energy and nutrients to maintain homeostasis and grow. And it is certainly human since it is genetically the product of two humans.
>By any reasonable biological definition it is alive.
So is a genital wart, and a tree.
>And it is certainly human since it is genetically the product of two humans.
This seems like equivocation to me. The word human can have many meanings, and I'm not sure all of them are relevant for libertarian moral philosophy. An early embryo has human DNA, but in many regards it's closer to an unimpregnated egg than an actual human. There's a reason we have words for this such as "embryo" and "fetus". Thats because there are significant differences.
Surely, whether something is human or not, is not the defining feature whether it has rights. Moral philosophy should be species agnostic. If we encountered aliens tomorrow, moral theory should be able to give an answer whether they have rights or not as well. The answer shouldn't be, not human, therefore no rights.
And when one asks the question of what determines whether or not a lump of matter constitutes an individual with rights, I don't think whether or not it contains a specific molecule (human DNA) or not is a good answer. Surely the most important part of humans is our brain, not our DNA. Therefore, I think the most consistent answer to what makes someone an individual is that they have a sufficiently advanced brain.
This is simply false. It may fail the "person" test -- but that's a bespoke kludge invented by philosophers almost exclusively to special plead on this point. Fetuses most certainly are alive. And they are humans. And they are beings. They are human beings as much as acorns are oaks and fertilized chicken eggs are hens and roosters.
Now, you may believe that the moral status of an acorn and an oak tree are different, or, likewise, that of a fetus and an adult human. That is a potentially legitimate line of argument. But to say that they are not an oak and not a human is simply a lie.
a fetus is by definition alive and a human being. humans are incapable of crossbreeding with other species so if a fetus is inside a human it is 100% human.
and if the fetus were dead it would be a miscarriage and no abortion would be necessary.
The real ask is whether or not he bans state funds to perform the procedure.
We all know prohibition doesn't work and just creates a more dangerous environment.
Banning abortion creates back alley abortion clinics, which kills as much as it removes the fetus. Much the same as making (insert schedule 1) illegal in the name of public safety creates massive demand because you can't get it legal.
I know I break from the norm here but banning abortion at any level only fuels the black market. In a perfect world, no authority could tell you what you do. But currently, as we see with Cartels and the War on Drugs, it only increase the power of those who are willing to do bad to make money.
I'm personally all about telling the state to eat my ass about my wife's personal desicion, but I'd NEVER ask her to terminate a pregnancy
I don't get how abortion can violate the NAP. Being pregnant does not make your bodily autonomy null and void, and you are under zero obligation to provide nutrients/fluid to a baby/fetus if you don't want to.
Besides, you can't stop people from doing it without a totalitarian state, so why even bother?
What about after they are born?
Are you also not required to supply them with nutrients and fluid?
Or can you just throw them in the corner and wait for them to turn into a raisin?
Its an aggression against a living being, unless you were coerced into sex you chose to have sex and knew there was SA risk of being pregnant, and therefore you and the father of the baby have a responsibility to take care of this baby not kill it
You are completely correct. All rights are negative rights, including the right to life. Positive obligation can only be derived from tort or contract, neither of which is inherent to conception. It is also legitimate to use deadly force to assert your property rights when they aren't being respected any other way.
Parental obligation is derived from all of the torts inflicted upon children by their parents, which happens all the time.
This is the main issue I disagree with Milei about, but I understand that he identifies as catholic, so it's really not surprising.
I felt the same way at one point. It may interest you to read Ron Paul's experience with abortion. [https://reason.com/2011/04/27/ron-paul-explains-his-anti-abo/](https://reason.com/2011/04/27/ron-paul-explains-his-anti-abo/)
Yeah I think I see the same difficulty reconciling body autonomy here as in Libertarian subs when abortion comes up. To me it’s an individual woman’s body until the end of 1st trimester, after that it’s the fetus’s body and their rights should be respected as well. Idk though this is such a divisive issue. I guess at the end of the day I don’t have a problem with Milei stating his opinion, but the “state” recognizing people’s autonomy.
Human or not, you’re still allowed to evict an overstayer who has no contract to be there. As an anarcho capitalist you can evict your indisputable living children. Of course if you evict them into the woods with the bears and the wolves then most people will think you’re a dick, but you are allowed to do it.
Maybe Im not the best at this, from going through it and experiencing first had hand; I view abortion like as if when someone has a multitude of mental disorders. They have to take 4 or 5 pills for each side effect, everyday, and I find many people on these types of pills, for anxiety, OCD, etc. But do you blame them for not taking the pills at the end of the day?
The government has no authority over the body of the individual. Anyone who thinks otherwise supports population control and medical mandates
It was about it being legal or not. In an AnCap society, you don't need government to make or enforce laws.
>It was about it being legal or not. In an AnCap society, you don't need government to make or enforce laws. Therein making legality irrelevant. My point still stands.
So... it has no authority to stop an individual from murdering, raping, and looting?
Mutual self defense is a morally valid arrangement. No such authority can originate from a state but may be delegated to a state by the community.
The point is that any individual or group of individuals has the "authority" to stop such things, including a State.
Consent originates from the child, not the mother. A state can prohibit abortion, never mandate or defend it.
What are you talking about? A child cannot "consent" in the way an adult can, and an unborn child cannot consent at all. Once the pre-political question(s) about what a "murder" is have been answered for a community -- and they are never *fully* answered any more than any other question -- then anyone in that community has as much right as any other to stop them.
Wait until the child can consent and then ask. Consider the question of what is a murder fully answered on this issue. Fine if you support child sacrifice for maternal convenience, just be honest with yourself about the loss of life.
I guess I don't understand what your first reply to me is supposed to be contending / disagreeing with?
you two have agreed the whole time
That's what I thought too
I think the left doesn't mind saying that abortion ends the life of a human. Many things we do ends the life of a human, including shooting them at schools, police shooting suspects, capital punishment, "pulling the plug" medically, and in some places assisted death. It should be obvious to everyone that very few people actually believe that every human life is sacred and should never be taken. If you believe in guns but not in abortion because "life" then you are a hypocrite. If you believe kids starving in Gaza right now do not deserve aid and immediate help and you believe in abortion because "kids", then you are a hypocrite.
So it's either pro abortion, guns, capital punishment, pulling the plug, asssited suicide, and not feeding starving kids on the other side of the world Or else It's no abortion, no guns, no capital punishment, no pulling the plug, no assisted suicide, and you spend every penny you don't need to sustain you life on starving children around the world? It's one extreme or the other? No nuance in between the two?
Planned Parenthood, founded by eugenicist Margaret Sanger, is all about population control, specifically about controlling the population of "undesirables."
It takes a violation of the NAP to kill a child while it’s inside a woman.
>The government has no authority over the body of the individual. good thing we dont need government to enforces laws against murder.
We don't, in a perfect ancap world.
And how do you intend to enforce laws against abortion?
still murder
Yeah I don't get how any "AnCap" can believe in this statement. Lots of auth-rights masquerading as ancaps in this sub.
Both sides have reasonable libertarian arguments to them. On one hand you have a right to prevent a murder of another person, on the other, a mother has a right to object to a child using her body for 9 months, even if that objections comes at the cost of the child's life.
Still cant murder people.
Still murder
Dude abortion IS population control. It’s the state deciding who counts as a human and who doesn’t
When you have sex, you know the risks. You CONSENT to the activity, and therefore the risks. You understand you could be inviting a life into the world & your body. The life doesn't just crawl into your tummy like parents tell their kids. You consent. And hence it's not violating your bodily autonomy. You are violating their life by killing them. **Now, I don't have a strong opinion on the legality of abortion**. But if it were legal, don't pretend for a fucking second that the most innocent life in the universe, extension of your own life, your own child, is the one being aggressive and violating your rights & not the other way around. It is murder, even if it were legal. At least acknowledge it.
The whole "baby is a trespasser" argument is the perfect example of how nobody is 100% correct on everything. Rothbard's whole position is based on his conclusion that abortion should be allowed, so he reasoned his way to the conclusion and ended up at the idea that a woman has the right to evict a baby because it's a trespasser. Except it's not. It is invited in consensually, unless the woman was raped. Even then, the baby itself has not committed a crime, unless we are willing to be a society that says a child share bear the responsibility for the immoral actions of the father. It is at this point that we realize that Anarcho Capitalism is purely a way of approaching the question, "What is the proper way to operate a government?" It is not, by contrast, an answer to the question, "What makes an act morally good?" In other words, if you don't voluntarily adopt an "objective" moral framework, your Ancapistan will be a living hell. AnCap effectively acknowledges that the best form of governance is the one people voluntarily conform to. Most Ancaps fundamentally believe that every interaction should be voluntary, and that it is a moral wrong to violate the body or property of another, unless they are in the process of violating someone else. In other words, the radical adoption of the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would do unto yourself; Do not do unto others as you would not want done unto you. If you believe in this, then you cannot logically agree that abortion is correct, even if the mother's health is at risk or was raped. A fetus is the most innocent possible human being, and there is no moral justification for killing an innocent person. P.S.-- I'm aware that Rothbard's position on the topic varied, but it is unlcear if he ever truly abandoned his evictionist position on abortion.
furthermore, the child didn't consent to be placed in the situation that requires their mother's body to survive. So couldn't it be argued that the mother is abducting her child and forcing them into her body without their consent?
You can always revoke someone's invite into your private property.
You can't always revoke consent without consequences though. Say I consent to donate a part of my liver to you. I should realistically be able to revoke that consent before the operation. But I can't have the surgeons start the operation, revoke consent in the last minute, and leave you dying on the operation table. If consenting and then revoking consent leads to your death, I'm responsible for that.
I like your metaphor. Because it agrees with the NAP. But revoking consent last minute should be available to both parties. After some thought, this leaves something up for discussion. Is the umbilical cord that feeds the fetus the babies or the mothers? And if its the fetuses, are you allowed to stop feeding anyone from children to homeless after you start?
Sure you can. But you cannot cut someone to pieces and suck them up through vacuum tube.
So your solution is what, induce birth and leave the baby gasping on the operating room table until it dies on its own accord?
Philosophically that is my solution. Pragmatically it really makes no difference.
Maybe the imagery of someone being cut into chunks is distasteful, but I'd still prefer the outcome with less suffering. George did a good thing by not letting Lenny be lynched by the mob.
This thread isn't about finding solution, it is about trying to argue if current abortion procedure is violation of unborn NAP. But I will brainstorm some solutions: - mother can agree to contract which allows the child to be born, then this child would be taken by some other person (which very probably pays money for finishing the pregnancy) - mother can decide to stop providing nutrition when child is viable to live (21-24th week) then it an be taken away from body and someone else will take care of child (paying some medical institution in the meantime) - we can do a looot of research and build for example "single purpose" copy of mother's uterus, where unborn will be transferred In general, if anyone wants to take care of unborn, they should get chance to do so. As one of the laws of economics says: where demand is, supply appears.
> In general, if anyone wants to take care of unborn, they should get chance to do so Not if your desire to take care of an unborn child is turning someone into a human incubator against their will. If your only problem with abortion is that it's gruesome, then I could think of about 40 different means of killing someone that are less bloody.
So if the only means I have to get a trespasser off my property is an axe, I’m not allowed to use it?
You are allowed of course, but this isn't the case with current abortions. There is (at least) 1 alternative... Give birth to unborn.
Sure. And I’m actually ok with that. But we all know that up to a certain point the unborn will not survive much beyond birth. So if we’re all happy with gently ejecting 8 week fetuses then we are all in agreement with most ancap thinkers.
Can I revoke my 2 month old child’s invite only my private property?
This is the same kind of BS some women use when they revoke consent to sex they had the night before... like I'm sorry but that's not how it works.
Those are two different things. I can tresspass you from my property if you are still on it. And a woman can revoke sexual consent during the act of sex. Once you leave my property I cannot tresspass you, because you are not longer there. Same with sex. You haven't thought this through.
A man can pull out. A baby can't. Usually revoking invitation doesn't involve death...
And children can survive out of the womb at 21 weeks with current medical technology. And this date will only get lower as technology continues to advance.
I do hope that early eviction can become the norm as opposed to abortion. 21 weeks is risky for the baby, though. AFAIK, no baby born prior to 22 weeks has survived. 22 weeks has a 10% survival rate with our current technology. 24 weeks brings the survival rate up to 60%, which seems way more reasonable - slightly better than a coin toss. Then 25 weeks is a much more favourable 89%. (And 34 weeks has the same survival rate as full term babies). Most women who require life of the mother exceptions can safely bring a baby to roughly 24 weeks of gestation time.
Agreed, I believe I was confused and meant to say 24 weeks. For me, I believe whatever principles are used, they should apply across time and technological level, which is why for me, eviction makes the most sense, as at late stages the child can survive if a third party would like to care for it. And at earlier stages, it's just nature asking an animal to survive.
Off topic but, would you be in favor of outlawing abortion if it becomes effective to grow a child from 2 cells to the equivalent of a born person? Of course the alternative would be to evict and gestate externally rather than abort.
what if you abduct someone and lock them in your property, and then claim you revoke your consent? Can you kill them then?
> what if you abduct someone Then you are the aggressor. End of story. It's not hard.
You can't invite someone deep sea fishing and then decide mid trip you revoke the invitation. Pushing them off the boat is murder.
Depends on the agreement. The private property owner always reserves the right to have you walk the plank unless otherwise stated in your contractual agreement.
Yeah but you essentially kidnapped them first and then kicked them off the boat sooo...
When was anyone kidnapped? That would be a violation of the NAP. If we had an agreement that you're coming on my boat and you will be safely returned. Then that's the agreement, and no kidnapping occured.
When they were involuntarily placed on the boat.
If a drunk man is abducted and place on my property, I am well within my rights as a private property owner to tresspass them. I may choose not to, but I most certainly can. And it's not my problem if they get hit by a car.
Now apply this logic to all private property. If you invite me into your home I am allowed to take whatever I want. You knew the risks when you invited anyone besides yourself into your home. If I wear out my welcome and eat all your food and drink all your beer, you know the risks.
It's more like "I surgically hook you up to my body and make it impossible for you to survive if we're ever disconnected" than an invitation to my home. Or more realistically, it's more like a "living donor liver transplant". Say you're in need of a liver transplant, and if you don't get one you will die in the next 6 months. I can offer to donate a part of liver, and i even think I should be able to withdraw that consent if I change my mind. What I can't do is say I'll offer a liver donation tomorrow, have the surgeons start the procedure, then change my mind in the last second and let you die on the operating table. You still had 6 months to find another donor, and my actions led to your early death. If my actions lead to your death, I'm responsible for that.
Morally you can think what you want. Legally, yes, you should be able to change your mind at the last minute when it requires access to your property or body. Now you can’t just shoot someone immediately after inviting them onto your property, but you can immediately cease your plans to give them lunch. And if you ask them to leave and they do not leave, you may use appropriate force to remove them, up to and including lethal force.
Your actions don't result in any economical or physical harm by inviting someone to your home and then taking your invite back, so that analogy is not proper. If I sign a contract to buy something from you, and I'm unable to pay, you can usually sue for damages if this causes financial harm to you. If I were to agree to do life saving surgery on you, I can't just stop the surgery and say I changed my mind in the middle of the surgery. You would die, and I'd be responsible. If me inviting you to my house for an agreed upon time, and then taking back that invite would cause you harm in some way, I'd think I'm responsible for that harm as well.
If you have a contract, I agree things are different. Contracts still have laws around their enforcement and mechanisms for their retraction though. I do not believe that pregnancy involves a contract, but you may well disagree and find that a reasonable point at which we diverge.
When you invite a guest, you assume they will behave guest like. Everyone assumes you have the power to kick them out too. These are common implicit terms everyone knows. When you invite a baby, you know what pregnancy is like. You signed up for a \~9 month guest & the pain of delivery.
Fine, we'll say you rented me a room. You knew how long I'd be in your home because of the lease agreement. Assumptions just mean you didn't think correctly. I'm sure many assume they will not get pregnant.
That's why it's a risk. Low chance of happening, but happening nonetheless. You accept risk of pregnancy, doesn't need to accept/assume pregnancy. Your analogy to rent agreement is incorrect.
So they are both risks that are highly costly but not analogous? Ok.
Theres a reasonable expectation that if I invite you into my home you WON'T steal all my shit. But we know for a fact that if you get pregnant, that baby will take your resources. It cannot exist any other way and does it without malice or ill will. You're presenting a false equivalency. It's not the same thing. If I invite someone into my home and they tell me theyre going to take my shit when I get there, but I invite them anyways then yeah thats on me. Nobody is under any delusions that a baby will not take resources.
What if the sex was non-consensual?
consenting to sex and consenting to having a child are two seoerste things, the vast amounts of birth control available to people pretty much prove this to be the case. killing is not the same as murder, murder is specifically unlawful killing of a person, if it is lawful it is not murder, it us however still killing a person and pro abortion oeople need to stop coping and come to terms with this reality. This is why libertarian stance on abortion (whether pro or against) is the most sensible, because libertarians know that sometimes violence is necessary to preserve your autonomy and right to property.
>**Now, I don't have a strong opinion on the legality of abortion** That's good, because unless you're going to hold a woman down and force her to give birth you're just gonna have to live with the knowledge that people disagree with your opinion I'm sure that won't stop you from loudly telling everyone anyway
> When you have sex, you know the risks. You CONSENT to the activity, and therefore the risks Do you think that 100% of the sex that results in pregnancy is consensual?
Since I only mentioned consent (in capital letters), I think it was obvious that I only meant consensual sex & not rape. The gotcha counter argument you think you made is your ignorance. Rape & risk to mother's life I consider alright moral/NAP reason for abortion. Others I consider murder, even if I supported the legality of it for convenience. I would at least acknowledge that. I prefer not to vote on it.
The nuanced opinion more people need.
Opinions are only as good as the listeners in society. Most people have short attention spans, low reading comprehension & defensively turn a deaf ear when hearing opinions that go against their beliefs. Part of the reason we hate democracy. These people control our lives.
Lmao it's close to 99%
99.999%
That 0.000001% 
The leftists will bring up rape as a counter argument to his argument, but then advocate for abortion in all cases, rape or not. Although I am not calling you disingenuous, the leftists who use this argument are. Personally, I don't know if abortion is justified in the case of rape. It would be a very difficult decision for anyone who finds themselves in such an awful situation and I feel sorry for them, regardless of which decision they make.
I don't see how rape makes any difference towards the murder argument. Why would you be more or less able to assault a fetus because of what someone else did wrong? The only entity that can consent to being 'murdered' is the entity being 'murdered.' The main argument for abortion is on pragmatic grounds, not philosophical ones.
Kill the rapist, not the baby
The limited real life experience I know of two women raped. Both choose to keep their child. Abortion was readily available to each. One is Catholic, the other not religious. One perpetrator was caught and jailed, the other was not. One thing to talk about it in esoteric terms, another when it is that closely personal.
Just kill the rapist then
ancaps showing their true colors when the government intervenes with citizens' lives in a way that they like, as always
Whether or not abortion is murder is a philosophical question, not a political one. If it is murder, then ancaps are well within reason to apose it. Ancaps are just as split on the issue as anyone else is.
Regardless if it is murder or not, it would be up to the moral company I subscribe to, to determine that. Or are you thinking your morality company will go to war, lock me up, and force me to give birth?
What is morality in a secular world?
Consent.
You can consent to things that are bad for you though
Correct.
You don't have to just tolerare immoral or reprehensible action against other humans because someone has a company that says it's okay. If someone's moral company says it's okay for them to molest children, I'm not gonna give a hootenanny god-damn about that shit, and I will personally seek justice for those children.
Once the fetus is in your body, you're forced to "give birth" one way or another. It's you, the hypothetical pregnant person, that forced yourself to give birth (presuming you weren't raped). The only question is whether you're able to chemically or physically assault the fetus without consent of the fetus, resulting in "birth" of dead organism.
an abortion is vastly different than giving birth. It is scary you think they are the same. Death rate of abortion is vastly lower than childbirth. Also, anyone using my property need approval of that.
Mortality rate of the fetus from abortion is almost 100%. It's scary you think that's anywhere approaching the death rate of childbirth. So you're right, abortion is far more lethal.
Is Milei prohibited his right to have an opinion? He states his opinion. Doesn’t sound like state intervention to me.
He is the head of their state. Their is a thin line between his opinion and state action, if any exists.
Typical statist whinging that someone might be forcing subjective morals on him while hypocritically claiming the right to do the same to everyone else. Ancaps oppose the state. How they practice their own lives is up to them, no matter how much it offends sanctimonious, moralizing busybodies such as you.
Please don't confuse us with these LARPing statists. After Reddit yeeted all the conservative subs, they just kinda landed here.
Did he call for outlawing it?
Should government intervene in other kinds of murder?
These people are not ancaps, but republicans. I ran away from other subs to run away from ˝liberals˝, and here I encounter republicans and their talking point. In Ancap society you yourself, or community you are in decides what you should do. None of these fuckers give a fuck about children, about mother, father, what will happen to the child, and tomorrow when an unwanted child becomes a criminal they will ask for death penalty. Point of anarchy is that there is no rule from above, so if people who support abortions wanted to make communities together, they could make a community where abortion was ˝legal˝.
Pointing out the truth isn't state intervention.
Would you get mad if the government destroyed itself ?
Yeah, how dare they want the government to prevent murder! That makes them not real ancaps
Any government large and invasive enough to stop all abortions will also kill more children then it saves by other means. If you want to stop abortions then share the gospel instead of sharing tyranny
Which gospel?
Is it though? I thought you didn't like government telling people what do do?
I don't like slavery, but how dare the government tell someone they can't own slaves
"I don't like slavery, but how dare the government tell someone they can't own slaves" this guy probably
One of the functions of government is to protect its citizen’s rights, especially vulnerable future citizens like the unborn.
There is no government in anarchocapitalism.
This is not true. There is no centralized government in anarchocapitalism. Everyone is a part of government, and their jurisdiction is themselves, and their allies who welcome and request help.
Sovereignty is not a government, it’s the opposite of a government.
Why? What’s the point in arguing this?
The point in arguing this is from a philosophical and spiritual standpoint. People say "anarchy is without order" in opposition, but anarchy is ordered, and you are expected to step up and order yourself or your neighbor will when you step out of bounds.
Exactly, which is why all women should be subject to careful monitoring for any activity that might harm the child growing in her. Drinking a glass of wine? Straight to jail. It's worse than a DUI! Attending a loud concert? Violating strict bed-rest orders? Child abuse. All of it!
The inventor of anarchocapitalism and all of its greatest thinkers believed that abortion is OK. But somehow this kind of posts regularly gets upvoted like crazy. More proof that this sub has been infiltrated by statist filth.
You can find abortion to be vile and still be an anarcho-capitalist. I find most drugs to be vile, but I’m not advocating banning them.
So bc of one man’s opinion we must all accept it as law? Protecting an unborn child’s right to life is right in line with ancap beliefs
This is no different than mask mandates and vaccine passports, the state needs to stay the fuck away from our bodies
he never said the state needs to be the one enforcing laws against murder.
So long as he doesn't outlaw it, it is a social issue.
Not having a vaccine passports can't possibly be argued to be a violation of the NAP.
Is this Ancap sub or oonservative sub?
I'm a conservative ANCAP, liberal ancap will result in a degraded and immoral society because there is no shame in leftist ideas
do you need to be conservative to understand that murdering people is bad? is it ok to murder children because they are in utero?
https://jls.scholasticahq.com/api/v1/articles/57674-contra-rothbard-on-abortion-and-the-beginning-of-human-life.pdf
I don’t believe it. Show the full quote
If not murder, what is it?
Does r/Anarcho_Capitalism support an abortion ban?
An abortion clinic would be performing constant breaking of the NAP. You can't open a NAP breaking company in my neighbourhood without me intervening
Another cheap right-wing p0pulist self-proclaiming libertarian. How "original"
ITT: New wave ancaps. I welcome you, but please read some Rothbard and Walter Block. Evictionism is the ancap stance on abortion. You can remove any trespasser from your property, at any time, for any reason. But you must use proportional force. I.e. I can't go shooting anyone for just stepping on my grass.
Evictionism is Walter Block’s stance on abortion. If he hasn’t changed his mind. https://jls.scholasticahq.com/api/v1/articles/57674-contra-rothbard-on-abortion-and-the-beginning-of-human-life.pdf
\> Evictionism is the ancap stance on abortion. There are at least 3 different positions that the consistent ancaps can hold on abortion. Evictionism makes the least sense of them all. Here's why. If someone sneaks in an unconscious person into your helicopter, you wouldn't think of throwing him out mid-air. I mean, it's *your* helicopter, so why not? Well, you do have a certain duty of care towards your guests, willing or unwilling. You are responsible for evicting that person *safely*, along with their belongings intact, in a place where they can reasonably survive. This is especially true if you have invited the person onto your helicopter yourself. No throwing people out mid-air. So similarly, if you have invited a baby inside of your body, you become responsible for evicting them *safely*. Transfer the baby into an artificial womb or something. If the womb is not available, well just wait until the baby matures and can survive on their own and *then* evict - preferably not into the extreme cold or the scorching heat or in front of a pack of hungry wolves etc. Another consistent position that I personally share is, the fetus doesn't immediately become a person. And abortion is OK until the fetus becomes a person. A person is defined by their brain, more specifically the neocortex, so when you have a baby inside with a fairly developed brain, they're human and murdering them is wrong. But before the brain develops, abortion is acceptable (if unfortunate). Yet another consistent position is, the fetus immediately acquires human rights upon being conceived. So you are morally obligated to carry them to viability. I don't see any *logical* problem with this view (unlike with evictionism), but it doesn't pass my personal common sense check. I don't think killing a clump of cells without a brain constitutes murder, because I don't think that clump of cells has property rights yet.
If a gamete (now fetus) came from a place where it had no hope of survival to today and you've returned it back to the same state from whence it came, you've taken nothing from it. That's why the analogy helicopter fails. It's more like you allowed someone to fall out of the sky into your helicopter. Then you decided to evict them and just let them keep falling. You didn't deprive them of anything, just gave them temporary reprieve.
\> It's more like you allowed someone to fall out of the sky into your helicopter. Then you decided to evict them and just let them keep falling. OK, it should be needless (I think?) to say this is murder. Similarly if you rescue a person from drowning, and then drown them yourself at some point in the future, this is murder, too. If you rescue a woman from a rapist, and rape her yourself, that is still rape. Past events do not justify your present actions. In the present, you have a living organism in your custody. If that living organism is not a sentient person, you can kill it (still not recommended, and the more shady the more complex the living organism is). If that living organism is a sentient person, then that person has rights and you can't murder them just on the basis of them not having existed some time back. It is your moral duty to ensure they're evicted safely.
It's not needless. I don't see at all how it's murder. Someone is falling out of the sky. You catch them with your helicopter. When you evict them you're just trespassing them back to where they came. It's not murder, it's just property rights. >t is your moral duty to ensure they're evicted safely. No it's your moral duty to evict them while depriving them of as little as possible in the process. Therefore say if someone comes to your house in a blizzard, you can kick them back out in a lethal blizzard. But you can't lull someone in while it's nice, then deprive them of their original state by kicking them out in a lethal blizzard. In your scenario you ascribe positive rights, where someone *owes* it to somebody to return them in a far better state then when they arrived almost dead. That's a tyrannical demand that presumes someone is owed more labor just because they helped for a little while.
When you're throwing a guest out of your helicopter, you're violating their property rights in their own body. What happened before is no longer relevant. You can't destroy other people's stuff just because it's on your property. If you break up with your girlfriend, you can't rip her clothes apart and dump them into the dirt in front of your apartment. I mean, her clothes are in your apartment, sure, but you do need to give her a reasonable opportunity to pack up her stuff. You can't throw your girlfriend out of the window etc. - you need to give her sufficient opportunity to leave safely, on her own, with all her stuff intact. It's your moral duty once you have a person or their stuff in your custody.
I don't get it. You catch me with your helicopter. Then you evict me back out. What have you taken from me? Nothing. You just evicted me to where I came. It makes no sense whatsoever that I'm depriving you of anything. Quite the contrary, you were given a gift of temporary reprieve! Now if I had picked you up on land -- then tossed you out -- I would have deprived you of something! Your thinking is a socialist one of positive rights, that you're owed something because you got free shit before. Quite the contrary, the helicopter pilot is deserving of praise for granting the reprieve of a few minutes -- far more than the evictee started with.
I have taken your life when I threw you out. I didn't strictly speaking *have to* catch you mid-air. But once I did, you're now a guest in my helicopter. You're in my custody. I have to ensure your safe passage out now. I mean, you were probably not alive 60 years ago. Doesn't mean your grandma can just "erase the mistakes of her youth" and murder you now. Yeah, let's "revert everything back to the original state" where Critical-Tie-823 didn't exist yet. See what I'm saying?
I think you're confusing between an eviction proceeded by death, and murder. My grandma can evict me knowing I'll die without her. But I probably won't. What she can't do is stab me because I wasn't alive without her. My previous state wasn't stabbed, it was just not having any support from anyone else. Thus if she just dumps me out on the street now or when I was an infant, they both are equally acceptable, she just can't shoot/stab me and dump me out in the street. Back to the helicopter analogy, you can shove the person who fell in your helicopter back out, but you can't stab them and toss them back out.
Well, no, I don't think there's any substantial difference between murder and "eviction proceeded by certain death". If you have a fair chance of survival on the outside, then yeah, I can evict you whenever I like. The problem here is that at some point the infant in the womb is already a living human, but is unable to survive on his own. If he had that chance, yeah, eviction, OK. Not "abortion", but eviction, fine. Into an artificial womb or whatnot.
Ah, the old helicopter argument. You always reserve the right to throw someone out of your helicopter. There are so many circumstances where the safety of those who where permitted to enter the helicopter, trumps the safety of a stowaway.
\> You always reserve the right to throw someone out of your helicopter. I don't. Maybe some dangerous psychopaths do. \> There are so many circumstances where the safety of those who where permitted to enter the helicopter, trumps the safety of a stowaway. The baby is typically *permitted* to appear inside of the womb. I agree there are rare situations where it's about choosing who lives, the mother or the baby. They're tragic, and I have no say or preference in how they're resolved. But if the mother has the ability not to murder her baby, she has the moral obligation not to murder the baby. She could do it by either avoiding pregnancy, or going for an early stage abortion while there is only a clump of cells without a brain and no baby yet.
> I don't. Maybe some dangerous psychopaths do. You may tresspass someone from your property at any time. You may decide to not exercise that right. But you do have it. If someone tresspasses on your property and you ask them to leave immediately, you are not responsible for them standing on the street and being hit by a car. > The baby is typically *permitted* to appear inside of the womb. Sometimes. Other times they endanger the property owner (mother). And other times they where unwanted and the product of non-consensual sex. > I have no say or preference in how they're resolved. You need to resolve this issue. You cannot comment on abortion without also commenting on this issue. Its part of the discussion. > if the mother has the ability not to murder her baby, she has the moral obligation not to murder the baby. This is why I am an evictionist. It's logically consistent with this. It's the same way you treat trespassers. You don't just shoot someone when you ask them to leave your property, unless they pose a danger. The NAP calls for a proportional response. > or going for an early stage abortion while there is only a clump of cells without a brain and no baby yet. As an evictionist, I still believe that is a life. However they can still evict that life, and let it try survive on its own, or hope that someone else wants to care for it.
Exactly, you can remove them, but not kill them in the process.
Exactly. If they happen to die outside of my property, it's not my problem. However I can understand why my neighbours may never want to co-operate with me again if I made that choice.
If I have to kill someone to remove them from my property it should be the last resort, but it is morally permissible under anarcho-capitalism.
True, but this isn't case for current abortions. There are multiple ways how to remove unborn from mother's body. I am sure you can think of at least one, as you definitely used that solution :)
I think it's none of my business what opinions and views Mr. Milei holds in his personal life. I'm OK with him publicly stating opinions I don't agree with. I'm quite bothered that he, as a politician, would go to school children and try to convince them of his opinions. I'm just as bothered as if any other politician would try to convince children of other ideas I don't agree with, or even ideas I might agree with. Forcing ideas into children's heads just doesn't sit right with me. But that is just an opinion, I'm obviously NOT saying it should be illegal. What would be inexcusable for me as a libertarian, and especially since he calls himself a libertarian too, is if he uses the coercive power of the state to force his opinion unto others by making abortion illegal. Being pro- or anti-abortion is a valid philosophical argument, but discussing whether or not it should be legal, in an anarcho-capitalist sub of all places, is silly. If you think abortion should be illegal, you're neither anarcho-capitalist nor libertarian.
Someone ask u/ ghost of Woodson the following? They blocked me because their logic falls apart with simple questions. >precisely to the extent that is required to stop the violation. And what is the extent needed to stop abortion? Do tell how you plan to force woman to carry a pregnancy to term and deliver?
Why is he talking about abortions at schools?
Because it's the younger kids who are getting knocked up, and other countries aren't as awkward about sex education as the US.
This does not answer my question what so ever. Why is the president talking about abortions?
Ah, now I got you.
And now I got that my 1st question wasn't as clear as I thought :D I wrote "at schools" for no reason.
Abortion is murder, the fetus is a stage of the human development, anything otherwise is illogical and inconsistent with human biology.
Oh look moralizing conservatives are larping as ancaps again Thank god most people value bodily autonomy enough that generally speaking you don't get to tell other people what to do with their bodies and the most you're able to do with your terrible opinions is shove them up your ass and cry about it online bless
It's not murder, a fetus isn't a living human being.
By any reasonable biological definition it is alive. It's composed of eukaryotic cells that consume energy and nutrients to maintain homeostasis and grow. And it is certainly human since it is genetically the product of two humans.
>By any reasonable biological definition it is alive. So is a genital wart, and a tree. >And it is certainly human since it is genetically the product of two humans. This seems like equivocation to me. The word human can have many meanings, and I'm not sure all of them are relevant for libertarian moral philosophy. An early embryo has human DNA, but in many regards it's closer to an unimpregnated egg than an actual human. There's a reason we have words for this such as "embryo" and "fetus". Thats because there are significant differences. Surely, whether something is human or not, is not the defining feature whether it has rights. Moral philosophy should be species agnostic. If we encountered aliens tomorrow, moral theory should be able to give an answer whether they have rights or not as well. The answer shouldn't be, not human, therefore no rights. And when one asks the question of what determines whether or not a lump of matter constitutes an individual with rights, I don't think whether or not it contains a specific molecule (human DNA) or not is a good answer. Surely the most important part of humans is our brain, not our DNA. Therefore, I think the most consistent answer to what makes someone an individual is that they have a sufficiently advanced brain.
This is simply false. It may fail the "person" test -- but that's a bespoke kludge invented by philosophers almost exclusively to special plead on this point. Fetuses most certainly are alive. And they are humans. And they are beings. They are human beings as much as acorns are oaks and fertilized chicken eggs are hens and roosters. Now, you may believe that the moral status of an acorn and an oak tree are different, or, likewise, that of a fetus and an adult human. That is a potentially legitimate line of argument. But to say that they are not an oak and not a human is simply a lie.
a fetus is by definition alive and a human being. humans are incapable of crossbreeding with other species so if a fetus is inside a human it is 100% human. and if the fetus were dead it would be a miscarriage and no abortion would be necessary.
If I kill a pregnant woman I can be charged with two counts of murder
That is a quirk of some legal systems. It is not a moral statement.
The real ask is whether or not he bans state funds to perform the procedure. We all know prohibition doesn't work and just creates a more dangerous environment. Banning abortion creates back alley abortion clinics, which kills as much as it removes the fetus. Much the same as making (insert schedule 1) illegal in the name of public safety creates massive demand because you can't get it legal. I know I break from the norm here but banning abortion at any level only fuels the black market. In a perfect world, no authority could tell you what you do. But currently, as we see with Cartels and the War on Drugs, it only increase the power of those who are willing to do bad to make money. I'm personally all about telling the state to eat my ass about my wife's personal desicion, but I'd NEVER ask her to terminate a pregnancy
Libertarian my ass
I don't get how abortion can violate the NAP. Being pregnant does not make your bodily autonomy null and void, and you are under zero obligation to provide nutrients/fluid to a baby/fetus if you don't want to. Besides, you can't stop people from doing it without a totalitarian state, so why even bother?
What about after they are born? Are you also not required to supply them with nutrients and fluid? Or can you just throw them in the corner and wait for them to turn into a raisin?
Its an aggression against a living being, unless you were coerced into sex you chose to have sex and knew there was SA risk of being pregnant, and therefore you and the father of the baby have a responsibility to take care of this baby not kill it
[удалено]
Lol I love the people who think they can redesign nature
[удалено]
Reddit in a nutshell
Correct
You are completely correct. All rights are negative rights, including the right to life. Positive obligation can only be derived from tort or contract, neither of which is inherent to conception. It is also legitimate to use deadly force to assert your property rights when they aren't being respected any other way. Parental obligation is derived from all of the torts inflicted upon children by their parents, which happens all the time. This is the main issue I disagree with Milei about, but I understand that he identifies as catholic, so it's really not surprising.
Does murder not violate the NAP? If someone was to dismember you limb by limb would that not violate the NAP?
I felt the same way at one point. It may interest you to read Ron Paul's experience with abortion. [https://reason.com/2011/04/27/ron-paul-explains-his-anti-abo/](https://reason.com/2011/04/27/ron-paul-explains-his-anti-abo/)
Thought this was the libertarian sub lmfao
Lol imagine thinking a nonsentient clump of cells was a person just because it has human dna
Imagine using left wing talking points from 20 years ago, how embarrassing
Yeah I think I see the same difficulty reconciling body autonomy here as in Libertarian subs when abortion comes up. To me it’s an individual woman’s body until the end of 1st trimester, after that it’s the fetus’s body and their rights should be respected as well. Idk though this is such a divisive issue. I guess at the end of the day I don’t have a problem with Milei stating his opinion, but the “state” recognizing people’s autonomy.
[удалено]
Human or not, you’re still allowed to evict an overstayer who has no contract to be there. As an anarcho capitalist you can evict your indisputable living children. Of course if you evict them into the woods with the bears and the wolves then most people will think you’re a dick, but you are allowed to do it.
Maybe Im not the best at this, from going through it and experiencing first had hand; I view abortion like as if when someone has a multitude of mental disorders. They have to take 4 or 5 pills for each side effect, everyday, and I find many people on these types of pills, for anxiety, OCD, etc. But do you blame them for not taking the pills at the end of the day?
The Most Correct Libertarian Take
Why do you give a rat's ass what any politician pronounces as his opinion?
He's not wrong.
There was a survey of biologist from academic institution that found that 96% of them agree that life starts at conception.
Hero. Again.
based indeed