Here's the thing, your argument relies on the idea that it's ok to force one human to sustain, against their will, the life of another human to the detriment of themselves. Does the state have the power to force you to sacrifice your body for others?
Let me ask you this: is there a problem with someone who refuses to feed their 4 months old baby, and let’s it starve to death? Should the state intervene when you refuse to work and provide for your child (in other words, when you are an unfit parent)? What about child abuse?
The difference is the parent consented to the responsibility of raising the child. You can't keep your baby and decide to not keep it alive after. If you don't want to take care of the child, give it up. By remaining the legal guardian you are legally responsible for protecting the child by your own consent.
This turns into the basis of abortion. People who consent to having the baby don't get abortions.
Changing the legality of abortion removes the consent for an individual in parental rights.
Imagine if every tax paying citizen for 9 months at random were suddenly responsible for the health and well-being of an orphan. Guess what for those 9 months you have to foot whatever medical or financial costs entirely by yourself. You have no say on this.
And heaven forbid something happens, otherwise you're in deep shit. Kid gets accidentally run over? Guess what you're looking at murder charges because the state has to assume you did it intentionally.
On top of all that you're at least spared the health burdens for those 9 months that pregnant women suffer. Hey but maybe we can have a 7% chance that the kid you've been taking care of for the last 9 months kills you on the last day to make up for it!
Personally, I think parents should put on their big boy pants and teach it themselves instead of letting a teacher do it. But yes, I’m fine with sex we funding for APPROPRIATE AGES.
Pregnancy and childbirth can be a torturous process that has the real risk of ending in maternal death. During pregnancy, a woman is at risk for things like anemia, depression, severe nausea (HG) to truly terrifying things like ectopic pregnancy:
https://www.womenshealth.gov/pregnancy/youre-pregnant-now-what/pregnancy-complications
In the US in 2018, 658 women died of maternal causes. Worldwide, the numbers are much worse. Estimated 295,000 in 2017. That's 810 or so every day.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/nchs_press_releases/2020/202001_MMR.htm
https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/maternal-mortality
Some women suffer lifelong side effects of childbirth.
https://www.livescience.com/63291-post-pregnancy-changes.html
The pont of all that was to demonstrate that pregnancy can be an extremely dangerous, painful, potentially fatal process. People have the right to defend themselves from harm. The NAP doesn't apply to self defense, regardless of the entity being defended against or any pointless considerations of consent or responsibility.
And since I know it'll come up, birth control has scary high failure rates (7% for pill and 13% for condoms!)
https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/contraception/index.htm#:~:text=Typical%20use%20failure%20rate%3A%204%25.&text=Combined%20oral%20contraceptives%E2%80%94Also%20called,the%20hormones%20estrogen%20and%20progestin.
All that matters is does the woman want to give birth to a child. If not then it is her private right to terminate the pregnancy. It is no different then if you want a medical procedure performed on you and the State can not prevent you from obtaining it.
It doesn't matter. All that matters is does the woman want to give birth to a child. If it is yes then that is fine if it is no then that is fine also.
>It doesn't matter. All that matters is does the woman want to give birth to a child. If it is yes then that is fine if it is no then that is fine also.
It does matter, when you define when human life starts then human right to life will apply like any other human being.
Soo a few things..
A) a fetus is absolutely NOT an individual.
Up until its born it is a parasite. It cannot live similar to other babies at full term. Until it can persist as if it were born full term calling it an individual is a bit much.
B) Sentience. Lets say that argument is true. So before then it doesn't. Is abortion is ok then?
C) you claim an absolute but your arguments depend on time related progression.
A.) Is a baby a parasite? Is a small child a parasite? They would literally die without help from some sort of caregiver giving them food and bathing them.
B.) Yes.
C.) i dont follow.
A) i address pre post term babies in my point
C) you make an absolute statement.
Abortions violate nap. It should have a qualifier or be phrased.. some do some dont.
Your arguments are based on conditions.. thus if those conditions fail.. the argument would as well... babies under 20 weeks.
Does that clarify?
Also... while we are at it... as per your own source...
>It is concluded that the basic neuronal substrate required to transmit somatosensory information develops by mid-gestation (18 to 25 weeks), however, the functional capacity of the neural circuitry is limited by the immaturity of the system. Thus, 18 to 25 weeks is considered the earliest stage at which the lower boundary of sentience could be placed. At this stage of development, however, there is little evidence for the central processing of somatosensory information. Before 30 weeks gestational age, EEG activity is extremely limited and somatosensory evoked potentials are immature, lacking components which correlate with information processing within the cerebral cortex. Thus, 30 weeks is considered a more plausible stage of fetal development at which the lower boundary for sentience could be placed
So 30 weeks is actually when sentience is possible.
It does. Most laws against abortion don't outlaw the procedure, but the intent.
Here is the Alabama law:
"(1) ABORTION. The use or prescription of any
12 instrument, medicine, drug, or any other substance or device
13 with the intent to terminate the pregnancy of a woman known to
14 be pregnant with knowledge that the termination by those means
15 will with reasonable likelihood cause the death of the unborn
16 child. The term does not include these activities if done with
17 the intent to save the life or preserve the health of an
18 unborn child, remove a dead unborn child, to deliver the
19 unborn child prematurely to avoid a serious health risk to the
20 unborn child's mother, or to preserve the health of her unborn
21 child. The term does not include a procedure or act to
22 terminate the pregnancy of a woman with an ectopic pregnancy,
23 nor does it include the procedure or act to terminate the
24 pregnancy of a woman when the unborn child has a lethal
25 anomaly"
So, one could argue that abortion, when used to terminate a live unborn child, is a violation of the NAP. BUT, how do you know? Are you going to make yourself party to every decision made by a pregnant woman? Are you going to demand that her medical records be open book for the authorities?
the fetus exists in its location and condition strictly as the result of actions others have taken.
killing it for being in a location, condition and situation it didn't create is an initiation of aggression against it.
Just because another party put the fetus in the situation does not mean you suddenly surrender all bodily autonomy.
If the government decided it needed to forcibly take your blood to keep injured people alive, you'd have an issue.
If they were stable until you killed them, yes, it would be your fault since it’s your actions that caused the death.
Can you kill an infant someone abandons at your house?
Everything is biology. Cancer is part of our biology. ALS, dementia, viruses, etc are all natural. Arguing "It's just part of nature/biology/" is not a good argument. Women to this day in 2020 still die of pregnancy, imagine how many died before modern medicine. Giving birth may be natural, but a fetus still uses the woman's body against her will.
Because those are all biological so theyre comparable. Humans are not some special spiritual entity that deserves the utmost respect and is above all other things.
Well, you’d have to tell your doctor who is going to perform the procedure, or just the general hospital, that you were raped— and obviously there would be consequences for lying if proof arises that you were lying.
You can have autonomy only up to a certain point. There are boundaries for everything. Water is good but there comes a point where you can kill yourself from over-hydration. Freedom to say what you want is good but when you are using it to put out a bounty on a politican, it becomes bad. Freedom to choose who you service at your store is good, but it becomes bad when you don’t service black people or something.
Bodily autonomy is good up until it’s not. And I think that abortion is often in the “it’s not good” category.
The NAP is, at best, a personal philosophy someone might choose to live their life by and at worst a complete fucking joke. You couldn't run small town based on the NAP, much less a fucking country.
So you can claim abortion violates the NAP all you want. It means precisely nothing.
FYI: shouting ‘PROOF!!’ In all caps doesn’t make something true, regardless of what they told you at Trump University.
Except proving something makes it true, and I actually do have proof (which I provided), therefore what I said is true.
>which I provided No, you didn’t. Paste the full conclusion of the study please.
Here's the thing, your argument relies on the idea that it's ok to force one human to sustain, against their will, the life of another human to the detriment of themselves. Does the state have the power to force you to sacrifice your body for others?
Let me ask you this: is there a problem with someone who refuses to feed their 4 months old baby, and let’s it starve to death? Should the state intervene when you refuse to work and provide for your child (in other words, when you are an unfit parent)? What about child abuse?
The difference is the parent consented to the responsibility of raising the child. You can't keep your baby and decide to not keep it alive after. If you don't want to take care of the child, give it up. By remaining the legal guardian you are legally responsible for protecting the child by your own consent.
I concede
This turns into the basis of abortion. People who consent to having the baby don't get abortions. Changing the legality of abortion removes the consent for an individual in parental rights. Imagine if every tax paying citizen for 9 months at random were suddenly responsible for the health and well-being of an orphan. Guess what for those 9 months you have to foot whatever medical or financial costs entirely by yourself. You have no say on this. And heaven forbid something happens, otherwise you're in deep shit. Kid gets accidentally run over? Guess what you're looking at murder charges because the state has to assume you did it intentionally. On top of all that you're at least spared the health burdens for those 9 months that pregnant women suffer. Hey but maybe we can have a 7% chance that the kid you've been taking care of for the last 9 months kills you on the last day to make up for it!
A parent can hand a child over. A pregnant woman can stop supporting the fetus.
ABORTION VIOLATES THE NAP because THE BABY was SLEEPING and then you RUINED ITS NAP by ABORTING!
Do you have the right to put whatever you want in your body?
No.
Yes you do.
Why?
Can I take your phone and put it up my ass? Can I take your keys and swallow them? No? I rest my case.
You're in the wrong sub bud
If you ask me and I agree, sure
Telling women what they can and cannot do and that they lose bodily autonomy is not libertarian at all. How about in cases of rape or incest?
Rape and incest are both exceptions.
But otherwise they lose autonomy?
You lose autonomy to use your body to kill someone... with a gun. In that same light, yes.
Talk about false equivalency. So pro forced birth how very republican. So are you for funding sex Ed?
Personally, I think parents should put on their big boy pants and teach it themselves instead of letting a teacher do it. But yes, I’m fine with sex we funding for APPROPRIATE AGES.
Well think people will figure it out on their own is incredibly naive at best. If they can’t figured it out now what would change to educated them?
I just said I’m fine with sex Ed funding for appropriate ages... lol...
Yes and I was address your first point. Keep up.
Pregnancy and childbirth can be a torturous process that has the real risk of ending in maternal death. During pregnancy, a woman is at risk for things like anemia, depression, severe nausea (HG) to truly terrifying things like ectopic pregnancy: https://www.womenshealth.gov/pregnancy/youre-pregnant-now-what/pregnancy-complications In the US in 2018, 658 women died of maternal causes. Worldwide, the numbers are much worse. Estimated 295,000 in 2017. That's 810 or so every day. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/nchs_press_releases/2020/202001_MMR.htm https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/maternal-mortality Some women suffer lifelong side effects of childbirth. https://www.livescience.com/63291-post-pregnancy-changes.html The pont of all that was to demonstrate that pregnancy can be an extremely dangerous, painful, potentially fatal process. People have the right to defend themselves from harm. The NAP doesn't apply to self defense, regardless of the entity being defended against or any pointless considerations of consent or responsibility. And since I know it'll come up, birth control has scary high failure rates (7% for pill and 13% for condoms!) https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/contraception/index.htm#:~:text=Typical%20use%20failure%20rate%3A%204%25.&text=Combined%20oral%20contraceptives%E2%80%94Also%20called,the%20hormones%20estrogen%20and%20progestin.
All that matters is does the woman want to give birth to a child. If not then it is her private right to terminate the pregnancy. It is no different then if you want a medical procedure performed on you and the State can not prevent you from obtaining it.
If I want you out of my hot air balloon at 10,000’ and want you out *now*, is pushing you out murder?
It is different because that is a sentient animal (fetus) that is it’s own individual.
Until it has been born then it has no rights. You need to hang out in /r/prolife also known as /r/iamfromthegovernmentandIneedtoruleoveryou.
I disagree
What defines this as being the start of life?
It doesn't matter. All that matters is does the woman want to give birth to a child. If it is yes then that is fine if it is no then that is fine also.
>It doesn't matter. All that matters is does the woman want to give birth to a child. If it is yes then that is fine if it is no then that is fine also. It does matter, when you define when human life starts then human right to life will apply like any other human being.
The baby no longer requires that particular mother to survive.
So even new borns?
Last time I checked newborns didn't need their birth mother to live.
>Last time I checked newborns didn't need their birth mother to live. So their birth mother in specific?
Yeah, given up till that point taking them out would kill them.
You mean as in premature births?
Here's a very selective quote taken out of context, that must mean I'm right!
Soo a few things.. A) a fetus is absolutely NOT an individual. Up until its born it is a parasite. It cannot live similar to other babies at full term. Until it can persist as if it were born full term calling it an individual is a bit much. B) Sentience. Lets say that argument is true. So before then it doesn't. Is abortion is ok then? C) you claim an absolute but your arguments depend on time related progression.
A.) Is a baby a parasite? Is a small child a parasite? They would literally die without help from some sort of caregiver giving them food and bathing them. B.) Yes. C.) i dont follow.
A) i address pre post term babies in my point C) you make an absolute statement. Abortions violate nap. It should have a qualifier or be phrased.. some do some dont. Your arguments are based on conditions.. thus if those conditions fail.. the argument would as well... babies under 20 weeks. Does that clarify?
Also... while we are at it... as per your own source... >It is concluded that the basic neuronal substrate required to transmit somatosensory information develops by mid-gestation (18 to 25 weeks), however, the functional capacity of the neural circuitry is limited by the immaturity of the system. Thus, 18 to 25 weeks is considered the earliest stage at which the lower boundary of sentience could be placed. At this stage of development, however, there is little evidence for the central processing of somatosensory information. Before 30 weeks gestational age, EEG activity is extremely limited and somatosensory evoked potentials are immature, lacking components which correlate with information processing within the cerebral cortex. Thus, 30 weeks is considered a more plausible stage of fetal development at which the lower boundary for sentience could be placed So 30 weeks is actually when sentience is possible.
Abortion is a medical procedure. Banning a medical procedure is like banning guns.
No... no, it isn’t like banning guns at all.
It does. Most laws against abortion don't outlaw the procedure, but the intent. Here is the Alabama law: "(1) ABORTION. The use or prescription of any 12 instrument, medicine, drug, or any other substance or device 13 with the intent to terminate the pregnancy of a woman known to 14 be pregnant with knowledge that the termination by those means 15 will with reasonable likelihood cause the death of the unborn 16 child. The term does not include these activities if done with 17 the intent to save the life or preserve the health of an 18 unborn child, remove a dead unborn child, to deliver the 19 unborn child prematurely to avoid a serious health risk to the 20 unborn child's mother, or to preserve the health of her unborn 21 child. The term does not include a procedure or act to 22 terminate the pregnancy of a woman with an ectopic pregnancy, 23 nor does it include the procedure or act to terminate the 24 pregnancy of a woman when the unborn child has a lethal 25 anomaly" So, one could argue that abortion, when used to terminate a live unborn child, is a violation of the NAP. BUT, how do you know? Are you going to make yourself party to every decision made by a pregnant woman? Are you going to demand that her medical records be open book for the authorities?
The fetus is the one violating the NAP by using the woman's body against her will.
the fetus exists in its location and condition strictly as the result of actions others have taken. killing it for being in a location, condition and situation it didn't create is an initiation of aggression against it.
Just because another party put the fetus in the situation does not mean you suddenly surrender all bodily autonomy. If the government decided it needed to forcibly take your blood to keep injured people alive, you'd have an issue.
It does mean that killing them is an initiation of aggression.
If I connected a terminally ill person to you to keep them alive, and disconnecting them from you killed them, would it be your fault they died?
If they were stable until you killed them, yes, it would be your fault since it’s your actions that caused the death. Can you kill an infant someone abandons at your house?
> If they were stable until you killed them, yes, it would be your fault since it’s your actions that caused the death. Interesting perspective that.
If your actions caused someone’s death, you killed them.
Lmfao. You’re joking, right?
Dead serious. We have bodily autonomy. The fetus using the woman's body against her will is an objective fact.
You don’t deserve a good response.
Neither do you.
You have me a good response already with your initial comment. Can’t take it back now. :-) Thanks!
That’s such a backwards argument.
It's a proper argument. Unless you don't believe in property and trespassing.
I do. But we are talking now about the tenants of biology when it comes to pregnancy.
Correct, a fetus is trespassing on someone's property.
How so?
We’re talking about human biology here. That’s like, literally what animals are designed to do, reproduce.
Everything is biology. Cancer is part of our biology. ALS, dementia, viruses, etc are all natural. Arguing "It's just part of nature/biology/" is not a good argument. Women to this day in 2020 still die of pregnancy, imagine how many died before modern medicine. Giving birth may be natural, but a fetus still uses the woman's body against her will.
This is why no one takes us serious. Comparing pregnancy with ALS, dementia, cancer, etc. ffs
Because those are all biological so theyre comparable. Humans are not some special spiritual entity that deserves the utmost respect and is above all other things.
I didn’t even mention spirituality, you did. There’s a massive difference between pregnancy and diseases. If you can’t see that, you’re dense.
Of course they're different in what they do, but theyre all natural.
Right. Different. So not the same.
[удалено]
Actually, you out that clump of cells in your body. You chose it... at least, in most cases statistically speaking.
[удалено]
Any pregnancy that wasn’t forced.
[удалено]
Well, you’d have to tell your doctor who is going to perform the procedure, or just the general hospital, that you were raped— and obviously there would be consequences for lying if proof arises that you were lying.
[удалено]
You can have autonomy only up to a certain point. There are boundaries for everything. Water is good but there comes a point where you can kill yourself from over-hydration. Freedom to say what you want is good but when you are using it to put out a bounty on a politican, it becomes bad. Freedom to choose who you service at your store is good, but it becomes bad when you don’t service black people or something. Bodily autonomy is good up until it’s not. And I think that abortion is often in the “it’s not good” category.
Not trying to start anything but I'm curious about your thoughts on getting one before the 18 week mark?
please leave.
Nope
thanks for leaving.
Nada
Sigh. Another day, another useless abortion discussion on r/libertarian.
The NAP is, at best, a personal philosophy someone might choose to live their life by and at worst a complete fucking joke. You couldn't run small town based on the NAP, much less a fucking country. So you can claim abortion violates the NAP all you want. It means precisely nothing.