Libertarians, how do you all feel about abortion? On one hand, making abortions illegal would infringe on the mothers right to bodily autonomy, but on the other hand, allowing abortion would infringe on the unborn child’s right to life, which is considered to be inalienable to most libertarians. Any thoughts?
Libertarians on Abortion
Hippity Hoppity, Women are Property
violates the NAP
What’s the NAP. tried looking it up but nothing came up
Big thanks, that’s a valid argument. At the same time, would it be considered a violation of the NAP if the unborn isn’t sentient at the time of abortion?
sentient is a stupid definition to extrapolate to the NAP, its a living human being
Bodily autonomy only applies to the woman's body. But abortion isn't just about the woman not being pregnant anymore, it's about killing the baby.
Inducing labor and delivering the baby, whether it would live or not, would satisfy the libertarian autonomy argument. But they don't just induce, they take specific actions to kill the baby.
Any action to deliberately kill the baby is against libertarian principles.
As a libertarian I have gotten shitted on by other libertarians for saying that Abortion and Borders both fall under libertarian ideas of Property rights and a Right to life. So who knows?
fake libertarian commie statists
Lol neck urself everyone else is on point
The type of woman that consciously chooses to kill her unborn child is the type of woman that should be kept from raising one. Pic very related.
Libertarianism has nothing to do with abortion. Either the fetus is a human life or it isnt. After that determination as made its treated the same as murder
abortion is not a women's unilateral right. It is a decision which must be agreed upon by doctors, providers, and families.
Most libertarians are so out of selfishness, thats it
Actual well read libertarians are probably like 5% of the total
Couldn’t agree more
The state has no business having an opinion on this topic.
making abortions illegal would infringe on the mothers right to bodily autonomy
Not only does it NOT do that (since the entire premise of abortion being a choice performed on the women's body is false; it is performed on the child's body), the entire point of laws is to tell what people can do with their bodies. I can't use my body to punch someone in the face, no matter how inconvenient I find their face to be.
For the 99% of women who perform abortions outside of rape and serious bodily risk, there's also the fact that they are making a conscious decision to perform an action that has pregnancy as a known risk. Even the most reckless gamblers know what's at stake when they bet their month's wages at the green felt.
I'm pro life and not even a libertarian anymore cyz they're retarded on immigration. There are genuine ways of protecting the environment that lolberts would agree on, but i'm more statist on environment as well
Lolbertarions get upset when you interrupt there nap time or tell them to do anything but make money and do drugs.
its a doctors decision to kill babies
Libertarians make the profits off selling aborted children. There would be a flourishing free market of fetal tissues.
Abortion is simple. It is aggression against the fetus, and thus violates the NAP.
Borders are a different argument. The existence of state borders obviously violates the NAP but really at the end of the day does the average Mexican migrant understand the NAP, care about the NAP, or even have the cognitive ability to live in a functioning libertarian social order given their average IQ is 88? Supporting strong borders is thus a matter of realpolitik.
a fetus is not like a squatter on your property. Its like inviting someone into your home and then killing them for invading. its is the wamans fault that the fetus exists because she produced an egg and let a dude jiz in her vagina. if they dont want to have babies then you should just have a hysterectomy
mother’s right to bodily autonomy
The moment a woman willingly spreads her legs and takes a dick, she has made her decision. From that point on, there is a possibility that a fetus will form. That’s the decision the woman makes. Once she willingly consents to possibly birthing a child, she doesn’t get to walk it back once she ACTUALLY gets pregnant. It really isn’t that hard: go to the pharmacy and get some birth control. Less than $10 for a wide selection of tools.
but muh rape scenario
If she doesn’t consent, she doesn’t deserve to be burdened with the child if she doesn’t want it.
It's against the NAP obviously, so it should be punished by the market
If the tenant refuses to pay rent, forcible eviction is allowed, even if it results in their death.
This is certainly a valid point though. Her voluntary actions are producing the externality so she could be held accountable. The question is how we determine what the appropriate state of the child should be; as it did not exist prior to the externality its rightful status cannot be easily noted. For an externality to be internalized we need a basis for commensurate compensatory action.
The child is violating the NAP by leaching resources off of the mother without her consent and without paying her. A woman therefore has every right to kill the invader.
Libertarians are void of judgment, morals and courage because they don’t stand up against evil.
caring about someone else’s baby
When did Jow Forums become full of retarded christcucks boomerlings
Go pay for a strangers child support if you care about babies so much
I'm a fucking ANCAP and I don't fucking care if people do anything just stay the fuck out of my way. You do you, I'll do me, we'll form our relationship strictly on mutuality, that is freedom, that is anarchy, fuck you you cop, you faggot commie.
The concept of a child in the womb is abstract. Its the fact that it doesn’t have a hard definition that gave leftists the power to minimize the language, call it a “clump of cells,” and get away with abortion for a while. The fact is that until some suited up lawyers discuss this, there wont be a definition for it. You and I can go back and forth forever with no clear definition being reached. But that’s also where the power for anti-abortion arguments is. If you can’t define when the “clump of cells,” becomes a child, its very possible that every abortion is child murder, and only a leftist is willing to take that gamble. The only ethical answer is not to abort.
t. Flat headed mouth breather
You love losing the culture war huh?
Both the mother and the fetus have a right to life, stemming from the right to self ownership. However, since the fetus resides in the mother, her right to bodily property trumps the fetus', and so the fetus may be evicted at any time, for any reason. However, rampant abortion is symptom of a degenerate society whose values and behaviors have been perverted by the welfare state. Removing this cancer would likely bring the rates down to 19th century levels; something that is impossible to stop, but is socially ostracized and not tolerated.
I'm personally in favor of abortion, because human life is cheap. I'm also in favor of abortion in the context of voluntary eugenics, which is a corollary abortionists love to avoid. I'd be fine with either society, so long as it's conservative in nature (as free market societies must be).
Abortion should be banned and unwanted children should be raised by couples who can't have kids or by the state.
losing the culture war
Shut up cuck, go care for your wife’s boyfriends kid
Hysterectomy is a bit extreme. That's when they cut the entire uterus out, usually because of cancer. You're thinking of a tubal ligation I think.
I'm far from an "ally" of feminism in any way (quite the opposite), but these Alabama abortion laws are hilariously stupid. In a perfect society, abortion would not be necessary. We are not living in a perfect society. We're living in the exact opposite - it's the fucking Kali Yuga, especially in modern murrica. Most women who get abortions are either 1) victims of rape or other shit, who should not have to raise their rapist's illegitimate child, or 2) shitlibs and other freaks who shouldn't be parents in the first place. I'd like to remind everyone that Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, was a straight up eugenicist. Just because modern feminists are anything but, doesn't mean we shouldn't support her legacy in order to save ourselves from having to deal with the ugly, annoying little spawns named Jayden of rainbow-haired art hoes. They are literally doing us a favor - let them think it's because they're "defending their bodily autonomy" or whatever, the end product is beneficial to *us*. Also kinda amusing how the Christian pro-life argument of "IT'S LIFE, EVERY LIFE HAS VALUE" is 1) suspiciously close to the moral views of liberals, and 2) completely irrelevant. The bug you squashed last week was life, too - what makes this any different? No one is advocating for aborting 8 month old fetuses, when you're only a month or so along that shit looks like a fucking shrimp. It has no self-awareness - to call it "human" is laughable.
Later in life, Rothbard put a great deal of emphasis on conservative cultural values. He was in favor of not legally restricting (or permitting) abortion by the state, but was not against a society refusing to cater to abortion demand. A society that does not offer abortion services is a-ok insofar as libertarianism is concerned.
That’s the decision the woman makes. Once she willingly consents to possibly birthing a child, she doesn’t get to walk it back once she ACTUALLY gets pregnant.
yeah but doesnt this just incentive's more false rape accusations just so thots can kill their babies?
meant to greentext this
she doesn’t deserve to be burdened with the child if she doesn’t want it.
As long as the state doesn't rob anyone to pay for it
forcing shitty cunt parents to raise their potential future criminals rather than just letting them get rid of them before they can du
I wouldn’t want my daughters to get an abortion, but I don’t give a shit if some evolutionary dead-end decides to get rid of their shitty kid rather than create another future criminal/gibs recipient
It's their right to kill another person.
Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, was a straight up eugenicist.
This. It's a shame the original intent got twisted into some women's lib bullshit.
"By all means, there should be no children when either mother or father suffers from such diseases as tuberculosis, gonorrhea, syphilis, cancer, epilepsy, insanity, drunkenness and mental disorders. In the case of the mother, heart disease, kidney trouble and pelvic deformities are also a serious bar to childbearing No more children should be born when the parents, though healthy themselves, find that their children are physically or mentally defective." ("Woman and the New Race," 1920, Chapter 7).
Many Libertarians belive that the right to life trump all others, however, the problem is that the question is of a philosophical nature.
The underlying question in libertarianism is not whether the fetus has a right to life (because that right can be taken as a given but the problem remains), but whether pregnancy confers an obligation to carry the fetus to term. A burglar has the right to life as an individual, but he does not have the right to stay in the house he enters. But does an invited guest, if he becomes unable to leave and his expulsion will necessarily result in his death? Some anti abortion libertarians have used the example of a hot air balloon pilot taking a client up. He owns the balloon, but clearly he cannot suddenly revoke the client's welcome and throw him out of the basket at 1000'. This follows from the contract, explicit or implied, that stipulates the client is entitled to a a trip up AND down. But how can such a contract exist when the client doesn't pop into existence until the basket is already in the air? Even in an ethical system as simple as libertarianism (property rights exist, don't violate the NAP), it's a tricky subject.
The child did not ask to be conceived. Or do modern libertarians not believe in taking responsibility for your own actions anymore?
Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.
Based and abortionpilled.
Margaret was /ourgirl/. We should not prevent subhumans from aborting subhumans. All lives are not equal. Not every life has value. These faggoty Christcucks are the same faggots that would have voted against Hitler because muh Jew god and muh egalitarianism.