/liberty/ - Liberty

Yes and no.

Bodily autonomy exists. There's two schools of thought:

1) Woman gave bodily autonomy consent when she had sex.

2) Woman did not.

If 1 is true, then abortion is wrong on a non-religious level.

If 2 is true, then the only way to respect both the right of the unborn child's life and that of the woman is for her to carry the child until it is possible for the child to live outside of the womb (which is becoming increasingly closer to the point of conception).

Killing the child is a violation of the NAP, but so is forcing a woman to give birth to an unwanted child if you follow the second option to its fulfilment.

That being said, if the child dies of natural causes (woman not taking care of her body), E.G. miscarriages, it is not a violation of the NAP. The woman was simply expressing bodily autonomy (consuming copious amounts of alcohol/oregano oil/vitamin C) in a way that unfortunately happened to be lethal to the unborn child inside of her.

Now stop calling infanticide/murder "abortion." Call it what it fucking is.

Unfortunately in an anarchist society, while I'd hope that abortion would be treated as murder (because it is), it likely wouldn't due to self-interest wanting a woman to be around for baby making down the line instead of locked in a cell or dead/exiled.

Alas, the issue of child murder will not be solved until robowaifus can give birth via artificial wombs.

>>18619

>I lean towards evictionism

Unfortunately you cant evict a baby from the womb without killing it first so it violates the NAP.

Have a video of a former abortionist (one of a series of videos) describing how the baby is ripped apart limb by limb before eventually crushing its skull.

>>18624

>Have a video of a former abortionist

Have another one as well, where they inject a lethal dose of heart medication directly into the babies skull to kill it before inducing labor.

>>18624

I don't know too much about medicine, but wouldn't some sort of modified Cesarean be possible to remove a living fetus prematurely?

>>18626

So I can kill all of the retards I want?

>>18626

>if there's no chance you'll be capable of rational thinking, you don't have "personhood" and killing you isn't a moral crime

Sluggish schizophenia: still a wonderful excuse to kill dissidents!

>women frequently "naturally abort"

Everyone dies eventually, so I may as well build that gas chamber.

>>18626

>if there's no chance you'll be capable of rational thinking, you don't have "personhood" and killing you isn't a moral crime

Does this mean that its fine to kill 20 year old black males who burn down their own communities? because they are clearly not capable of rational thought

>>18628

>but wouldn't some sort of modified Cesarean be possible to remove a living fetus prematurely?

No idea, I have a feeling the reason why they do it the way they do has something to do with the placenta.

>So I can kill all of the retards I want?

Fucking beat me to it

>>18630

I imagine they're perfectly capable of rational thought. Whether they're very good at it or even bother using it is another story.

>>18639

But children don't develop rational thinking until about age 4 to 7.

So can a mother kill her child so long as the brain isn't at a development stage where it can think rationally?

>1. The unborn fetus is trespassing into the womb of the woman.

I'm sorry, what?

I agree with Dr. Block's position on evictionism. I have embedded a video that I suggest be heard instead of watched due to the camera wobbling.

If the foetus is not a human being, then abortion / infanticide / whatever is no more an issue than removing a tumour.

If if is, then if the mother wants him out, he has to get out (i.e. be evicted). I concede that it is rather unkind of the mother to do so, but still, she owns her own body and can control what (or who) is inside of there. If the baby cannot survive outside of his mother's body, as callous as it is to say, that's his problem. I would wager that medical science would meet this challenge eventually so that the survival rate post-eviction would approach 1, but in the meantime, that's how it would be.

One option to avert this would be to pay rent on behalf of the baby until he removes himself from said premises, at which time he is adopted. However, I doubt this would work because it would result in moral hazard writ large.

Foetuses aren't people and therefore cannot have rights.

The foetus isn't a trespasser because it's not a person.

The right to abortion is an extension of the right to self-ownership.

Also, it's bloody spectacular what the conflicted mind is capable of rationalising.

>Evictionism

If you want to ban abortion you might as well ban eating meat

'b-b-but it's a human bean!'

Yeah, shut up

>>18660

If it isn't a person, then by your logic it's alright to murder them up until the day of birth, right?

What even is your justification? Or are you just parroting what your mother/big sister told you?

>>18670

Meat is raised for the purpose of eating and is treated with respect in regards to this since it sustains people.

Point to me whe 're they eat unborn human children in the first world?

>>18673

>Bringing up humans to kill and eat would be bad, since humans are smarter than animals and they actually matter

So you agree that humans are different from animals and should be treated differently?

>>18671

Personhood requires agency and cognition. Foetuses don't have either. Unborn babies have cognition but not agency.

>>18722

No, not at all

>Killing tiny brain abortion fetuses is okay. even though they look like / are people

Intelligent life matters more than unintelligent life. It has everything to do with the ability to suffer, or at least suffer intelligently.

Same logic everyone acknowledges with cows

The difference with abortions people use is just 'it's a human beannnnnn' which doesn't cut it

>>18729

So why can I kill an unborn baby and not a baby? When does intelligent life begin?

Can I kill a mentally disabled person? What about someone in a coma?

Should we treat unintelligent people differently?

>>18745

I don't know much about it but I don't think foetuses have much worth compared to things which have been born. Maybe worth about an insect?

Babies are worth more in the sense that a lot of them are loved by their parents, and killing them would feel shit because we're programmed not to want to. But in the abstract it seems morally equivalent to about a lamb (?) or even less

Disabled person- depends how disabled they are

Someone in a coma- most likely worthless

Unintelligent people are worth slightly less than intelligent people I guess.

The trouble is you have to either give some special worth to humans because they're humans (which makes no sense)

Or say killing any animal should be illegal/prohibited (so no more meat)

Or give moral value to future personhood (so no more contraception, and it is probably immoral not to have children. Basically a whole can of worms)

>>18764

>Disabled person- depends how disabled they are

So if they're completely disabled and are less intelligent than a cow, we can kill them?

>Someone in a coma- most likely worthless

So, kill?

>Unintelligent people are worth slightly less than intelligent people I guess.

Does this mean intelligent people should rule the unintelligent? Are you Plato?

Where do you draw the line between intelligent and unintelligent? What can we kill and what should we protect?

>>18764

I'd probably feel a lot less repulsed by the idea of murdering unborn children if you fuckers were consistent and made the mothers eat the fetus instead of wasting resources like that.

(not the other guy)

>>18776

I don't know the line is drawn but it should be based on some sort of intelligence function/ capacity to suffer

I don't think we should say 'okay, abortion is clearly wrong therefore no more eating meat or killing animals ever again'

We could have a system where killing any sort of animal means you have to pay a fine. And it would scale up with intelligence

>>18777

:/