[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / bant / christ / evogames / htg / leftpol / vg / vichan / zenpol ]

/liberty/ - Liberty

Non-authoritarian Discussion of Politics, Society, News, and the Human Condition (Fun Allowed)
Winner of the 62rd Attention-Hungry Games
/eris/ - Wherein Is Explained Absolutely Everything Worth Knowing About Absolutely Anything.

November 2018 - 8chan Transparency Report
Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Oekaki
Show oekaki applet
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
dicesidesmodifier

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


WARNING! Free Speech Zone - all local trashcans will be targeted for destruction by Antifa.

File: 2b340006f599711⋯.webm (5.57 MB, 800x450, 16:9, 1520623765754922255.webm)

 No.80309

should we support abortion? even if it helps feminists' and socialists' and sjw's cause? even if abortions are done by money from taxes?

 No.80310

>>80309

>should we support abortion?

I think it's up to interpretation. I lean more towards the pro-life side of things but I recognize that some (not all) of the differences in assumption between those two are mostly arbitrary. You can recognize this in the libertarian movement as well, some are for abortions and some are against, although I'd say the latter is more common among paleo-libertarians.

>even if it helps feminists' and socialists' and sjw's cause?

Does it help them? Lefties are the only ones that are going to get abortions, and one less lefty voter is ultimately a boon for us.

>even if abortions are done by money from taxes?

This also depends on how you look at it. The more tax money is spent the faster the government gets to bankruptcy and collapse, whereas encouraging the state to make sound fiscal decisions makes it more efficient and effective at its coercive actions.


 No.80311

>>80309

The question of abortion is not "should people have the freedom to get an abortion?", it's "are abortions murder?". If getting an abortion doesn't infringe on anybody's rights, it would be unethical to outlaw it. If getting an abortion does infringe on somebody's rights, it gets treated the same as anything else that infringes on people's rights - i.e., it gets treated as an act of aggression.

Personally, I am against the whole thing. It takes a special kind of wilful self-delusion to convince yourself that something that comes from a living being, and is developing into its own separate living being, is somehow not alive for a brief period in between those two states, despite the difference between a somehow-conveniently-not-alive-but-still-growing-and-developing foetus and a start-planning-the-funeral-because-it's-actually-dead-for-real foetus being as clear as night and day, and all so the mother-to-be can kill it on a whim, and face no repercussions.


 No.80314

>>80309

>Lefties are the only ones that are going to get abortions, and one less lefty voter is ultimately a boon for us.

Pretty much this, the only people who get abortions are either niggers or low-IQ whites, abortions are a horrible thing, but we should let natural selection do its job.


 No.80319

>>80309

An ethics professor explained that "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" are ordered by importance. So, if you believe in life at conception, the unborn's life is more important than anyone else's liberty or chance at happiness, even the unborn's own.


 No.80322

>>80319

are you vegetarian then?


 No.80324

>>80319

>An ethics professor explained that "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" are ordered by importance

I can't say I agree with that, because at their core "life, liberty and property" are all the same thing–property. The right to life is based on the fact that we all have self-ownership of our bodies and actions. The right to liberty is the freedom to use your property the way you choose.


 No.80336

>>80314

>he does not know socialism is not spread by genes but rather by ideas and culture


 No.80340

>>80336

Still applies to children. Someone raised by lefty single moms from birth is more likely to adopt their policies or just turn to crime. Although, that doesn't matter either becasue criminals tend to support left-wing policies too, either because of their welfare queen families or because they were released from prison by a pardon for the express purpose of voting left.


 No.80344

>>80336

>socialism is a part of culture

You're even dumber than I am.


 No.80418

>>80340

> they were released from prison by a pardon for the express purpose of voting left.

???


 No.80421

>>80418

Happened in Virginia during the 2016 election. A couple weeks before the election the governor pardoned tens of thousands of felons and sent them all voter registration cards with prepaid postage. And wouldn't you know it, Virginia went narrowly blue come election day.


 No.80436

>>80344

Nope. You're the dumfuck, and differences in the way people live are called "culture."


 No.80460

>>80436

not all differences


 No.80506

>>80336

Non-whites are more left-leaning than whites because they receive more money than they contribute to the government. Non-whites receive more money than they contribute because they have a lower IQ and a lower capacity for abstract thinking.

Socialism is genetic. Socialism is connected to the genes for low IQ.


 No.80521

>>80421

haahhaha top kek


 No.80523

File: eec3ac6145a3fe9⋯.jpg (31.02 KB, 365x385, 73:77, wut.jpg)

>>80506

>incentives to do poorly affect voting stance

>but lack of intelligence causes the incentives


 No.80526

supporting abortion for the cause is different than supporting it for its effects (which these sjw exploit to earn from gov - not like they can earn anything anywhere).

abortion makes sense, these assholes wouldn't conceive and if I were you I'd also support genital mutilation/trans so the same stupid people will meet the end of their failed germline sooner - literally win-win on both sides although the gov is probably using these sjws as scapegoats to get their slush fund for their orgies.


 No.80536

>>80526

Abortion is murder, even if it's only killing the children of feminists and niggers. Trannies are different because they're harming no one but themselves. If you don't want to have a kid but still want to fuck, just wear a fucking condom or something.


 No.80643

>>80309

The abortion argument is real fucked because pro-choice basically equates to supporting government subsidized abortion and pro-life means wanting guys with guns to prevent people from acting freely.

You can think abortion is wrong but also be against an abortion ban.

Also I'm not going to change my beliefs just because it happens to intersect with some other group that I don't like, not that I have anything particularly against feminism or "SJWs" because I'm not some bitch nerd that gets upset when someone calls a video game or movie I like sexist. lmao


 No.80646

File: bbfaf47ed518e8a⋯.png (53.08 KB, 866x475, 866:475, reddit spacing.png)

>>80643

Shoo shoo plebbitor.


 No.80666

>>80646

oh i totally agree with what you're saying i mean one time i logged on to my favorite chan site and someone actually used proper formatting and i was like wtf are you new noob and it aggravated me all day so i hopped in my car to go down to get a pack of smokes but i was so busy being pissed off that i crashed the car and one of the things hit was a dumpster and a bird flew out and i was like ya wtf ever and started walking away but then a group of environmentalists jumped out from nowhere and said that bird u hit was a bald eagle so i was like yea idgaf and they had machine guns and started shooting so i ran and we had a high speed chase through some buildings and i was doing parkour and they were like blam blam with their machine guns but my parkour was way too awesome and then i dove into a lake to get away from them and the current carried me away and when i surfaced i was at the beach and a bird shat on my head and do you know what it was a bald eagle so i was like screw you bald eagle and it said screeeeaaaaw so thats how i knew it was a pterodactyl named joe and then i whipped out the machine gun i took from the environmentalists and tried to shoot it but it flew away and thats why i never eat chicken.

WHEN PARAGRAPHS ARE YOUR ENEMY, ONLY YOUR ENEMIES WILL KNOW HOW TO READ BOOKS, WHICH HAVE PARAGRAPHS.


 No.80667

>>80666

thank you for defending me, anon. <3


 No.80671

>>80666

>not that I have anything particularly against feminism or "SJWs" because I'm not some bitch nerd that gets upset when someone calls a video game or movie I like sexist. lmao

Does this line not scream 'reddit' to you, Satan? Also, paragraphs are just fine when they're necessary and linebreaking twice in between paragraphs makes sense. Linebreaking after a single sentence several times in succession has nothing to do with paragraphs or organization of thoughts, however.


 No.80672

>Linebreaking after a single sentence several times in succession has nothing to do with paragraphs

They're just really short paragraphs.

It sounds facetious, but there is literally no other reason to hit the carriage-return key. Also, note that the one-sentence paragraph above is grammatically correct as, and only as, a one-sentence paragraph.

>Does this line not scream 'reddit' to you, Satan?

No, and if you actually think that NOT spending time in your basement obsessing that the possibility that some people have different genitals and/or skin color than you is at all abnormal, you're actually pretty goddamn mentally ill.

Just thought you should know.

>>80667

<3


 No.80681

File: 5990f4098feec20⋯.jpg (197.87 KB, 920x1169, 920:1169, jc.jpg)

>>80671

>unironically using satan as an insult


 No.80687

>>80681

>unironically using satan as recognition of 1337 trips

…but laughing jesus was cool, so we'll give you a pass.


 No.80694

>>80672

>basement meme


 No.80695

>>80309

You really have to take one of two roads.

>Children are property until grown and thus not human, so abortion is legal.

>Children are human and therefore abortion is murder.

Personally I take the second one.


 No.80699

>>80695

>libertarianism

>roads

Have you forgotten? We're not statists, we don't know how to build roads.


 No.80716

>>80309

pol here. Die kike.


 No.80793

>>80716

stfu white trash


 No.80809

Only leftists get abortions. I'm 100% okay with paying some extra tax to allow these dipshits to wipe themselves out.


 No.80830

Actually abortion does not help feminists and socialists. It is true that they are for abortion. But what abortion is effectively doing, is, it is lowering the number of poor children in single mother households i.e. it is lowering their ranks. In effect, it means less feminists and less socialists.

Secondly, from a purely moral standpoint, I think for the sake of the unwanted child, it is most moral to not bring that child into this world, where it is going to have a really hard life.


 No.80849

>>80830

That's a huge decision to be making on behalf of someone else. Who are you to say that they probably wouldn't want to exist, so we should just kill them now?


 No.80860

>>80849

Ehh, not him, but from a purely utilitarian point standpoint, it's for the sake of all of us. We couldn't have asked for a better gift from God than for stupid people collectively committing suicide and even begging society to let them do it. Nature is at work here, the gene pool is cleaning itself from all the scum that accumulated over the millennia and instead of interfering we should let it do its job.

You could argue "but what did the child do?", this is a serious question, the child didn't have time to do anything, but if a low IQ is a predictor of criminal behaviour, low-impulse control, left-leaning political orientation and generally all the bad decisions that person would make in life that make everyone else's lives worse, then getting rid of this future troublemaker would be a great thing. Mother nature's eugenics program should carry on.


 No.80867

>>80860

I would also add that it's almost a matter of survival at this point. The US is too far down the rabbit hole of debt to be salvageable by this point; even if proper libertarians won the presidency and every single seat in Congress tomorrow and started feverishly working to undo the damage, the federal government defaulting on its obligations and going bankrupt is inevitable. Equally inevitable is the long-term proliferation of leftist policy before this empire finally collapses, because democracy systematically favors groups of people banding into demographics and demanding gibs in exchange for votes. The best thing to do in the face of this is to slow down the impending doom as much as possible, and that means obstructing the left at every turn. Slowing down the spawning of new leftist voters is one of the more direct ways of achieving this.


 No.80874

File: 624680b378e2194⋯.jpg (55.72 KB, 427x583, 427:583, dca5c9cbacce3bda6a3bea8cff….jpg)

>>80860

>it's for the greater good

>they'd probably be criminals or something anyway


 No.80898

>>80874

But they would. Low IQ is a good predictor of criminal behaviour. I know it's sketchy as fuck to punish someone for a crime they didn't commit, but genocides have a positive effect of filtering out the lower IQ parts of society and leaving the people who had a high enough IQ to survive to reproduce and pass on their high IQ genes and create more intelligent people. This is what happened to Jews for centuries in Europe which led to them having a high IQ, even the Nazis were unknowingly carrying out a eugenics for the Jews, while dumbing down their own race with neetsoc "everyone gets a waifu, no one gets left out" policies that bypass natural selection.


 No.80922

>>80898

With the same proof one could say that because Jews were put in labor camps, the smartest died and the strongest survived, while the smart soldiers fighting the war survived. It is possible to attribute and to refuse to attribute anything to vague causes such as intelligence.


 No.80940

>>80922

These are not vague causes, and it is a fact that people who do abortions are usually the ones who belong to the lower half of the IQ spectrum.


 No.80956

>>80940

That's not a cause at all.


 No.80957

>>80898

Sketchy as fuck doesn't even begin to describe it. You're advocating for the use of the death penalty as a preemptive punishment for a possible crime of some undetermined nature, and calling yourself a libertarian.


 No.80958

I dont think its a full person until I can enter into a contract with it

so abortion is deleting a potential person, which I am still unsure about but I err on the side of let them do it


 No.81023

File: 2debf21a9d9ff52⋯.jpg (7.49 KB, 225x224, 225:224, images.jpg)

>>80309

This is why we should support abortion.


 No.81029

>>80957

You can be as libertarian as you want but the fact is that as long as you live among low IQ animals they will forever treat libertarianism as anarchy for rich people and run after whatever or whoever appeals to their emotions.


 No.81030

>>80309

>should we support abortion?

Paying people to sterilise themselves is far more effective. Effective welfare would be to only allow it to childless people who undergo vasectomies or tubal ligation.


 No.81034


 No.81057

>>80311

>is somehow not alive for a brief period in between those two states

You're on the right track but maybe this will help you hone the argument a little more concretely in your mind: the instant an egg is fertilized by sperm the zygote is a genetically distinct human life form. It is another person on a cellular level, instantly.

Biology settled this ages ago now, we just don't apply the same logic and reasoning to our own legal system surrounding it. But the science is explicitly clear: the ontogenelogy of a human being (most complex animals actually) starts at conception. This is where science recognizes the study of a new individual of the parent species - because it fucking has to the writing is in the DNA and you can't pussyfoot around it.

That is, therefore, a person that you are terminate by your actions when you pursue abortion. This is homicide, cut and dry. This is distinct from murder, murder requires malicious intent whereas homicide is simply the act of one human being killing another - the entirely legal slaying of a murderous assailant in self-defense is still a case of homicide (the coroner's death certificate will announce such every time).

This is the start of the battle with people on this issue. You have to confront them with the definition of life, in accordance with our best models for understanding reality, and of homicide, both within the language and the legal codes. Then we can broach the question of: is abortion murder?

Which is going to have to be done case by case frankly. Because if you say it always is then you'll be punishing utterly innocent people for simple miscarriages (though if I recall a few months back this happened in Mexico) as they are abortions initiated by the human immune system (usually) and often completely out of the control of the prospective mother. We can't blanket it as murder, but it is always homicide. And so that is why in the end we must ask is this or that particular case justifiable homicide, or not?

Until people yield to the science (that they will no doubt falsely and ignorantly prop up to their cause) we can't have a reasonable discussion. Even the religious arguers need to stop and look it over a moment, because damn it the science they hate so much is actually on their side in this. Life in fact does start at conception.

The cells are alive, they must be to begin multiplying. The cells are human, they must be in order to complete the genome and begin the life processes. Therefore it is a human life.


 No.81151

>>80860

This. And with such a high world population currently, population control is a must.


 No.81153

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

>>81151

Malthusian crises are for the most part a spook. Even if the trend following all of human history were to suddenly reverse and increasing technology stops making resources more available, scarcity and rising prices will naturally disincentivize people from having a large number of children and the problem will solve itself.


 No.81155

>>81153

People also have some kind of irrational fear that if we added just a few billion more people in the world, we would start running out of space and eventually we'll all be standing on each other's heads.


 No.81158

>>81155

And even if we were at a premium for space, and 90% of Earth's land wasn't unexploited, the same argument holds true: real estate is just a resource like any other, and like other resources efficiency of allocation is constantly being improved over time. Even if it wasn't, like other resources scarcity and rising prices will make any nascent "crisis" a non-issue.


 No.81160

What race is it?


 No.81223

>>81057

So is a severely microcephalic infant with nothing but a brain stem entitled to life?


 No.81224

>>81155

We'd start getting roasted alive by the waste heat all those people are putting out long before running out of space.


 No.81240

>>81224

>we will all become roasties

wew


 No.81306

I look at it this way, life begins at sentience. Are we afraid of putting down a dog? Killing a disease? I find it rather comical that anyone here can claim that ending life is murder but no one ever calls euthanizing a dog murder. I even have a hard time finding people who call someone killing a dog because they no longer have room for it in their perfect life "murder".

Since we can never know for sure, with current technology, when sentience is, I tend to lean toward allowing abortion up to around the second trimester.


 No.81309

>>81306

>I even have a hard time finding people who call someone killing a dog because they no longer have room for it in their perfect life "murder".

Have you been looking very hard? Euthanizing a dog because it has an incurable disease is one thing, but killing it because it's become inconvenient for you instead of giving it to the Humane Society or similar is something a lot of people would object to.

>sentience

M8, children don't gain what we call 'sentience' until one to two years after birth, which makes it a stupid metric to determine humanity; even most of the more radical femishits don't consider crib-smothering a late-term abortion though something tells me I just triggered Murphy's Law by saying that. If you're using sentience as the guideline, are you okay with killing off the mentally retarded? What about coma patients?


 No.81314

>>81309

>Have you been looking very hard?

Might just be the circles I hang around.

>If you're using sentience as the guideline, are you okay with killing off the mentally retarded? What about coma patients?

I was going to write out this big long post but I think I need to do some thinking on the issue because you're right. Since I was so objectively wrong in my thinking, I think it's best I bow out of the discussion with as much grace as can be expected.

If you're still interested why? you can follow up and I can clarify my stance on the comatose and retarded.


 No.81316

>>81306

Are leftists sentient?


 No.81318

>>81306

Definitively prove anyone other than yourself is sentient. If you do come up with a concrete method for it do write it down. You will literally claim Nobel prizes in several fields as you'd literally add an entirely new quantifiable metric to search for.

The only reason we respect sentience as a concept at all is a false positive precept. It's better to treat everyone else as though they are, like you, sentient even if they might not be than to treat everyone else as though they were not even though they might be. The latter path is actually very close to how psychopaths and dangerous narcissists act - everyone other than themselves is essentially a set piece their to be used and abused.

In short we can't use sentience - we don't know enough about it to even prove it exists because it might not.


 No.81319

>>81306

>but no one ever calls euthanizing a dog murder

A dog is maybe as smart as a very small child. Furthermore, I and most other people would object to euthanization if it was out of convenience rather than ending some sort of incurable pain the animal was suffering from.


 No.81347

Abortion is not murder, punctum.

It can not be murder because getting rid of a fetus is not an act on another human body. The mom, and the baby are a same organism.

Just like me and my schizophrenic other who is much more developed than a fetus. Nobody can call me murderer for taking pills.

Abortion is abortion. Call it that. You can argue besides it or against it, I don't care. But stop redefining words at your wish.

Just because 2 words have something in common they are not synonyms. A cube is not a sphere because it is topologically equivalent. And abortion is not a murder even if it aims to get rid of a living thing.

This murder or not murder reminds me of the energy or not energy arguments between ezoteric people and physicists. First rule of a debate is to have a common language, a common definition of words.


 No.81360

>>81347

Are conjoined twins the same person?


 No.81361

>>81347

If a fetus were to be grown in an artificial womb, would terminating it be murder? Going from the other direction, would you say a tapeworm and its host are "the same organism?" The mother and fetus may be attached, but they're not the same organism, and defining 'murder' by the container a being happens to be in is somewhat arbitrary.


 No.81384

>>80898

>>80957

Guy's advocating for an original sin.


 No.81388

Ripping someone into tiny pieces and throwing them into a medical waste while selling their organs on the black market violates the NAP.


 No.81389

>>81306

Euthanasia is murder. If the dog were a child, you'd be arrested. Dogs aren't citizens so they don't really have rights.


 No.81390

>>80309

If we support abortion simply because an opposing viewpoint utilizes it the most, and therefore self-eliminates, then we are no better than the censor. If the left truly does use abortions the most, especially in lower-income minority households, then the moment they actually do start to wisen up to the situation we will be inseparable from our moral opposition.


 No.81405

>>81388

are you a vegan?


 No.81492

File: df6626f0a3a089b⋯.png (262.31 KB, 768x768, 1:1, agorist-flag-flying.png)

As a radical voluntarist I've been on the fence about whether abortion should be considered an NAP violation for a long time. However I am at present strongly gravitating towards the idea that the NAP should be respected in application to all humans, including all children, regardless of whatever anarchic commune or private legal system in which they might or might not participate, as a matter purely of adhering to the moral standard that is the NAP as rigorously as possible because its critical role as the foundation of all true liberty and free society.


 No.81493

>>81492

oh I forgot to put in the part where I say therefore abortion ought to be considered an NAP violation, because a fetus is a human, lol


 No.81494

>>81493

>>81492

Do you draw the line anywhere? or in your opinion as soon as an egg is fertilised its a human and killing it is therefore a violation of the NAP?


 No.81508

no, its degenerate


 No.81517

>>81494

We are quickly reaching a point where a fertilized egg can be saved within the first trimester with more than a 50% success rate. We'd have reached that point years ago if not for statists getting in the way. Personally I'd say the origin of life IS conception, and that for practical purposes, the moment a woman knows she's pregnant it becomes murder if she intentionally tries to get rid of the child. If someone wants to argue for evictionism that's fine, but only under conditions where there is someone/something to take the child off their hands.


 No.81520

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

>>80309

>should we support abortion?

I don't see anything wrong with abortion as long as both of the parents consent

>even if abortions are done by money from taxes?

but it should never be funded by anyone but the people who choose to do it.

>even if it helps feminists' and socialists' and sjw's cause?

What other people believe has no bearing on what I believe, I do not care what cause it would contribute to as long as it contributes to what I believe. And precisely because of that I will not compromise and undermine those beliefs for the sake of someone else. It's about conviction not compromise


 No.81585

>>81520

but what is profit you get from legality of abortion?


 No.81590

>>81585

Not everything needs to be done for a profit. Abortion arguments, both for and against, has never been about money but about the natural rights of man and whether a woman has the natural right to abort and if the fetus is developed enough to have the right to life. If you for some reason need to make it about money, yiu can say abortion clinics create jobs for the economy, and also keep unwanted children from being a societal burden.


 No.81644

>>81520

>I don't see anything wrong with abortion as long as both of the parents consent

>as long as both of the parents consent

>both of the parents


 No.81656

I support Abortion, Less humans on this planet equal's a win for me


 No.81665

>>81656

how come?


 No.81674

>>81665

Perhaps he thinks that he thinks that less humans=less competition for jobs. Which doesn't make a whole lot of sense because a greater supply of labor will incentivize business to expand and hire more, so as to exploit this more available resource.


 No.81675

>>80310

>one less lefty voter is ultimately a boon for us

Pretty much this. If your enemies want to kill their own babies, the best long-run strategy is to let them do that, horrible as it is.


 No.81678

>>80311

It should be legal to kill children until they're able to ask you not to.


 No.81695

Albuquerque, NM- Abortion Free New Mexico released an undercover video that gives a rare look from inside the nation’s largest late term abortion facility, Southwestern Women’s Options. This video is 5 minutes long and combines raw footage of dialogue with clinic staff and also exclusive interviews with the undercover investigator detailing her unique account of what it was like to go inside of a late term abortion center while pregnant at 37 weeks gestation.

Read the full report by Abortion Free New Mexico: NEW VIDEO http://prolifewitness.org/new-video-undercover-at-37-weeks-pressure-to-abort/


 No.81696

Albuquerque, NM- Abortion Free New Mexico has released a more in-depth interview with Felicia, who went undercover into Southwestern Women’s Options, the nation’s most notorious late term abortion facility, while 37 weeks pregnant. World Net Daily described the first video, released last week, documenting Southwestern Women’s Options willingness to perform an abortion as late as 37 weeks of pregnancy as “stunning.”

Felicia was the perfect operative to go inside to document just how far into the pregnancy Southwestern Women’s Options was willing to perform a late-term abortion since her son Jonah was diagnosed with Trisomy 18, while in utero as a result of two genetic tests. Two days after what would have been Felicia’s scheduled abortion appointment at 38 weeks of pregnancy she went into labor and he was born, perfectly healthy. In this video she shares more about the fetal diagnosis she received that resulted in pressure to have an abortion by her genetic counselor. She also shares words of encouragement aimed at women who may be facing a similar fetal anomaly diagnosis while pregnant and speaks to the sanctity of all human life.

“This project has uncovered the shocking reality that the medical community is knowingly relying on faulty and misleading genetic testing that leads women to local abortion facilities to kill their babies. According to known published studies, 60% of prenatal tests can come back with false positives on babies without any genetic defects,” stated Tara Shaver of Abortion Free New Mexico.

Read the full report by Abortion Free New Mexico: IN-DEPTH INTERVIEW (VIDEO) http://prolifewitness.org/in-depth-interview-undercover-at-37-weeks-pressure-to-abort/


 No.81697

Albuquerque, NM- In Abortion Free New Mexico’s latest undercover project that has taken viewers inside the notorious Southwestern Women’s Options (SWO) late term abortion facility, the investigation has also uncovered that the University of New Mexico (UNM), a publicly funded institution, is willing to collude with late term abortionists to deliver dead babies at UNM Hospital once a deadly injection is administered by abortionists at SWO.

The price tag of a late term abortion at Southwestern Women’s Options is a staggering $17,000, but in a SHOCKING revelation, SWO employee Susana Estorga, states that for $5,000 they would be willing to offer the fetal injection ALONE and then send the woman away to deliver the baby 2-3 days later elsewhere.

The fetal injection administered by SWO abortionists kills the baby in the womb by slowly stopping their heart over 4-6 grueling hours.

If a woman opts to obtain the fetal injection at Southwestern Women’s Options, SWO has an expectation that other OB-GYN’s will oversee the completion of the labor and delivery of the stillborn child. However, most OB-GYN’s will not participate in abortions, especially at religious hospitals, like Presbyterian in Albuquerque, so SWO is apparently relying upon the University of New Mexico’s entrenched abortion agenda and utilizes an arrangement to ensure that “injection only” patients can labor and deliver their dead babies at UNM Hospital.

In an undercover phone call placed to the Women’s and Children’s Health Care Clinic at UNM Hospital, Tara Shaver with Abortion Free New Mexico also confirmed the fact that, Lily Bayat a UNM Fellow at the University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center would deliver the dead baby at UNM Hospital after Southwestern Women’s Options administered the lethal injection.

“Abortion Free New Mexico has exposed just how deep the collusion is between the University of New Mexico and Southwestern Women’s Options to ensure that late term abortions continue up to the day of birth. Hospitals are meant to be places where the sick go for healing, but the abortion industry is utilizing them for their own sordid death agenda.” Tara Shaver, Spokeswoman for Abortion Free New Mexico.

Read the full report by Abortion Free New Mexico and WATCH THE LATEST SHOCKING REVELATION: http://prolifewitness.org/video-cohorts-of-death-undercover-at-37-weeks-exposes-unm-late-term-abortion-collusion/


 No.81711

>>81678

what if child nonverbally communicates it would rather not be killed?


 No.81717

File: 5ef267f8d1376bc⋯.jpg (124.79 KB, 1237x700, 1237:700, puzzle_komp-2-detail.jpg)

>>80523

>Morale foundation affects intelligence,

>But Idolization effects foundation.


 No.81721

>>81517

>statists getting in the way

>statists

You mean Christians?


 No.81739

File: fb39989fcdf36fc⋯.jpg (107.96 KB, 409x409, 1:1, neet prepared for the upri….jpg)

>implying normalfags number diminishing is not always a good thing

>implying I pay taxes

>implying I'd support anything that is not proposed by one of our own

>implying anything but violence will help achieve my true goals


 No.81757

No.

It is never ok to murder a baby in the womb.


 No.81830

File: d9e1cb38024edd6⋯.jpg (77.72 KB, 500x466, 250:233, why is this image so dark ….jpg)

>>80311

This tard is going to eat meat today.

Check out Micheal Tooley and Johnathan Swift.

>>80309

>should we support abortion?

Are you libertarian or not?

>>81023

Literally correct. Check out Freaknomics.


 No.81856

>>81678

So up until they are about 4 years old?


 No.81857

Abortion is ultimately an issue of whether or not a person's right to control their property (in this case, their body) supersedes the right to another person's life. No one ever bothers framing it under such terms, however. Then again, it would lead to logical contradictions, since if one supports in such extensions of rights to one's own body, then they would likely have to accept that one can choose to privately determine the value of product of their labors with another party, AKA not having a government-set minimum wage, which most pro-abortion people support.


 No.81858

>>81857

>Abortion is ultimately an issue of whether or not a person's right to control their property (in this case, their body) supersedes the right to another person's life. No one ever bothers framing it under such terms, however

Actually, that's the perspective Rothbard takes. He argues that it's irrelevant as to whether or not the fetus is "human," because whether it is or isn't it's occupying the mother's property and feeding off of the mother's resources. And if the mother decides she no longer consents to this arrangement, according to Rothbard, she has the right to act in self-defense of her property by aborting the fetus. Possible counterarguments to this include evictionism, which agrees with the premise that the fetus is an "aggressor" but states that the mother's right to self-defense only justifies removing the fetus from her womb and (optionally, depending on to whom you're speaking) placing it in the care of another source. Another counter-argument is that through the act of conception, the parents enter an implied contract to either care for and raise the resultant child, or transfer stewardship of the child to someone willing to take on that responsibility.


 No.81863

>>81858

>because whether it is or isn't it's occupying the mother's property and feeding off of the mother's resources

It's presumably there because of a consensual act on the mother's part, and it's physically incapable of leaving. The scenario is more like inviting someone on life support into your house, then deciding you don't want them to be there any more and pulling the plug.


 No.81864

>>81863

Which I addressed in

>the parents enter an implied contract to either care for and raise the resultant child, or transfer stewardship of the child to someone willing to take on that responsibility.

I'm not saying Rothbard's view is the right one, but it's good to be aware of it, and the previous guy was asking about property-control arguments specifically, so I thought it was worth mentioning.


 No.81874

>>81863

Someone on life support may leave.


 No.81875

Support it if both the man and woman agree. If one want's to keep it , then the other shouldn't pay child support. If you want to keep it, you should pay for it.


 No.81881

>>81874

But you don't turn off their machines and toss them on the sidewalk.


 No.81889

>>81881

Depends if they leave or not.


 No.81898

>>81858

No such thing as an "implied contract". That's an oxymoron. There's only one rule to contract law, and that is that both parties must know what they are agreeing too. How do you agree with something that doesn't have a brain?

Silly Rothbard


 No.81899

>>80309

I personally believe that mutual consent of both parties (man and woman) should be a requirement to have an abortion, because if a woman killed my kid I'd beat her head off the stump with a shovel. Anyway, regarding abortion, if you want to look at it in American terms, you are not a citizen until you are born, so as a fetus you do not have civil liberties as currently defined by the Constitution. Whether abortion should be legal or not is all up to whether you want to make an amendment to outlaw it, because otherwise it's a states' rights issue, and it's a overreach of federal power to make it forcibly legal or illegal on a blanket scale.


 No.81900

>>81889

A fetus is physically incapable of leaving until it's ready.


 No.81902

>>81899

>Anyway, regarding abortion, if you want to look at it in American terms, you are not a citizen until you are born, so as a fetus you do not have civil liberties as currently defined by the Constitution

I'm pretty sure if you drove to the local laundromat and started gunning down illegals you'd still be arrested.


 No.81913

>Abortion used to save the life of the mother, or terminate a pregnancy with a fatal genetic disorder or deformity of the child.

A-OK. It would have ended in tragedy anyway. If two lives are endangered then you save the life you can. A child with a heavy deformity would only be an outcast for their entire life,

>Abortions because "MUH BODY", mistakes in judgement, lack of use of contraceptives, and other.

Shitty and should cost more because the person is an irresponsible twat. However, in the same idea we are dealing with an irresponsible asshat creating more irresponsible asshats. So regrettably, I'd let them continue with the operation so they don't pass on the stupid to their next of kin.


 No.81918

>>81902

You shouldn't be.


 No.81919

>>81918

Fair enough, but if you wish you could alter the metaphor to European tourists here on visas. Point is citizenship isn't strictly speaking a requirement for the protection of US laws if you are within the country's borders.


 No.81922

>>81900

That's why it's ok not to try asking.


 No.81926

>>81030

This is the real point.

We should be aware of a few things:

>you get more of what you incentivise

>legalizing an action is interpreted as tacit support by idiots

Alternative?

No abortion, but create a mechanism for parental surrender, predicated on getting sterilized. Also, offer free sterilization with a free supply of beer or dude weed lmao. In a couple of generations the problem will sort itself out, but they will be pretty wild


 No.81957

>>80309

Does it result in fewer niggers in the world? If so, yes.


 No.81959

>>81030

Why do the posters here just accept it as a foregone conclusion that

1) Poor parents necessarily produce children that will be poor in adulthood

2) Poor children are necessarily unhappy

If you're going to ignore the effects of human free-will, why even bother with a free market in the first place?


 No.81960

>>81959

I think it's just a few fags.


 No.81969

File: 96de01cc52910f7⋯.jpg (95.58 KB, 957x719, 957:719, fatherless children.jpg)

>>81899

>mutual consent of both parties (man and woman) should be a requirement to have an abortion,

The man who doesn't get morning sickness, have a parasite live in his uterine lining, steal a percentage of all his nutrients for 9 months, can drink, smoke, go on rollercoasters, operate heavy machinery, and eat junk food should decide when his wife gets to tweezer the fetus out? It aint your boddeh, buddeh. Read up on personal autonomy.

>if a woman killed my kid I'd beat her head off the stump with a shovel.

>>81959

Because them's the facts, read a book nigger.

And nobody gives a shit if they're happy we care if they start committing crime.

>free will

O am I laffin.

>>81960

You should also read a book, po' boy.


 No.81972

>>81959

>necessarily

No one "necessarily" believes that. It all depends on many different factors, the most important factor being IQ. If someone is poor because they have a low IQ, then it's very likely their children will be poor too. Free will is limited by intelligence.

Also, I don't think the guy you're replying to cares about their children being happy or not, I think he's more concerned about people on welfare breeding beyond their means and asking for more welfare.

>>81969

Children are not parasites you slut, nobody asks them if they wanted to live in your body for those 9 months, their mother makes that choice for them. Idiots don't possess this ability, but there's something called planning for the future so that you don't accept responsibilities that you're not ready for.

It makes no difference to me though, if low IQ biotrash wants to kill their low IQ offspring then please go ahead.


 No.81992

>>81972

Free will is not limited by anything. The only limit to somone's freedom comes from those coercing him, under pretexts such as for "having low IQ."


 No.82076

>>81969

>It aint your boddeh, buddeh. Read up on personal autonomy.

Technically speaking the sperm was that man's property, and until the new entity is born, he has partial ownership of that creation.


 No.82077

>>81992

>Free will is not limited by anything. The only limit to somone's freedom comes from those coercing him, under pretexts such as for "having low IQ."

Technically speaking, it is. Mises himself stated that the difference between consciously acting and reacting to instinct is the ability to weigh a range of choices and choose one over the other. As such, if one is completely and wholly unable to delay gratification, and only reacts impulsively, by instinct, then one can be said to not have free will. Nearly all humans still have some ability to choose how to act, so they all have free will, but I think it's clear that some people are closer to the threshold than others.


 No.82082

>>82077

That there are things outside someone's control does not diminish the control over those things which are. There is no threshold..


 No.82085

>>82076

Technically speaking, you can even say that the bloody thot stole the man's property.


 No.82157

>>82076

how do you know when new entity is born?


 No.82240

File: 41753b958b49ae2⋯.png (655.24 KB, 1912x2832, 239:354, floodgates open.png)

>>82076

Nah m8e, it might be his property but he willingly gave it up. If I give you an Xbox for christmas I can't say I still own the Xbox.

>>81972

worth the read, I promise

also,

> nobody asks them if they wanted to live in your body for those 9 months, their mother makes that choice for them

There is no "them" to ask. They don't exist before conception. Not that there's a mental them that exists by that point either.


 No.82500

>>82077

are you talking about time preference?


 No.82510

>>82240

Although I didn't know about the specifics, the fight for resources between mother and child is pretty obvious stuff, anon. Was it supposed to be shocking or something?

The woman who chooses to have unprotected sex with a guy should know full well what she's getting into and accept the responsibility. You don't just pick a kitten from the street because it's cute and then flush it down the toilet when it starts asking for food.


 No.82518

Life begins at conception, it is immoral to end any life unless it threatens another.


 No.82583

>>82518

What if the zygote splits? Do the twins count as one life (or in a christian sense, one soul)?


 No.82601

>>82583

When a zygote splits into twins it stops being alive and starts being a saxophone.

Of course it is alive.

It has a genetic code, it respires, it divides, it grows in size and complexity, one day it will reproduce, reach senescence, and die. There is no universe in which a zygote, either one, isn't alive. It is borderline insane to even say this, it's established scientific fact. I can't imagine what other part of life we have science, religion, tradition and morality all agreeing on a single issue, yet half the population going the other fucking way.


 No.82607

>>82601

Well, science does not actually do moral claims, it is purely descriptive, though most people d believe in self-worth of life, yet science simply states what life is, not what should be done. It only backs your own moral claims.

Most people also decide whats life worth with empathy or traditions, which do generally allow ending life(veganism is a young movement) of, say animals, and abortions are generally a social accepted procedure. I'm not going to argue about ethics, just state that these people seem to value different lives differently.


 No.82632

>>82518

sperm cell is alive as well


 No.82653

>>81678

Rather, it should be legal to kill your own children until they're self aware.


 No.82667

>>82632

No it isn't, it doesn't reach several criteria, it can't respire, divide, or grow. Sperm cell is as alive as a virus meaning not, it is just an organic delivery system for a packet of DNA.

>>82607

>science does not actually do moral claims

It does have a set of values that can be called moral claims.

For example it's important to tell the truth to other humans, so they can sanity-check you, which is necessary in a tribal lifeform like homo sapiens. Same reason why it's important to tell the truth to yourself, it helps your neural systems stay on task. A fetus has moral value in science because your entire purpose of existence is reproduction and survival, it is therefore wrong to destroy a fetus that carries part of your DNA.


 No.82706

>>82667

Adding scientific terms does not make a moral claim scientific.


 No.82718

>>82706

Explain how its not.


 No.82805

>>82667

Nope, science is purely descriptive, and moral statements can exist only as opinions in the objective world, no matter what people believe, as moral claims do not stop the things from happening. Also, scientific = compatible with scientific method that was purposefully made to minimize the impact of subjectivity on the subject. You may want to read something on scientific method, and for this cause, moral relativity.


 No.82807

>>82718

Moral claim still is moral claim if it is backed by scientific facts, as it does not change from being an emotional opinion with a demand for others to comply with it. Moral argument is just that, a non-evidential statement with a claimed value of certain other actions.


 No.82808

>>82667

You also might be interested in reading about such a part of austrian theory as subjectivity of value, which you may find contradictory to your voew on it.

Scientific argument would be: for survival in a group telling the truth in discussion would be beneficial.(you can also add some statistics for taste)

Moral argument, is based on a claim of universal value of a certain entity, action, or object, backed up by emotional pressure and non-scientific means of supporting it. Your statement claims that reproduction and survival is not an evolutionary program, but the "purpose" of existence, which a disagree with as i do not feel like it.

Science tells us what can be done and how things are and how that could be(hence, descriptive). Morals imply what "should" be done, ofter being contradictory to science, but even if they are not, they are not scientific, as there is no evidence of existence of a universal moral system, or any moral system outside human(each one separately) mind, which ones its is viewed as a byproduct.

Basically,if we view interactions between us from scientific perspective, then i can ignore you, hug you, give you money, rape you or cut your stomach and feed you your own intestines. It may also predict what i choose to do based on either information about my previous actions, past, functions of my body etc. It DESCRIBES the world.

Or, we could view ourselves from morality(which one?) perspective. Then, of all the possible actions it implies which ones i should choose based on its own value system, applied universally(generally), and not some other in desigion making, as compared to personal benefit, for example. See, CLAIMS what i SHOULD do, not what i CAN do.You cannot prove morality to someone without him first(!) accepting that something has inherent value as a basis of a moral system.

That is the reason morality has no place in science, and scientists that rely on it willfully distance themselves from scientific method, which may not say they are bad at work btw, it just means they could be better. Hope that helps.


 No.82810

>>82667

P.S. Humans might be social animals, but only the most worthless of them are tribal.


 No.82881

>>82805

>>82807

>>82808

I'm not saying science is morality, I'm saying that morality is science. Why do you think morality exists? To help you and your tribe survive, succeed, and spread to grant you a measure of immortality. There isn't anything non scientific about emotions either, emotions evolved to guide you in a complex world.

The distinction between morals and science is artificial and a pretty new invention, like 1950s new.

>no evidence of existence of a universal moral system

The universe is complex, and a primate is simple. There is more than one way for a primate to act in order to further his interests and the interests of his group, which could be stable for millions of years. This is why no single moral system has arisen yet.

Focusing on growing his group is one way to survive and prosper and one moral system. Focusing on destroying competing groups is another way to survive and prosper, and yet another moral system. Both are valid because they lead to survival and spread of that primates DNA. The DNA that is spread contains the aggressiveness or empathy inherent in the moral system of the ancestor of that human, and is reinforced by further actions in that direction, and passed on to his descendants.

This leads to a type of "founder effect" for morality, where each group of humans evolves a coherent moral system, and groups whose moral systems suck die out. I think over time only one group of humans with only one moral system will be victorious, but that can be millions of years before flaws in the other moral systems start diminishing other human DNA groupings.

>>82810

That is a very cynical and highly incorrect view.


 No.82911

>>82881

Morality exists because of how humans have been evolutionary built, which is to say, using feelings to describe the world, while words represent complex constructions we could not comprehend otherwise.

Morality exists because humans evolved that way, it is not about "purpose", but more about the theory of evolution. It does not mean that morality is suited for current time as human knowledge and culture have evolved far beyond basic animal level of emotionally viewing the world.

Morality is not science, and you are only trying to push it so to add some weight to your argument. The distinction is very clear and is in no way artificial. It is just the concept of scientific method that was completely defined, but you need to use it to find out anything in the world, while emotions and instincts will not help you progress and improve, you will only act and learn the most basic survival situations with no chances of planning. On the other hand, the concept of logic is what allows us to create such complex things, as logic allows not just immediate responses, but long-term planning and making real decisions.

What you are trying to describe is not a moral system, as "in order to benefit a group and yourself"(put aside the contradiction) is a valid base for a scientific argument, as it simply describes the ways you can reach certain goals more efficiently. While a moral claim is that you SHOULD do something, and you are trying to sneak one by mixing it with other.

You also show lack of understanding of evolution, or else you'd know that your actions(or moral decisions, if that is the case) do not "improve the DNA" or "add empathy"(which is to say, fully compatible with autonomy of an individual), and therefore needs further studying to become something other then your own fantasies used for pushing assumptions helping your cause.

Also, claim that humans can only exist withing other group of their kind is based only on their current fragility and and short lifespan is wrong, as the reason humans have reached the heights we can see today is because of our ability of autonomous thinking, as plenty of great scientists and politicians have proven throughout history, as their creations have not been a product of an ideology, but the result of a struggle and personal growth and learning.

Saying that something is cynical is definitely a very moralizing way of telling that an opinion or a fact does not fit into your view of the world, and if you want to present something more that your worthless emotions, you'll have to use logic and discuss any subject being closer to the scientific method, or you will not be taken seriously.

What you are arguing for is impossibility of autonomy of an individual, physical or mental, which is the realm of science and facts, and has nothing to do with morality, unless you use is/ought fallacy, so i strongly suggest you learn what you are talking about first.


 No.82912

>>82518

>unless it threatens another.

Of course, but feeding someone so that they do not starve is not required. We can just do abortions in such a way that nutrients are no longer given to the baby.


 No.82938

>>82912

Actually it is, by conceiving the child you essentially signed a contract to feed them for 9 months and raise them for years afterward too. Only in cases where the conception is completely involuntary can possibly be interpreted that way, although even then it would break some NAP definitions. Mill said "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." Ergo to prevent harm to the child, even a raped woman might be forced to carry it to term.

>>82911

It's not completely a biological evolution, there's a purely cognitive immaterial evolution going on as well. And yes it's wholly scientific, there is nothing unscientific about morality and I dare you to find something that is.

Given two possible choices, the scientific options on what will happen, your own very scientific instincts and highly scientific emotions will choose the one that aids your survival or the benefit of your family, tribe, nation or even the species in certain respects.

> do not "improve the DNA" or "add empathy"

Don't put things in quotes which weren't said, cunt.


 No.82939

>>82938

Who said that the contract was signed, who enforces it and which jurisdiction it stays under?

>civilized community

Go fuck yourself, statist, no one will do that shit for free, and risking own life, as property intervention will be punished by the owner, and not some "community".

>your own very scientific instincts and highly scientific emotions

and emotions, feeling and instincts, while are existent, do not justify anything or act as a basis for a moral system any more than, you know, gravity or catching a cold. You have yet to prove that benefit of your family, tribe, nation or even the species in certain respects is important or valuable in any sense, as for me they are not. Try to try a bit more and read what i said about difference about morality before trying to shit here again.

>Don't put things in quotes which weren't said, cunt.

<The DNA that is spread contains the aggressiveness or empathy inherent in the moral system of the ancestor of that human, and is reinforced by further actions in that direction, and passed on to his descendants.

Lying much, asshat?


 No.82940

>>82938

>might be forced to carry it to term.

And they could then sit it in a crib and let it starve to death. Look faggots just because something seems wrong to you does not make it a NAP violation.

If all I had to do was press a single button once and it would save 1000 people from being tortured forever at no cost to anyone, and I don't press the button, its not a NAP violation.


 No.82965

>>82939

Contracts aren't pieces of paper that get signed, you are misunderstanding what that means. Although the fact that you out of hand dismissed and insulted John Stuart Mill says a lot about your level of understanding.

>quality of empathy is passed on from parent to offspring

>"add empathy"

Pick one.

Useless post/10

>>82940

>hurrr i'll just let the kid die!

I hope you do, because only one of two things will happen. Either your psychotic genes will be taken out of the gene pool, or someone else will lay claim to your child (because in neglecting it you abridged ownership) and raise said child into someone who can care for them in turn.

You also seem to think NAP is whatever you want it to be. Chronological list of NAP definitions:

- Epicurus said called it natural justice, the prevention of a person from being harmed or one person harming another. In this case the prevention of you doing harm to the child takes precedence even if it is harm through inaction.

- Locke places life and health above liberty and possessions. If you infringe on someones life to preserve your possessions, it is a NAP violation.

- Samuel von Pufendorf says the DUTY of men is to prevent harm.

- William Wollaston said no man has the right to begin to interrupt the rights of another, restricting food would do that.

- Ludwig von Mises makes a distinction in how NAP applies for adults vs children.

-Thomas Jefferson says no man can act in a way that damages on the equal rights of others, if you fail to press the button you have damaged the rights of others.

-John Stuart Mill says as >>82938 that preventing harm to others is the ONE TIME a society can infringe on your rights to do whatever you will.

-Albert Jay Nock says the first law is to prevent harm, and only the second law is to do as you please.

All of the original formulations of NAP say society can infringe on your freedoms in order to save a life.

True libertarianism includes the radical charity concept, up to saving a life, it's one of a dozen things that separates them from anarcho capitalists.

Only Spencer, Rand and Rothbard disagree.

The latter two likely because they are Jews whose job it was to pervert libertarianism, and the former one because he is a social darwinist.


 No.82966

>>82965

>Ludwig von Mises makes a distinction in how NAP applies for adults vs children

Because people are moral fags and don't actually believe the NAP

>You also seem to think NAP is whatever you want it to be

Bullshit. The NAP is very simple. Its the NON AGGRESSION PRINCIPLE. If I have a shit ton of food and don't give it to poor people i'm not an aggressor

>if you fail to press the button you have damaged the rights of others.

You seem to think NON AGGRESSION means you have to go out and save assholes with your own labor and time.

Fuck you statist. My property and time is my own.


 No.82969

>>82965

Appeal to authority is all you have? Not even a single pulled out of your ass assumption? My, you are miserable. What interests me is how such a disgusting mix of a statist and a moralfag ended up here.


 No.82971

>>82966

>>82969

The people who created the NAP disagree with your juvenile interpretation of it, it is not an appeal to authority, it is an appeal to the arguments these people have created for centuries. Your shitty teenage claim that you can run roughshod over people you are responsible for is not something a society can be based on, so enjoy your fantasies.

>If I have a shit ton of food and don't give it to poor people i'm not an aggressor

Are you responsible for those people becoming poor in the first place? Because that's what it comes down to with a child.


 No.82973

File: 8c93a1cd3ca9cf7⋯.jpg (11.85 KB, 231x255, 77:85, 1429226045546.jpg)

>>82971

Again appeal to authority without anything to say, demagogue much?


 No.82976

>>82971

>The people who created the NAP

You mean Rand? Who literally coined the term? Almost every person you quoted were Liberal statists. You don't actually give a shit about the NAP. Don't pretend you do.


 No.82977

File: b926baa85f71857⋯.jpg (23.79 KB, 231x255, 77:85, 8c93a1cd3ca9cf7db866e96821….jpg)

>>82976

Oh wow Rand wow appeal to wow authority its completely not real because omg it's authoritative… I'm just wow!


 No.82982

>>82977

>Not knowing a logical fallacy

>hear the word authority

duh, ayn rand authoritative, much wow


 No.82995

>>82982

We would have more fun if you actually addressed my arguments.


 No.82998

>>82995

Have not seen any arguments, just insults and some flashy names. Try again, asshat.


 No.83002

>>82998

I've defined life, defined the contract of conception, and defined why you can't refuse to care for people you're responsible for. You've answered…. how exactly? You focused on some quotes I listed as an after thought, called it argument from authority, and ignored the actual arguments I made.

So I'm going to keep going with insults because more complex ideas don't penetrate your thick skull.

Double nigger.


 No.83004

File: bbf189a577da29d⋯.jpg (9.61 KB, 648x487, 648:487, 8d6879583d0747774c052e03c0….jpg)

>>83002

>defined why you can't refuse to care for people you're responsible for

Except you didn't. You just said "you have to" and threw some names to back it up.

I said, i do not care, proving that this is possible, so from scientific aspect you already failed, and for further you only have moralizing, which you still would need to back up.

Maybe you'll already pull head out of you ass and make a statement instead if senseless mumbling, and present something?


 No.83005

>>83002

Also, "some quotes" is just that, using the source of a statement as an argument supporting it, why do i have to teach you that, you illiterate faggot?

You know, Marx, Rothbard, Mises and Hitler onse told me, your mother is pretty good at sucking dicks, i'm gonna believe them as they seemed pretty serious.


 No.83008

>this thread

Amoral pieces of shit.


 No.83016

>>83004

I'm sorry because I complimented you in suggesting you have enough neurons in your head to understand insult. You actually don't. You only have enough neurons in your skin only to understand pain. So let me once again speak a language you will comprehend:

If you break NAP by causing mass starvation and refusing to feed people, or making a child and refusing to feed it, I'm going to stuff all of your extra food up your ass. All of it, Kevin, all.

>>83008

They think NAP means the right to kill babies and not be responsible, it's an invasion of teenager. Summer is officially here.


 No.83017

>>81830

>unfertilized egg

>unfertilized egg

>a silkworm

>a human being

Human life begins at conception, unless someone is willing to point to a different event that marks the magical boundry between "lump of cells™" and "human"

If i opened your retarded skull with a crowbar i'd also find lumps of cells

Some lumps of cells grow big enough to have manifestations in the street.

Solution is sterilization of subhumans.

If we legalize state-funded murder of very small humans, i want that right expanded to extremely big humans who are fat, and ruin my day by making the landscape more ogly.


 No.83023

File: ab8336b63f1622e⋯.jpg (9.71 KB, 165x255, 11:17, d0c8e5fb9a149fdf2f7716156a….jpg)

>>83016

So here he is, the great unborn child protector, seeking people and stuffing their asses with food.

Damn, this world just keeps impressing me with new incredible sights. Truly, these moments alone is a reason not to leave this world.


 No.83026

>>83023

So here he is, NAP breaker, child killer, seeking people to torture.

But his mom won't let him.

Protip: The joke with that meme is that Chrysippus is a stoic who wouldn't do that, photoshopping in a smile makes it look retarded.


 No.83028

>>83026

Sure thing, sweetie, just do not forget to create a state to enforce your moralfaggotry.


 No.83029

File: 047a0a1b1d27779⋯.jpg (53.32 KB, 550x413, 550:413, F2HXwkkhKiY.jpg)

>>83026

You know, this thread makes me wish i went into medicine instead of computing, so that i could once do abortions just for the sake of your all-burning flame.


 No.83031

>>83016

>>83026

You heard it here folks, if you don't personally implement socialism without prodding from the government you are violating the NAP.


 No.83032

>>83017

IMO its not a person until it can consent (aka can think and feel and is sapient ect), but I am still unsure about this opinion


 No.83033

>>83031

You know, you could also hunt people who could have a child, but did not as you might also consider it a murder, as another potential human life was made nonexistent. Call it "sperm police" or Child Lives Matter Order or maybe even Potential Life Saving Inquisition and you are good to go.


 No.83035

>>83031

Whoops, wrong reply, sorry for the inconvenience, i wanted to address this to that asshat.


 No.83036

>>83032

>aka can think and feel and is sapient ect

lel, you're entering muh feels territory here

this thread is an absolute shitshow


 No.83037

>>83036

there is nothing more real then individuals you disgusting materialist


 No.83038

>>83036

I dunno, it seems pretty fun. The concept of self-worth of humans is weak and not applicable to reality anyway.


 No.83039

>>83037

Hey, do you believe in God?


 No.83051

>>83028

>the NAP is moralfaggotry

Fucking lol.

What are you doing on /liberty/


 No.83053

>>83037

I think he's talking about you going back to the rabbit hole of coma patients and unconscious people and the definition of something as controversial as sapience.

Conception is a lot easier to measure from, and the conception contract is a tried and true method of delineating the commensurate responsibilities for the rights libertarianism grants.


 No.83067

>>83051

The NAP is fine, its all the other bullshit you are compelling people to do.


 No.83068

>>83033

>ou could also hunt people who could have a child

Hunting someone down and shooting them is not the same thing as having food and not giving it to them.


 No.83071

>>83067

If you enter into a contract to care for someone, and refuse to, does that not violate anything in your magical universe?

>>83068

>having food and not giving it to them

This is only moral if you don't have preconditions such as contracts that make you responsible for them in some way, such as in the case of a child.


 No.83076

>>83071

You know that not all contracts are enforceable, right? Only the ones where the breaking of contract would result in theft are. Then the one who has had property stolen might go to a court to decide the return of it, either monetary, or the other way. https://mises.org/library/property-rights-and-theory-contracts

And yeah, a contract is an agreement between individuals, not following of your very special moral code.

Damn, with all the growth of popularity of the movement i should have known better, that it is only a matter of time before it creates a religion.


 No.83082

>>83071

>If you enter into a contract to care for someone

Well good thing I did not sign one of those.

>such as in the case of a child.

I did not sign a contract with the child.


 No.83088

IMHO this question is answered by one or two other questions:

1) Are you allowed to inflict unprovoked violence upon another human being?

2) If your answer to #1 was "no", when do you consider something to be a human being?

It's mostly number #2 that people disagree on. Personally I'm of the opinion that you're human upon your conception.

Which is not to say that there can't be exceptions when looking at the bigger picture. Rape or other circumstances may convince me that an (early!) abortion is sometimes acceptable.

I don't think the exceptions are what cause this debate though. It's the people who consciously choose abortion over contraceptives that anger me.

Abortion should be an exception, available only to those who are innocent and see their lives ruined without it. Not to those who are careless or lazy.


 No.83089

>>83088

Sucking resources out of one's body can be considered unprovoked violence.


 No.83091

>>83089

>unprovoked

Is it really unprovoked? Who put the baby there? Did anybody ask the baby if it wants to be there? Can the mother be accused of violating the NAP by detaining someone inside her body?

If I lock you in my basement and keep you there as my prisoner, can I accuse you of violating my NAP?


 No.83092

>>83091

Well, what baby wants(even if it could) is irrelevant. It appeared there, so it is not the same as taking it there, it became as life in there, and its life itself does not justify anything. It is the same way as born children have no rights to use their parents' propert any more than they were allowed, same as any other individual.


 No.83093

>>83092

Really children are totally the byproduct of the parents time and resources. They should morally default to property like any other creation or living creature.


 No.83095

>>83093

If they are byproduct of their parents they should BE their property, as any other object created without a contract transferring its ownership.


 No.83096

>>83076

>You know that not all contracts are enforceable, right? Only the ones where the breaking of contract would result in theft are.

You dont consider the loss of life to be enough of a bad reason to break a contract?

>>83082

Contracts aren't pieces of paper you sign, you are misinterpreting the meaning of the word "contract" you teenage waste of space.

>>83089

>Sucking resources out of one's body can be considered unprovoked violence.

So can unwarranted nine months imprisonment, where the only way to leave prematurely is summary execution. So can making someone stupid, weak and unable to care for themselves for 12 years.

>>83093

> totally the byproduct of the parents time and resources.

Not totally. Children are also the byproduct of all of the parents ancestors time and resources. There is also the problem of the fact that children over time become free moral agents, which prevents you from harming them and obligates you to keep contracts with them.

Most libertarians refuse to talk about the issue, I'm presenting the conception contract as a solution which works.


 No.83107

>>83096

>You dont consider the loss of life to be enough of a bad reason to break a contract?

No i do not, it is the same way as property rights(including luxuries or trash) are more important than preserving life of a criminal, which is why you are allowed to kill him.

>Contracts aren't pieces of paper you sign, you are misinterpreting the meaning of the word "contract" you teenage waste of space.

Yes, but signing a contract acts as a physical proof of its existence, for it to be enforceable.

>So can unwarranted nine months imprisonment, where the only way to leave prematurely is summary execution. So can making someone stupid, weak and unable to care for themselves for 12 years.

Well, the appearance was first, so imprisonment is actually justified, as you can do with it all you want. So is changing someone: it was created that way, you cannot intervene ones body without ones agreement for it, but there was no body to alter, as well as no person to sign such an agreement, as well as no one to enforce it.

>the byproduct of all of the parents ancestors time and resources

Yes, partially, and only because parents once could be viewed the same then as the child now.

> moral agents

No one will care about that when you start talking about money instead of moralizing in an internet chat.

>obligates you to keep contracts with them.

First, the existence of contracts is yet to be proven. Second, only an actor can "obligate" someone to do a thing, so arguing for such an obligation is arguing for a state. And last, the idea of becoming a moral actor is incompatible with the concept of self-worth you are arguing for.

>Most libertarians refuse to talk about the issue

I see an active discussion here so you just seem to ignore them.

>I'm presenting the conception contract as a solution which works.

Wow, what an ego. The solution you presented as well as its presentation is wrong on so many levels i dont know where to start. You ignore statements you disagree with, build systems based on moral statements, not back your point, leaving your statements on the level of opinion while loudly arguing about them as well as thinking out your own definitions of concepts to back your reasoning.you should try socialism, and maybe marxism, it really fits you


 No.83111

>>83107

>You dont consider the loss of life to be enough of a bad reason to break a contract?

>No i do not

Good job, now doctors don't break a contract if they kill you. It's not even malpractice, since the contract hasn't been broken. Think things through before saying them.

>the appearance was first

Forced appearance, by the mother. The child had no say in whether or not it was created. It's forced creation, forced imprisonment, forced modification of body for nine months, forced dependence. All of these are violations of NAP. An outside observer has more of a right to shoot a mother for all her NAP violations, than she does to mistreat the child.

>First, the existence of contracts is yet to be proven.

A contract is any entry into a relationship that imposes a voluntary obligation on the partners. The mother knew ahead of time what pregnancy and child rearing meant, and by refusing to use a condom, or use birth control, she decided to enter into that binding relationship. Any breaking of which results in the loss of life of a child. This is called an IMPLIED CONTRACT please google before responding, if you respond with "hurr durr signature" again I'm going to ignore and report.

>build systems based on moral statements

Yeah the moral system of NAP and contract enforcement. You seem to have no moral system, you ignore NAP, and you only consider a contract broken if it happens under your own convoluted and retarded conditions (just theft?!?! moron).


 No.83112

>>83092

No no no, you're getting something fundamentally wrong here. Babby didn't just magically spawn in mommy's tummy, mommy had to fuck someone to put it in there, therefore mommy herself is directly liable for this parasite inside her. The "parasite" didn't crawl in there itself.

I'm not exactly anti-abortion myself, but I don't understand how you people pretend to ignore this.


 No.83115

>>83112

>I don't understand how you people pretend to ignore this.

Summer is here.

They are actually kids themselves, which makes this 10x more funny than it should be.


 No.83138

>>83111

Doctors cannot kill me as the contract implies they have to keep my life, and if they explicitly kill me they'll have lots of problems. It is not about should they or not, but can they and will they? You know, nothing is stoping anyone from killing another except, well immediate force but it still not failsafe. Also, being that stupid, what did i tell you about contracts, asshat?

>A contract is any entry into a relationship that imposes a voluntary obligation on the partners.

No, its not. It is not an entry in relationship.

Definition of contract

1 a : a binding agreement between two or more persons or parties; especially : one legally enforceable

If he breaks the contract, he'll be sued.

b : a business arrangement for the supply of goods or services at a fixed price

make parts on contract

c : the act of marriage or an agreement to marry

2 : a document describing the terms of a contract

Have you signed the contract yet?

3 : the final bid to win a specified number of tricks in bridge

4 : an order or arrangement for a hired assassin to kill someone

His enemies put out a contract on him.

Go read the dictionary, asshat. Your imagination is not a geed enough source.

>Forced appearance, by the mother.

THERE WAS NO CHILD TO SAY, YOU DEGENERATE NIGGER. If you keep repeating your statements you'll prove nothing other that you eat shit.

>moral system of NAP

Nap is not a moral system, your stupidity really knows no bounds. https://8ch.net/liberty/res/81801.html

>IMPLIED CONTRACT

it is not part of ancap theory. It even explicitly opposes it in the form of social contract. BTFO

>(just theft?!?)

Theft is no different from murder in case of opposing it with force. Your moralfaggotry really gets annoying.

>the mother knew ahead of time

since when knowledge adds responsibility?

>she decided to enter into that binding relationship

You seem very active in making decisions for people instead of themselves.

>I'm going to ignore and report.

Yeah, ignoring is all you can do, asshat. Understand, that you was not banned only because of this boards lack of moderation, as even the lefties could not out compete your idiocy, and willingness to use moderation to push your agenda, which further proves what a disgusting rat you are.You really should try going to pol, with your talents you might even lead them

>your own convoluted and retarded conditions

As if i'm the one forcing imaginary definitions over everyone

>contract enforcement

>moral system

well, it might sound crasy but enforcement of contracts is implied to be done for money, and not because of your stupid whining, they are mercenaries, not messiahs.

>You seem to have no moral system

Oh, sweet sweet ad hominems.


 No.83141

>>83112

>mommy had to fuck someone to put it in there, therefore mommy herself is directly liable for this parasite inside her

Why? If it is relevent where an intruder came from, then the creature is the property of its parents, as its parts were, as any other man-made object, created with private resources, and if it is irrelevant then my argument stands.


 No.83144

>>83115

Claiming superiority based on unbacked assumptions about age of anonymous people on the internet does really seem mature enough for your argument to be at least partially relevant.no, its not, asshat

Also, its April here, you know.


 No.83151

>>83144

Yes. It is relevant, she willingly let the intruder in, so she consents to the relationship she will have with it, if she consents to it then there's nothing "parasitic" about it. Of course, unless she was raped, before you start strawmaning.

>then my argument stands.

I couldn't give a fuck about your argument m8, I just hate it when people call children parasites.


 No.83152

>>83151

Meant for >>83141


 No.83167

File: 13bf91735ac877e⋯.jpg (436.79 KB, 1536x1024, 3:2, cunt.jpg)

>>83138

>throwing merriam webster definitions at me

Fucking kill yourself my dude, they don't even know what marriage is.

Also NAP itself is an implied contract, which you break when you attempt to kill a child.

>since when knowledge adds responsibility?

If you know ahead of time that pulling a trigger while aiming a gun at someone will kill them, you might be held responsible for the consequences…

>>83141

The problem is that it's not just an object my boy, it's a human too.


 No.83170

>>83167

NAP is a principle or ethical stance. It is not a contract itself but it can be an agreed upon code of conduct within a contract.


 No.83180

>>83167

>Also NAP itself is an implied contract

What did i say to you about implied "contracts", asshat?

>If you know ahead of time that pulling a trigger while aiming a gun at someone will kill them, you might be held responsible for the consequences…

And even if you do not, the consequences still remain the same.

>The problem is that it's not just an object my boy, it's a human too.

And why would it change anything, mr. ad hominem? Human life is not the most valuable thing to be protected under any means, you know.


 No.83182

>>83151

She consents to relationship, but not to having a child, do not mix that. You know, if you need to exclude certain examples then your argument is incomplete. Also, even if she "consents" to the "relationship" in terms of a contract, which, i repeat, she does not, then the contract may still be broken, as the only side who is doing anything is mother, so she can stop it without consequences.

>I couldn't give a fuck about your argument m8

>I just hate it when

Well, i do personally dislike children, but my argument is not based on it, and you seem trying to prevent what you dislike on the internet, which is not very effective. If you make an arguments for this reason this is just being emotional and wishful thinking, and is not suited for serious cognitive work.


 No.83194

>>83170

NAP has actual consequences for being broken, this makes it an implied contract. Besides if it's just an arbitrary ethical stance, why can't we have an arbitrary ethical stance that protects babies and children? When exactly do we stop introducing arbitrary ethical stances??

>>83180

>And even if you do not, the consequences still remain the same.

I think this is going a bit far, but at least thanks for finally agreeing with me on the conception contract issue.


 No.83195

File: cdbca52d9c38eea⋯.png (126.59 KB, 2200x1164, 550:291, Libertarianism 101-1.png)


 No.83199

>>83194

You got me wrong. The knowledge and understanding of an action does not justify or worsen the consequences of a decigion. It does not matter if you steal because you are retarded or understand what you are doing, the result will be the same.

>it an implied contract

Stick your implied contracts up your ass.

> this makes it an implied contract

No, its not. There is no contracts in defending yourself. Most beings defend themselves when threatened. Nap simply shows how this type of interaction can be organized on a larger scale.

>thanks for finally agreeing with me on the conception contract issue.

<If i ignore arguments they will all go away and i'll win.


 No.83200

>>83195

>If i declare something it becomes true.


 No.83201

>>83195

>why can't we have an arbitrary ethical stance that protects babies and children? When exactly do we stop introducing arbitrary ethical stances??

From the very beginning. You do not "agree" on anything by default. It all follows agreements between certain humans. You could have any agreement between 2 special people, but that's not what you are arguing for. You cannot just "agree" on anything that way.


 No.83208

>>83195

imagine being this autistic


 No.83214

>>83182

>She consents to relationship

With who? I was talking about the relationship she would have with the child. By fucking someone and letting them cum inside, she's giving consent to having a baby, ie. she agrees that the relationship with her baby is not a parasitic one. If she changes her mind and decides it's not something that she wants for some reason then that's fine, but you can't use the "children are parasites" argument because it's false.

>you seem

And you seem to make a lot of assumptions, something not great for "serious cognitive work" either. I dislike abortion in general, but it's something that I support in society.


 No.83216

Face it guys - if you don't agree with abortion or letting parents starve their own children you aren't a libertarian and don't understand the basic concept of NAP or negative rights.

Anyone who disagrees is emoting and not thinking.


 No.83217

>>83199

>Most beings defend themselves when threatened

Most beings also procreate you know… yet you put 100% of your effort into laying out how and when a person can defend themselves, and 0% of your effort into explaining how the fuck your culture won't go extinct.

>>83208

>>83201

>>83200

This is more or less how the NAP was created. There was a void in the fairness of social relations, and a contract of non-interference was necessary to solve it.

The non-interference contract caused problems with the procreation of the species and was unfair to the next generation, which necessitated a contract of conception.

Everything people like you have said in this thread clearly proves that without the contract of conception a libertarian society would die out after a few generations. In order for libertarianism to work, or even anarcho capitalism, everyone must live by both NAP and CoC, or the system will collapse.

McFuckingDealWithIt.>Most beings defend themselves when threatened


 No.83219

>>83216

>if you do not agree with my claims you are not a libertarian, even though to enforce the system would require a state.


 No.83221

File: 2afcc69612b0c60⋯.jpg (20.36 KB, 250x379, 250:379, ussr0028.jpg)

>>83217

written like a true collectivist


 No.83223

>>83217

You know, i'm tired of your autistic screeching. You can ignore everything anyone says and pretend you won, but ultimately remain a statist with only authoritarian morality to back it up.

I ask everyone to leave this fucker alone with his idiocy until the time he realizes he sits into a pile of his own shit.


 No.83227

File: 9543611ab86b392⋯.jpg (47.95 KB, 617x628, 617:628, DbKd2hGXkAEJAtp.jpg)

>>83223

hes worse than the social contract types


 No.83236

>>83221

That post was "collectivist" in two ways:

1. Admitting humans live in groups, and need the NAP for protecting themselves from the group. Which every libertarian already believes.

2. Admitting cultures don't survive if there isn't a next generation, therefore the culture needs the CC to continue existing. Which all libertarians will believe, or never make true societies.

>>83223

>>83227

Without the CC the only way for AnCap/Libertarian culture to survive over time is to proselytize to the children in statist systems.

In other words you want NAP to be parasitic only, and have no means or procreating itself.

Are you a Rothbardian/Jew? Because that would explain a lot, he killed libertarianism by destroying the foundation for self-procreation.


 No.83237

>>83236

>Admitting cultures don't survive if there isn't a next generation

<If abort a child that means there are no more children

Look faggot destroying one thing does not mean that there can be no more. If I am a farmer I may very well choose to kill some of my plants to build a new road.

>Without the CC the only way for AnCap/Libertarian culture to survive

Yeah there will be no children. Sure thing.

>and have no means or procreating itself.

No, I want to do it when it can be most opportune and effective. Not at whatever moment you accidentally fuck up and have a kid.


 No.83238

>>83237

Anon, this whole thread is people trying to debate this asshat. This cannot be helped.

Please, >>83223


 No.83240

>>83237

>comparing children to a fucking road

A road gives you a monetary benefit while children incur a massive cost on the parents for up to 18 years. If anyone can murder children after they're born, what the fuck is the point of having children? Children can't even make a good labor force. The only people who would want to make children would be pedos, to do unspeakable things to them. Or people who want a source for organ harvesting.

>Not at whatever moment you accidentally fuck up and have a kid.

>I accidentally into a vagina so I'm going to throw a baby into a woodchipper to fertilize my lawn

Yeah you're not going to go extinct at all. Sure thing.

Not to mention that none of this solves the problem of children slowly developing over time into free agents protected by NAP


 No.83244

File: 2818e67fec6be65⋯.jpg (164.58 KB, 622x319, 622:319, 1524796126913.jpg)

>>83227

Dank meme time?


 No.83247

File: 9ef31afcbfb5083⋯.jpg (119.06 KB, 500x281, 500:281, 68311741.jpg)


 No.83249

Do not tell him condoms can fail and a person can lie about them even if a state was to enforce such a rule


 No.83253

>>83240

>A road gives you a monetary benefit

Look you idiot children that are treated well help their parents well into the future as the parents age. While they are young they provide joy and labor. It is a modern invention that children only consume and do nothing for the benefit of the parent.

>slowly developing over time into free agents protected by NAP

No they stay the property of the father until they are released. He may kill them at any time and never release them if he sees fit.


 No.83255

>>83240

>A road gives you a monetary benefit while children incur a massive cost on the parents for up to 18 years. If anyone can murder children after they're born, what the fuck is the point of having children? Children can't even make a good labor force. The only people who would want to make children would be pedos, to do unspeakable things to them. Or people who want a source for organ harvesting.

Holy fuck. Are you telling me the ONLY reason you are going to have kids and start a family is because some authority would either force you or pay you to do it? Jesus Christ, statists are fucking stupid. Do you also need someone to force you to play videogames, or browse internet memes, or earn money, or do other shit that you enjoy?


 No.83256


 No.83258

>>83253

Physical removal time, fetal swine


 No.83260

>>83258

Its my property now fuck off or YOU will get physically removed from MY property.


 No.83263

I support taxpayer-funded female sterilization.


 No.83264

File: 3c15909ff14ac02⋯.jpg (124.95 KB, 960x768, 5:4, TgE95j464c0.jpg)

Finally, the /liberty/ i knew and love.


 No.83268

A man leaves his property to his unborn grandchild. The mother of the child then decides to abort knowing that the property will then go to her as next of kin.

Who removes whom?


 No.83270

>>83268

This is a MUCH better question than the previous shit.


 No.83272

>>83268

It depends if she is mentioned in the contract, as she might still get nothing if the contract states it that way.


 No.83274

>>83268

A person contracts with a lawyer to execute a will before they die. A will does not require for example that a person exists. The will could say "burn everything I have", and if the lawyer accepts the execution roll of the will then he shall burn it. The will could also say "give everything I own to first child of my daughter who has not been conceived". At which point the lawyer will hold the items for a fee as the estate of the grand father.

The fact that the father of the daughter wishes for something to happen does not mean there is a contract between her and her father. Just as if he promised the will to anyone else on any condition. He could very well say "if they never have a child a charity gets it all."


 No.83277

>>83255

>Holy fuck. Are you telling me

No. That's what I see people saying in this thread, you lying fuck.

>>83249

>dont tell him mcnukes can accidentally explode and you would still be held liable

>>83253

>they stay the property of the father

lol why the father? He provided less than 50% of the genetic material.


 No.83278

New question.

What if the grandfather leaves his property to his unborn grandchild (already a foetus but not yet born) and hires a private police force to protect the life of the unborn grandchild.

If the mother attempts to abort, are the private police allowed to neutralize her according to NAP?


 No.83279

>>83277

>lol why the father? He provided less than 50% of the genetic material.

If the male and female are both free then you are right of course it is more complicated. However in the future the fathers will transfer women to their husbands instead of releasing them.


 No.83280

>>83278

Further, do private police function as an extension of the NAP by proxy?

Could a private police force defend the life of someone under attack, or would that be akin to state intervention?


 No.83281

>>83278

>and hires a private police force to protect the life of the unborn grandchild.

The child is her property born or unborn. Any police force that arrests her to project the child is violating the NAP.


 No.83282

>>83281

*protect the


 No.83284

>>83280

>Could a private police force defend the life of someone under attack,

I am not sure about this. I lean to yes however have not actually thought about if this has terrible NAP violating consequences. Probably if they don't expect payment. For example if an EMT saved my life while I was unconscious and then charged me 5 grand I would say thats not enforceable.


 No.83287

>>83280

Private police is just that, private. It is simply an extension of one's own force, not something else, and can be used to either defend property rights or violate them. They will likely develop some kind of coop network to solve problems between their contractors using courts, but i'm not sure if it goes further than that.


 No.83291

>>83284

>For example if an EMT saved my life while I was unconscious and then charged me 5 grand I would say thats not enforceable.

No it wouldn't be, because you never consented to the transaction. If you had an existing contract with the hospital through an insurance policy that's another matter.


 No.83293

>>83291

I'm saying they could not charge me for it (atleast not force me to). Even the act of saving me without consent is dubious though.


 No.83294

>>83291

Wouldn't there be zero penality to help anyone?

Imagine you find an injured person. You bring them to the hospital at your own cost and they survive. Then they sue you and claim that it was a suicide attempt and you caused them pain and suffering by prolonging their life without their consent.


 No.83295

In a libertarian society would all sexual intercourse require written consent beforehand?


 No.83297

As someone who used to support abortion pretty staunchly and getting a nice tongue-lashing in the other thread, I'm pretty torn. On the one hand, you have many studies showing that's a live person in there pretty much from the moment it forms limbs. On the other, it's still essentially a parasite until it exits the womb. So for me, it really depends on the circumstance. Since I have no vagina, though, I really couldn't care less one way or the other honestly.


 No.83298

>>83281

so wait

why is the child her property again? because it develops inside her?

what if a surrogate mother decides to kill the child?

anyway, this my body my rules shit is hilarious

my cousin once broke his pregnant wife's nose when he caught her screwed

and you're saying me he broke this holy NAP of yours? whafuckingtever, only retarded white knights would try to defend such a mother


 No.83300

>>83295

No, but trying to force it may result in unwanted amount of violence directed at the attacker.


 No.83301

>>83298

>what if a surrogate mother decides to kill the child?

Then the contract with the non biological mother would be broken and there would be some penalty.

>why is the child her property again

Because she with her resources created the child. Its like anything else. Dog you have has puppies those are your dogs.


 No.83302

>>83279

But that's slavery. I thought the entire point of libertarianism and anarcho capitalism is increasing personal freedoms…


 No.83303

>>83295

Also, it does not have to be written. Think of it the same way as accusations of theft or violence, there needs to be proof, or it does not. Anyway, it derives from there so if you're interested you now know where to dig.


 No.83304

>>83302

> is increasing personal freedoms

No its not. Its about allowing you to do what you want with your own property. Personal freedom could include the right to go kill random people and take their food. However that is not a freedom that we accept.


 No.83305

>>83298

Surrogate mother might be bound by explicit contract so if she aborts the child while retaining the money received she may be accused of theft. It still retains the place of a special rule, same like "i won't color my hair for 1 year for these 20 gold coins". No more, no less.


 No.83309

>>83301

>Then the contract with the non biological mother would be broken and there would be some penalty.

but you've just said

<The child is her property born or unborn. Any police force that arrests her to project the child is violating the NAP.

so what determines ownership? genetic material contributed? then father and mother should hold shares according to genetic material contributed

or is it just the fact that it develops inside someone's body and thus becomes her property? does she also owns her tapeworms?


 No.83310

>>83305

>Surrogate mother might be bound by explicit contract

but there's an explicit contract with private mcpolice to protect the life of an unborn grandchild


 No.83311

File: 5873f9266455e22⋯.jpg (115.88 KB, 790x1000, 79:100, suggestions.jpg)

>>83294

>Imagine you find an injured person. You bring them to the hospital at your own cost and they survive. Then they sue you and claim that it was a suicide attempt and you caused them pain and suffering by prolonging their life without their consent.

You'd need some kind of evidence of that for a successful lawsuit. Otherwise the average court will just tell you "if you wanted to kill yourself so bad just do it you pussy."

>>83297

Honestly, this is close to where I am. The embryo is clearly a human by any reasonable definition, so it just boils down to whether or not you think it's murder. And tends to dissolve into arguing over the semantics of implied contracts, and where and how they apply. If you look at what's most likely to happen regarding abortion in a free society, it will probably be treated in the same manner as drug use: not strictly speaking illegal, but something that even in more libertine communities is done behind closed doors, and something that is shunned so heavily in other communities that the shame and threat of dissociation alone is enough to act as de facto law.


 No.83312

>>83309

>but you've just said

For the surrogate mother. If you are paying her to have a baby for you are going to have a contract with her. It is very different than grand father hiring a police force to protect the unborn grandson of his daughter against his daughters will.

>or is it just the fact that it develops inside someone's body and thus becomes her property

By default unless you sell the baby to someone else.

>so what determines ownership

Its exactly the same situation is if you had multiple people building a car


 No.83313

>>83311

>it just boils down to whether or not you think it's murder

You can both think its a person, think its murder, and still not think its a NAP violation. If I kill a living being such as a cow or a human that I own, thats my business.


 No.83314

>>83310

No, unless there really is. The police does not deal with people it does not have contracts with, and children do not get one immediately after birth, or beginning as life as a concept, as in this thread argued.


 No.83315

>>83310

Enforcing a voluntary contract between people is not the same thing as the private policeforce trespassing on the land of a woman to do something a grandfather wants because he paid them when she did not agree to do anything for him.


 No.83317

>>83311

Well, the privacy is achieved more easily in an ancap society, as medical services do not need to report gun wounds to the state, for example, so an abortion would be a viable procedure, as a medical service you would not want to lose market share.


 No.83318

>>83313

>If I kill a living being such as a cow

That's not considered murder whether you own it or not because cows have no potential for self-ownership.

>a human that I own

…and here's where the circlejerk over implied contracts and semantics comes in. I don't think it's accurate to say a parent owns a child, but any argumentation of such is dependent almost entirely on how you interpret things; it's less productive than even an argument on metaphysics can be. Is this what it feels like to be a member of one of the 6 Gorillion Protestant denominations?


 No.83320

>>83318

>That's not considered murder

And if it WAS murder, it would still not be a NAP violation.

>over implied contracts and semantics comes in

There is no implied contract. If I write down an explicit contract with my wife that says "I the father 100% own the child after you birth it" there is no contract where the child then owns themselves. An implicit contract would be your wife non verbally agree to letting you fuck her without it being rape


 No.83321

>>83194

The NAP can be violated, not broken. However, the NAP criterion of a contract that is violated, results in a broken contract.


 No.83323

>>83315

>Enforcing a voluntary contract between people is not the same thing as the private policeforce trespassing on the land of a woman to do something a grandfather wants because he paid them when she did not agree to do anything for him.

But if you consider the foetus to be alive (let's say it's 3 days from being born) then it's a human being and has its own NAP rights, yes? So wouldn't the private police force be allowed to protect it as an extension of its own NAP?


 No.83325

>>83323

> then it's a human being and has its own NAP rights, yes?

Of course not. People don't just get things by being alive. The child was made through the resources and effort just like anything else. It is property and can be aborted / forced into labor etc. If the child was a freeman that is another story.


 No.83326

>>83312

>grand father hiring a police force to protect the unborn grandson of his daughter against his daughters will

so when does a daughter becomes a subject of law in ancapistan? what if she is 16 years old, gets pregnant while drunk, wants to kill a child but her father wants to keep his grandchild?

now that I think about it, grandparents should hold shares in their grandchildren too


 No.83327

>>83326

>so when does a daughter becomes a subject of law in ancapistan

When the father releases her.

>what if she is 16 years old, gets pregnant while drunk, wants to kill a child but her father wants to keep his grandchild?

Then she fucked up.

>grandparents should hold shares in their grandchildren too

Which is how Roman society worked.


 No.83329

>>83326

>what if she is 16 years old, gets pregnant while drunk, wants to kill a child but her father wants to keep his grandchild?

At 16 the girl is already considered semi-human according to the prime laws of Rothbardia. She has the constitutional right (according to Arby's(TM) freedom courts) to terminate the pregnancy.

EXCEPTION: The grandfather is also the father, in which case any profits which accrue from the disposal of the foetus in terms of stem cells or organ harvesting must also be shared with the grandfather/father. His genetic contribution to the pregnancy gives him 50% ownership of the product, as well as limited IP if the foetus appears in any television ads or video games.


 No.83334

>>83329

Now that I think about it, the grandfather/father would actually have 75% ownership of the final product, which gives him a controlling interest in the pregnancy unless he chooses to sell stock in the foetus.


 No.83342

>>83304

>No its not. Its about allowing you to do what you want with your own property. Personal freedom could include the right to go kill random people and take their food. However that is not a freedom that we accept.

But keeping slaves is a freedom you accept.

And don't say "we" fucker, you're a bottom feeder.


 No.83343

>>83342

>But keeping slaves is a freedom you accept.

A personal can voluntarily become a slave. Once someone is a slave they can be traded / etc. I don't see any NAP violation here. Its no different than contracting with someone for them to kill you.


 No.83345

>>83343

*A person


 No.83347

>>83343

>A personal can voluntarily become a slave

No they can't.

The inability of a person to give away their free agency is the founding tenet of libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism. Here it is in pretty clear cut logic:

>The concept of "voluntary slavery" is indeed a contradictory one, for so long as a laborer remains totally subservient to his master's will voluntarily, he is not yet a slave since his submission is voluntary; whereas, if he later changed his mind and the master enforced his slavery by violence, the slavery would not then be voluntary.

Why the fuck are you on this board?


 No.83348

>>83343

>Once someone is a slave they can be traded

No. You cannot bind someone to your will forever by contract, because such a contract isn't enforceable in court; only a contract break that result in theft are enforceable, see >>83076.

>inb4 but the slave is my property


 No.83349

>>83347

Okay retard I will make it really easy for you. Replace the word slave with "a person that agrees to do anything anyone else says forever". None of this moral agency bullshit matters.

>>83348

>No. You cannot bind someone to your will forever by contract

I guess NDAs are impossible then. What a retarded position of course you can bind forever. If I agree not to tell anyone about your secret affair for $1000 there is no magical endpoint.

>because such a contract isn't enforceable in court

Of course its enforceable

> only a contract break that result in theft are enforceable

Wrong


 No.83350

>>83349

>anyone else says

*the other party says


 No.83351

>>83347

>the slavery would not then be voluntary.

A person can voluntarily become a PERMANENT SERVANT, and then later become a PERMANENT SERVANT who wants to quit but is bound by there will. Just because you feel bad about a contract does not mean you get to break it.


 No.83353

>>83347

>Why the fuck are you on this board?

Fuck off pol some of us actually believe in contracts and property.


 No.83356

File: a7eeb1d2fcc902b⋯.webm (1.36 MB, 306x320, 153:160, fuku.webm)

>>83349

>If I agree not to tell anyone about your secret affair for $1000 there is no magical endpoint.

Read the part about "contract break that results in theft," refusing to do a service you've been paid to do constitutes as theft. As a matter of fact just go read the article posted in >>83076 and tell us why you disagree.

>Wrong

Oh wow you got me, no way to recover from that.

>there will

>pol

You really don't belong here, do you?


 No.83360

>>83356

Look man you have one particular LEGAL SYSTEM that has nothing to do with the NAP. Promise theory is perfectly consistent with the NAP. You may do whatever you want in your legal jurisdiction after individuals agree to be subject to it. Your little article even says this is the very top:

>Unfortunately, many libertarians, devoted to the right to make contracts, hold the contract itself to be an absolute, and therefore maintain that any voluntary contract whatever must be legally enforceable in the free society….and therefore that the only enforceable contracts (i.e., those backed by the sanction of legal coercion)


 No.83575

>>83347

>No they can't.

por que?


 No.83584

>>80309

Sentience should be the cut off desu. I see no problem with abortion when it objectively makes sense for all parties involved to do so. Do not let moralfaggotry be used to justify this kind of shit


 No.83585

>>83575

He thinks that voluntary slavery is impossible because you may change your mind later. A retarded position really. He believes people should be able to back out of any agreement they make by paying a fine.


 No.83634

>>83584

pff even plants are sentient


 No.83637

File: f85ad1371bf8452⋯.jpg (650.74 KB, 1000x1000, 1:1, yourpost.jpg)

>>83634

Bullshit. A plant is alive by definition, but is not capable of self consciousness.


 No.83638

Murdering a baby in the womb is never OK.


 No.83640

>>83638

Murdering a baby in the womb is always OK.


 No.83641

>>83640

t. godless communist


 No.83642

>>83641

t. anointed


 No.83647

>>83240

>comparing children to a fucking road

>implying they are either one is not property


 No.83649

File: 9ba2638e32afc11⋯.png (41.53 KB, 499x338, 499:338, 3a7.png)

>>83638

>stupid people shouldn't spawnkill other stupid people

And then you cuckservatives are wondering why there are so many liberals around and why the overton window just keeps going left every decade?


 No.83652

>>83641

>Godless

If god wants to fuck me out of my own property hes violating the NAP and gets the bullet like any other commie.


 No.83653

>>83652

You're opening a huge can of worms based on an abstract concept with that one zastava m88


 No.83694

>>83649

Niggers vote left you fucking idiot. If anything abortion has prevented the slide from getting worse.


 No.83861

I'm for abortions.

I'm also not pro-choice.

I'm just anti-life.


 No.83875

File: 4e18856bfb07683⋯.jpg (33.25 KB, 401x336, 401:336, if I may interject for a m….jpg)

Consider that heaven is real and we go there when we die.

By aborting the fetus, you are killing its soul sending it straight to heaven; without making it suffer on earth.

If however, you believe that there is no heaven, then you have prevented bringing another useless, suffering person into this world.

Athiests and Godfags must therefor both agree that Abortion is the right choice.


 No.83877

File: 2c92a1f7e167d3c⋯.jpg (116 KB, 1022x1363, 1022:1363, a work of fart.jpg)

>>83875

Except not every Atheist is a nihilistic faggot, and not all Christians believe that simply being born is enough to secure your way into heaven.


 No.83896

>>83875

Original sin is a thing in all real Christian denominations


 No.83897

>>83896

We will let god sort them.


 No.83905

>>83877

Also, not every nihilist is a faggot caring to end "these worthless lives".


 No.83911

File: acc3ae961e74807⋯.png (483.74 KB, 900x728, 225:182, 1520304265142.png)

>>83877

>tfw nihilist

>tfw nothing matters in the end

>tfw i get to decide what matters in my own life


 No.83925

Test.


 No.83927

>>83911

Nihilist is a really bad identifier for someone who decides what matters. Because then nothing means nothing, man. If nothing means nothing then everything is everything and then you've gone from nihilist to everythingist or something.


 No.83936

>>80867

Wouldn't it be more wise to speed up the process of decay? The damages would be steep but most likely recoverable.


 No.83948

test


 No.84017


 No.84034

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

>>80309

No because you're rights are unalienable, you start killing people because its inconvenient to take care of them then you have no right to life as well.

>http://hourofthetime.com/bcmp3/2.mp3

I've been looking at this board and it seems to be in bad shape, it looks basically like leftypol tier brainwashing but anarchist bent and people spouting 90% assumptions based off 10% actual knowledge.


 No.84047

>>84034

>No because you're rights are unalienable, you start killing people because its inconvenient to take care of the

Fine then, give birth and then let them starve to death. No one has right to food.


 No.84065

>>81739

based neetposter


 No.84072

Better off letting them aborts, than bring to life a kid that might end up hated by his parent/not get the attention a kid needs/live a poor life cause the parents didn't have the money to raise a kid in the first place


 No.84088

File: f1e4bdfd348bb6a⋯.jpg (199.51 KB, 764x1046, 382:523, half_orc_character_by_bria….jpg)

File: 11a5bd9d1f9f6ef⋯.jpg (584.94 KB, 612x792, 17:22, lush_by_aerismccain-dbvgr4….jpg)

>>81023

You cannot stop the goblin horde. We grow stronger and more intelligent every deneration.


 No.84100

If a fetus is a person, the mother has no right to abortion because it would violate NAP

Is a fetus a person? Idk


 No.84187

>>84100

ITT: Kikes trying to push that only a woman gets to decide if it's a baby or not.


 No.84333

File: aecd6d7ce275c76⋯.png (309.19 KB, 460x601, 460:601, motherkills.png)

Say no to abortion. If you don't want kids then you shouldn't be opening your legs, woman


 No.84377

We should support abortion and encourage sterilization for all Feminist, Marxist, Niggers, Pajeets, Chinks, Spics, and Shitskins.


 No.84384

sadasdasdsadxczxcxzczxc


 No.84482

>>84377

chinks > cumskins


 No.84488

>>80309

>Libertarian, but only as it fits into my purposes

ayyy lmao, this is why you failed so hard despite having the capital power backing you.


 No.84499

File: 86ac7e77f20fb23⋯.png (630.8 KB, 424x562, 212:281, sunshjsrr.png)

File: bf2c4937e2014aa⋯.png (956.91 KB, 775x503, 775:503, dddredderdddff.png)

File: 7e0a9b9f6e1e1da⋯.png (386.98 KB, 303x544, 303:544, sunsarasmashTRUMP.png)

File: ab2cd1c35cbab99⋯.png (364.93 KB, 371x389, 371:389, eyueeiyue.PNG)

File: 234766b22bc6cd5⋯.png (500.75 KB, 435x514, 435:514, rkjhrkjhrjhrjhrjhrhj.PNG)


 No.84693

Only for leftist children.


 No.84734


 No.84817

>>84499

who is it?


 No.84931

>>80309

Moral/Ethical arguments aside, abortion is a package deal. If you support abortion, you're supporting all the fun stuff that comes along with it and making leftists and ethically-challenged CEOs very wealthy from all the organs and stuff they sell from the bodies… Which will inevitably be used to push even more tax-guzzling insanity onto you.

tl;dr slippery slope.

>>80643

>not that I have anything particularly against feminism or "SJWs" because I'm not some bitch nerd that gets upset when someone calls a video game or movie I like sexist. lmao

Found the SJW. It has nothing to do with freedom of speech… You don't merely criticize. If that was all you did, it wouldn't be a problem. You also infiltrate, take over, and then shut down everyone else's freedom to criticize. You recognize that we're in a war for the hearts and minds of the people and that the only way for you to win is to squash the competition, By Any Means Necessary.

>>80793

>stfu white trash

If I only buy black trash bags, can I be exempt from being called racist?

>>81029

>You can be as libertarian as you want but the fact is that as long as you live among low IQ animals they will forever treat libertarianism as anarchy for rich people and run after whatever or whoever appeals to their emotions.

Accurate, but retards offing their genetic future and potentially sterilizing themselves unfortunately does nothing to correct the animal population. They use that as an excuse to import even dumber animals from the worst places on earth in order to compensate for "lack of population growth", as if that were a real problem.

>>81153

>scarcity and rising prices will naturally disincentivize people from having a large number of children and the problem will solve itself.

You obviously haven't seen Africa.


 No.84941

File: ea44f1782d4e846⋯.jpg (88.63 KB, 1024x1024, 1:1, 0bpvbm3i0iw01.jpg)

>>80309

I believe abortion should only happen if:

1a) the fater supports the abortion or denies being the father

And

1b)the mother wants to get it aborted

2)the mother's healt is at risk

3)the child's health is at risk (down, otherwise handicapped)

(Sorry for the 4ch pic.)


 No.84947

>>84482

Chinks ARE cumskins you newfag.


 No.85002

>>84947

cum is white


 No.85089

>>80309

>H-hey g-guys, I have shit for brains so I can't decide on my own what to think.


 No.85104

>>85089

asians are called yellowskinned in my language


 No.85123

>>80309

Only for niggers and shitskins


 No.85180


 No.85200

I'm conflicted about abortion. It's good that it kills babies, but it's bad that it gives women freedom.


 No.85255

>>85200

same here


 No.85259

>should we support murder?

The absolute state of this board. Go back to >>>/leftypol/ cuck


 No.85281

>>80898

Some serious /pol/ mixing in this post, I tell you what. But you have the same ideas as i hear in many white nationalist. You are basically advocating for eliminating a class of people who you deem a threat to your personal success, not the success of society as a whole.

America has had stupid people in it for centuries now and we have survived. Generally the stupid find jobs that fit their skill set and IQ and manage to make a living, have kids and hopefully their kids do better. If someone is stupid the best we can do is help them to do better in life. Not kill them in the womb or sterilize them.




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / bant / christ / evogames / htg / leftpol / vg / vichan / zenpol ]