[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / asmr / ausneets / cafechan / kc / leftpol / strek / tes / vg ]

/liberty/ - Liberty

Non-authoritarian Discussion of Politics, Society, News, and the Human Condition (Fun Allowed)
Winner of the 36th Attention-Hungry Games
/alcoholism/ - The Attention-Hungry Games are the Dark Souls of Hunger Game Simulators
Comment *
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Show oekaki applet
(replaces files and can be used instead)

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)


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



>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.



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.



>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.



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.



are you vegetarian then?



>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.



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



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.



>socialism is a part of culture

You're even dumber than I am.



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




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.



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



not all differences



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.



haahhaha top kek


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


>incentives to do poorly affect voting stance

>but lack of intelligence causes the incentives


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.



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.



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


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


Shoo shoo plebbitor.



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.




thank you for defending me, anon. <3



>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.


>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.




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


>unironically using satan as an insult



>unironically using satan as recognition of 1337 trips

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



>basement meme



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.





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



pol here. Die kike.



stfu white trash


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


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.



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?



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.



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.


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


>it's for the greater good

>they'd probably be criminals or something anyway



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.



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.



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.



That's not a cause at all.



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.


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


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


This is why we should support abortion.



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.



>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.




>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.



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


YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.


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.



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.



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.


What race is it?



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



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



>we will all become roasties



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.



>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.


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?



>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.



Are leftists sentient?



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.



>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.


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.



Are conjoined twins the same person?



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.




Guy's advocating for an original sin.


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



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



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.



are you a vegan?


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.



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




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, its degenerate



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.


YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.


>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



but what is profit you get from legality of abortion?



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.



>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


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



how come?



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.



>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.



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


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/


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/


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/



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


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


>Morale foundation affects intelligence,

>But Idolization effects foundation.



>statists getting in the way


You mean Christians?


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



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


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


This tard is going to eat meat today.

Check out Micheal Tooley and Johnathan Swift.


>should we support abortion?

Are you libertarian or not?


Literally correct. Check out Freaknomics.



So up until they are about 4 years old?


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.



>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.



>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.



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.



Someone on life support may leave.


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.



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



Depends if they leave or not.



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



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.



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



>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.


>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.



You shouldn't be.



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.



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



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


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



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



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?



I think it's just a few fags.


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


>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.


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.


You should also read a book, po' boy.




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.


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.



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."



>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.



>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.



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



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

[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / asmr / ausneets / cafechan / kc / leftpol / strek / tes / vg ]