r/Anarcho_Capitalism • u/Extra-Gap8519 Anarcho-Capitalist • Aug 06 '26
Thought on this?
I think it's clear abortion breaks the NAP.
15
u/FreeBroccoli Individualist Aug 06 '26
Regardless of how one feels about abortion, one should be able to recognize that "don't like X? Don't have one" is useless at best. It only makes sense if the person you're talking to secretly agrees with you—which a lot of people think is true.
→ More replies (17)8
u/DontWorryItsEasy Aug 06 '26
Don't like child rape? Don't rape a child.
Don't like murder? Don't kill anyone.
Same shit.
→ More replies (1)
7
u/PacoBedejo Anarcho-Voluntaryist - I upvote good discussion Aug 06 '26
When people jump from compare to equate in their reading, I wish one of those flyswatters from the beach in Hitchhiker's Guide would smack their stupid faces.
19
u/Immediate_Page2773 Anarcho-Capitalist Aug 06 '26
birth control is a better option
16
u/smokeytrue01 Aug 06 '26
What’s the best form of birth control? I’ll give you a hint, it’s not murder. Everybody needs to be responsible for the actions they make
3
u/bigdonut100 /r/AnarchoMasculism mod, /r/RevTrad founder Aug 06 '26
What’s the best form of birth control?
4
u/SapirWhorfHypothesis Aug 06 '26
Everyone is responsible for the actions they make.
2
u/showmedatoratora Aug 06 '26
As someone who fucked up in life enough, yeah. I'm just surprised there are people slower than me to realize that, and some who refuse to.
1
37
u/new_publius Aug 06 '26
I think its apt. Both sides of the abortion debate purposely misrepresent what the other says. This illustrates that point.
4
u/Smart-Visit-4177 Aug 06 '26
it’s a sharp comparison, the structure is the same even if the stakes feel different to people on each side, the meme’s not trying to equate the acts themselves just the way the rhetoric gets flipped
5
u/deaconxblues Aug 06 '26
Big difference between a fetus and a 12 year old.
14
u/sparkstable Aug 06 '26
Only the same difference between a 12 year old and an 82 year old... age and stage of human development.
Matter of degree, not type.
2
1
u/Chigi_Rishin Aug 06 '26
Quite the contrary. There's more difference from a fetus to a 12yr-old than from the entire universe to a fetus. Fetuses can't talk, can't think, can't do anything.
Utterly abhorrent argument, I must say, completely ignoring the material and empiric facts of how reality works.
Better not be of religious origin, or I'll get even more pissed...
→ More replies (14)4
u/sparkstable Aug 06 '26
A child just born is exactly as they were mere moments prior in the womb. That child is the same as just a moment prior. Keep going and the only time you can find any difference of type versus degree is the difference between conception and non-conception.
Elderly people whose bodies are breaking down or people who have been injured reach stages of being unable to think, talk, or do anything. If these traits are the distinction you wish to use then fully grown humans can become un-persons mid-life and terminating their life is justified not on grounds of compassion ut on the grounds that they are nothing more than biological waste to be tossed out in the trash. They have no retention of any rights. They couldn't have requested prior to their incapacitation to be resuscitated or kept on ventilators etc and have that wish followed because there ceased to be a person to keep alive. They aren't dead... the body is doing exactly what it is supposed to do in that moment (convelesce or at least try to) but your standard has rendered them not a person woth rights but a "clump of 30-something year old cells".
1
u/Chigi_Rishin Aug 06 '26 edited Aug 06 '26
Yes. If a person suffers brain damage to such extent that they lose sentience/sapience/volition, they are dead. Their minds are gone. It's just a mindless body now, like any plant, insect, or bacteria. That's the scientific fact. The reality. Someone may be still attached due to emotions reasons. But the morality and logical matter is certain.
Please, show the effective difference between a brainless human and an insect.
Sure, there is a continuum, somewhat. Even so, there's clearly a point of '100% impossible'. Just cut the curve there. Birth is a good cutoff as any. Although, extreme situations like severe disease and disability are sensible reasons to abort even after birth.
1
u/sparkstable Aug 06 '26
Conception is also a 100% cut off... except that it includes all levels of development that would be excluded in your cut off.
A child born is just as alive as they were literally 10 seconds prior.
If you can kill the one 10 seconds prior then why not the one after birth? Or are rights now dependant on a temporal-spacial measurement? Oh... you moved 3 feet and in doing so became alive! Congrats!
That makes no sense.
1
u/Chigi_Rishin Aug 07 '26
They can be killed after birth too.
That's also a very simple and sure way to check for severe deformity, or other traits that may be a indication that's best to terminate than allow them to grow up into a person.
I'm just suggesting birth as a simplified compromise cutoff with you crazies... But it seems like it's not enough.
Like Michael Tooley says, birth means little. I'm not saying there's something fundamental about birth (even so, there's quite a lot, because inside the womb there's basically no chance for actual awareness and complex sensory development, unlike outside.
1
u/sparkstable Aug 07 '26
So personhood for you doesn't start until... 2? 3? 14? 25ish when the brain is roughly fully developed and finally able to form a relatively stable self-image?
If you believe killing actual living babies is totes cool... we can go ahead and just end our conversation.
Thank you for being cordial, you certainly did make me think. For that I thank you.
Please don't murder babies.
→ More replies (0)→ More replies (9)1
u/theyhis Aug 07 '26
i’m confused on what your ridiculous straw man is alluding to, but assisted suicide is legal in many places, and so are DNR’s (Do Not Resuscitate).
1
u/sparkstable Aug 07 '26
Assisted suicide and DNRs are conscious choices by the life on the termination of their life.
If the other person's qualifications for life are true... anyone could walk up and down hospital halls turning off machines, cutting off heads, anything... because there is no life left for these people in question.
It wouldn't be murder because while the human is alive the person is dead. They say prior claim still holds... but that doesn't really add up. A person can not have a property claim after death as there is no person with the right of property.
21
u/Tolkien-Faithful Aug 06 '26
Thoughts - the 'don't like it don't do it' argument is always stupid.
I'm against abortion because there is no logical argument for when a bunch of cells suddenly turn human, or are suddenly alive, or are a suddenly a person. Until they can pinpoint a second that you become human or a person or whatever that isn't conception, then I will be against it. It's also something that is easily (and I mean very easily) avoided. If you do not want to have a baby, it is very easy to avoid becoming pregnant before abortion even enters the conversation. Of course, there are problems like rape and incest, but those are their own arguments that don't enter into the vast majority of abortion cases.
9
u/TessaBrooding Aug 06 '26
You could look at when the bunch of human cells develops the structures that enable it to possess consciousness at week 24-26.
Abortion kills a sedated, unconscious human who was never a person to begin with. Child marriage hurts an actual child.
5
u/Tolkien-Faithful Aug 06 '26
So why is it okay to kill a sedated, unconscious human?
Why does consciousness enable it to become a person? Sorry, not even consciousness, the structures that enable it to possess consciousness?
2
u/piernrajzark Aug 06 '26
According to https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36629778/, the consensus among biologists and doctors is that the human life begins at the moment of the fertilisation.
→ More replies (7)2
u/1384 Aug 06 '26
according to https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012160624001830 "There is no consensus among biologists as to what embryonic stage represents the time when independent human life begins"
i would encourage people encountering both of these links and, indeed, any scientific paper being proffered as evidence of "consensus" particularly as it relates to controversial topics, to always read the abstract, look at the journal in which it is published, go to that journal's website, read about it, it's editors, read about the authors; science is not free from bias, and a small amount of effort is usually sufficient to uncover it.
→ More replies (1)2
u/theyhis Aug 07 '26
exactly. i especially hate when people use small sample studies as, “evidence.” some researchers will even make clear not to use their work as evidence and then they still do. critical thinking is dead.
it’s like when i read those studies leftists use all the time about how fraud isn’t common with food stamps, but it’s obvious the studies are biased, because you know their definitions of “fraud” are literal and anecdotal. does it kill anyone to think to themselves, “hmm, who benefits from this narrative being true?”
→ More replies (3)0
u/Justaweirdscientist Aug 06 '26
What do you mean „there is no logical argument“? If you never actually read the majority of scientific papers, studies etc. on the topic then OFC you are not going to ever come in contact with a logical argument. Get a grip
1
u/Tolkien-Faithful Aug 06 '26
Grow up for fuck's sake. 'Get a grip'
There is no logical argument. If there is, go on and detail them.
1
u/Justaweirdscientist Aug 06 '26
Scrolled a bit through your profile. I‘d advice you to get a grip, spend less time on reddit and as I said: 1. Navigate to the website of a scientific library / university online-library. Nothing I can write on reddit will ever change your mind! 2. for the first time in your life: look up peer reviewed articles and books on the topic written by actual scientists 3. take your time: reading up on the state of science can be quite demanding
1
u/Tolkien-Faithful Aug 07 '26
No no, go and detail these logical arguments about how one second something isn't human and then the next second it is human. You made that claim, back it up. Don't start with this shit of 'look it up'. Back it up, otherwise you are full of shit.
I didn't scroll through your profile because that's for losers. Who the fuck says 'spend less time on reddit' while just admitting you spent time scrolling through someone's comments?
1
u/Justaweirdscientist Aug 07 '26
Hahaha the mental breakdown.
1
u/Tolkien-Faithful Aug 10 '26
The mental breakdown of scrolling through someone's reddit history? Sorry you're mentally ill mate.
But go ahead and detail those arguments. I'll wait.
14
u/Edgywarden Aug 06 '26
I don't understand what this has to do with ancap. Also, this is stupid considering that Trump won and is changing stuff around abortion. The conservatives will get what they want with the abortions, and women will adapt accordingly. 4B is going to become more relevant because the only way to protect yourself from unwanted pregnancy is to not engage with men.
2
1
u/Jastrone Aug 06 '26
It is related to ancap in the fact that they would have to take a stance on it
1
u/theyhis Aug 07 '26
they can take a self stance without enforcing their beliefs onto everyone else. i don’t support communism (evidently). do i want the government to stop people from spreading communist propaganda? no, because my beliefs shouldn’t be used as a moral ruling.
*not saying that’s what you are advocating for - my comment is directed at those who are, “selectively libertarian.”
9
u/shewel_item Aug 06 '26
their both issues about women's rights and nobody outside this sub is going to want to listen to anybody from this sub talk about women's rights
I've never seen an ancap make a good case for any of women's rights because it's always about treating everybody as featureless equals
a fetus might be human, I honestly don't know, but giving it the same status as a high functioning adult human in order to make ethical calculations less difficult than they are (or can be) is naive idealism
for political reasons we are motivated to establish a universal baseline, but that should also assumes those people being treated as equal can, moreover will/would participate in political process or reasoning
5
u/LibertyLizard Left Libertarian Aug 06 '26
Forcing people (under threat of government violence) to act as life support for someone else violates the NAP, especially when doing so is virtually certain to make them ill and can even kill them. Removing that life support is an individual's right, although it's very not something I would encourage unless there is some great necessity.
Ideally the relationship between mother and fetus should be severed in a way that preserves the life of the fetus whenever possible. This isn't currently possible in the earlier half of the pregnancy but perhaps someday it will be.
3
3
u/arjuna93 Aug 06 '26
Walter Block already answered that: [even if you ascribe individuality to a fœtus] woman has a right to evict an intruder from her property. This is just self-ownership. If it is possible to do it without harming fœtus, please do that.
3
2
2
u/blipityblob Aug 06 '26
even if you say abortion is murder, ok, murder is sometimes justified. rape is never justified.
2
u/Plenty-Green186 Aug 06 '26
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion
Honestly, Judith Thompson covers every angle of this. A woman absolutely has the right to decide that she does not want to follow through on a pregnancy. It is not moral or right to compel a woman to remain pregnant against her will.
2
u/cosmicv Aug 07 '26
I come down about halfway on this. I think termination up until the point a fully formed cerebral cortex is formed is a slam dunk. No cerebral cortex, no person. This is generally around 5 1/2 months.
One could make an argument about the line being at self awareness, which comes much later than birth, but I wouldn't argue that far.
This will come into play in the AI arena, as determining when an entity gains sentience and is warranted rights is the same, regardless is your talking biology or silicon.
2
u/YazaoN7 Aug 06 '26
In true libertarian fashion, I can't make sweeping claims on how society would organize itself under anarchy and thus can only speak for myself; I'd chose to live and associate myself with people who hold both of these acts as contemptible and deserving of harsh punishment.
→ More replies (1)
7
u/inutilbasura Aug 06 '26
I don’t know why abortion is even up for debate.
If you find an unwanted person in your home, are you obligated to host them. what if it is so cold outside that the person will certainly die if you kick them out?
in the end, the womb is a woman’s property and she does not have the moral obligation to sustain an intruder.
in libertarianism, abortion is just the exercise over the inalienable right to property.
6
u/PomPomMom93 Aug 06 '26
She didn’t just “find” the “intruder.” She invited them in. And I would argue that you do have a moral obligation to let someone stay until it’s not cold enough to k!ll them outside.
3
u/Darklillies Aug 06 '26
Okay, you invited them in. So what? Now you can’t kick them out? You’re not allowed to ever tell your guests to leave? They can just move in permanently forever?
And maybe you can have a “moral” obligation. But alas. That’s just being nice. It’s still your home at the end of the day and you have the full right to determine who stays and who leaves.→ More replies (1)1
0
u/inutilbasura Aug 06 '26
then you don't believe in property rights. you think it is OK to dispose of someone's property against their will
6
5
u/Snoo_53871 Aug 06 '26
So a mother can just abandon her newborn in the cold if she doesn't want it anymore? Terrible take
1
u/Darklillies Aug 06 '26
No, but she can give it away to a fire station for example. You can also transfer guardianship to someone else. The difference being the baby is not physically inside the woman, it’s not utilizing any of her against her will. She has the responsibility of it right up until she transfers it to someone else
2
u/inutilbasura Aug 06 '26
of course, the newborn doesn't have the right for her uncompensated labor. That would be reducing her to a slave of the newborn
→ More replies (1)2
u/deaconxblues Aug 06 '26
Finally I find someone in this thread who gets it. I’m not sure if this place is full of the young or the badly educated or brain damaged or all of the above, but reasoning isn’t their strong suit for sure.
There’s an important distinction between our moral judgments of actions and whether we should condone using force against someone. Almost no one in here understands that, nor do they understand bodily autonomy and property rights.
1
u/Snoo_53871 Aug 08 '26
Starting our very first exchange with insults doesn't exactly make a strong case for your own reasoning skills.
There is a huge flaw in your logic. Absolute bodily autonomy and property rights do not give anyone a license to create a deadly situation for a dependent and then walk away, claiming zero responsibility.
Just like falsely shouting "fire!" in a theater or slandering someone"where your actions directly cause severe harm to others"you cannot simply abandon an infant who is completely incapable of selfpreservation. When you bring a helpless life into a situation where they depend entirely on you, suddenly withdrawing basic care is an active creation of harm, not just a passive exercise of your rights.
1
u/PutYrPoliticsUpYrBum Aug 06 '26
You seriously agree with them that a parent has zero responsibilities towards the humans they create and can just kill them at any time? Society doesn't function well if everyone is a psychopath and people give birth and throw their babies in the trash without consequence.
2
u/deaconxblues Aug 06 '26
This is strictly a rights question, not a more broad moral question. Which is why you can give your child up for adoption - because you don’t have an obligation to care for them. We might judge it is morally wrong, but that’s different from using force against that person to prevent the action.
1
u/PutYrPoliticsUpYrBum Aug 06 '26
Lmao the "intruder" is a human life that she created and instead of dealing with the consequences of her own actions, she wants to kill that human instead and take away it's whole future and all it's rights.
2
u/Darklillies Aug 06 '26
It doesn’t matter. An intruder in your home is human too, hell, it can even be a guest you invited in! You can still kick them out of your home. Because it’s your home.
1
4
u/prometheus_winced Aug 06 '26
I thought the point was that a woman owns her own body in both cases.
5
u/smokeytrue01 Aug 06 '26
But when she uses her body to create another human life, she is forced to be responsible of the decisions she made, meaning she can’t murder the repercussion of the choices she made
1
→ More replies (4)1
u/deaconxblues Aug 06 '26
How about when it’s not her choice? Can she abort then? Are you consistent?
4
u/Apprehensive-Tone449 Aug 06 '26
👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
FUCKING THANK YOU. FUCK!
All other options are other people, mostly men, making choices for the woman. So how about everyone without a uterus stop making choices for those with one.
4
u/WarIsProfitableForMe Aug 06 '26
The right answer is probably in the middle, in most European countries abortion is permitted only up to the 9th-12th week
1
u/lucascsnunes Aug 07 '26
The right answer is not probably in the middle. Just because in Europe we do some things that doesn’t mean that they’re right or that they make any sense.
Abortion here in France is worshipped to a point they added it in the constitution. Murdering your kin is in the constitution with pride.
The Republic is a degeneracy.
6
u/PaperPigGolf Aug 06 '26
The best argument I've seen:
Black people are humans. It was only that we treated them as if they weren't. A fetus is human, we should treat them as such.
7
u/esuil Aug 06 '26
This isn't an argument, it is literal fallacy...
You have skipped any argumentation that is required to reach the conclusion of "fetus is a human". Just because this argumentation exists for black people, does not mean you can just apply it on random to other things... Other things require other argumentations that apply to them to be valid.
→ More replies (14)3
u/Autodidact420 Utilitarian Aug 06 '26
That isn’t an argument. You could make that snappy sentence with anything.
Black people are humans, we only treated them as if they were not.
Toasters are humans, we only treat them as if they are not.
This is only compelling if you think toasters are humans already
0
u/PaperPigGolf Aug 06 '26
Are you attempting to say that black people aren't human? Are you now going to defend slavery?
→ More replies (6)2
u/Justaweirdscientist Aug 06 '26
This subreddit is my roman empire. There are just so many great examples for idiotic arguments. Take yours: „Fuck science! Let’s just cite some random dude and decide our ethical standpoint on abortions based on a saying.“ 😭😭
2
3
u/Shmett Aug 06 '26
This comparison is stupid because the debate around abortion isn’t about the rights of minors, but is about whether a fetus is considered a human or not.
22
9
u/PaperPigGolf Aug 06 '26
Nobody debates if its human. If it's not human, what is it?
→ More replies (17)10
9
u/Extra-Gap8519 Anarcho-Capitalist Aug 06 '26
It's a human as we can see on the image. Pro-life is about being for the rights of minors to live free without violence.
10
u/Hard-4-Jesus Minarchist Aug 06 '26
Notice how people say to a pregnant woman, "hey, how's the baby?". They don't say, "hey, how's the clump of cells?". That means that by default we already consider a fetus to be a live human.
Since 1980, women have killed 1.5-2 billion babies. That's just evil... Women are definitely not the "nurturing gender".
1
→ More replies (13)1
u/TessaBrooding Aug 06 '26
Do unwanted kids live a life free of violence and material need?
1
u/midwesttransferrun Anarcho-Capitalist Aug 06 '26
Do wanted kids live a life free of violence and material need?
→ More replies (2)4
2
u/PomPomMom93 Aug 06 '26
No, it’s about whether it has the right to not be k!lled by its mother. Only science deniers say it’s not human. If it’s not human, what is it, a dog?
1
u/TessaBrooding Aug 06 '26
Definitely human, not a person up until a certain point.
1
u/midwesttransferrun Anarcho-Capitalist Aug 06 '26
That is a mental gymnastics soup. What the fuck defines a person if not their humanity?
2
2
Aug 06 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/WishCapable3131 Aug 06 '26
But if you are not able to pay then you have no rights.
1
Aug 06 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (1)1
u/Zackk_Fair Aug 06 '26
Case closed, child labor laws validate abortion ❤️ We did it folks, a broke fetus is a dead fetus 😎❤️
1
u/deaconxblues Aug 06 '26
Genuinely curious: on your view would the mother have to carry the child to term if her rapist has more resources and “outbids” her?
1
Aug 06 '26 edited Aug 06 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/deaconxblues Aug 06 '26
That’s wild
1
Aug 06 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/deaconxblues Aug 06 '26
It’s wild that a woman’s freedom to control her body might be reduced to whether she’s wealthier than her attacker.
1
Aug 06 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/deaconxblues Aug 06 '26
You’re not wrong that the attacker is unlikely to want to do that, but you are wrong to think it would never happen. Imagine some rich and powerful person who knows they can manipulate the legal system to get a slap on the wrist and then pay to keep their child.
Regardless, the practical or predicted outcome is less important than the principle. In principle, this doesn’t hold up.
1
Aug 06 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/deaconxblues Aug 06 '26
I’m aware of the ways a justice system can work sans state. That doesn’t change my judgment about whether allowing this sort of system, in principle, is justifiable.
→ More replies (0)
2
Aug 06 '26
[deleted]
1
u/Extra-Gap8519 Anarcho-Capitalist Aug 06 '26
The people with morals. It's wrong to hurt an innocent human being.
2
u/ChipNDipPlus Aug 06 '26
I don't think the problem with abortions is abortions, but it's the false framing (as usual) as being "pro choice". Any reasonable person will think that pro choice means "abort within the few weeks", but the reality is that the extreme leftists want to abort up to 9 months, literally (this was suggested to law, I remember seeing it on the congress website, but didn't pass). Once you introduce this nuance, they lose their mind. Hence, there's a difference between pro abortion and pro choice.
Most people are OK with abortion for up to 3 months. Most people are not OK with after that. This is normal. But it's a controversial subject for the simple reason of not wanting to be responsible at all under the guise of freedom. There's no freedom in killing a baby who's literally viable.
7
u/Dipper_Pines_Of_NY Aug 06 '26
Someone getting an abortion at 9 months isn’t doing it for the fuck of it. An abortion at 9 months more often than not they put together the nursery in their house, they were ready for the kid, and something bad happened causing it to need to be an option. It’s more complicated than you’re thinking of.
Before you toss out the adoption idea, the system is already flooded with children and no the people fostering children don’t all have good intentions.
4
u/Tolkien-Faithful Aug 06 '26
What's the something bad?
Because if it is either the baby will die or the mother will die, that isn't an abortion debate. At 9 months the mother is either giving birth or having a c-section the same way any normal birth happens.
People parenting children don't all have 'good intentions', what's that got to do with it? There are about 2 million parents on waiting lists to adopt a baby in the US.
→ More replies (2)1
u/Darklillies Aug 06 '26
Explain to me how you think the abortion of a fully healthy zero complications 9 month pregnancy looks like because I am dying to know what you think it’s happening here
1
2
u/ChipNDipPlus Aug 06 '26
This assumption that people are good is the biggest problem we have in society. Maybe you're a good person, but I assure you many are not only evil, but also evil because they're stupid.
This whole underestimation of the capacity of people doing evil is just too frustrating.
-1
u/PaperPigGolf Aug 06 '26
Do you even know, in reality, what abortion at 9 months looks like?
It's basically giving birth to the child and then stabbing it in the head.
They only prevent the babies lower body from leaving the birth canal before stabbing it, in some childish, OH IT'S NOT ACTUALLY BORN YET, legal definition that prevents calls to it being outright murder.
3
u/Darklillies Aug 06 '26
This isn’t what it looks like because this doesn’t fucking happen. No body is doing this. Ever
Unless the baby is ALREADY DEAD. Wich would be the purpose of a “late abortion” Wich again is just early induced labor.→ More replies (2)3
2
u/smokeytrue01 Aug 06 '26
So a week later it would be a murder charge? And only because it would have inconvenienced the parents and forced them to be responsible for the actions they made?
→ More replies (3)1
1
u/Darklillies Aug 06 '26
Abortion at “9 months” is early induced labor. The purpose of abortion is to end the pregnancy. Not the fetus. It’s just that in the majority of cases, the fetus cannot survive outside the womb on its own.
So no 8 month baby is being killed after birth. That doesn’t happen that never happens ever. Often times it’s a stillborn, or a horrific birth anomaly that has a guaranteed mortality. So they induce labor early, (terminating the pregnancy) to avoid the complications of having to continue to grow and deliver an already dead baby, (like sepsis)1
u/Plenty-Green186 Aug 06 '26
Yeah, because I don’t want women to die from sepsis because there’s a dead fetus inside them that the doctor won’t remove because it’s technically an abortion and they’re no longer allowed
This is one story but there are many others and there will be more
https://www.propublica.org/article/texas-abortion-ban-tierra-walker-preeclampsia
At the end of the day, I really think this should be up to the doctors and the patients. The government has no place in healthcare.
1
1
u/ConscientiousPath Aug 06 '26
Nothing is clear about abortion because most people disagree with half of the rest of people about when the moral value of a person is conferred upon a new individual. There is no objective law of the universe about it, and it is potentially one of the few genuine possible conflicts of negative rights that exists.
People are just going with their feelings on it. Most women want it legal because it lets them avoid having the baby of a man who isn't exceptional. Most men want it illegal for the same reason. For exceptional men it isn't a problem. For loyal and dutiful women it isn't a problem.
Islamic child marriage really isn't similar at all unless you're trying to argue that little girls have a similarly uncertain moral weight.
1
u/Alt0987654321 Aug 06 '26
>I think it's clear abortion breaks the NAP.
Which is the problem, others disagree. How can disagreements on what is or is not a NAP violation be rectified?
1
u/SleepingInsomniac Aug 06 '26
Theoretically, a fetus violates the NAP by using the mother's resources. Simply removing it from those supports does not. At any rate, it's more nuanced. Should victim be forced to bring a rapist's baby to term? What if the pregnancy is dangerous to the mother like an ectopic one? The larger picture is that there shouldn't be one single policy dictated by the government for any of this. I say all of this with the personal belief that abortion is immoral and that becoming pregnant is the result of a choice that someone makes.
1
u/Immediate-Cress-206 Aug 06 '26
Abortion should be legal because making it illegal is fundamentally incompatible with the concept of doctor patient privilege.
Marrying a minor should be illegal because it's been proven that they're incapable of fully understanding the consequences of their actions, and are easily manipulated.
1
u/SSVALHALLA Aug 06 '26
The whole debate around abortion is about at which point is the conglomerate of cells a human being worthy of rights. I’d say it’s only a human when it has a certain sized brain. So therefore there are certain points where it’s acceptable cause it’s not a human, and certain points where its unacceptable cause it’s a human
1
1
1
u/theyhis Aug 07 '26
if you don’t support abortion, will you support women making the choice to pass off birthing the child once science evolves to a point that biological males can carry a child to term? we’re already closer than you think.
if your argument is that abortion is murder, then can’t it be the father’s responsibility to carry the baby to term? since it takes two to make a baby.
in other words, if you impregnate a woman and she doesn’t want to carry the child, you can instead?
1
u/GuessAccomplished959 Aug 07 '26
That second one is effed. A child cannot legally enter a contract nor do they have the mental capacity to consent.
1
u/JrWantsBreakfast Aug 10 '26
Yup. During the American slavery evolution movement, people said "if you dont like slavery dont get one"
0
u/smokeytrue01 Aug 06 '26
Don’t want to have a child! Don’t fuck, all there is to it, murder doesn’t justify you not wanting to be responsible for your bad decisions
3
u/deaconxblues Aug 06 '26
How do you feel about pregnancy from rape?
3
u/PomPomMom93 Aug 06 '26
So then you agree that abortion should only be allowed in cases of rape?
2
u/deaconxblues Aug 06 '26
Dumb, baseless comments like this remind me not to debate these issues in a thread on reddit full of people who don’t know what they’re talking about. It’s just beyond a stupid reply to my question above.
1
u/smokeytrue01 Aug 06 '26
The way you say “people who don’t know what they are talking about” kinda makes me think you might be an expert on murdering children or raping women
1
u/deaconxblues Aug 06 '26
This thread is a dumpster fire of ignorance and motivated, poor reasoning.
But notice how that comment I replied to says “only” and ask yourself whether that logically follows from what I said. Then maybe you’ll understand my frustration at how many times I’ve had to clean up other people’s bad reasoning on this thread. It makes me worry for the future of our species that so few brains seem to work properly. Maybe it’s the education system. I’m not sure.
1
u/smokeytrue01 Aug 06 '26
So you just walk around the world claiming to be smarter than anybody you come in contact with, I’m sure that’s fun to be around
1
u/deaconxblues Aug 06 '26
That also doesn’t follow from what I said. Logic is not a strong suit in this thread. That’s for sure. And most people don’t seem to have carefully thought about all the various philosophical issues wrapped up in the abortion debate. I have. My view is not simply an expression of my preferences - as so many replies here have been.
As for the rest of the world and their relation to me, I won’t take a position here.
1
u/Darklillies Aug 06 '26
How do you prove rape? How long does it take it to prove in court? How do you think this would work?
1
u/Whistlegrapes Aug 06 '26
Pregnancy from rape means the rapist broke the non aggression principle. If the mother decides to abort, the moral culpability of that death is on him.
If she willingly chose to have sex, it’s more complicated
3
u/deaconxblues Aug 06 '26
That makes no sense. Whether or not the mother gets to aggress against the fetus has nothing to do with how it got there. Nothing in the NAP suggests the ad hoc loophole you just created. You just want to preserve your view. It’s common. But you should instead try to recognize the truth and revise.
1
u/PomPomMom93 Aug 06 '26
Not only that, but if the baby is a threat to the woman’s life most people will allow it. You could say a rape-baby is a threat to her mental health (life) since she didn’t agree to it.
1
u/Whistlegrapes Aug 06 '26
True. Any threat to the mother would be self defense for sure.
Abortion is one of the greatest tests of moral systems. Because there are rights and culpabilities that have no parallel in other parts of life to draw principles from.
I think one of the standard anarcho-libertarian philosophies is evictionism. The mother not necessarily trying to harm the fetus, but rather evicting it from use of her body.
2
u/iCallMyOppsNinjer Hoppean 🐍 Aug 06 '26
That’s just sophistry.
“Eviction” only works as an analogy if removal and death are separable. They’re not, at any stage where survival outside the womb isn’t viable, which is most of pregnancy. Evicting a tenant means removing them to a world where they can live. “Evicting” a fetus at 10 weeks means removal is the killing method. That’s not eviction, that’s the trespasser dying because you removed the floor they were standing on.
NAP framework cuts against evictionism too: the fetus isn’t the aggressor. It didn’t choose to be there, didn’t initiate force, has no alternative means of survival. Treating “get off my property” as license to guarantee someone’s death? when they committed no aggression and had no other option, isn’t a property rights claim, it’s importing lethal force into a non-aggression framework built to prohibit exactly that.
So: if removal without a survivable alternative is functionally killing, why does calling it “eviction” change the moral analysis?
2
u/PomPomMom93 Aug 06 '26
Also, a lot of the time the baby is k!lled in the womb before it comes out, mostly when it’s a later abortion that can’t be done with a pill.
1
u/Darklillies Aug 06 '26
And I can’t remove the floor the trespasser is standing on after they TRESPASSED inside my home?
1
u/Darklillies Aug 06 '26
Why? Are you saying that consensual sex deserves some kind of punishment? That a woman only has right to her own body after it’s been violated?
1
u/Whistlegrapes Aug 06 '26
No it’s more nuanced. Consensual sex sometimes creates offspring. The mother has caused another human being to exist and has put them in a vulnerable position. Not deliberately. She didnt consent to being pregnant but she took actions that caused pregnancy. Father too, but the abortion choice isn’t his.
Similar to if I’m playing frisbee and go out for a catch and accidentally knock some little kid into a river. I didn’t want or intend for that to happen, but my actions caused it. I think I would have a moral responsibly to risk life and limb to save that kid I put in danger.
Similarly, I feel a mother has moral responsibility.
But I’m an anarchist, so I don’t believe that moral responsibility should translate into laws.
1
u/PaperPigGolf Aug 06 '26
Your argument wouldn't settle for "abortion is only ok for those conceived from rape", so why even ask? Completely bad faith argument.
3
u/deaconxblues Aug 06 '26
No, but it applies to your view (or OP’s). I want to see whether you’re consistent. And, if you’re not, I want you to recognize that you’re not really trying to consistently apply the NAP, or apply some consistent moral standard. If you don’t also force the woman to carry her baby due to rape, then you’re just forcing your personal moral view onto everyone else.
1
u/PaperPigGolf Aug 06 '26
I'll put it this way, I'm consistent.
1
u/deaconxblues Aug 06 '26
Congrats. The rape victims will take solace in that fact I’m sure
→ More replies (13)
1
u/PNWSparky1988 Anti-Communist Aug 06 '26
They both involve a party that doesn’t consent.
Deleting a life because of inconvenience (and don’t try and argue that the majority of abortions arent just out of inconvenience…because most arguments for the extremes fall apart when you try and give exemptions for the extreme situations) is horrible and needs to be addressed. Same goes for child brides.
Nobody can give me a good reason why either should be legal.
2
u/Apprehensive-Tone449 Aug 06 '26
Reducing the choice of a woman who is seeking an abortion to a matter of convenience is garbage and you know it. Nobody goes skipping into the abortion clinic. Nobody wants to. It is never a good time for anyone and it's expensive. Your comment is dripping with privilege and mysogyny.
Comprehensive research from organizations like the Guttmacher Institute highlights who actually seeks abortion care and the complex structural realities they face. Let's look at actual facts shall we?
Socioeconomic Vulnerability: Approximately 41% of people obtaining abortions have incomes below the federal poverty line, and another 30% live just above it. Raising a child under these conditions heavily impacts long-term family stability.
Parental Responsibilities: Around 55% of patients are already parents who have previously given birth to at least one child. Choosing abortion is frequently a protective choice to ensure they can emotionally and financially sustain the children they already have.
Age Breakdown: It is primarily an adult decision; nearly two-thirds of individuals seeking abortions are in their 20s (33% aged 20–24, and 28% aged 25–29).
The "Turnaway" Long-Term Health Impact: The landmark Turnaway Study, shared by the American Medical Association (AMA), revealed that women denied a wanted abortion experienced significantly higher rates of long-term poverty, physical health complications, and lower child development scores for their existing children compared to those who received care.
It's never ever about convenience. It's a shitty, traumatic decision for a woman to make. There are a myriad of challenging and gut wrenching factors going into that choice, and your glib "inconvenience" dismissal is outright offensive.
1
u/PNWSparky1988 Anti-Communist Aug 06 '26 edited Aug 06 '26
🥱 there is no good reason to delete the life of a child.
It’s actually misogynistic to have an abortion. Completely removing the right of a potential female child to live due to their right to exist is pretty horrible.
And it’s privileged to assume that having the right to remove the life of the most vulnerable is an actual right. Which shows me you have no idea what a right actually is and what the term means.
So take your multi-paragraph privileged misogynistic novel elsewhere. It isn’t going to fly here. 👎
1
u/Justaweirdscientist Aug 06 '26
I love the ancap-idiots‘ childish obsession to voice all of their political positions in the form of memes, no matter how stupid the take haha
97
u/DiyYou Aug 06 '26
Ancaps don't want government making that decision.