Libertarianism is inherently pro-choice

[pErvinalia]

I suspect Drewish has become mentally ill since he was last posting here. Or taken to trolling in a big way.

As a mentally ill person, I have some insight. I suspect there's a number of really fucked up people who frequent this site. It kind of saddens me that this is the place on the internet where I find home. There's a bunch of good people here, but there's also some really fucking detestable human beings who would be better off jumping off a bridge than continuing to blight the planet with their existence.

[Forty Two]

I would have thought that it's fairly uncontroversial to say that libertarianism is inherently pro-choice. Are American libertarians largely Christian or something?

Americans, like Europeans ,are largely Christian. American libertarians are overwhelmingly pro choice. There are, however, some that argue otherwise, however, generally basing it on the personhood of the unborn having individual rights. Christians who are strong in their religious adherence tend not to be libertarians.

[Forty Two]

The matter can be framed in terms of the following question.

Do women have dominion over their own bodies, and if not to when and to what extent do others (whoever they may be) have dominion over a women's bodies?

A better framing is "do people have dominion over their own bodies, and if not, to when and to what extent do others (whoever they may be) have dominion over people's bodies?" And, what exactly does it mean to have dominion over one's own body?

Using the argument that has been advanced by some on other threads - the concept of individual rights, such as freedom of speech or a right to have dominion over one's own body, is meaningless, and relies on some fake or invented theory of natural rights. Under that argument, the dominion over our bodies is nothing different than other regulations, such as safety laws concerning drugs and medical devices, or automobiles, etc. We have a democratic society which makes laws based on what the majority wants, with elected representatives doing the lawmaking subject to elections and such.

So, under that theory - typically advanced by our continental European members and one or two Ozzies - the answer to the question would be "people have dominion over their own bodies to the extent allowed by the democratic process, and the State through its laws and the democratic process decides what dominion the individual and the society/state have over individuals' bodies." Where the state says you can't ingest a substance based on democratic processes, then you lose that dominion over your own body. Where the state says you can't get an abortion, then you lose that dominion, too.

A libertarian will generally see the state and the government's role as limited and subject to the will of the people in its initial creation, and there will be areas into which such authorities may not stray. There are a number of philosophical theories underpinning this point of view, but the would all include something akin to a property ownership over one's own body and thus a limitation on the state dominion over individuals' bodies being to protect that property interest. Same thing with another area, like free speech, where most libertarian theories involve some iteration of the fact that we own what's in our heads and our thoughts, thus having no permissible restriction on our freedom of thought. And, we own our words as we speak them, with each individual having the same right to express whatever is in their own head. The limitation put on that is some iteration of actual harm to other people (such as injurious falsehoods, defamation, nuisance, and the like).

Where someone does not acknowledge or have some basis for individual rights, I'm not sure where one gets the idea that a person has "dominion" over their own body any more than they have dominion over anything else.

[Brian Peacock]

I would ask that my positions and arguments each be judged on their own merit, but I've come to accept that most people need simplified labels to order their lives around. I see libertarianism as an ideal, unattainable until a bit of social Darwinism culls the heard. And the riff Raff will clearly engage in whatever methods they need to to ensure they become the ones determining the culling. Thank goodness for Eastern Asia, which is having none of this self defeating guilt. Here's hoping we can hold it together long enough for genetic engineering to enable those who plan their families and work for a living to distinguish themselves at a new racial level from those who breed for a living. Then maybe they'll have the balls to do what needs to be done.

I notice you didn't address my question about what constitutes a 'meaningful contribution' to society and how we might decide who of us is to be defined in or out of that category, and on what terms.

[Forty Two]

Infanticide shouldn't be any different.

As in killing your kids should be okay, or abortion should be illegal like killing your own kid?

I see little if any difference between abortion and infanticide. Infanticide is probably preferable due to the medical research advantage.
And I mean infant. Once you hit around 18 months it starts to become a bit of a grey area. But it should not feel pain during the procedure.

I see little difference between SOME abortion and infanticide. There is little difference between a 9th month fetus and a 10th month fetus outside the uterus. There is no real difference between the two, except the slow, gradual development. I baby being held by mommy in the recovery room is not much different than the fetus in her uterus the night before.

However, that's not an argument against all abortion; however, because early on in the pregnancy there is a significant difference between the embryo and the ultimate baby 9 months later, and there are competing interests of the mother which have value and must be accounted for. It's not some issue where women's interests are subservient always to the interests of the unborn.

[Forty Two]

Infanticide is, or at least has been, a lot more common than most people realise. In the past there has been noticeably less opprobrium associated with it too than in first world countries today.

Indeed, the killing of children was once, in many places, thought to be rightly the jurisdiction of parents, especially the father. And, in the past, there was noticeably less opprobrium associated with the killing of adults, particularly for religious purposes, for vengeance, for punishment, or for celebration of military victories, etc.

[Drewish]

I would ask that my positions and arguments each be judged on their own merit, but I've come to accept that most people need simplified labels to order their lives around. I see libertarianism as an ideal, unattainable until a bit of social Darwinism culls the heard. And the riff Raff will clearly engage in whatever methods they need to to ensure they become the ones determining the culling. Thank goodness for Eastern Asia, which is having none of this self defeating guilt. Here's hoping we can hold it together long enough for genetic engineering to enable those who plan their families and work for a living to distinguish themselves at a new racial level from those who breed for a living. Then maybe they'll have the balls to do what needs to be done.

I notice you didn't address my question about what constitutes a 'meaningful contribution' to society and how we might decide who of us is to be defined in or out of that category, and on what terms.

Doing a job that almost anyone could do, while there are unemployed people out there, and having required extraordinary assistance to get there? Yeah, not meaningful. If we leave it up to parents and allow them to say, "this one's a lemon, let's try again," I'm okay with that. If we as a society choose to invest only in children that might actually produce more than they consume, that's another path. I mean the notion of "useless eaters" isn't something particular to the Nazis (it was also adopted by ancient Sparta, The Soviet Union, and various military city states throughout history). If you take out the pseudo-scientific racist part, the "Life unworthy of life" arguments put forth in Nazi Germany go into great detail regarding this.

[Forty Two]

When I meet a supposed libertarian who is pro-life I can never get a good argument from them. They always seem to go back to a "life begins at conception" argument, as if the means by which a complete ban on abortion would occur are unimportant. How would one enforce banning chemical abortions (like the morning after pill)? There's no evidence that somebody went missing. Miscarriages happen all the time. Trying to keep a pill illegal? Yeah see how the drug war has worked out so well. Without going full police state, there's no way to stop chemical abortions. Talk of late term abortions and viability aside, libertarianism is completely incompatible with a ban on chemical abortions.

There I've put my cards on the table. I know there are some people who self identify as right wing or libertarian around here. Lefties can go fuck themselves, I don't care about their "Anyone opposed to abortion hates women!" bullshit. I want to hear from intelligent people who might disagree with me. So conservatives, libertarians, etc... who and why are you pro-life on this issue?

Murdering a human being at any stage of their development is sick and evil.

Indeed, however, it must be recognized that not all killing of human beings is murder, and that in many ways the killing of adult human beings is not murder.

With abortion, you have two human beings involved - the unborn and the mother. So, are all killings of the unborn "murder?" Look at it like this - imagine a railroad track, and you have a train headed down the track, and there is a human being tied to the tracks and the train will run her over. You can switch the track, however, and send the train down a different track, and it will kill a different human being. You could save one or the other. If you do nothing, you let the one die. If you pull the switch, the other dies. Some abortions are like that, where there is a recognized medical necessity to save the life of the mother. Would abortion in that context be "murder?"

Then there is, say, the morning after pill which doesn't strictly "abort" but rather prevents implantation of the fertilized and developing blastocyst or embryo -- it's known that 1 in 3 or so, give or take, of fertilized eggs do not implant and women often do not even know they were ever pregnant. Is that murder?

There are many cases like that.

This is why I can't hold an absolute position on this. Early on, there isn't a person yet. And even after there is a more baby-like entity in there, there are good reasons from a medical standpoint to act one way or another.

So, I cannot hold to the "abortion anytime for any or no reason, up through labor" position that some extreme views involve, and I cannot hold to "no abortion anytime for any reason, once the load has been shot..." view of some extreme anti-choicers. There is no practical way around a middle ground, in my view.

Incidentally, I find that the middle ground is where most people are, even when they say they are pro life or prochoice. A lot of self-identified prochoicers are not UNLIMITED choicers. A lot of our brit members, for example, say they are pro-choice, and that it's not a big issue in the UK - but they don't argue against the limitations imposed by UK law on abortions because by "pro-choice" they mean reasonable access to abortion where it makes sense, and they assume that pro-choice does not mean ripping apart 9th month or 8th month fetuses (you can tell they assume this is not meant, because they argue that abortions rarely if ever occur at that stage, so it's a non-issue). And, a lot of pro-lifers -- my wife is included in this bit - heavily pro-life due to their extreme fondness for babies and visceral, emotional reaction to harm coming to them, but they will say, if someone talks about a fetus diagnosed with massive birth defects and to be born brain dead, or something like that, that "of course, abortion is necessary in that situation." But, she and others still call themselves "pro-life" but there are plenty of situations when they would support an abortion that is "necessary."

[NineBerry]

Considering how much harm and loss of value fascists have caused in the last century, I guess, "off with them to the extermination facilities" would be a good idea, no? It's certainly going to cause a lot of benefit for society.

[pErvinalia]

I would ask that my positions and arguments each be judged on their own merit, but I've come to accept that most people need simplified labels to order their lives around. I see libertarianism as an ideal, unattainable until a bit of social Darwinism culls the heard. And the riff Raff will clearly engage in whatever methods they need to to ensure they become the ones determining the culling. Thank goodness for Eastern Asia, which is having none of this self defeating guilt. Here's hoping we can hold it together long enough for genetic engineering to enable those who plan their families and work for a living to distinguish themselves at a new racial level from those who breed for a living. Then maybe they'll have the balls to do what needs to be done.

I notice you didn't address my question about what constitutes a 'meaningful contribution' to society and how we might decide who of us is to be defined in or out of that category, and on what terms.

Doing a job that almost anyone could do, while there are unemployed people out there, and having required extraordinary assistance to get there? Yeah, not meaningful. If we leave it up to parents and allow them to say, "this one's a lemon, let's try again," I'm okay with that. If we as a society choose to invest only in children that might actually produce more than they consume, that's another path. I mean the notion of "useless eaters" isn't something particular to the Nazis (it was also adopted by ancient Sparta, The Soviet Union, and various military city states throughout history). If you take out the pseudo-scientific racist part, the "Life unworthy of life" arguments put forth in Nazi Germany go into great detail regarding this.

Your assessment on what is a 'meaningful contribution' is arbitrary and holds no more weight than my assessment that libertarians and conservatives don't contribute in a meaningful way. And then you double down the stupid by throwing another arbitrary value judgement on top - that 'not meaningfully contributing' marks someone as worthy of death. It's hard to know what to say in response to something so utterly psychopathic.

[Forty Two]

So? Is a zygote a human being?

A zygote is human, but it's not a human being. A zygote is the cell that's created by the union of two gametes, before it splits. So, it's a single cell formed by a sperm and egg, it's in the fallopian tube floating around, and has a reasonable likelihood of never implanting in the first place.

[Forty Two]

Get fucked you inhuman scum, a zygote grows into a human being just like you and me. Terminating it at their most vulnerable and voiceless is the most callous of inhuman action to man.

The moral judgment aside, implicit in your answer is that a zygote is not a human being. Murder is the killing of human being, not the killing of something that probably will grow into a human being in the future.

[pErvinalia]

Where someone does not acknowledge or have some basis for individual rights, I'm not sure where one gets the idea that a person has "dominion" over their own body any more than they have dominion over anything else.

This is yet another false dichotomy. You either believe in individual rights to the same degree that I do, or you are an authoritarian socialist. Ridiculous.

[Forty Two]

Yep. Personally, I deem conservatives and right libertarians as being unable to meaningfully contribute to society. Libertarians by their very definition, particularly. When do we get to murder them?

Congrats. You can figure out the rest of that css problem on your own. I don't need the kindness of strangers, and the ones who try to shun people for fighting against being forced to care for strangers are a waste of space. This is why I was hoping to get responses from right wingers here; why waste time discussing things with the mentally inferior?

I would say that no individual has an obligation to contribute to society at all. If individual rights mean anything, it includes the right to, as the hippies used to say, "drop out." Since when does one conception of "contributing to society" control, anyway? That's one of those "be careful what you wish for" things - it all depends on whose in control at that point. I would hate for certain groups holding sway at American universities these days to be in control of what it means to "meaningfully contribute to society..." They don't include in that term things like going to work, taking care of one's family, and such. Those things are white, patriarchal, capitalist norms to fight against.

[Forty Two]

To be sure, but are they contributing to society in a meaningful way? Aye, there's the rub.

The irony of a Liber-(there's no such thing as society)-tarian talking about contributing to society is not lost on me.

I am not a libertarian. I am a fascist.

To many on the left, that's the same thing.