@a7 @dsfgs @kick @mewmew @realcaseyrollins @shampoobottle

I don't think anyone should be forced to do something they don't want. The woman shouldn't be forced to carry the baby, the man shouldn't be forced to pay for a baby he doesn't want.

@nerdman @dsfgs @kick @mewmew @realcaseyrollins @shampoobottle the man will still be forced to experience the psychological effects of him having an existing off spring though, i dont think its fair nerdman

@a7 @dsfgs @kick @mewmew @realcaseyrollins @shampoobottle

Life cannot be made fair for everyone, but I think we can go to reasonable limits to have some modicum of fairness. Her body her choice. His body his choice.

@nerdman @dsfgs @kick @mewmew @realcaseyrollins @shampoobottle but what about the choice of the body inside them :^) heres a 22 week baby that was born and survived https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/13/miracle-baby-born-just-22-weeks-weighed-1lb-4oz/

the abortion limit is 22 weeks in most places .. i dunno if this is all fair

@a7 @dsfgs @kick @mewmew @realcaseyrollins @shampoobottle

How do I know that IRL you're not Hitler reborn and wanting to murder some culture, hmm? Maybe someone will come back in time and kill you because of your future misdeeds.

@nerdman
It's hard to argue abortion is bad to people who won't admit a fetus is a human with its own body, heartbeat, organs etc. 💁🏾‍♂️
@dsfgs @kick @mewmew @shampoobottle @a7

@realcaseyrollins @dsfgs @kick @mewmew @shampoobottle @a7

It's hard but I have a more libertarian mind. If woman wants to get the babby outside of her body and it dies because it's lungs aren't developed, it's the baby's fault.

This makes me sound like a piece of shit but it's the logical conclusion I reach. My main point of contention is that if the woman cannot be forced to carry the baby to term, or even keep the baby because they can abandon them scott free, I don't see why the men have to pay for the shitshow if they don't want to.

@nerdman @dsfgs @kick @mewmew @shampoobottle @a7

This example you give is interesting. You're not a POS, but it'd be interesting to know some specifics; was the baby unable to breathe because it was yanked out early? Or some sort of birth defect? Did the mother do anything to harm the child? These are factors to consider.

What if the woman refuses to feed the baby? Is that the baby's fault, too?

Even libertarianism should have some limits. Parents shouldn't be allowed to behead their children in the woods.

@realcaseyrollins @dsfgs @kick @mewmew @shampoobottle @a7

I'm specifically talking about the baby getting aborted. If the woman wants to get the baby removed from her body before the baby can survive on it's own it is not murder, it's just the baby not being fully developed.

The thought of doing it is disgusting to me and I've talked to it about a feminist that said she would never under any circumstances do it, just she wants women to have that choice. This sounds logical to me.

As to feeding the baby, women (and only women as far as I can tell) can drop off babies anonimousy at fire stations, at least in USA and Canada. I hear they have special little cribs for that shit. So, if a woman wants to abandon a babe she can already do that, no harm no fowl. Given she has that option, or the option to give it up for adoption normally, by not feeding it she's murdering it, IMO.

As to libertarianism, I agree. Everything has it's limits. That is why you have libertarians or minarchists as a separate category from anarcho capitalists.

@nerdman
Firstly, that's not really what abortion is about. It's mostly about crushing skulls, sucking brains, and plucking limbs.

Secondly, it's not the existence of other options that makes starving a baby morally wrong.
@dsfgs @kick @mewmew @shampoobottle @a7

@realcaseyrollins @dsfgs @kick @mewmew @shampoobottle @a7

I know the practical way abortions are carried out are as you describe, but the principle is they do it that way because it's easier than taking it out and just watching it die.

And I'm not saying it's not morally wrong, it's just that there's two conflicting moral wrongs. One of the baby being denied it's right to life, one of the mother being forced to be the incubator for the baby. Given the conflict and given that only one person can make a choice I side with letting the person make that choice. It's an abhorrent choice for me but I think that taking it away is wrong.

My calculus on dilemma this is super iffy and I might swing the other way at some point but it stands as stated.

@nerdman
Interesting. You think a woman having to carry a term is immoral? It's more of a great inconvenience, certainly not worth killing over.
@dsfgs @kick @mewmew @shampoobottle @a7

@realcaseyrollins @dsfgs @kick @mewmew @shampoobottle @a7

This is not what women tell me and since I can't experience that I'll trust them on this.

There's also the practical benefit. One aborted baby, one baby we won't have to pay taxes potentially to feed, educate and eventually incarcerate. Fiscally it makes sense, specially for poor mothers. And morally kind of too. If you're a poor mother you're going to have a poor kid, and the life of a poor person is hard.
Follow

@nerdman
I don't think money is more important than human lives tho. And I disagree that it's better to be dead than have a hard life or be poor.
@dsfgs @kick @mewmew @shampoobottle @a7

@realcaseyrollins @nerdman @dsfgs @kick @mewmew @shampoobottle @a7 Individual liberty is more important than human lives, especially if the revocation of liberty costs you your own in exchange for a child's.

@anornymorse
does banning baby killing really restrict freedom? Freedoms should only be allowed insofar as they don't infringe on others' rights and/or harm them.
@dsfgs @kick @mewmew @shampoobottle @nerdman @a7

@realcaseyrollins @dsfgs @kick @mewmew @shampoobottle @nerdman @a7 Sometimes, having the baby restricts liberty. Like having one in Canada. You're fucked if you do.

@anornymorse
If it comes to some woman feeling uncomfortable or some baby's existence...imma have to say no to murder. Sorry. 💁🏾‍♂️
@dsfgs @kick @mewmew @shampoobottle @nerdman @a7

@realcaseyrollins @dsfgs @kick @mewmew @shampoobottle @nerdman @a7 Now I'm gonna legit pray it happens to you. You should know what it's like to have to kill a baby because the mom is planning on ruining the next 20 years of your life.
@anornymorse @realcaseyrollins @a7 @dsfgs @kick @mewmew @shampoobottle

Most of the time it's not the mom wanting to ruin your life. It's more about her not giving a damn about it, as compared to the baby.

See? Everyone has the same rights, it's just some people's are put before others.

@nerdman
You guys aren't doing a good enough job at convincing me that "I want to" is a good enough reason to kill a baby
@dsfgs @kick @mewmew @shampoobottle @a7 @anornymorse

@realcaseyrollins @nerdman @dsfgs @kick @mewmew @shampoobottle @a7 Your reductio ad absurdum notwithstanding, You're doing a terrible job of defending why the state has a right to impede on your individual liberties in order to enforce their claim to guardianship over a baby they aren't a party to.
@realcaseyrollins @dsfgs @kick @mewmew @shampoobottle @nerdman @a7 Thankfully, your opinion, plus $1.83, will get me a small coffee at Starbuck's.

Individual property rights are paramount, and no situation you bring up will weaken them.
@anornymorse @realcaseyrollins @a7 @dsfgs @kick @mewmew @shampoobottle

Yeah, respecting property rights is pretty much respecting the right to life. Because if you can't own your food, you can be denied it.
@realcaseyrollins @dsfgs @kick @mewmew @shampoobottle @nerdman @a7 Enforcement of human rights requires states to claim ownership of the people prior to being able to enforce them. This is why the United States has always been so hesitant to put a legal backing behind the UDHR, despite being a signatory to it, because it requires us to sacrifice liberty to fully-implement.
Show newer
Show newer
@realcaseyrollins @dsfgs @kick @mewmew @shampoobottle @a7 @anornymorse

I don't think I can convince you. I'm giving you the reasons I am convinced otherwise of your perspective. I like doing this because in formulating my arguments I might see the flaws and make better choices later. So far you don't convince me to change position either, but I thank the input.
@nerdman @realcaseyrollins @a7 @anornymorse @dsfgs @mewmew @shampoobottle My notifications has about sixty messages in it and they seem to all be from this thread. Sad!
@anornymorse @a7 @dsfgs @kick @mewmew @realcaseyrollins @shampoobottle

Eh. I don't really hate anyone. Politicians maybe. Used to hate bankers. Nowadays I just find ways not to pay taxes and keep money out of the bank computers. That's how I fitght these people.
@nerdman @a7 @dsfgs @kick @mewmew @realcaseyrollins @shampoobottle Hate people that think they own you, and rebut their presumption while you destroy them.
Show newer
@realcaseyrollins @dsfgs @kick @mewmew @shampoobottle @nerdman @a7 Perhaps, but who is going to be able to enforce that baby's claim to life without infringing upon the rights on their parent, and therefore claiming the parent as property of the state, in order to do so?
@realcaseyrollins @anornymorse @dsfgs @kick @mewmew @shampoobottle @a7

Equally as important. But since the woman can talk and the baby can't we go with the woman.
@realcaseyrollins @nerdman @dsfgs @kick @mewmew @shampoobottle @a7 It's way bigger than that: Those that can't assert or enforce their own rights are at the mercy (or lack thereof) of those that can.
@realcaseyrollins @anornymorse @dsfgs @kick @mewmew @shampoobottle @a7

They deserve to live but they're not preferred to do so. Who gets better healthcare? Those who can pay for the best doctors or those who can't?
@realcaseyrollins @dsfgs @kick @mewmew @shampoobottle @nerdman @a7 It goes way deeper than that: The weak are unable to enforce their claim to life, because nobody does it for them. It isn't about deserving. It's about capability.
@realcaseyrollins @dsfgs @kick @mewmew @shampoobottle @nerdman @a7 You're the only one arguing the "deserves to live" angle, son. I'm talking about the state's ability to enforce a contract they're not a party of, which makes abortion possible, convenient, and lawful.

In order for a state to ban abortion, they have to claim ownership of their citizens. That's incompatible with a republican form of governance.
@realcaseyrollins @dsfgs @kick @mewmew @shampoobottle @nerdman @a7 because you're treating people like owned livestock, in order to even be able to enforce the rights of the baby. A free person would be able to tell the state "fuck right off", and the state wouldn't intervene.

If you knew the truth of how the State views people, you'd be sick to your stomach.

@anornymorse
I actually think the government has an obligation to intervene to prevent a murder. I'm not sure how preventing murder is equivalent to treating people like livestock.
@dsfgs @kick @mewmew @shampoobottle @nerdman @a7

@realcaseyrollins @dsfgs @kick @mewmew @shampoobottle @nerdman @a7 You would be wrong about that. Government has no obligation to prevent a murder, and the only way to do so would be for the State to claim ownership of the people in order to enforce such a claim. You're literally advocating state slavery in order to stop killing babies. Literally sacrificing a liberty for a nanny state protection of safety.
@realcaseyrollins @dsfgs @kick @mewmew @shampoobottle @nerdman @a7 Any government, seeing as they still adhere to private property rights as codified by UNIDROIT Principles of Private International Contracts. A state can't enforce laws on someone it doesn't previously state a claim on.
Show newer
@realcaseyrollins @dsfgs @kick @mewmew @shampoobottle @a7 @anornymorse

Priority is given to the one that can give most value with the most certainty. I'd save Isaac Newton from death sooner than I'd save a bum, all other things being equal.
@realcaseyrollins @dsfgs @kick @mewmew @shampoobottle @a7 @anornymorse

Me too if possible. I'd start with the guy that gave us calculus, mechanics, the law of thermodynamics, first.
Sign in to participate in the conversation
Game Liberty Mastodon

Mainly gaming/nerd instance for people who value free speech. Everyone is welcome.