@nerdman @dsfgs @kick @mewmew @realcaseyrollins @shampoobottle would be interesting if a man could force a woman to have an abortion
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
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
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.
I can see right through your 7 VPNs. Stop doing the roman salute!
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.
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.
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.
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.
I hate poverty and want it gone. The most effective way of having this happen at this point is lowering the birth rate of poor people. This is my reasoning for this part of my calculation.
As to money being more important than human lves, well, I'll believe that when first world taxes are used overwhelmingly to help third world people.
Note: I don't want this to happen, every country hould deal on it's own, it's just that the "life > money" is EVIDENTLY false, as gross as it is to realize this.
I'm not saying to kill them. Just discourage their reproduction.
I agree. I've proposed giving sterilizations to those needing welfare but it's been met with harsh opposition let's say.
