/liberty/ - Liberty

>>82536

I think killing a fetus is just as bad as killing an animal, and they're both ok. Also, what's the argument for anti-abortion? Think about it, it's an unconscious being. Wanna call it human? Sure, it's also an unconscious human that can't even feel pain, despair, etc.

>>82543

>Sure, it's also an unconscious human that can't even feel pain, despair, etc.

So are people in comas, would you be okay smothering them in their sleep?

>>82548

Actually made me think for a second. They already have an established life and friends that will be emotionally harmed by the death of them. If they are in a permanent coma I see no harm, but a fetus has no friend or anyone that would care if it died.

>>82548

How about you just stop feeding them. No NAP violation there.

>>82549

>If they are in a permanent coma I see no harm

I see where you're coming from, but even "permanent" comas aren't set in stone. If they had a will that instructed the plug to be pulled if they were ever on long-term/"permanent" life-support then sure, you're in the clear.

>a fetus has no friend or anyone that would care if it died.

So only socially active people have a right to life? All my friends and family just died in a plane crash, I was the only survivor, and now I'm in a coma. Why would my right to life be forfeit in that scenario, but not forfeit if one other person just happened to survive as well?

>How about you just stop feeding them. No NAP violation there.

I'd say this makes sense for the most part, with a few caveats. If the insurance is all paid up, or there's a family member/friend that's willing to cover the bills, then obviously you shouldn't pull the plug. However, I would argue that if the coma patient's will explicitly stated that the plug not be pulled, the hospital has an obligation to keep him alive, and charge the expense to his account for him to pay when/if he wakes up.

To relate this all to abortion, I'd say it depends on whether or not you consider the act of copulation to be an implied contract to take care of whatever offspring transpires from that act. If it is an implied contract the parents have an obligation to either care for the child or transfer care of the child to those who are willing to do it. If it isn't an implied contract, then either abortion or evictionism, depending on your interpretation, is justified.

I'm not even sure if fetuses are people. Certainly, before they have brain tissue I see no problem killing them. Up until that point there's no possible way that someone is inside that body. It's just an empty shell waiting to be filled. After that, I dont fucking know. I dont know when sentience starts, if it's at one brain cell or ten million. Hell, I cant even be sure of when I was sentient until my earliest memory which was like, four. What if people dont even become people until they're four?

Humanity begins at conception, so it is human. Unless your child is endangering your life, you can't really justify killing a human.

>>82549

>babies have no one who will be emotionally harmed if they are chopped into pieces

This is your brain on socialism.

>>82558

The problem is that women generally discover they are pregnant after the fetus develops neural tissue and even detectable brainwaves.

To be a libertarian against abortion, you must also be against the slaughter of animals above a certain level of consciousness unless in defense.

I like eating cows and pigs, which are more intelligent than human children of 2 years of age or less. I can't justify extending the NAP to those animals. Therefore, humans under 2 years of age are equivalent to livestock and are property.

Will all you abortion faggots rightfully fuck off? Fuck the female vote, abortion is fucking murder.

>>82661

For a sec I though you where implying the niggers where going to replace the whites, good job autist.

How would the city in your pic work? How would it fend the giantic ocean monsters that try to eat it?

The Haitian entrepreneurs could become citizens of Rothbardia but only if they pay their yearly rent (adjusted for annual income) to Liberty Corp and serve in the (privatized) Armed Forces for a minimum of 5 years.

Rothbardia would enter into a series of voluntary contracts with ocean monsters by paying a fee for any potential negative externalities in accordance with the Coase Theorem. All excess production of stem cells and McFoetusburgers would be provided at low-cost to ocean monsters to create a disincentive for eating Rothbardia.

>>82661

>economy

>depends

>on

>nigger

>women

>(((Rothbard)))

Every time.

>>82549

But if you think that because someone would be emotionally harmed by your death, you have a right to live, this is giving them ownership of you. As no one can have ownership of another, this is not a reason to forbid killing.

>>82536

What if one thinks that the child has the same rights, but the mother is not obliged to keep them living, or so? Just as a scenario.

>>82536

Delete duplicate/off topic threads.

>>82788

Ban neo-confederate amerimutts who don't recognize the rights of Haitian entrepreneurs

Honestly, i think you'd be doing them a favor… with the state the world is in today, i fucking WISH i was aborted.

>>82708

Surely euthanasia would not violate the NAP, right?

>>82599

>To be a libertarian against abortion, you must also be against the slaughter of animals above a certain level of consciousness unless in defense.

Not necessarily. One of the arguments made is regarding potential for self-actualization. A human fetus has the potential to grow and develop until it develops self-ownership and self-actualizes itself. Pigs have no such potential and will never develop further.

>>82896

The NAP has nothing to do with what a person wants. A person's protection is his own responsibility. What is supposedly on the behalf of a person (or "person") who does not give consent is really for the helper's own interest, often described as to the interest of society or the realization of an idea. What is important is not to determine who hurts society or ideas in order to hurt them, but to know who is willing to attack, ideals or not, to protect against them.