/liberty/ - Liberty

>>91867

>Philosopher Murray Rothbard[5] wrote that "no being has a right to live, unbidden, as a parasite within or upon some person's body" and that therefore the woman is entitled to eject the fetus from her body at any time.[6]

I don't know, I'd say considering that the woman voluntarily decided to invite a man inside her to the point of conception, that would be like inviting someone into your house and then killing them while they sleep because you've decided you don't want them in your house anymore. Of course this logic doesn't apply in the case of a rape, but that's quite the outlier.

>this shit thread again

>>91877

Inviting someone onto property does not mean they are allowed to stay there for their living, eat your food or physically harm you, even if we considered consensual sex as an agreement between anyone besides two(or more) partners and accepted the implication that fetus is a legal actor.

>>91877

>removing an alien body from your own that is struggling with its all might to devour you from the inside out is like killing someone in their sleep

Are you a bit of a retard, anon?

>>91896

Everyone should be responsible for their own actions. If you make bad decisions in business, it's no one's fault but yours that you're broke. If you jump into a cage of lions, it's no one's fault but yours that you got eaten alive. If you have unprotected sex, it's no one's fault but yours that you got impregnated with a "parasite".

I support abortion myself, but you redditors really need to fuck off with your commie rhetoric.

>>91906

Jesus, real life is not some Alien movie.

>>91906

>struggling with its all might to devour you from the inside out

Negro what? The child doesn't even have a *will*; it *wills* nothing. It is completely innocent of any wrong-doing.

>>91915

If it does not have a will then it's not "innocent" or "wrong" or anything, just like you do not judge a tree fallen on your house or a fire started in it. You remove it in the most convenient way possible.

>>91914

Learn reading comprehension, faggot. Throwing some unsaid implications after a contract is not fucking "responsibility", it's a fraud and a lie. You cannot kill someone who you invited in your house unless he does not go away after the call but feel free to throw out the fucker who decided he can now live in your house because you allowed him to step in it to give you a parcel. All you have to do is to provide a way out and state that he's not welcome and remove him only if he's actively resisting eviction. Details may vary but this is the most convenient version of NAP for bystanders' presence on property.

The Fetus is not a child, get over it.

>>91914

Have you read the article? According to current science knowledge, real life is indeed an Alien movie.

>>91875

He's almost right on that one. The baby, however, can not be considered a trespasser given that the woman's actions have led to it being there. If I put you on a boat (without your consent) and then decide to dump you in the middle of the sea because I no longer want you around, you're not committing any act of aggression.

Given those circumstances, the woman is liable to either give birth to the baby and then abandon it, or find another willing womb to house it.

Murray is also incorrect on the right to life. If only sane, conscious adults (which is more or less a subjective status) have agency over their lives, it also means you lose your rights as soon as you go to sleep, or fall ill. No rights when unconscious during surgery either.

>>91919

>If it does not have a will then it's not "innocent" or "wrong" or anything, just like you do not judge a tree fallen on your house or a fire started in it.

You don't need to have willed your innocence to be innocent. I don't see what your point is.

> You remove it in the most convenient way possible.

Since unborn children and trees both lack wills, they must both be morally equivalent? Is that your conclusion?

An unborn child is a human; its past and potential future are fundamentally different to a trees; judging everything in the moment would create absurd conclusion.

>>91922

Humanity is neither lost nor gained by living outside a womb

>>91931

You can remove a him by either providing means to get out or by forcefully taking him out yourself without applying violence, i.e. if you invite someone in your home you can point to the door or take him there yourself so that he doesn't "wonder" around for a while. If he resists your way of eviction to the similar place he came from he's committing aggression. Fetus cannot remove itself, therefore offering it to remove itself is pointless so you can remove it forcefully, especially since it's existence is inherently dangerous to your health. Do you take responsibility to take a beating from your guests when you offer them to go in your house as well? Your moralfag position is stupid even from it's own standpoint, and it has no place in reality even it a moral position could ever be consistent without discarding reality completely.

> If only sane, conscious adults (which is more or less a subjective status) have agency over their lives

It's not about some rights, we've already discussed it in previous thread. It's about contracts. You can get your ass handed to you by anyone who has a gun if you try to say this stupid shit in ancap unless you're protected by contract. A pile of shit can be more valuable and harder protected than your whole family because contract says so, and there's nothing you can do about it. How can one be so fucking stupid to return to morality to discuss such shit when you have an entire ideology based on objective view of actions, practices and decisions and not morals, dreams and intentions?

>>91942

>You don't need to have willed your innocence to be innocent.

You have to be an actor to be judged and not just described. A fetus is an object and so it's pointless to try to find "guilt" or "innocence" in it.

>An unborn child is a human; its past and potential future are fundamentally different to a trees; judging everything in the moment would create absurd conclusion.

An unborn fetus is not human in any sense other than biological organism, it's past is irrelevant because it's parent's decisions are not about him and he's an accident and it's future's irrelevant because it's in question if it's got to have one and you can only speculate on it.

>judging everything in the moment would create absurd conclusion.

Scared moralistic whining. If you are capable of providing argument, then do it, faggot. if something is ought to be upheld it can be set in a contract so it's viable at any moment, while things that were not but are important do leave their remains in reality and if they don't - they didn't involve enough objects to be important objectively.

>>91921

What kind of bullshit example is that? You're implying that people don't know what they're getting into when they have unprotected sex. With your logic, people who jump off a plane without a parachute aren't responsible for their own actions, because apparently they didn't know that gravity would pull them down and smash them against the ground.

>>91961

>Fetus cannot remove itself, therefore offering it to remove itself is pointless so you can remove it forcefully, especially since it's existence is inherently dangerous to your health.

It was your actions that placed it there to begin with and your actions come to harm it. It's not some guest that goes wild all of a sudden on you without you expecting it. Morality has nothing to do with it. You've brought the danger of housing it on both of you, but you're the only conscious actor that carries the responsibility of both your well-being.

>>91995

>It's not some guest that goes wild all of a sudden on you without you expecting it.

Only in your retarded implications. Even if it had any rights to ask, claim or require anything from you having consensual sex does not count as giving consent to this shit, just like asking someone start a fire in a hearth does not remove his responsibility from burning your house down.

>Morality has nothing to do with it.

It has everything to do with it, you retarded mongoloid. Without moralistic screeching there's no victim because the child is not a legal actor and so any claims, even if it could make them, would be pointless. It cannot just come to a random court and say "X hurt me"" or something.

>you're the only conscious actor that carries the responsibility of both your well-being

So welfare is good because conscious people are responsible for braindead autists. How about you take away that flag and fuck off to /leftypol/, cunt?

>>91990

They are responsible for the consequences of the act, no matter how much they understand. Female is responsible for getting pregnant and cannot force her partner to do anything with it unless explicitly stated beforehand. It does not mean she is responsible for bearing the fetus, she can just remove it as a way of dealing with the consequences of sexual act, you inbred degenerate mongoloid.

>>91998

>she is responsible for getting pregnant but she is not responsible for bearing the fetus

What is she responsible for then? Make up your fucking mind. You do not invite someone to live in your house for a set amount of time, and then murder them in their sleep because spontaneously changed your mind and decided you don't want them on your property, that's not how the NAP works.

>you inbred degenerate mongoloid.

Get some icecubes for that anal pain.

>>91961

and if you only removed it from your body, I would agree with you. However, you're not, you're killing it beforehand, so it would be like me chopping you up in pieces before throwing you outside.

>>92000

>What is she responsible for then?

For the state of her fucking body. Responsible before herself. Are you really that stupid?

>You do not invite someone to live in your house for a set amount of time

No invitation was there in the first place.

>murder them in their sleep

Or just take them away. If they cannot live that way it's still not your problem. If you invited someone on your property and they fall into coma it's not your job to care for them or keep them around. It's their medical contractor's, if they have any, or someone else if they are willing or bound by actual contract, no "implied" bullshit.

>that's not how the NAP works

Yes, NAP works only for legal actors and you have to provide means to escape the property and if the subject, what a fetus isn't, resits or does not follow you can forcefully remove them. You'd still have to provide evidence of their resistance or unwillingness to leave or accept your help to leave for the 3rd party that creates conditions that are described as "NAP". A fetus, even if it could be a legal actor cannot leave by itself so forceful eviction is the only way to change the situation for the female.

>>92005

You cannot remove it without killing it. You HAVE a right to remove it, therefore if it requires to kill it to remove it, you can do it.

>>92030

Sure, what does this have to do with the topic?

>>92030

>Society is held together by contracts, not by magic.

>Treats contracts like magic

Go strawman somewhere else.

Stomp around about abortion all you want, the simple fact is that people who do not abort their children have a natural evolutionary advantage against those that don't. If isn't met with moral disgust by this generation, it will be by a future one.

>>92067

Also abortions are not enforce don everyone and cloning can easily solve the issue entirely.

>>92074

>to ban it you have to give authority to come centralized institution

>gubmint is the only way to penalize undesirable behaviors

Wew lad.

>>92083

Show me another way, aside from going "i won't use their services for that" that will do nothing because nobody cares about few moralfagging bitches.

>>92075

>>92074

Pffffft, sure. Yeah, cloning will save your blood line. That's realistic within the next 50 years.

> It doesn't determine ideas held nor views of a person if it's not a complete animal

It absolutely does have an effect on idea formation. Why do think humans are capable of language and other animals aren't?

>Evolution also takes very long time and all modern human history might have left very little changes in us

The speed at which a trait develops is related to the selection pressure for it. Can't really name a selection pressure greater than "will stop individual from reproducing" can you?

>>92095

>cloning will save your blood line

I honestly couldn't give a greater fuck. It's you who is the one throwing off some false superiority because someone will have something more similar to your garbage genes. The future is in artificial intelligence and consciousness, not animalistic breeding.

>It absolutely does have an effect on idea formation.

Just like intellect does have effect on philosophical views. Still these views have changed throughout history greatly without change in genes.

>Why do think humans are capable of language and other animals aren't?

Complete non sequitur. What does human language even has to do with your "hurr durr those who do abortions are inferior because they do not mindlessly breed like animals"?

>Can't really name a selection pressure greater than "will stop individual from reproducing" can you?

And what do abortions have to do with the "stopping from reproduction", fuckwit?

>>92100

>The future is in artificial intelligence and consciousness, not animalistic breeding.

You're right. Now don't have children please.