Why are libertarians silent on abortion rights?

why are libertarians silent on abortion rights?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=cuoepBsv3ZE
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Abortion violates the NAP

Life comes before liberty because without life liberty is non existent. We must protect our children to secure their liberties.


We must secure an existences for our people and a future for white children.

Sage

what about non-whites looking for an abortion?

Abortion is none of the government's business.

this

>Abortion violates the NAP
Nope

Life begins at birth. It always has, for thousands and thousands of years. There's no need or reason to radically move the goalposts because of a few whiny, specious, emotional arguments.

fpbp

Because it's unclear territory.
When is babby formed?

In anarchy nobody gives a shit.

>unless ofc the local megacorporation cartel has a pharma company as one of the constituents and then it sells the pill at inflated prices, therefore it works a deal with a porn company that is part of the same cartel in order to increase libido and sales volumes, by sharing a commission of 50% over the extra revenue acquired by said strategy, but then another company that sells baby carts starts a war to end this partnership and everyone gets shot and the country is now Somalia with guns sold on town squares and pirates raiding the seas.

We're not. Abortion is fine. Cells don't have rights.

>it's true because I said so

Are you going to supply any arguments or even evidence that what you say is true?

fpbp

it really all comes down to proprety rights. the sperm is the males and the egg females. The sperm violates the egg's NAP.

A born baby is as useless as one in the mother for survival

They're the same thing

THIS. Aborting a clump of cells doesn't bother me. Late term is a different issue.

No they are not.

Because it's not as important as general economic freedom and teaching to the masses that authoritarian government force is not the solution for all problems.

>Are you going to supply any arguments or even evidence that what you say is true?
It's self evident. Miracle of Birth. Birthdays. Age. All related to the moment we were born.

Religious? Calendar based on birth of Jesus. Jacob steals Esau's "birthright" because even though both are the same age, one was born first and got all the privileges.

Historical? Right of primogeniture. Firstborn inherits the most property and rights. If a king has 2 wives and one wife bears a son minutes before the other, who later becomes king? The son born first. Ancient China, same thing. Birth is the beginning of everything.

There are literally millions of examples in hundreds of thousands of cultures over at least 9000 years.

is there any evidence what so ever of a culture the celebrates fucking day? Do you celebrate your fertilization day ever year? Is your age measured by the moment a gamete became a zygote?

This is what I mean about these crazy emotional arguments you guys invent.

I am of the opinion that clusters of cells constitute life because they do in literally every other context, and that genetic tests of those clusters would determine them to be both human, and not the same organism as the mother.

>Living
>Human
>Not you
>Killing

Yeah, it probably violates the NAP.

Furthermore, sex implies consent to risk of pregnancy excluding rape. If you enter a bad contract willingly, murder is not an acceptable way to terminate said contract.

Besides in Ancapistan you can just sell the little bugger to a childless couple that wants it, and everyone wins.

Maybe on demand abortion should be legal if paired with permanent sterilization. The first one isn't murder, but you don't get a second try. Rape is an outlier and shouldn't dictate or conform to general policy.

nope

Abortion controls the nigger population

I can't possibly be the only one who thinks abortion after birth should be allowed? Like for the first week after birth?

Retarded and badly deformed kids were always left into the woods in the traditional times. Sure it's sad and sorrowful, but it's a decision that responsible parents have to take. Retarded people become a >50-80 years of baggage to everyone around them, nobody wants to deal with them. They produce nothing, their thinking is on par with some non-human animals. Basically a pet with constant need for attention. Parents have less time for their healthy kids, which should deserve their time.

Because a mother can't evade the NAP by attacking her child before it is out of the womb.

this

>Living
>Killing
Not living and not a killing until it is viable, i.e. able to live on its own.

>murder
Weepy emotional argument that is factually incorrect.

>permanent sterilization.
Crime against humanity. Hope you like prison.

"no"

A baby is contained within the mothers property, britcuck. I hate murderers as much as anyone else, but the baby is clearly violating the NAP.

>storage facilities violate the NAP

>bullets violate the NAP once you put them in the gun

>I am pro-life personally
>Some poor white trash or shit skin aborts their baby instead of it being raised in a shitty situation is fine by me they have to deal with the guilt not me

No it doesn't because fetuses aren't sentient humans early on when it's legal on request, and are part and parcel of the mother. Forcing her to keep supporting a fetus that endangers her would violate the NAP against her.

Also the NAP is shit.

a 3 years old cannot survive on its own, so by your 'argument' it is fine to kill your 3 year old children.

Abortion violates the NAP flat out, in an ideal world we would not need such methods at all; but since it is the only thing keeping the sub-human population from exploding in the US we are stuck with it for now.

Not that I agree with this but it's true.
Abortion should only be legal for niggers.

Who says the NAP should apply to just-born kids? We don't treat people as ''fully human'' before they turn 18, when they get about every right that they will during their life get. According to Varg and his wife Marie, Europeans didn't traditionally consider kids humans before they turned 7 and then they went to born in the belly of the mother bear (grandmother), to become fully human.

t.

Indeed it does, that's why I'm against doctors perfomring abortions, those people should be considered murderers and treated as such.
However if some bitch kills her baby (and i'm not the father) with a coat hanger, and I don't have to pay anything for it, I don't really give a fuck either way.

edgy.

Don't you care if a woman stabs her toddler either?

This. But it is an issue that libertarians are split on. Some view it as a humans right's issue while some view as a women's rights issue. I personally see it as killing a human. Human cells are still human.

fpbp

>a 3 years old cannot survive on its own, so by your 'argument' it is fine to kill your 3 year old children.
Bad analogy, false premise, criminally insane argument.

whoah that totally wasn't vague or anything

Are the cells the same or different DNA as the mother? If no then they are part of a seperate entity and fully entitles to the protection of the NAP

Negresses should have the right to kill they babies

Libertarian here.
I think abortion is great.
Fully support it.
Nothing feels better than unprotected sex when I cum inside my girlfriend. Without abortion, how am I supposed to do that regularly?

Then the fetus should retaliate, it's not the government's job to do so.

>different DNA as the mother
If the woman has cancer, the tumor DNA is different, but it is still part of her.

A woman's egg remains her egg until the day the water breaks.

I'd argue that the DNA difference has nothing to do with the NAP (even though it's a useful tool for redpilling pro-oven people) because if I had a twin or a clone I wouldn't really be entitled to killing them

Because they are just Republicans who are embarrassed about god and want to take drugs.

>>A woman's egg remains her egg until the day the water breaks.
No. A primary/secondary oocyte is her egg until it gets fertilized. A blastula/morula/fetus is a different organism.

This.
/thread

>why are libertarians silent on abortion rights?
They aren't. Libertarians are generally in favour of it.

Religious libertarians are frequently against. I'd say it's probably a 70/30 split.

Or was before most libertarians switched to being Alt-Right leaving only the confused left-'libertarian' morons who will no doubt be infavour of abortion up to the point of contractions.

>A woman's egg remains her egg until the day the water breaks.
Don't a moron. A woman's egg ceases being an 'egg' the instant it's fertilized.

As long as I don't have to pay for abortions because Normies are to dumb to use a condom I don't give a fuck.

That's all fine and dandy. Let the culture decide these things, not the government.

Digits confirms.

It's a difficult choice for us, there are two options.
A. Abortion is legal, violates the rights of the child
B. Abortion is illegal, violates the rights of the mother
I'm leaning towards option A, but it's still a lose-lose question

Because it kills more blacks than it does whites.
If we want to preserve the white race then we need to encourage breeding, not discourage abortion.

"Child" has no more rights than a sperm or egg does.

>now look I don't oppose abortion but to oppose abortion you need to adopt all this shit in my agenda
Fuck off, shill.

That's why I'm leaning towards A, but I can't shake the feeling that it's a literal baby compared to a single celled organism.

This is also banned, and also white people using contraception is banned.

This. You don't have the right to trespass on a fetus.

PCP the drug is not blue square.

It's really simple: libertarianism is a joke in the United States and adherents thereof are really just angsty RepubliTURDS.

Non-whites violate the NAP

You do realize that, either way, you would still be paying for people who are too dumb to use a condom, riiiiiiight?
>Dummies make baby, get no abortion, their dummy genetic disposition and environmentally enabled idiocy spread

Actually, yeah I don't. Not edgy, it's just that as long as it doesn't affect me, I won't do shit.

wouldn't pcp be in green since freedoms and pc be in blue because it implies authority guiding a narrative?

>Life comes before liberty because without life liberty is non existent.
Careful with this, my dude. This is the same logic used to trample on rights.
>we need to protect life to protect liberty so give up your guns because guns can take life

At a time I was leaning towards A too. Partially to piss off the Bill O'Reillies of the world, partially because there is a lot of cool stuff that can be done with stem cells.

Last summer though, when I was doing my medical internship at a gyno ward this patient summoned me with a call button - she had full blown eclampsia (hypertension, convulsions, ended up with an early delivery). When I had to find and frantically untangle a cardiac monitoring device for her was when I realized that a human life is at stake and my views on abortion did a 360 and walked away. I mean, I had listened to the heartbeat of her fetus and everything.

>No. A primary/secondary oocyte is her egg until it gets fertilized. A blastula/morula/fetus is a different organism.
Nope, it's the same thing just a different stage of development

eh? Oocytes are haploid while the later stages are diploid.

I don't care. I don't have an uterus. I don't plan to ever get married or have children. I'm not a godfag. So let whores abort if they want.

If your mother considers abortion chances are that you won't become a functional human being anyways.

>why are libertarians silent on abortion rights?
The founding fathers did not establish a constitutional republic just religious idiots could force their infantile beliefs on us by micromanaging women's health care.

If you don't want an abortion or gun, don't get or buy one.

Abortion is wrong because it is the active killing of a child and therefore breaks the NAP.

There, you happy now?

Stop calling something someone has to provide for you a right.

A historical argument is completely bullshit and has nothing to do with when life begins. It has to do with age. For 8900 of those 9000 years, man had no real idea how a baby was formed beyond blow your load in a woman and for some reason she gets pregnant.

>Religious argument
tibs fugdora

You appear to avoid any kind of scientific argument. The best time we can pin point when a life begins (or at least begins it's nearly inevitable process of becoming, barring freak accidents or defects in the process) is when they egg is fertilized by the sperm. Sperm by itself is not a human life, just like an egg by itself is nothing. Put the two together and it will become a baby within 9 months or so. The only time it won't is through accidents, mutations, or birth defects/complications. Or intentional termination.

THAT SAID: I think the best way we can go about this, since it has to be regulated apparently, is to make it so that abortions are legal up until the fetus is viable. Past that, it's tough titties and you should have had it sooner. You certainly had enough time, cunt.

abortion is degenerate

>the active killing of a child
Not a child
Not killing any living being

>Abortion is wrong
Fetal termination is moral and just. Personhood is conferred on babies when they are born, not when they are fetuses.

Every person has the right to decide what is right for themselves. There is no compelling reason your insane opinions should be forced upon others.

Thank you. This.

I'm all for infanticide. If a being cannot feed itself (as in go into the pantry & break out some pretzels, it has no right to life.

.

fpbp

>A historical argument is completely bullshit
That may be true about ancient religions, but our law, language, cultures, history, science and philosophy all agree that life begins at birth or when the fetus is viable.

>has nothing to do with when life begins.
Sure it does.

>For 8900 of those 9000 years, man had no real idea how a baby was formed
That's not true either. Ancient Sumerian fertilization stelas show that the link between intercourse and pregnancy was well known.

>You appear to avoid any kind of scientific argument.
Your radical new beginning-of-life designation relies solely on a technicality? Cringy.

>when they egg is fertilized by the sperm.
No, that's just the first step in a development process. The end result - birth - is new life.

> since it has to be regulated apparently
Women who believe in freedom can choose for themselves.
Slaves can choose tyranny over freedom and opt for self-restraint.

>Killing a parasite inside your own body is a violation of the NAP
Are you actually retarded?

my stance is I that I should be allowed to do anything necessary to prevent a woman from aborting my child.

Murder is none of the governments business?

Yeah, can anyone name a single woman who terminated a healthy pregnancy in the third trimester?

fpbp
/thread

Maybe you shouldn't have released your semen so willy-nilly...

>Getting rid of a zygote that doesn't have a brain yet

What's next? The "it has a soul as soon as the dude blows his load" argument?

states rights

>a baby is a parasite
Well, mister nornigger, maybe all these sluts could have a teeeny tiny bit of self respect and not fuck everyone in sight?

Gas yourself you immoral swine

If you think abortion should be regulated you can't be a libertarian.

Here you go, OP. The correct libertarian answer:

youtube.com/watch?v=cuoepBsv3ZE

damn

Do you really want said sluts to spread their faulty DNA & raise these kids? Because if it ain't abodtion, they ain't choosing adoption.

False equivalency.
Merely having a gun doesn't == murder. You would have to bring up an example of people justifying murder in a other context (i.e. death penalty)

It was when I had to find*

I guess you have a point. Just the way it was worded is what I was telling him to be careful with. Don't want that shit getting abused.