Does abortion violate the NAP?

Does abortion violate the NAP?

Yes, but the fetus was already violating it.

damn..... does an unwanted pregnancy violate the NAP?

no, only the nigger that pozzes up said female

Only if the fetus is behind on its rent

...

ancaps are retarded

sex could be wanted while pregnancy is not and if a fetus is a human being, the fetus being in the mother is a violation of the NAP

Only if the the mother is activley trying to kill the foetus "just because". Like she's some ghetto bitch or something that just hooks up and has a free abortion afterwards

Irrelevant, like your ideology

No, the fetus never gave consent to exist, so the consenting parent(s) violated the NAP by creating it. They further violate the NAP by murdering the fetus.

Why do you sonyfags have to bring your butthurt autism here?

The NAP is an abstract concept and in situations like abortion it is not very usefull since it is very vague. The reason why I say it is vague is because it is represented differently by different Libertarians. Read the wiki about it, there is a chart with definitions of the NAP by different libertarian thinkers there and it is clear that they do not completely agree with eachother.

>when your neighbor violates the NAP

By getting pregnant you signed a contract to have this kid, and by breaking the contract you violate the NAP.

> Does abortion violate the NAP?
Who cares, as long as it has not been released, the offspring is technically your property and can be disposed as you wish.

THAT SAID, this is a huge waste of resource, proves you're unstable / unreliable and probably not worth dealing with but in the direst of circumstances.

"Accidents" don't just happen. We let them happen. We take stupid risks. If you're willing to risk your fertility for unprotected fun, keep away from me, my family and business partners.

>you signed a contract
Prove it. Where's my copy of the contract? What about rape?

DING DING DING DING SOY ALERT

No because the fetus is trespassing into your body.

The whole abortion deal is not exctly murder but more like kicking a hobo out of your house like "Get out go get a job and live on your own you faggot", and if he can only leave piece by piece and dies in process in nobody else's problem.

Coming from the analvore spamming faggot.

>the fetus is trespassing

Wrong.

Unless he was officially invited he is

>Unless he was officially invited

He was by virtue of the mother GETTING PREGNANT.

no. The Fetus is trespassing in your uterus, you are exercising your right by evicting it.
Not your fault that it can't survive outside your body.

>The Fetus is trespassing
read

It's like saying you officially consent to have sex by being sexy or consent to getting robbed by being rich.

It isn't like saying that at all.

If you have a right to kick a bad guest out of your house why cant you kick a bad fetus out of your body?

What if he's a total asshole?

Just imagine if any geust was entitled to stay once invited.

asking me this question violated the NAP enjoy your recreation nuking

Yes. Alright guys, /thread, my job here is done.

Because the guest and you both consented on terms of behavior upon their invitation into your house. If they break those terms, you have the right to remove that guest.

The mother consented to having a fetus in her womb, and the removal of a fetus is now an act of aggression against the fetus, violating the NAP.

I think abortion should exist

but I also get a little uncomfortable at the idea that statists are chiseling away at the value of life by dismissing the deaths of fetuses.

I'm not so sanctimonious that I'm going to get all up in arms about it, but I kinda like the idea that a bunch of people are like THAT'S A LIFE AND IT MEANS SOMETHING.

my stance is that it's difficult to prevent any abortions from happening without violating the NAP. the best tactic is to individually convince every person considering an abortion to instead put it up for adoption.

any money lobbying to ban adoption should go straight into paying medical bills for pregnant girls so they can put them up for adoption. I am also not against straight up paying the mother big money in exchange for being able to adopt her baby. it's a market transaction that keeps a baby alive. that should be celebrated.

>implying it was fetus' will to be created

For some reasons sex is something for adults, not children. One of them is because sex can cause pregnancy. Is that a fetus/childs will that it was created by its parents?

Like in ancap- you're responsible for your actions. Fetus is unable to make any action until it's born, if its parents doesn't want children they should at least make a small investment in anticonception. If they are not sure/ do not trust anticonception, then the best bet for them is not to have sex. No sex=no children.

>Muh adoption
Literally only for homos and cuckolds
>raising another man's child
There's little in this world that is a clearer sign of cuckoldry.

Not if they are part of my protein shake production facility.

Nah.
Wanted children are almost never aborted.
Unwanted children aren't going to be cared about and raised properly to be good members of society.

All the "niggers" including the white niggers come from problematic families where their parents treated them like a nuisance.
They better haven't lived at all.

If you don't have sex with your wife, but she gets pregnant anyway has she or her unborn child in any way broken the NAP towards you?

It's like saying you consent to be drunk/intoxicated by drinking alcohol.

Technically you do. When you drive your car you also consent to being moved around.

>mother consented to having a fetus in her womb
There can be no contract between the mother and fetus because one party did not exist prior to the creation of any such hypothetical contract. At worst, she would be liable to her partner for breach of contract if he wanted to have a baby. Though I couldn't see too many courts upholding any serious damages given the disparity in cost to the parties involved.

If you have no sex with your wife, and she's pregnant, then it's obvious she betrayed you.

No, (((your))) (not your lol) child didn't violated your NAP, as it didn't have choice if it would be created by your (((wife))) and her lover, but your wife did violate NAP as she officialy promised that she will be faithful towards you, and broke that promise. Pacta sunt servanda.

I like how you just completely abandoned the line of debate and switched to "well they'll be shit anyway so who cares?"

>They better haven't lived at all.

I'm glad you know this for a fact.
And I find it amazing that you KNOW their human experience would be better off traded for non-existence. You're so perceptive.

>Not making a living by geting pregnant every few months and selling the aborted fetus to the (((wrinkle cream industry)))

Yes I'm aware that's why I was providing a better analogy.

>property
my body my life, it's your personal property no violation of NAP
>in b4 sperm is your property when you place it in vagoo

Never said the fetus consented, obviously it didn't.
That is of course the main difference non-libertarians don't get when using the unwanted guest analogy.

Breaking a promise of chastity is not an act of aggression.

>it's your personal property
I didn't know slavery still existed in the UK. How progressive.

That said, abortion is homicide, plain and simple. The host is always justified in aborting because their right to bodily property trumps the child's privilege of inhabiting it, but it would be far preferable to use in-vitro gestation once it becomes a thing, followed by adoption. It's like shooting a homeless man who breaks into your shed to wait out a storm. Sure, it's your property, but anyone willing to kill someone in cold blood over that is not someone I'd want to interact with or live beside.

It was ironic lol.

>An-Cap society has no flaws!
>Niggers can still ruin it just like they can everything else

vagoo

yes, next

This violates the NAP

Even if the mother consented, that does not somehow rope her into relinquishing her right to property for the full term. Consent can always be withdrawn. If you promise your friend to help him move, you can still bail on him at any time. It's a shitty thing to do, but within your rights. Typically, damages are paid according to the terms of the contract. In this case, as there was no contract, and as the right to one's body is a significantly more fundamental property right than the right to a house or a toothbrush, it seems difficult to justify forcing her to carry to term.

>niggers
>in ancap society
Hahahaha.

Depends. During the days of the founders, it was held that abortion was ok up until what is known as the quickening -when the baby starts kicking and moving around. It was believed the soul entered the unborn fetus and gained natural rights at this point in time.

Rape, possibility of death in child birth could all be held to be unreasonable demands on a womans free will.

However, if you get pregnant of your own volition, wait months before you decide you don't want the thing, then t that point a woman wanting an abortion would be in violation of the natural rights and free will of the unborn child.

So in the end, it's really dependent on time and circumstance. Of course religious nutjobs will tell you abortion at any stage and in any event is unnaceeptable.

No

Depends on wether the unborn child is an agent or property.

Children are property

They aren't property, there is no whether, next.

What the fuck is that picture.

What do you do when your child want to do something stupid but stopping them violates the NAP and puts you in really bad standing with your neighbors/community, when you forcibly make the child do as you please instead of following their own wishes?

Just as murdering or torturing other person.

It's your opinion. In my opinion, betraying and lying is clear act of agression.

Nope

If you want the sauce, just ask for the damn sauce.

Stopping them doesn't violate the NAP.

>By getting pregnant you signed a contract to have this kid
So the man signed the same contract too? If he can break the contract why can't she?

>Just as murdering or torturing other person
What are you talking about? Those are clear acts of aggression.

What if we changed the scenario a bit and say that you aren't married, but just boyfriend and girlfriend. You do not have a vow of chastity on paper and thus you cannot officially hold it against her that she went and fucked a nigger. Harming her or her child would definitely be an act of aggression though, so are you just forced to be a cuck who lives with his cheating girlfriend until her Cohabitation Contract™ runs out and you refuse to renew it?

>Does abortion violate the NAP?
Womenz are not human. Did you forget?

It can only be qualified as a violation of the NAP if the fetus is considered a citizen. Different states have different interpretations of when the life begins, and if they extend rights to the unborn an abortion would then be a violation of the NAP. Here in Brazil, abortion is only permitted for rapes, anencephaly or risk to the mother. Considering that in other cases the abortion isn't permitted, those special occasions would then be "legal" violations of the NAP.
It actually is, as when getting married both parties established a contract between themselves, one clause of this contract being fidelity. It works as any other breach of contract as in violating a clause constitutes deception/theft/etc.
Imagine you're a company and you hired another company to do the cleaning. You pay said company and they don't show up to do the job. If they are violating your contract, isn't that theft? Is it not an aggression?

The fetus is property of the male and the female
If one party wants it, negotiation will need to take place is court
If no party wants it, then it's fine to abort

It clearly does, it prevents them the freedom to do what they want, even if that thing has no harmful effect on you.
The smart thing to do would be to make the child sign a contract when they're infants where they write themselves off as your slaves to do what you want with, but that still means that you have the child, and this thread's subject is abortion.

Agreed. But just as someone does not have the right to reside in your house for as long as they want, whether you originally invited them or not, you have the right to eject a fetus under the same reasoning.

You have guardianship of your child until the age of consent, making a decision for them that's in their best interest is not an "aggression"

>guardianship of your child until the age of consent
Sounds like a law that a federal government has made, you fucking statist.

If I invite you into my house, I can tell you to leave whenever I fucking want. Doesn't matter that I invited you in. I don't have to let you stay.

Deal with it.

However, abortion is less likely to occur if other people are willing to pay for the baby. Therefore, markets will greatly reduce the amount of abortions

No it isn't it's a philosophical concept. And not having a federal government doesn't mean natural laws aren't enforced.

>invite someone onto my boat
>decide mid-journey i can't be arsed to have him as a guest on my boat, taking my food and space
>throw him overboard
>"WHY DID YOU EVEN INVITE ME TO THIS SHITTY TRIP YOU FUCKING RETARD?"
>shrug my shoulders and sail away because it's just more convenient for my life like this

Sup nn

Neither guardianship nor age of consent are natural laws moron.

They absolutely are.

An-Cap societies doesn't really work well in low-trust communities.

No they aren't. Stupidest thing I've read all day.

>invite someone onto my boat
contract doesnt end until you take him to land then

If you were attempting to have children and got pregnant then yes if fetus hits the point at which it is living. The debate comes in really around what point that is. For me I'm fine with abortion up until the first brainwaves move through the body. That to me is the first moment at which it lives but before then it has not. There isn't no right/provision to make sure something lives, so aborting it beforehand that is not killing something but rather ensuring it does not live.

that's the entire point, abortions are not morally ok because you put someone into a situation where they're dependent upon partaking in your resources and personal space

>He starts acting like a retard
>Can do nothing about it for the next 30 minutes because I have to dock before throwing him off

>No they aren't. Stupidest thing I've read all day.
You're wrong though.

A child doesn't choose to be born and a child can not survive on their own, guardianship is an objective natural law.

And on the other side, in order for that person to survive, they must necessarily cause you bodily harm, they engage in a parasitic relationship with you an inhabit your body (not merely a boat), and at the time of the transaction the other party is not only unconscious, but cannot even conceive of their own existence.

It's not nearly as clear-cut as you make it out to be.

If it's a natural law then it can't be broken, yet children all around the world are being neglected, so clearly you're wrong.

For me they are clear acts of agression as well, but that's not my point. For unknown for me reason, you seem not to treat betrayal as agression. Or maybe you're trolling?

In case you were not trolling:
Making somebody harm is a clear agression, and I think we can both agree here. By betraying somebody, you're not only breaking a contract which in that case is marriage, but also you're harming other person. Harming other people- no matter if you're putting a bullet into their heads, slicing their with the knife or just offending and willingly making them suffer - it's a violation of NAP.

Case you're thinking about in post im replying to (that you're not married)- it indeed makes a big difference to the law - but If you're engaged in this relationship no matter if you're married or not- then betrayal would hurt as hell - obvious violation of NAP, unless you both agreed on "free relationship".

Also:
> harming her child
Yup, that would be violation of NAP
>harming her
If you were engaged in relationship which you agreed also on fidelity- nope, as she violated NAP. Remember- we are talking about Ancap morality, not law-> if we are talking about law, then different rules in my country (Poland), diffenrent in yours (Denmark?), different in most of chans' United States.

You're using a different definition for law, would you rather I say enforceable universally preferable principle

...

>can't be broken
Rights are normative concepts regarding how humans ought to interact. The term "natural law" in this context is a misnomer, and people should avoid using it. It implies a physical law like gravitation or thermodynamics, which just lends to unnecessary confusion.

mind you i'm not in favor of depriving the woman of her choice in any legal sense. it's her body, she decides what happens to it.
i still think it's morally unacceptable, though, and would disassociate from such persons, socially shunning them even.

natural law is a pretty clearly defined philosophical concept. There are different definitions of what a law is, its not a misnomer, there's just more than one use of law.

>Psychological damage counts as a violation of the NAP
Some freedom the An-Cap society has then, if you call a nigger a nigger and it hurts his feelings then you're to be hunted down and killed by the community for violating the NAP? You can't call a Transwoman a man because it makes him remember his past before he mutilated himself and starts crying? Can't tell a kid that he has to pay if he wants any of cakes in the bakery, after which he starts crying, and then has permission to shoot you?
Sounds like the freedom based society is less free than the one we have today.

>would you rather I say enforceable universally preferable principle
>Universally preferable
Your subjective opinion is not necessarily universally preferable. Take for example the thread's subject, abortion. Both sides of the abortion debate think their argument is universally preferable.
You need to stop thinking everyone else thinks like you do and has the same principles and wishes.