Why are libertarians always so pro-choice...

Why are libertarians always so pro-choice? If they value individual liberties so much why would they be OK with stripping a child of its right to live?

>libertarians
>pro-choice
Wew. They don't give a shit about your opinion.

Its been my experience most are not, but are resigned to the fact that folk abortions wpuld be performed in secret if it was illegal

Im pro nigger abortion if thats what you mean. The world needs more white babies. Most of those white chillins find good white homes to get cuck/raised by.

/thread

"Libertarianism" started off as a leftist movement to push us toward Democratic Socialism. They would claim to be for personal freedom while demanding more of your labor, but put an emphasis on the personal freedom part to fool people.

I remember Ron Paul was against it, idk what changed

because they are leftists in core principles

It's just a dumb baby, they don't even have a consciousness. It's not the state's business what a mother does with it.

Abortion is voluntary eugenics

When your enemy is making a mistake, don't interrupt them.

>it's just a dumb five year old, it won't have memories of its first five years of life by the time it's 15. It's not the state's business what a mother does with it.

Not the same thing, not an argument, stop getting cucked by something not even born.

A child isn't an individual. it's completely and utterly dependent on another person to live

I can understand abortion IF IF IF IF IF the baby is not directly ATTACKED.
I.e. if a c-section was performed to remove the baby from the mother without infringing on the baby's bodily integrity.
If at any point you poison, suck, cut or blend the baby you are attacking the baby's bodily integrity.
There is a difference between "my body my choice" i.e. removing the baby from the mother's body and actively blending the baby so they can get it out of the mother with minimum damage to the mother.
If you have an abortion you should have to have a C-section from a morally consistent perspective of bodily integrity.

>OK with stripping a child of its right to live
Illegal in the US.

You must be referring to something else, or you're too retarded for words to describe.

>If at any point you poison, suck, cut or blend the baby you are attacking the baby's bodily integrity.

Does that apply to a woman who has two little yapping dogs and she call them her "babies"?

Your body and your property are moral equivalents so that's the same thing as leaving a baby out in the woods to die

women who surrogate deformed pets for babies are mentally ill and suffering from not having achieved their biological imperative.
I am all about consistency of argument.
If your argument is that it's MUH BODY MUH CHOICE, then you must logically not be directly damaging another persons body to remove them.
That baby is not trespassing, and if you want to evict him then you should accept the consequences of a huge scar and reduced fertility.

That is if you want to use the argument of MUH BODY trumping an innocent baby's right to life.

I am not going to get into the circle jerk of why I don't believe that MUH BODY is not acceptable reason to let your own baby die. But if you wish to hold bodily integrity higher than the life of an innocent you must hold the bodily integrity of another to the same high standard. If you want to say the baby has no right to be in you that is one thing, it does not give you the right to blend and physically damage and ignore the bodily integrity of the baby.

>Britbong education
abortions are performed pharmacologically, they use drugs to trigger miscarriage.

>women who surrogate deformed pets for babies
B-b-but they are her BABIES!!!!

You can't harm babies!

>rumping an innocent baby's right to life.
Babies are wicked, too Says so in the bible.

A fetus has no life of is own and no rights to anything. It's the woman's right to decide if she will bear a child or not.

J.J. Thomson literally ended this debate in the 70s.

Babies don't have the right to squat in your body much in the same way niggers don't have the right to squat in your home.

There are different types of abortion kiddo.
Manual Vacuum Aspiration (MVA):
Aspiration
Dilation & Curettage
Dilation & Evacuation
Induction Abortion
Dilation and Extraction

All involve DAMAGING the body of the baby to get it out.
Methotrexate poisons the embryo which I made specific reference to.

Mifepristone doesn't directly poison the baby so it is pretty much the only abortion method that passes the litmus test of the MUH BODY argument.

You go on vacation. You come home to see that a pack of pakis have taken up residence in your home - you forgot to lock the door, so it is entirely your fault. These pakis used to be homeless, and it's winter, so if you kick them out, they'll freeze to death.

You are not allowed to remove them forcibly from your home as this would infringe on their rights.

Except if you let someone (sperm cell) into your house (egg) and say it's cool for them to stay there (by not taking morning after pill) that is not squatting that is welcoming a guest into your home.
If you then shoot the person (abortion kills the "squatter") without warning then you are legally culpable.
If the person was a toddler you let into your house and there was certain death waiting outside the house - say an angry bear - and the toddler could not survive outside of the house then you would be legally culpable if you opened the door and pushed the toddler out.

These points are all IRRELEVANT to using the muh body argument however, because if you expect people to respect your right to bodily integrity you must respect others right to bodily integrity, and that limits all abortions to either Mifepristone or C-section and you must advocate banning all other types of abortion.

>You are not allowed to remove them forcibly from your home as this would infringe on their rights
Born human beings have rights
A fetus does not

>abortion kills
Abortion can't "kill" anyone. The fetus isn't a living being until it is born.

>but are resigned to the fact that folk abortions wpuld be performed in secret if it was illegal

Yeah, speeding is illegal and people still do it. Doesn't mean it should be legalized. This isn't a prohibition type scenario. Abortion is not a victimless crime.

In an ideal world the woman would be charged with conspiracy to murder and the abortioner with murder, serial murder if they do it regularly. Fuckers should get the death penalty.

Engaging in sex is tacit consent for pregnancy, it is not merely being careless, it is not a squatter but a guest.
There is a difference between removing them from your house peacefully and cutting their limbs so they can be pushed out of your window rather than your front door.

This is an analogy of bodily integrity, but conflating it with property rights muddies the water and hides the issue that the baby has a body of it's own that must be respected for your argument to follow.
If these pakis moved into your house- after you welcomed them in originally- and built a bed of their own out of rare mahogany and goose feathers. You could not set fire to their one of a kind bed when you evict them. You cannot use the MUH BODY argument if you damage or poison the body of the baby to get it out.

Abortion represents a case of competing rights. When a baby is physically dependent on the mother, it's right to life inherently infringes on her right to physical integrity.

As a society we decided that the mother's right to physical integrity and autonomy outweigh's the fetus' right to life, until it is no longer physically dependent on her body (and her right to integrity is no longer engaged).

I feel like this solution is realistic, pragmatic and ethical.

If you think that the fetus has an uninfringeable right to life then you don't get to pick and choose. Would you kill the fetus in the case of a rape pregnancy? What if bringing it to term would seriously affect the mother's health?

A man can always volunteer to get a uterus implant and transfer the baby over to his body so that he can give birth to it. I never see that happen though.

You are living if you are alive.
Fetuses aren't dead.
A single celled bacteria is alive. You can kill it with bleach.

Babby's first science lesson.

I have put forth several explanations in this thread as to why MUH body is not a logically consistent argument in 6 out of 7 of abortion methods.
If it is possible to remove the baby without infringing on IT'S OWN bodily integrity it must be done, if you want to hold bodily integrity up as an inalienable human right above the right to life.

So you agree that there is a method of abortion that is ethical?

Imagine King Nigger would make it legal for me to kill you, he has already droned US citizens, so this isn't even that far from reality, then you would not have the right to live anymore.

Laws are just ink on paper, they aren't moral and they aren't real beyond the influence of people who agree to follow and enforce them.

"It's the law." Is not an argument.

What is your opinion on rape cases? I'm very much against abortion but the rape scenario triggers my rage against rapists and urge to protect females.

Logically, I understand that even in a rape scenario abortion is wrong because based on my beliefs it would be the death penalty for sins of the father, which is not really a defensible position.

Emotionally, I would want to rip the little rapists spawn out of the womb with my bare hands and stomp on it till it's just a puddle of bloody slush, then force feed it to the rapist as his last supper before his execution.

A woman shouldn't have to bare the spawn of her violator inside her. A literal invader who was inserted brutally against her will. I don't think any woman should have to face that kind of emotional strain, it's like the rape continues on for 9 months.

I guess waiting until the rape baby can be somewhat safely extracted would be your compromise but that's still a long ass time and also unreasonably damaging to the woman who already was hurt by the rape. What's your take on it?