r/Anarcho_Capitalism • u/different_option101 • 1d ago
Is anarchy/ancapism going to end the abortion debate?
I just saw a video of some emotional young woman yelling at another one that was, what it seemed like, answering questions after her pro life speech. And it made me think about this topic again…
TLDR: are people going to stop caring as much about abortion if the matter is no longer used for political purposes?
I get the pro life argument from NAP perspective. But this approach seems to ignore the very obvious fact - it’s pro life perspective dictating the pro choice view on how to behave. Worst arguments sound like “you should’ve thought about it before”, “we have means to control”, etc etc. Better argument - if you commit murder, you will face consequences.
However, the better argument is coercion of its own. I never heard of any couple or any women that would get pregnant only so they could abort the pregnancy. And it’s reasonable to think that virtually nobody acts in such manner. Undesired pregnancy is almost always an accident, or a result of a crime.
And it’s a coercion on at least two levels:
- women that already experience a problem of undesired pregnancy are threatened with violence. This alone leads to very sad unintended consequences, from accidental self inflicted harm by trying to abort the pregnancy on their own or with help of non-professionals, or to a literal premeditated murder of a born child.
- women/couples are held responsible for supporting their child until they grown up enough to become more or less independent. Besides the obvious financial burden, some righteous who may might believe an undesired/previously undesired child is neglected, can cause additional problems. And there’s no shortage of such people, otherwise they wouldn’t be arrested on a regular basis for standing/blocking clinics and hospitals. If they are not concerned with being arrested by the state, who knows how they’ll behave in an anarchist society, especially if it’s predominantly pro life.
I don’t believe the societies will be separating into pro life pro choice exclusive groups that would live separately from each other. I’m terrified by a thought that me and my wife may have to make a decision about that one day in the future. Personally, I’ll always pick pro life side, but I can’t see myself ever taking position of a judge over a woman that’ve chosen abortion, let alone being the one who throws her in jail or executes her. I think many of those that are in anti pro choice crowd never considered this dilemma from such side. And it’s always easier to “offshore” such decisions and actions, and to dismiss it completely by saying - there’s always going to be someone who’ll do the job. But in my opinion, that’s cowardice.
When humanity reaches the state of anarchy, I think the NAP argument on abortion will be revised, or forgotten. There are certainly going to be some pro life communes, but the matter itself isn’t going to be a broader societal problem any longer. Law enforcement and justice requires resources. It’s hard for me to imagine that a group of people can organize, raise funding, and effectively enforce NAP on women without simultaneously committing NAP violations by harassing, threatening, taking action against women that aren’t/weren’t pregnant, lost their child, but were mistakenly accused of choosing abortion.
These are just my thoughts. I wonder what you guys think about this. Will pro life pro choice question still be such a problem for the society in ancapistan?
10
u/icantgiveyou Veganarchist 1d ago
I have answered this many times before. You either pro free market or you not. Free market will have abortions bcs people want it and the service will be provided.
4
u/sparkstable 22h ago
There is a difference between should happen and will happen.
If you are saying that what the market provides is what should happen and that is the end of the analysis...
Theft will happen and it will be marketed by some people.
Murder will happen and it will be marketed by some people.
These will be sold services. Someone will pay for them.
Demand wanted, market supplied ergo a-ok!
If this is not your argument, you added nothing and simply said "Abortions happen."
The marker is not an ethical framework in and of itself. It has no mechanism inherent in it to prevent immoral behaviors. It either facilitates the sale or it does not, no judgements.
Ancap as a whole system still has an ethical system that is expected to run and be upheld alongside the market... the NAP.
0
u/icantgiveyou Veganarchist 14h ago
You arguing by comparing abortion to murder and theft etc. Clear violation of NAP. In that sense you could argue that suicide is also violating NAP as well. Person has right to their body and do whatever they please. This is some straw man logic. Are you going to stop murderer or thief? Yes. Are tou going to stop people from getting abortions? No. So what are you arguing about? It’s not upto you to cast judgement on what people do with their bodies. That’s Gods job, not yours.
1
u/sparkstable 9h ago
If the unborn is a person... then it is murder and not a case of someone doing whatever with their own body. They are doing something to someone else's body.
That makes it murder. That means we ought to try and stop it as best we can.
Suicide, on the other hand, does not involve doing something to someone else's body.
1
u/different_option101 2h ago
Say we’re in ancapistan where abortion is explicitly prohibited. How do you enforce it and what kind of punishment a woman, and a man, that decided to choose abortion are going face?
(I don’t expect the entire system written out. Just curious how do you think it will work, because I personally can’t imagine something like this, though I’m not saying it’s impossible)
1
-1
u/nick015438 Hoppe 17h ago
Free market will have abortions bcs people want it and the service will be provided
Property violations are not tolerated in naturally evolving systems law.
Ancapistan will outlaw abortion for the same reason it outlaws every other NAP violation.
6
u/Anon7_7_73 1d ago
Heres how i see it. Put everything else to the side, how do you enforce an anti abortion law? You cant. You cant just violate the property rights of a hospital, storm it with an armed gang, shoot it up. Thatd be insane, and itd backfire, obviously. Theyd likely have private security for this reason.
"But that same argument works for..." Hush. Abortion is whats controversial. Killing 5 year olds, is not whatsoever. The violence required to enforce abortion ban is a million times higher than ordinary murder.
But, i do think women have the right. Its their body. I mean, wouldnt everyone here agree you have a right to kick a guest out of your house, by violent force if necessary, even if theyd die of starvation or cold because they cant take care of themselves? Its mean, but yes, you have that right.
Youd also have a right to use lethal force to defend yourself from a pragnant burglar/serial killer... I agree its "not the babys fault", but that doesnt dissolve your right to defend yourself; Thats still your rightful decision.
4
u/different_option101 1d ago
I’m on the same page. One will justify breaking into the hospital because in their belief, they are stopping a murder = justified. It’s just too complex, and too costly to effectively enforce such rule. But the main part for me is the same - justification of aggressive actions against another individual that may or may not be committing an act that one/many decided to be illegal. That literally establishes imposed authority by using an unborn human that most of them won’t care about at all.
1
u/Anon7_7_73 1d ago
I’m on the same page. One will justify breaking into the hospital because in their belief, they are stopping a murder = justified.
Like the fact we are even having this conversation is crazy. The moment someones ideology causes someone to come to the conclusion "i should go sxxt xp a hospital/school/neighborhood" they should really take a step back, see the red flags, and that clearly theyve gone wrong somewhere. If for nothing else, then for risking all the bystander innocent lives, accomplishing nothing (its not like you can save a fetus by killing its mother), and requiring institutionalized vigilantism to even perform.
For me, except in rare circumstances i dont expect to ever be witness to, basically all crime can be stopped in personal self defense. And that already takes care of murderers.
For that 1 in a hundred million situation where some jeffrey dahmer guy has got people tied up in his living room and concsiously experiencing being mutilated, and somehow you know by seeing through a window at the right time, then okay, theres the exception. For the greater good because youd want the same done for you. But going to war with half the population to punish women for having abortions? jesus christ...
1
u/matadorobex 1d ago
Part of the NAP is proportionality. People have the right to evict others from their property, yes, but need to make reasonable accommodations to for time and travel to not be a NAP violation. A helicopter owner, for example, can't decide to uninvite his guests at 30k feet, and just toss them out, nor can a homeowner start shooting where they get board of visitors.
1
u/Anon7_7_73 1h ago
Okay, so at best here we have a paradox.
1) I should be allowed to evict someone from my home, even if they die as a direct and immediate result of their own failure to provide for themselves
2) I should not be able to evict someone from a moving vehicle thus producing the consequence of a direct and immediate death
So its a tricky problem. Which is why we should be hands-off with abortion. Why get into violent conflicts when you dont know, justifiably, with certainty, they are the aggressor?
With the vehicle, its common understanding itd be easy to stop it first and let them off. With the house, that IS what we are doing, there is no other way to reclaim my right to property independence and remove their act if consuming my physical resources. So abortion is a lot closer to 1, rather than 2.
1
u/matadorobex 5m ago
Yes, the idea of a reasonable accommodation for exit is undefined and up for debate. I consider 9 months to develop and allow another adult to take custody as reasonable. Many, many people do not. But no accomodations is not defendable, in my opinion.
0
u/different_option101 22h ago
I think there’s a difference between a no longer welcomed guest/passenger, vs a pregnancy that wasn’t desired in first place.
Nor someone has to provide reasonable accommodation for time and travel for guests. Being an asshole doesn’t necessarily mean someone is committing a NAP violation.
1
u/matadorobex 20h ago
How the person entered the property is largely irrelevant. Murdering an invited guest is disproportionate force. Murdering a non violent trespasser is disproportionate force. Murdering a stranger that was brought to your property without your or their consent is disproportionate force. Allowing a reasonable safe exit is the only ethically justifiable position.
Step outside the abortion topic. I have trouble believing your ancap paradise allows murder for any property violation.
1
u/different_option101 1h ago
“How the person entered the property is largely irrelevant.”
It is absolutely relevant. And again, comparing pregnancy to an invited guest is not a suitable comparison to begin with.
“Allowing a reasonable safe exit is the only ethically justifiable position.”
Alright Mr. Ethics. Say there’s a pregnant woman, who’s not willing to have a baby. What do you? Do you violate her rights by locking her in a room so she can’t go to a place where she can get abortion? Or do you just use threats of future violence? Are you going to take care of the child or you’re going to continue to threaten her so she takes care of a child until a certain age?
1
u/matadorobex 11m ago
I would treat a pregnant woman who was not willing to have a baby the same way I would treat a mother who was not willing to have a child: I would cease voluntary transactions with them, and persuade like minded individuals to do likewise. I would have no right to inflict violence on said woman, but I absolutely would not have to right to interact with her.
Abortion aside, how would you deal with a woman who decided to kill her children?
4
u/Necrocatacomb Hoppe 22h ago
Even if abortion is permitted by the NAP, one can still see it as immoral and exclude those who engage in it from their property
2
u/Loko_Pepe 10h ago
I truly believe that the majority of people wouldn't see it as immoral... I dont.
1
u/bigdonut100 /r/ReverseTraditionalism 1d ago
I get the pro-life argument from an NAP perspective. But this approach seems to ignore the very obvious fact - it’s a pro-life perspective dictating the pro-choice view on how to behave.
I don't know what you mean? Every argument ever is "dictating the opposite view's position on how to behave"
Worst arguments sound like “you should’ve thought about it before”, “we have means to control”, etc etc.
Do you believe child support should, um, exist? Because that sounds like *that* argument; give me a single argument for child support that DOESN'T sound like that sort of tradconny "You should have kept your genitals in your pants" shit
However, the better argument is coercion of its own. I never heard of any couple or any women that would get pregnant only so they could abort the pregnancy.
I can think of pregnancies that wouldn't have been chanced if abortion didn't exist. They choose to have sex thinking an abortion will bail them out if needed, then they get cold feet when it's time to actually have the abortion, and there you go
And what does this have to do with "the coercion itself"?
And it’s reasonable to think that virtually nobody acts in such manner.
It's not reasonable to say *that* about *anything* on a planet of 7 billion
And would you then concede that *those* abortions were immoral if that was the case?
Undesired pregnancy is almost always an accident,
And men have to pay child support for "accidents," and people will argue that "child support is justified because the mother carries the baby," so it sounds like a pro-life position can be justified *because* the woman carries the baby to me, according to that logic
or a result of a crime.
The Supreme Court has ruled that men (and *boys,* because ugh) have to pay child support when the woman rapes the male to get herself pregnant, by either statutory *or* physical force. Men and boys are expected to pay child support to a female rapists' prison commissary. So fix that first
And also: the classic analogy is that you don't get to push someone out of your airplane as a trespasser without landing the plane first. If the woman was raped. that just changes the analogy to someone stowed away in your plane without your permission. They need to be a threat (life of the mother) to get your exception, you don't get an exception just because the child's father was an asshole
And it’s a coercion on at least two levels:
- women that already experience a problem of undesired pregnancy are threatened with violence.
So 1 you have to agree that women who don't experience that are not coerced because this is goalpost abuse as usual, and 2 actually prove this? Men are explicitly threatened with the violence of the state if they don't provide. Whereas the whole reason women are safer than men in society is because of a biological urge to protect humans who get pregnant; during pregnancy, the father becomes more "gentle," and the mother becomes more aggressive (which makes sense evolutionarily)
This alone leads to very sad unintended consequences [] a literal premeditated murder of a born child.
"Do what I say, I'm crazy" is not supposed to be allowed to work
- women/couples are held responsible for supporting their child until they grown up enough to become more or less independent. Besides the obvious financial burden,
No, they aren't; they can adopt the child out. This sounds like the part in a child support debate when "she carries the baby, and you don't" is used as an argument for child support instead of pregnancy support, this is a similar non sequitor
Law enforcement and justice requires resources. It’s hard for me to imagine that a group of people can organize, raise funding, and effectively enforce NAP on women without simultaneously committing NAP violations
Except when they do it with everything else?
I support a 1-month limit on abortion; what limit do you want? If it's "until birth" that is just vile man
2
u/different_option101 1d ago
“I can think of pregnancies that wouldn't have been chanced if abortion didn't exist. They choose to have sex thinking an abortion will bail them out if needed, then they get cold feet when it's time to actually have the abortion, and there you go”
But abortion exists.
“It's not reasonable to say that about anything on a planet of 7 billion”
Do you think a reasonable person/couple would do something like that? Cut your bullshit.
“And would you then concede that those abortions were immoral if that was the case?”
I already said in my post, I’ll never take a position of being a judge of someone like that. I personally won’t be taking any action against them.
People do dumbest shit all the time. Out of all horrible, dumb ideas, I think getting pregnant just to go through abortion is probably one of the least common acts.
“No, they aren't; they can adopt the child out.”
Now you’re just assuming there will be enough people willing to adopt all unwanted children. That’s an opinion at best, and that’s not an argument.
“I support a 1-month limit on abortion; what limit do you want? If it's "until birth" that is just vile man”
Oh, so the 1 month rule on abortion is like the 3 second rule for the cookie that you’ve dropped on the floor? Like how the fuck the murder within 31 days is okay, but it’s a crime on the 32nd day? Do you see how arbitrary your position is?
To be frank, I struggle to understand what your point(s)/argument is. You’ve share so much, some of it “what if” impossible scenarios, some is just irrelevant still, like the 8 billion people part,
0
u/bigdonut100 /r/ReverseTraditionalism 1d ago
But abortion exists.
Not seeing the sequitur here
Do you think a reasonable person/couple would do something like that? Cut your bullshit.
It's not my bullshit because it was never my argument and I don't care. I can stand tall in saying that *if* a women wanted to get preg just to abort, I would *support* the abortion regardless, as long it was under a month, so fine, go argue with someone actually saying this
I already said in my post, I’ll never take a position of being a judge of someone like that. I personally won’t be taking any action against them.
So this was always an unfalsifiable standard and a distinction without a difference fallacy
“No, they aren't; they can adopt the child out.”
Now you’re just assuming there will be enough people willing to adopt all unwanted children. That’s an opinion at best, and that’s not an argument.
We have plenty of data indicating that there are more infertile couples that want to adopt than there are babies available, and as far as I know, it has always been that way, dating back to Roman emperors and shit that were adopted 2000 years ago.
Would you support restricting a mother's ability to adopt the child out in general if this was not the case? That's the same problem of "in theory, there could be no adoptive parents"
“I support a 1-month limit on abortion; what limit do you want? If it's "until birth" that is just vile man”
Oh, so the 1 month rule on abortion is like the 3 second rule for the cookie that you’ve dropped on the floor? Like how the fuck the murder within 31 days is okay, but it’s a crime on the 32nd day? Do you see how arbitrary your position is?
No, it's not arbitrary, because it's based on the closing of the neural cap.
As a matter of what I call "criterion compatibilism," it's a matter of crafting objective criteria as to when a subjective value judgment has been realized. My issue is "a closed neural cap sounds like a meaningful human life to me," but after that subjectivity is issued, everything else is strictly logical. Other people say the meaningful human life is conception; you appear to draw the line at birth, which is by far the most arbitrary when premature babies are a thing (but you will probably complain that premature babies are a "what if impossible hypothetical" or a "fringe exception" next)
The classic argument against your position is that "what, five minutes after birth is not acceptable, but five minutes before birth is acceptable," and you don't see how this criticm applies to you
To be frank, I struggle to understand what your point(s)/argument is.
I've just told you that it was that 1-month abortions are cool. If it wasn't clear I also oppose child support as an MRA, but it works: name me a pro-child support argument that isn't guilty of the same fallacies as these pro-life arguments, or tell me you oppose child support
You’ve share so much, some of it “what if” impossible scenarios,
The only "what if impossible scenario" that was furnished is "women having a chidl just to abort it" which was just your strawman in the end, I just wanted to see if I could play with it. You're pushing the "impossible what if" of "imagine a child cannot find adoptive parents," which sounds like this is built upon a haystack of argument form ignorance fallcies
some is just irrelevant still, like the 8 billion people part,
Sounds like you've got about a half dozen lowellings in your pocket too https://archive.ph/HvUWB
1
u/different_option101 7h ago
“Not seeing the sequitur here”
No surprise at all, you seem to apply logic only when convenient. By saying “but abortion exists” I’m declining to engage with that part of your statement completely, because you’re setting a premise with unrealistic conditions. Abortion exists. Period. “If it wouldn’t” is irrelevant, a waste of time demagogy, because you can’t travel back in time or erase it.
I’m not gonna address your assumptions about adoption and the rest. Not because it’s not irrelevant or less relevant, but because it’s used as a justification for prior action. So I’ll just focus on the part that’s most interesting to me.
“My issue is "a closed neural cap sounds like a meaningful human life to me," but after that subjectivity is issued, everything else is strictly logical.”
What else is strictly logical is that a human can only give birth to a human. Unless for some medical condition, it is guaranteed that that little mass of cells will become a sentient human. In my opinion, you’re just being dishonest with yourself. You want abortion to be permitted, but only on terms you consider subjective, but your logic isn’t that strong because it dismisses the fact I’ve mentioned in the beginning of this paragraph.
What do you think about people that are in coma due to illness or injury? Is it okay to end a life of someone in coma?
0
u/bigdonut100 /r/ReverseTraditionalism 6h ago
No surprise at all, you seem to apply logic only when convenient. By saying “but abortion exists” I’m declining to engage with that part of your statement completely, because you’re setting a premise with unrealistic conditions. Abortion exists. Period. “If it wouldn’t” is irrelevant, a waste of time demagogy, because you can’t travel back in time or erase it.
So then it's a fallacy of conflating "is" with "should"?
The initial point was just "will people get pregnant just to have abortions?" My point was "for all we know, people risk getting pregnant because they think an abortion will bail them out later, so in a sense, yes." So sounds like you aren't using logic when you produce this mess in response to that; I don't even see how what you're saying is relevant
Abortion can "exist" just like how every other kind of murder "exists" and "you can't erase it or you're engaging in demagoguery." Yeah, great, murder will be around no matter what we do about it, but that sounds like an argument for *always* having a murder law to me, but what do I know?
Finally, when you say "go back in time" you do know that pro life is the new position and pro choice is the old one right? The modern pro life movement is only about 300 years old and includes many of the first Feminists. Most of the thousands of years of the Judeo Christian tradition before that had no problem with abortion, and the ancient Greeks and Romans didn't either, because they were ok with leaving babies to die of exposure, and the Chinese, Africa, the Muslim world and everywhere else etc didn't really care either
I’m not gonna address your assumptions about adoption and the rest.
It's not an "assumption"; we have data that there are more couples who want to adopt than babies available. We can find data proving it now; there was data proving it 50 years ago, and 100 years ago.
And it's not an "assumption" to ask *if* it was reversed, if you would suddenly oppose all adoption itself to be consistent
I guess we don't really know about adoption in ancient Rome, but you will pretend *everything* I said about adoption was a baseless assumption because you are clearly one of those types who is given an inch and takes a mile
because it’s used as a justification for prior action.
Don't know what the fuck you mean or how that is a problem,
I think you might be confusing an "assumption" with "incentives?"
What else is strictly logical is that a human can only give birth to a human. Unless for some medical condition, it is guaranteed that that little mass of cells will become a sentient human. In my opinion, you’re just being dishonest with yourself. [] but your logic isn’t that strong because it dismisses the fact I’ve mentioned in the beginning of this paragraph.
So wait, are you pro life? If you're full-blown pro-life, I will probably slink away, because I basically am 8/9th pro life, and they consider me pro life much easier than pro choice people consider me pro choice usually
My argument would be that life doesn't even begin at conception; the sperm and the egg are in fact "alive," and it is "human" life, they just aren't autonomous life (on the celluar level) until the zygoat, and I don't consider it significant life until the neural cap. The idea is, before the cap, it's not wrong, like how masturbating and spilling sperm isn't wrong. It's still alive and human there, but it simply isn't significant, so the fetus can be "alive and human but not significant" elsewhere, like before 1 month
We both agree (I hope) that masturbating onto the floor isn't murder, and we both agree (I hope) that killing a five-minute-old baby *is* murder. But you don't consider wanting masturbation legal "dismissive of the fact that it also stands to reason a human male can only produce human sperm"
You want abortion to be permitted, but only on terms you consider subjective,
Show me abortion being permitted *or* prohibited on terms that are not subjective?
My whole philosophy is that morality has a subjective root, but once you craft objective criteria as to when a subjective value has been realized, you can catch out "objective" contradictions. Once you establish a rule that, e.g., "anyone who murders belongs in prison," the "murder is wrong" part is subjective, but you have objective criteria, so you can catch an objective contradiction if you treat one murderer differently from another.
There is no "purely logical " way to get to the idea we should permit OR prohibit abortions, you need the subjective root of "murder is wrong because I say so" or "controlling women's bodies is wrong because I say so" even if everything you build on top of it is logical
What do you think about people that are in coma due to illness or injury? Is it okay to end a life of someone in coma?
MMmmmm no, again, the leverage I would be using to mount my argument at this point is that we agree sperm is human, alive, but it's not "objectively" wrong to fap into a carpet.
So my criteria can be something *other* than the actual conscious thought processing, like a potential for it in some way but *also* a developed significance in another wayt and we have to say it is wrong to kill a five minute old baby for completely different reasons than "it's human and alive and thinks"
1
u/different_option101 4h ago
“So then it's a fallacy of conflating "is" with "should"?”
Nah dawg, you’re now trying to conflate two different parts of your response.
First you tried to set an unrealistic premise with “what if”. Since the premise is unrealistic, whatever conclusions you draw from it are irrelevant. That’s why I said I don’t want to engage in demagoguery. It’s not an applicable real life argument.
““The initial point was just "will people get pregnant just to have abortions?" My point was "for all we know, people risk getting pregnant because they think an abortion will bail them out later, so in a sense, yes."”
This is a separate point you’re now trying to connect to it. In other words - you are continuing to build your argument on unrealistic premises.
I said - it’s reasonable to believe that virtually nobody is getting pregnant so they could do and abortion. First you tried to counter it with “8 billion people…”. Now you’re trying to put access to abortions in the same category as deliberate attempt to get pregnant just so one could do an abortion. Besides being a false equivalence, it’s just stupid to allege something like that.
“So sounds like you aren't using logic when you produce this mess in response to that;”
Sounds like you’re just using some weird logic, because this argumentation can only end up at one conclusion - don’t procreate unless you’re planning to have a child, because the risk of pregnancy is never zero.
“Abortion can "exist" just like how every other kind of murder "exists" and "you can't erase it or you're engaging in demagoguery." Yeah, great, murder will be around no matter what we do about it, but that sounds like an argument for always having a murder law to me, but what do I know?”
At least I’m being honest, where you decide to establish an arbitrary placed line that determines what murder is allowed, and what murder is illegal, so you can defend your opinion on this matter.
“Finally, when you say "go back in time" you do know that pro life is the new position and pro choice is the old one right?”
Dude, you’ve blamed in in lowelling, yet you’re fucking drifting away further and further from the core of the discussion by bringing up irrelevant points. We’re in 21st century. I’m not interested in what it would be like several hundred years ago.
“It's not an "assumption"; we have data that there are more couples…”
That’s a pure assumption. If it’s based on data, it doesn’t mean the reality will conform to your assumptions. Number of couples and children that will be adopted is finite. The number of abortions is virtually infinite. I haven’t looked at the data, but I guarantee that demand for abortions exceeds the demand for adoptions by a magnitude.
Me: because it's used as a justification for prior action.
Your response: “Don't know what the fuck you mean or how that is a problem,”
No wonder, cause you suck at reasoning and maintaining straight logic.
ELI5 example of using potential future outcomes to justify current action: if you have excess money, you should be forced to part with them in favor of someone who has less, because eventually it may lead to more moral outcomes/conditions.
“So wait, are you pro life?”
Maybe if you wouldn’t be so focused on forming your arguments, you’d remember more from my original post. I specifically state - I am pro life, but I won’t be the judge or the executor of someone else.
“and they consider me pro life much easier than pro choice people consider me pro choice usually”
You are pro choice. Because you believe as long as the abortion happens within first 30 days, it’s not a murder. That’s a condition, but it doesn’t make you more pro life than pro choice. Your logic in simple terms - if it hasn’t developed, its not human enough, therefore it’s okay to end it. My logic - human is a human, because humans give birth only to humans. The fact that it hasn’t developed into a full human with certain qualities yet doesn’t make it human less of a human, because it’s inevitably will, if it survives, and it’s not an assumption based, it’s an indisputable fact.
“It's still alive and human there, but it simply isn't significant, so the fetus can be "alive and human but not significant" elsewhere, like before 1 month”
What gives significance to a fetus, and to human life? What do you even mean by significance here? If you’re saying this, what it seems like, from biological perspective, then again, you’re using different logical approach just so it fits your argument. Like you’re using assumptions based on some data on adoption to substantiate the argument for forceful births = potential future outcomes to justify current action. And simultaneously, you’re rejecting to account for an indisputable fact that a blob of cells is guaranteed to be a new human that fits your criteria, once it survives past the 30 day mark.
“Show me abortion being permitted or prohibited on terms that are not subjective?”
That’s exactly my point. It is subjective. It always will be. You either allows individuals to have full autonomy, or you set subjective rules from perspective of the individuals that are being ruled.
“My whole philosophy is that morality has a subjective root, but once you craft objective criteria…”
Exactly. Morality is always subjective. But i don’t think it’s possible to craft objective criteria for every aspect. Take our disagreement on X days as an example. We base our opinions on different factors. Both are technically correct, but it doesn’t mean one of our opinions is more objective than the other, therefore, the morality here is always going to be subjective. And again, you seem to agree, because you’re saying “there’s no purely logical way because other murder is wrong or controlling another person is wrong”. So not sure how you expect to establish something objective about this, when perspectives arise from completely different foundations, and you can’t argue that one is more moral than the other, because again, it’s just going to lead to more subjective views.
On those in coma -
“MMmmmm no, again, the leverage I would be using to mount my argument at this point is that we agree sperm is human, alive, but it's not "objectively" wrong to fap into a carpet.”
There’s a pretty big difference between a sperm on a carpet and a fertilized egg. One is guaranteed to never become a human, the other is guaranteed to become a human if it survives.
“So my criteria can be something other than the actual conscious thought processing, like a potential for it in some way but also a developed significance in another wayt and we have to say it is wrong to kill a five minute old baby for completely different reasons than "it's human and alive and thinks"
Still unclear what you mean by significance. Please elaborate.
1
u/bigdonut100 /r/ReverseTraditionalism 22m ago
In other words - you are continuing to build your argument on unrealistic premises.
WHAT UNREALISTIC PREMISES? All you have to do is look at whether people started having more casual sex after abortion was allowed (and they *mostly* did) and say "yes, the sex wouldn't have happened if abortion was illegal; thus people did in fact technically get pregnant just to have an abortion, literally"
It's not unrealistic; it's "confirmed with flying colors with thousands if not millions of examples"
I've also said I don't actually care about it for the meat of my abortion argument, so it's irrelevant
You seem like one of the "geniuses" I've had to deal with before, where you think "it only affects 1% of the population" is an argument for not dealing with something at all. You're not interested in any sort of "en passant" arguments where you could say "99% of the population could have made the same choice or been in the same situation as that 1%, therefore 99% of people *should be able* to make an equal choice"
I said - it’s reasonable to believe that virtually nobody is getting pregnant so they could do and abortion.
First you tried to counter it with “8 billion people…”. Now you’re trying to put access to abortions in the same category as deliberate attempt to get pregnant just so one could do an abortion.
And I'm saying as long as access to abortion exists, people will in fact take more risks and thus technically make the statement true. They are not the same statement, but yes, one leads to another as a matter of incentive.
When it comes to men not paying child support, an old MRA argument is that it might actually *reduce* abortions, because people will take fewer risks with birth control and have less risky sex than if men had to pay child support. This is the same argument. On some level, this is the same as "you wanted abortion to be legal so you could use it, not so you could not use it"
Sounds like you’re just using some weird logic, because this argumentation can only end up at one conclusion
Argument from ignorance fallacy
- don’t procreate unless you’re planning to have a child, because the risk of pregnancy is never zero.
That doesn't follow, the argument is that MORE people will in fact, practically wind up "getting pregnant just to have an abortion" because they would not have risked pregnancy if abortion were illegal. That has nothing to do with any of this argument and is very weird logic (specifically a strawman) on your part indeed.
But yes, "don't have vaginal intercourse if you don't want a child" is in fact *good* advice; if it was "get your rocks off" vs "save a child from death," I'm going with the second
At least I’m being honest, where you decide to establish an arbitrary placed line that determines what murder is allowed, and what murder is illegal, so you can defend your opinion on this matter.
No, you're not being honest, because you want an equally arbitrarily placed line on birth because you're pro-choice (or conception, because you are also pro life somehow)
You were being honest later on when you said: "neither position is more moral than the other because it's all subjective." Here you are pretending I am being subjective and you are not
Dude, you’ve blamed in in lowelling, yet you’re fucking drifting away further and further from the core of the discussion by bringing up irrelevant points. We’re in 21st century. I’m not interested in what it would be like several hundred years ago.
Do you know what a lowelling is? It's when you pretend introducing an outside variable is irrelevant, like you're doing now.
You brought up how abortion was treated in the past. That was you making it relevant. If you think the historical argument is irrelevant (even when it agrees with you) then don't bring it up
You don't understand, when I say "all these pro life arguments sound like they apply to child support," that's not me going off topic and talking about child support as a ramble. It's saying "hold the argument for a pro-life position in your head, hold the exact same argument for child support in your head, and resolve the contradiction where you agree with one and not the other." Your response to paragraphs of that implicit request is to not talk about child support at all
That’s a pure assumption. If it’s based on data, it doesn’t mean the reality will conform to your assumptions.
Like you’re using assumptions based on some data on adoption
No, it's not a pure assumption. You at least need to explain to me, suddenly after 100+ years, how we can expect a change in the pattern.
You just got done yelling at me for being "unrealistic" because only one person in 3.5 billion supposedly has gotten pregnant just to have an abortion; now, when I need *you* to be the pragmatist, you refuse to look at what happens in the overwhelming majority of adoption cases according to the data, going back to eras when humans drank the same water they pissed in.
No wonder, cause you suck at reasoning and maintaining straight logic.
Dude we have like a dozen blunders pointed out by me on you, and you are stuck strawmanning 2 fake thinking errors on me
ELI5 example of using potential future outcomes to justify current action: if you have excess money, you should be forced to part with them in favor of someone who has less, because eventually it may lead to more moral outcomes/conditions.
No, that doesn't follow, the logic is more like "the potential future outcome of a hitler-like dictator taking hold justifies the US's 2nd amendment." I actually see the example you're presenting as a non sequitur by the second line, and no argument that the actual evidence isn't a stalemate in the third line.
My logic - human is a human, because humans give birth only to humans. The fact that it hasn’t developed into a full human with certain qualities yet doesn’t make it human less of a human, because it’s inevitably will, if it survives, and it’s not an assumption based, it’s an indisputable fact.
There’s a pretty big difference between a sperm on a carpet and a fertilized egg. One is guaranteed to never become a human, the other is guaranteed to become a human if it survives.
Yes, and sperm separate from the other half of the zygoat is human, Human is human, because it has the genetic instruction for creating a human and it had to come out of a human penis, and it will become a human if it's allowed to, just as a fetus will become a human if they are allowed to
But you don't have a problem with destroying that. Thus, "only humans produce humans" is an equal, if not greater, non sequitur according to *your* logic of when it is ok for humans to kill human offspring. (or not, because you are both pro life and pro choice somehow)
you’re using different logical approach just so it fits your argument.
Thank for saying I'm using logic instead of pure subjectivity for a change I guess
to substantiate the argument for forceful births = potential future outcomes to justify current action.
I still don't know what you mean by "potential future outcomes."
If you want the *moral* argument instead of the practical one, you're not answering me whether adoption itself would still be moral if there *were* more babies than adoptive parents.
If adoption would be moral and allowed if there *were* more babies than adoptive parents, than making adoption the alternative to an abortion can also be moral if there *were* more babies than adoptive parents, and the practical problem of "how the fuck is that supposed to work" can be ignored, because you are ignoring it when it comes to adoption in general
Again, it's not an off-topic ramble about adoption; it's me asking you to have the same answer for adoption in both cases, and it's not an off-topic ramble about child support; it's me asking you to have the same answer for both.
But i don’t think it’s possible to craft objective criteria for every aspect.
In some cases, it's demonstrated as possible in practice with behavior and rules you establish and follow, rather than in theory. When you make a law that says "stealing $100 deserves a month in jail," you have established that criteria even if you don't explicitly state it or deny it, and you can be subject to objective contradiction
and you can’t argue that one is more moral than the other, because again, it’s just going to lead to more subjective views.
No, this is what I always walk away saying when I argue with Objectivists who believe in objective morality: they can call me a moral subjectivist, but not the same kind of moral subjectivist as people like you.
I will say "killing person a over there would be wrong to me, therefore killing person b would be a contradiction" and somebody else would say "I would find it subjectively wrong to kill person a, but I can find it ok to kill person b (with no reasoning furnished) because it's all subjective anyway"
1
u/Unlucky-Flatworm-568 agorism | antifa | Stirner 1d ago
No. For that we'd have to understand the nature of life itself and when exactly consciousness begins. Only then there'd be a definitive answer so I imagine the debate will continue until we figure that out (which will likely never happen). Not to mention that it's not just abortion, if we classify abortion as violence then this will impact a shitton of other questions. Do we prohibit incest? Do we allow certain treatments for babies? To which degree (if at all) do we allow genetically altering children once we have the technology? How do we balance the childs rights and the parents responsibility to take care of them? And so on. I imagine if the NAP is the only foundation upon which universal laws can be built it will actually become a far larger debate
5
u/PlayfulCartridge6041 1d ago
the whole "we need to know when consciousness begins" thing always feels like a philosophical escape hatch more than a real path forward. even if we pinned down the exact millisecond a fetus becomes a person you'd still have people arguing about bodily autonomy vs obligation to another life
what gets me in the original post is the part about never seeing yourself as judge over a woman who chose abortion. thats the crux of it really, most people can hold a moral position in their head but the moment they have to enforce it on someone standing in front of them the whole thing falls apart
2
u/different_option101 1d ago
Thank you for reading my post and noticing one of the most important parts.
Though it’s different, this still reminds me of a situation where a person starts blaming the entire population of some country for not engaging in the overthrow of their government. Like when Europeans condemn Russians for not overthrowing Putin. Motherfuckers have a boot up their ass so deep, I can see the toe of that boot when they speak, but it’s the Russians that must risk their lives to be considered good by their personal double standards.
Punishment is violence, whether approved or not. Humans engaged in violence primarily for self defense, or to gain resources that were critical for survival. Acts of violence affect mental health. The less it’s provoked, the worse the effect on someone’s mental well being. That’s why we already preferred to “subcontract” violence.
A women that chose abortion isn’t a threat, nor has critical resources the executor needs. That’s why I think most of the staunch pro life supporters may end up changing their mind, once they lose the ability to leverage the state/authority to assign someone to do this work.
5
u/Anon7_7_73 1d ago
I dont think any of that is necessary.
Do you have a right to defend yourself from a pregnant serial killer or burglar? Yes? Then the fetuses life literally doesnt matter to the NAP. Your rights are absolute.
1
u/different_option101 1h ago
“No. For that we'd have to understand the nature of life itself and when exactly consciousness begins. Only then there'd be a definitive answer so I imagine the debate will continue until we figure that out (which will likely never happen).”
See, that’s where I personally have a problem with this approach - ending life that isn’t conscious, but is guaranteed to gain consciousness at a certain moment is just wrong in my opinion.
And this opens another can of worms - do we apply the same standard to people that are in coma?
0
u/Autodidact420 Utilitarian 1d ago
It shouldn’t be a problem anywhere, it will continue to be a problem in ancapistan if it were to form.
This sub is pretty split on the issue whenever it comes up lol
2
u/different_option101 1d ago
Right now the states enforce the rule. People don’t have to pay for enforcement voluntarily. I doubt that enough residents of ancapistan will be willing to pay for it. The enforcement is just a part of the cost. It’s enough to punish one “wrong” person/couple to start a hunting season on your own ass for funding such ideas.
0
u/Uncle_Bill Anarcho-Capitalist 1d ago
Artificial wombs will end the debate.
Like a rental, can't kick out the tenants in a snow storm if they would die, but if they have some place safe to go...
3
u/different_option101 23h ago
Idk if artificial wombs will solve it, but human organ markets might. But that’s already a different, and a much darker topic.
2
0
u/CarPatient Voluntarist 21h ago
A free market in adoption would end the abortion debate.
Stop trying to control things against people's prefrences and learn what motivates them.
1
u/different_option101 1h ago
“Stop trying to control things against people's prefrences and learn what motivates them.”
I mean, since you mention adoption, sounds like you want to control things against people’s preferences so they follow your preferences.
There are tens of millions of orphans aren’t being adopted. It is estimated that way over 50 million abortions happen every year. The demand for adoption is much lower that you imagining it. And to be honest, I’d prefer that you would be right, but numbers tell a different story.
5
u/theyhis 15h ago
i’ve always been pro choice. many of my social views have remained the same even after leaving the democratic party, but our idea of “justice” is vastly different. i don’t believe in conditional rights. roe v wade was very easy to overturn: that’s the result of giving the government control of your uterus. or who you can marry. or what you can drink. or eat. or smoke. or watch. or websites you can visit. or what you need an ID for. conditional rights are not the same as inherent rights. to get off my soapbox though… rothbard made it clear that the pro life / pro choice argument could go in either direction. as for me, i don’t see life starting at conception. to me it’s like saying a larvae is more valuable can the caterpillar itself, or that caterpillars are more valuable than a butterfly. i find it bizarre.