Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
Dave Chappelle is now officially one of my goddam heroes! MY MONEY MY CHOICE! HELL YAH!
That's fine. But like I tell every other anti abortion person out there. You pay for it. Any welfare needed, any issues taking care of the baby once born, that's all on people like you. I want no part of it. My money is mine and shouldn't go towards a baby caused by horny 16 year old idiots. You can fund it. I won't and you can kiss my second amendment rights otherwise.
@errorgoodnameunfound Yeah... no. Nice try. Why is the idea that outlawing abortion would encourage people to have sex more responsibly so inconceivable to you? It's a simple matter of incentives. If abortion is available, less responsibility in sexual activity is necessary. If abortion is unavailable, responsibility becomes more important, and people begin to have less casual sex, less unprotected sex, etc. Ultimately, there are less of those that would need financial assistance to begin with. And you needn't worry about funding those irresponsible enough to have babies when not in a financial position to do so, because there ought be no welfare programs at all. That's part of the beauty of voluntarism. You can choose not to provide aid to those who you don't feel deserve it--and I'm sure someone else will voluntarily assist them in your place. If not, well, maybe they don't deserve aid in the first place. That's for the people to decide, not the state.
Oh don't misunderstand. I'm no fan of somebody visiting an abortion clinic 100x times a day, as I think something is a bit off about that, especially if it comes from taxes. Though I'm not sure it actually does and if not, unfortunately, my free trade principles allow for it to happen, just like for cigarettes which I would LOVE to ban, but would interrupt free trade principles, so I would never advocate for. That being said, I 100% agree that preventing abortion could make people think twice about fucking for nothing, but I just don't think it goes far enough, as we''ve seen people do not care if babies are had at 14, bc greed for sex is just that high. I think the true solution, is not to focus so much on abortion, but to prevent it from being considered in the first place. That means better educating people about the realities of raising a kid to think twice about it and hell, maybe discourage alcohol/drug overuse and such while we are at it, as those definitely don't help in being rational about sex. I'd like to take it even further and fine people for having little resources but also having a kid. Those fines could go into sex research and education, but education not meaning teaching about a bilion genders, but rationally about anatomy, biology, and sex economics. I'm glad though you do at least consider financial aspects because I've met some people, men actually, 100% anti abortion, and refuse to address an y financial concerns at all, which isn't right. You are right that too much welfare is bad and we need to do something about it, perhaps actually having a free market capitalist society, and not money printing debt bubbles/socialism for cherry picked businesses who sleep with the gov't.
@errorgoodnameunfound "as we''ve seen people do not care if babies are had at 14" - This just wasn't an issue before Roe v. Wade. In fact, out of wedlock pregnancies were exceedingly rare, let alone teenage pregnancies. I suppose you could argue that it was due to some other undetermined factor, but you must at least acknowledge the indisputable fact that the timeline matches up.And yes, taxes fund abortion, because if an institution that provides abortions receives tax-funding, even if it is illegal for them to use the tax dollars to fund the abortion services, for every tax dollar they use to fund some other service they provide, they save a non-tax dollar that they can then reallocate to the abortion services. Money is fungible. Not to mention that I don't believe ANY institution should receive tax dollars, whether they provide abortions or not, because I don't believe there should be taxes AT ALL. Or a state. I'm an anarchist. Taxation is theft. (But that's a whole other discussion.)(cont)
"That means better educating people about the realities of raising a kid to think twice about it and hell, maybe discourage alcohol/drug overuse and such while we are at it, as those definitely don't help in being rational about sex." - 100% agree! The importance of education on this matter can not be overstated. Would you, perhaps, say that... monopolies cause a lack of accountability to the end user? What if I told that's what public education was: a monopoly? If parents at least had the ability to redeem their property taxes for a school voucher that can be used to pay tuition (of equal value) of any school of their choice, rather than being forced to have their property taxes fund the public school in their district and then pay private school tuition rates on top of their taxes, it would subject educational institutions to the same competition mechanisms of the free market that any other good is subject to, making each institution more accountable to the consumer, and therein producing a higher quality product. Or better yet, abolish public education and property taxes. The reality is, public education makes it such that only the ultra-wealthy can afford high quality education. Ironic, considering the original (stated) intent of public education. "I'd like to take it even further and fine people for having little resources but also having a kid." - Yeah... no. That's extremely authoritarian. If bodily autonomy is apparently not important to you anyway, then what reason could you possibly have for outlawing abortion? (cont)
"You are right that too much welfare is bad and we need to do something about it, perhaps actually having a free market capitalist society, and not money printing debt bubbles/socialism for cherry picked businesses who sleep with the gov't" - ANY welfare is bad. Yes, we should have a free market capitalist society. That means no welfare. Private charity would be more than sufficient for those who actually need it, especially if everyone had more disposable income as a result of not being taxed. And yes, there certainly shouldn't be corporate subsidies (or any subsidies, for that matter), or corporate bailouts, or the Federal Reserve. There just shouldn't be any central planning in the economy or otherwise, whatsoever. There shouldn't be a state.
Glad we can agree on many things. Though, I disagree how you label yourself. You can not be an anarchist AND demand people not have abortions. Who is going to tell people not to do it? You? The gov't? Anarchy is anarchy. No government. Period. No society. No rules. Nada. The minute you make rules, it is no longer anarchy. You can not cherry pick as a full anarchist or a full, free market capitalist. It's all or nothing. That's why I do not fully oppose abortion as if it's not off my tax money, why should I tell people what to do with their body? I think a fine or some sort of threat of punishment on people having babies without making sure they have the resources to do so, unless rape or something, is 100% reasonable and humane for the kid's sake, but that is if other things do not change, not the end goal.
I think having no state at all can't actually work. Would likely lead to anarcho socialism and then eventually, authoritarianism. Remember, humans were anarchist at some point. We are currently talking online from across the world due to human collaboration and teamwork, not ripping each other's throats out. If we suddenly went anarchist in today's age, you and I would likely get killed nearly immediately by a drone or something from somebody wealthier. That or hacked in every way possible.
@errorgoodnameunfound Anarchy doesn't mean no rules. It means no rulers (state officials). In an anarcho-capitalist society, law wouldn't be eliminated, just privatized. There would be hundreds of thousands of competing private security agencies, private law firms, private adjudicators/arbiters, and private prisons, all of whom would be more accountable to the people because they would have to earn their consent by purchasing their services, and are forced to provide higher quality services at lower prices by competition. The same principles that apply to grocery stores and educational institutions apply to law and enforcement of law. I will admit that I cannot guarantee abortion would be prohibited under private law. However, people are roughly 50/50 split on the issue of abortion. So it could just as easily favor a pro-life stance as a pro-choice stance. In fact, I predict that a pro-life stance is more likely, because in the absence of certainty as to when life begins, it is less risky to err on the side of life beginning at conception. If a private security agency enforced a pro-life stance, worst case scenario it's found that life begins later, and the agency needless inconvenienced some women. If a private security agency enforced a pro-choice stance, worst case scenario it's found that life begins earlier, and the agency has committed mass genocide of babies. If you're an entity purely motivated by profit, you would choose the option that left you with minimal liability in the case of being wrong. (cont)
"I think having no state at all can't actually work. Would likely lead to anarcho socialism and then eventually, authoritarianism. Remember, humans were anarchist at some point. We are currently talking online from across the world due to human collaboration and teamwork, not ripping each other's throats out." - Anarcho-socialism/anarcho-communism is contradictory on its face. Disallowing the ownership of private property necessitates the use of force to prevent those who wish to own property, and in the absence of property rights, a central authority would be needed to distribute resources. Our current government would just be replaced by another form of government. Also, you have it completely backwards: peaceful cooperation between private actors IS anarchy, while the state is inherently violent. And again, anarchy (of the capitalist variety) doesn't mean no law, it means privatization of law that exists to prevent aggression (initiation of force).
Oh, and even if private law didn't favor a pro-life stance across the board, people could still form their own municipalities and enforce pro-lifeism within it.
I have a few more thoughts on this...A) Anarchy, by defintion, is "absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal." Yes, you can make rules, but they may as well just be light suggestions, as nobody is going to enforce it. I see now you changed suddenly to "anarcho CAPITALISM, which, ofc, is quite different." I was right though, that you are not a full anarchist, as are 90% of the world. 99% want rules of some sort, whether by society or by themselves.2) "people are roughly 50/50 split on the issue of abortion" Doubtful. Remember most women are likely to be for it, or even deny they are until they themselves need it. Remember the Toni Lahren indecent? "Conservative" in every single way possible... but then if it's her body, her rights. Got her fired for that. Got what she deserved. That being said, liberal/conservative are labels/lies. Everyone has a gray area. 3. I think you need to look into capitalism's originality a bit more. Ayn Rand was an extreme Atheist for a reason, as are many business and pro capitalist people. Capitalism is profit over all. Just like anarchy, any cherry picking, like over abortion, disproves it. No exceptions, unless the dictionary is changed. "f you're an entity purely motivated by profit, you would choose the option that left you with minimal liability" What liability? No gov't and everything is private remember? If people make money off of dead fetuses in an anarchic capitalism society, NOBODY is going to apply rules to them, unless there are universal, agreed upon principles. The minute there are universal, agreed upon rules by all people/organizations and they are enforced, that is GOVERNING and there is no longer complete anarchy.
@errorgoodnameunfound A) "Anarchy, by defintion, is 'absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.'" - I wouldn't necessarily say that's the optimal definition of anarchy, however, I don't disagree with any part of that sentence, so I don't know why you insist that I'm not a "full anarchist". Anarcho-capitalism is proper anarchism. If anything, left anarchists are not "full anarchists". And I didn't "switch" from anarchism to anarcho-capitalism. Anarcho-capitalism is a type of anarchism, and my prior statements in regards to the free market and competition should've made it obvious that I'm also a capitalist. "Yes, you can make rules, but they may as well just be light suggestions, as nobody is going to enforce it." - Private security agencies would enforce non-aggression, and when a case of aggression occurs, the prosecutor and defendant, and their respective security agencies, would be represented by private attorneys, and the dispute would be settled by private adjudicators who would determine whether the actions of the defendant were a violation of the NAP or property rights, and sentence him/her accordingly, thereby creating a code of private law that is continued to be enforced by private security agencies, and where disputes continue to be settled by private attorneys and private adjudicators. "99% want rules of some sort, whether by society or by themselves." - For the third time, there is nothing about anarchy that prohibits the formation of rules. It simply prohibits rules from a coercive central authority (aka, a state). (cont)
2) The most recent poll from gallup states that 25% think abortion should be legal in all cases, 21% illegal in all cases, and 53% only legal in certain cases. But, it was worded such that someone would have to vote for "legal in certain cases" if they believe, for instance, that abortion should only be legal to save the mother's life (which would be the majority of pro-lifers), so it's probable that a good chunk of the aforementioned vote are pro-lifers, and the poll seems to suggest that 21% of people go even further than that. 3) I don't even know what the point you're trying to make here is. Ayn Rand was a minarchist capitalist, while other thinkers of the same time period such as Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard take it one step further to abolish the state entirely, and I favor their ideas (although Ayn Rand was still a great thinker that contributed a lot to the liberty movement). Also, I have no idea what point you're trying to make by bringing up religion, but I'm agnostic, so there you go. "What liability? No gov't and everything is private remember?" - Liability to their customers. Genocide is bad PR. Nobody is going to want to do business with a private security agency, private attorney, or private adjudicator if they ruled in favor of people who were later found to be murdering babies, as new information is released. (cont)
"If people make money off of dead fetuses in an anarchic capitalism society, NOBODY is going to apply rules to them, unless there are universal, agreed upon principles." - Why are you so convinced that if the state were abolished tomorrow, everyone would just suddenly change their fundamental beliefs and become hobbesian animals? Where does this idea even come from? People overwhelmingly agree, you could even say they "universally agree", that making money off of dead fetuses is wrong. Therefore it wouldn't happen. It's that simple. "The minute there are universal, agreed upon rules by all people/organizations and they are enforced, that is GOVERNING and there is no longer complete anarchy." - For the fourth time... anarchy =/= no rules; anarchy = no state. This is starting to get exhausting...
I think you have WAAAY too much faith in society dude. You can't claim to be anarchist but "this or that" because of your feelings is the exception. That's what a lot of the pro life argument is 80% based on and what not selling fetuses for cash is 100% based on. Feelings. Feelings is a mainly human thing. Anarchy is for the animal kingdom. You think cheetahs take mercy on the weak and carry them with them on their backs? That is why true, 100% anarchy among humans is stupid and quite literally asking other species to take our place as superior. We have 1000000x the abilities of any other species. Humans are the extreme superior of the world. But if we just focus on every man for themselves, most likely, we all die, so yes, we do need some sort of agreed upon rules, but NOT full anarchy.
I already made my point too that if there is no state, rules can be made, but NOBODY enforces them. So while they exist they are POINTLESS! It's like telling when cats mark their territory. Does that mean other cats and animals won't try to invade? NO! They don't give a shit! Same thing applies!
@errorgoodnameunfound I don't have too much faith in people. You do. If people, left unchecked can't be trusted, and the state is composed of people left unchecked, then why do you trust the state. You are the one who has too much faith in people, and my lack of faith in people is, in fact, a large component of why I'm an anarchist. People need to be checked, and the total decentralization of political power is the best check. "You can't claim to be anarchist but "this or that" because of your feelings is the exception." - I presume you're referring to my predictions of what would occur under private law? If so, I don't know what you mean by "exception", because I'm not making exceptions, I'm making predictions based on observable facts and extrapolating them through logical analysis. Abortion can't be an "exception to anarcho-capitalism" because no stance on abortion inherently conflicts with anarcho-capitalism. The two stances are 1. Prenates are alive, and therefore abortion is murder, and would therefore be a violation of the NAP. and 2. Prenates are not alive, therefore abortion is not murder, and therefore restricting it would be a violation of the NAP. Both stances are consistent with anarcho-capitalism. (cont)
"Anarchy is for the animal kingdom. You think cheetahs take mercy on the weak and carry them with them on their backs? That is why true, 100% anarchy among humans is stupid and quite literally asking other species to take our place as superior." - You are STILL misunderstanding what anarchy is. Anarchy is still a civilized society with a spontaneous social order, just no central authority and no central planning. It doesn't have to, and in fact, won't, degenerate into the hobbesian dystopia you are imagining. Like I said, there are moral truths that people almost, if not universally agree on. Nobody is going to just magically change their beliefs if the state is abolished. Anyone for whom the state is the only thing stopping them from committing acts of violence, I guarantee you is already doing so. Would you commit acts of violence if there was no state to stop you? I know I wouldn't. And I invite anyone who might be reading this to chime in with whether or not they would. "we do need some sort of agreed upon rules" - Yes! I 100% agree! And that IS anarchy. In fact, it isn't just a feature of anarchy, it is an EXCLUSIVE feature of anarchy. If there was a unanimous consensus on the rules that govern society, then we wouldn't need a state to force those that dissent. We have a state right now, BECAUSE we don't agree on many of the rules. In fact, at any given time, ~50% of the United States population disapproves of the current government. The existence of a state is the product of disagreement on the rules. Under anarchy, those who disagree with each other can simply occupy different municipalities and such, wherein everyone is free to leave and choose another area if they wish.
"I already made my point too that if there is no state, rules can be made, but NOBODY enforces them." - And I countered that point by stating that private security agencies, private attorneys, and private adjudicators would enforce rules, which you never countered back. And in fact, I had already laid out that process in great detail before you made that "point", but you just either misunderstood it or disregarded it.
"I don't have too much faith in people. You do. " Dude... with all due respect... I think you are in denial. I'm the same guy who thinks that true, 100% anarchy will lead to chaos and even much more profit and rise in things like dead fetus selling. That's faith in humanity? Come on now. I think you lack faith in the state and that's fine, I'm in the same boat too. I don't disagree with anarcho capitalism, but I just don't see how many people won't turn crazy and cause brutal, sadistic things to happen to gain resources or even for pure enjoyment. I think you need to look at what happens other than where you live and especially on the dark net, which has a LOT of anarchic elements and in my opinion, can offer insight into what may happen with absolute anarchy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BN1NU0ivzj8
Also, could you guerentee that " private security agencies, private attorneys, and private adjudicators" will be able to put in any control? What's the point of an attorney with nobody to enforce laws? Would there be a private court? Why would anybody respect such a court?"Anarchy is still a civilized society with a spontaneous social order, just no central authority and no central planning. It doesn't have to, and in fact, won't, degenerate into the hobbesian dystopia you are imagining. " My only response: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnnZ6y1HPqI
@errorgoodnameunfound This will be my last response, because you just aren't absorbing or contending with any of my arguments, and just reverting back to the emotional response you have to whatever image you associate with anarchy, and clearly there is nothing I can do to get you over that mental hurdle. "I'm the same guy who thinks that true, 100% anarchy will lead to chaos and even much more profit and rise in things like dead fetus selling. That's faith in humanity? Come on now." - Fine, let's agree that neither of us are predicating our arguments on a flimsy blind faith in humanity. Then it's a moot point, and it was you making it originally. "turn crazy" - Lmao, this is exactly what I mean. Don't you see how ridiculous that sounds? People are who they are. They do what they are inclined to do. The existence of the state has nothing to do with peoples' sanity. I'm not going to "turn crazy" without a state. Would you? Maybe it's projection..."I think you need to look at what happens other than where you live and especially on the dark net" - State monopolies on perfectly legitimate markets create black markets that then attract violent crime and are conducting unsafely. In a truly free market, black markets couldn't exist, because they would be out-competed by legitimate markets. This is why we need to end the war on drugs. The government ban led to an entire industry of cartels and smuggling. If we legalized, local dispensaries would put them out of business overnight. (cont)
"Also, could you guerentee that " private security agencies, private attorneys, and private adjudicators" will be able to put in any control? What's the point of an attorney with nobody to enforce laws? Would there be a private court? Why would anybody respect such a court?" - Everyone is going to purchase the services of private security agencies, because they need protection in the case of other individuals stealing from them, attacking them, or trying to kill them. But they're going to choose whichever agency they deem the best, which subjects them to harsh competition that produces the highest possible quality services at the lowest possible price, until eventually, everyone has an agency, and when different people have different agencies, it's based on differences in priorities, preferences, local areas, etc. It would probably be easiest if I just link you to a couple of videos that outline the anarcho-capitalist pipeline of private law: https://youtu.be/8kPyrq6SEL0https://youtu.be/5qmMpgVNc6YThe Lord of the Flies is a fictional novel, ironically inspired by the author's witnessing of violence during WWII (an instance of warring governments), that depicts a small group of *children* with no parents present, who are all stranded on a deserted island with extremely limited resources, and no institutions such as markets and security agencies. It is not an accurate representation of anarchy.
100% agree you have the right to think that. You pay for it though. Every baby kept alive by a low income family needs finances. And it won't be my finances, it'll be yours. You think Imma stick around and pay more taxes because some idiotic 14 year old couple couldn't keep their legs closed? Hell no. Thats what the second amendment is for.
Life without having a life is rather being alive than a life?
Biologically, when egg and sperm unite, that's life.
Technically, it is. But what is such juggling with words and definitions good for? Right after sperm and egg have 'united'... what do we have?: a cluster of cells. I think that ''what is life'' can not be answered by science only; we should add ethics, moral and perhaps some philosophy to it. Mind you - I am not speaking of a 'right to live' or such.If a sapling pops up in my garden, I'll give it a chance to grow. But I'd not call it a tree yet.
Conception * I read the question wrong But yeah it starts at conception.