Unshockingly, yet another person claiming to be a libertarian is actually the exact opposite. Imagine if when people lied they got struck dead by lightning. Bam, every political problem the world has ever known is fixed almost overnight.
No. Philosophically, abortion is a litmus test for libertarianism, where bodily autonomy reigns supreme. The idea that a government can force you to give birth is logically incoherent.
Again, even if you believed that a fetus is an actual person, that person cannot live in someone else’s body against their will. Libertarian philosophers would find that utterly preposterous.
When you look at it, the moral authority for most of the libertarians I know is ayn rand. If any of them shift to biblical scripture, they should realize the Bible beaters try to take all or nothing, and its all is incompatible with rand.
I despise how she looked at the world in many ways, but she described preventing abortion as the most evil thing she could think of.
If a fetus is a person then consent happened at the time of sex. You cant invite a person for a 9 month journey, and then kill them. That is why its split.
You’re in a situation where someone needs to be connected to you with tubes to live. You agree to this, and the tubes are connected. How long are you required to stay connected?
If you want to leave in a week, are you unable to? A month? Two? Nine? A year?
The moment you disconnect those tubes, the person dies. Are you now locked into being connected to this person forever?
Or do you have the right to walk away, because you’re also a human who is making a decision about your own body.
Now add some detriments to the situation. The longer you’re connected, the sicker you feel. The more nutrients they leech, the harder it gets for your body to move. Add in a death rate for fun.
You’re telling me that you are not permitted to make a choice about your body any longer, because at one time you consented to it? (Completely ignoring the fact that this may have been done without consent.)
“If a fetus is a person then consent happened at the time of sex.” Your hypothetical is not relevant to the argument if the person doesnt give consent.
Rape isn’t an edge case. 26,000 rape victims have been forced to give birth in Texas in just 2 years (Source).
In total, the study estimates that 519,981 rapes occurred in those 14 states and 64,565 of them resulted in pregnancy. Researchers further estimated that 9% of those pregnancies occurred in states with legal exceptions for rape, while 91% of them occurred in states with no exceptions.
Texas, a state which has no exceptions for rape or incest, was at the top of the list with an estimated 26,313 rape-related pregnancies, over four times more than the next closest state, Missouri, at 5,825.
If the union of sperm and egg is a person, and if that person has the right to bodily autonomy, then yes having sex is consenting to making a person with the right to protection. and you cant kill them.
Putting aside that your first “if” statement is only believed by religious extremists, if sex is consenting to making a person, then does that mean that those who are raped are also “consenting”?
Unshockingly, yet another person claiming to be a libertarian is actually the exact opposite. Imagine if when people lied they got struck dead by lightning. Bam, every political problem the world has ever known is fixed almost overnight.
Libertarians are pretty split on abortion, it really depends on if they think the fetus has the right to protection.
No. Philosophically, abortion is a litmus test for libertarianism, where bodily autonomy reigns supreme. The idea that a government can force you to give birth is logically incoherent.
Again, even if you believed that a fetus is an actual person, that person cannot live in someone else’s body against their will. Libertarian philosophers would find that utterly preposterous.
When you look at it, the moral authority for most of the libertarians I know is ayn rand. If any of them shift to biblical scripture, they should realize the Bible beaters try to take all or nothing, and its all is incompatible with rand. I despise how she looked at the world in many ways, but she described preventing abortion as the most evil thing she could think of.
Any Rand is not considered a philosopher by most scholars. You might as well cite Donald Trump.
I understand that. All of the people I know in person who call themselves libertarians do not. I was explaining how they contradict themselves.
If a fetus is a person then consent happened at the time of sex. You cant invite a person for a 9 month journey, and then kill them. That is why its split.
So, let’s go over a hypothetical.
You’re in a situation where someone needs to be connected to you with tubes to live. You agree to this, and the tubes are connected. How long are you required to stay connected?
If you want to leave in a week, are you unable to? A month? Two? Nine? A year?
The moment you disconnect those tubes, the person dies. Are you now locked into being connected to this person forever?
Or do you have the right to walk away, because you’re also a human who is making a decision about your own body.
Now add some detriments to the situation. The longer you’re connected, the sicker you feel. The more nutrients they leech, the harder it gets for your body to move. Add in a death rate for fun.
You’re telling me that you are not permitted to make a choice about your body any longer, because at one time you consented to it? (Completely ignoring the fact that this may have been done without consent.)
“If a fetus is a person then consent happened at the time of sex.” Your hypothetical is not relevant to the argument if the person doesnt give consent.
Rape doesn’t exist now?
And you’re completely ignoring my comment, to cherry pick the very last line.
Did you really want to go to the edge cases?
Rape isn’t an edge case. 26,000 rape victims have been forced to give birth in Texas in just 2 years (Source).
Firstly, edge cases are important. You made a generalized statement, and stated it as fact. You don’t see how that’s a problem?
Now are you going to respond to the actual comment, or skirt around the question because it doesn’t suit your narrative to engage such a situation?
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
According to some libertarians, not all libertarians.
Removed by mod
What an insane take.
Consenting to sex is NOT consenting to pregnancy
Consenting to pregnancy does NOT mean consent cannot be revoked
No person has the right to use another person’s body without their consent
Anyone calling themselves a libertarian should have these 3 points tattooed on their forehead.
If the union of sperm and egg is a person, and if that person has the right to bodily autonomy, then yes having sex is consenting to making a person with the right to protection. and you cant kill them.
Putting aside that your first “if” statement is only believed by religious extremists, if sex is consenting to making a person, then does that mean that those who are raped are also “consenting”?
Rape is not consent to sex, and its a completely different discussion.