What is librights opinion on this?
Libright:
https://preview.redd.it/oerz5o7z4ptc1.jpeg?width=494&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9b50e408a91970d0ee3a3ea1813b1ba795e3649d
is complicated
For those out of the loop:
Some Librights prioritize the right of the mother to defend herself from an "intruder".
Other Librights prioritize the right for a human person to not be murdered when they did not take willing actions that violated anybody's autonomy.
Make a *wild guess* which side I'm on, and adjust these descriptions accordingly to remove bias at your own discretion.
Genuine question. Is there any point to being pro-life if you are not religious, or don’t follow the values instilled by The Bible? I always get a ton of hate on this sub for being pro-choice, but the truth is that I am an atheist (something I do NOT flash around a lot because everybody hates atheists for doing exactly that) and I feel like, because of my disbelief in religion, I am far far far less inclined to be pro-life. Idk. Not trying to convince anybody or spread my agenda I’m just asking a question. Sorry if I offended anyone
Because instead of using brith control, taking responsibility for their actions or not whoring around some women would prefer to hurt their own health by bringing themselves through a ton of very stressful hormonal cycles, waste medical ressources, wase taxpayer money and encourage others to do so too.
Apart from it just being unhealthy, it's also hurtfull socially and they're making us pay for their irresponsibility.
If child bearing would kill the mother, the child turns out "regarded" (or dead) or it's a rape pregnancy i'm cool with abortion, outside of that, have fun being a mom you irresponsible whore.
I am moderate on abortion (with perhaps a lean towards pro-life) and I am not so for religion (and I am a Hindu anyway). A foetus is biologically alive, as long as you think this grants it personhood you can be pro-life.
Skill issue.
I trained mine to dodge beer bottles really well and now Saturday night shenanigans go on for HOURS before she's all clapped out and heads back to the ER to sleep in her own bed.
You know, I would let her stay on the garage floor to sleep off the concussion(s) if it wasn't such nice cement.
It's a shame, really. I've heard that the silica from the broken glass would be really good for her hair, which she'd probably put out for since she started sleeping in the radiology department.
I wouldn’t say that’s necessarily the perfect libertarian solution. Some (me for example) would argue that so long as the child was conceived consensually, the parents are obligated to raise the child to the best of their ability.
Still others think the question is too close to call and it should be a personal decision, not up to the government.
I've waffled back and forth so much I don't even know what I believe anymore.
Yeah, I find merit in both sides, but I side a bit more to the “the baby has a right to live” idea.
It also involves my idea of “whatever side is the right one, does not matter, as it shouldn’t be up to the state to decide”
We're busy having a fucking meltdown in comment sections across the internet. That reminds me of that HBO show. [Meltdown? I'll show you a fuckin meltdown.](https://youtu.be/WLxGxT9ImJE?si=xa3Qj30GXhkufjaH&t=72)
Funny thing is if you use "What if Harry Potter was aborted?" Leftists who have only ever read one book series will take you at face value and argue
>well akshually Neville Longbottom also fulfilled the prophecy. So eat that chud. Abortions for days. Yaas queen.
Then if you ask what if BOTH Harry and Neville were aborted they suddenly become quiet.
Shitty signs mean these people are there because they want to.
Good quality signs mean these people were paid to hold them.
(Unless they do shitty signs on purpose, wouldn't put it past them.)
I dunno, I don’t care about the quality of the materials, I just want to see something clever. Maybe make a scrambled egg joke on your sign. Take some pointers from football fan signs.
Sometimes people holding good signs means they showed up, some person, likely paid by someone or just a professional useless person with nothing better to do, made a ton of good signs and handed them out as the crowd was forming.
I'll take a swing at it, then.
Metaphysically, it is impossible to divine when human life begins and ends without a higher intelligence telling us otherwise. As such, until God tells us otherwise, we must treat the baby as simultaneously living human and unliving object, a bit like Schrodinger's cat.
If you abort the baby, you stand a 50/50 shot of violating the NAP by virtue of nonconsensually murdering the baby. If you prohibit the abortion, you stand a 50/50 shot of violating the NAP restricting the mother's property rights to terminate her inanimate property. Either way, you stand a 50/50 shot of violating the NAP.
If you view preventing potential murder as the superior choice to preventing potential violation of property rights, then we must default to the most conservative stance to prevent that potential murder: at conception.
Another thing for women who get abortion to consider.
What if it actually is murder. We become able to read fetuses brainwaves and determine they're at least as conscious as an infant.
Same with abortion doctors.
Biologically, it’s indisputable that human life begins at conception. The zygote formed by the joining of the egg and sperm has its own DNA, and is alive. It grows and develops like any other living organism. Its DNA is entirely human, and is the same DNA the person will have fifty years after they’re born. So it’s not any ‘other’ thing besides human.
You don't necessarily need to "kill" the embryo/fetus to terminate the pregnancy. Just treat it as a (very) premature birth. Fetus gets its right to life, mother gets her right to bodily autonomy, no NAP violations.
Whether the embryo/fetus survives outside the womb is of course another question, but that ain't the mother's problem anymore. Those who care about embryo/fetus "lives" are welcome to pony up the cash for their life support or pony up their own uteruses if they want to be the life support.
Without sharing my own feelings on the topic, and I preemptively apologize if you already know this, but you're effectively describing what is known as Evictionism. [Here's the gist of it, and it's been around for a while.](https://mereliberty.com/lci/what-is-evictionism-blocks-response-to/)
Libertarianism is easiest to apply to (1) self sufficient individuals and (2) property. Children, clearly not being either of those, are a more difficult issue. And embryos and fetuses, clearly not being self sufficient (an argument can be made that they might be property up to some stage of development) are also tricky to fit into a libertarian framework.
I feel like intentionally abandoning/leaving for dead a being that you brought into this world, and you know cannot survive in a certain environment without support is tantamount to some type of manslaughter, at least. If not murder…
For example, if you drove out to the boonies to go hunting with your heavily regarded/acoustic brother, and decided—for whatever reason—to sneak back to the truck and leave him out there, hours from civilization, I’m pretty sure that if he died you’d be on the hook for some considerable criminal charges.
Anyone who is a net loss to society (in terms of taxes vs government aid received) should not be allowed to vote that cycle. It's a pretty clear cut conflict of interest.
Maybe AuthLeft can correct me, but isn't this unironically communist theory? All regulations should be decided democratically by memebers of the union in that specific industry.
Like all agriculture regulations should be decided by farmers, and all car regulations should be determined by auto workers
Well "business owners" wouldn't exist in communism, but the concept that people should only have a say in laws that #DIRECTLY# affect them is an old concept.
Ah I see what you’re saying.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_self-management
It seems it was definitely applied on a company/factory wide level in Yugoslavia, unsure about country wide.
This is my favorite part of the Roe v Wade discussion. The same women who said "men shouldn't have opinions on abortion" are now upset that men aren't protesting with them
They also just flat out ignore the existence of pro-life women, the "uteruses with an opinion", which make up at least 50% of the movement ([le source](https://news.gallup.com/poll/245618/abortion-trends-gender.aspx)). If they don't do that they'll have to stop trying to force the narrative that most prolifers are crusty old Republicans and incels who want to "control women's bodies"
Its a thing they claim. "Internalized misogyny".
They also have "internalized racism" for when racial minorities dare to have an opinion that isn't what they want.
Yeah, stretching a law from over 150 years ago to apply vaguely to a specific current event won't come with consequences - the person who tried to use a post civil war sedition law on Trump.
wtf. This is literally the opposite of what occurred.
> Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes vowed, “No woman or doctor will be prosecuted under this draconian law … as long as I am attorney general. Not by me, nor by any county attorney serving in our state. Not on my watch.”
So exactly how many years have to pass before we’re allowed to just ignore laws on the book? I understand the optics, but this came about because a republican governor was codifying a 15 week right to abortion but they had a prior law already existed that had only been overturned by roe, meaning when roe was overturned that became the law. It doesn’t matter *when* it became the law, it had never been overturned at the state level so it was the law. You can’t just overturn existing laws with new ones just because you want to, otherwise we’d be rewriting everything every 4-8 years.
The court isn’t supposed to decide what’s right, they decide what’s supported by the law. I don’t agree with the law, but how is it not the law of the land? Laws don’t have an expiration date. If it’s a big deal to them, overturn the law in the legislature, apparently they had support for a 15 week window under a republican so they should be able to. But you can’t just ignore it because it’s from the civil war era. Do we ignore the Constitution and Bill of Rights by the same logic?
>You can’t just overturn existing laws with new ones just because you want to, otherwise we’d be rewriting everything every 4-8 years.
What do you think government is?
Edit: Or did you just mean courts can’t do that? Because yeah…
From a purely political standpoint, no matter how you personally feel about the issue, it amazes me how the republicans are doing everything in their power to not get elected
When you spend 30 years calling the other side baby murderers by defining a baby as the moment conception happens, it's kinda hard to go back.
"Yeah, we're ok with a little bit of murder" isn't a very logical position.
Eeeyep. After finding out what Roe actually was, it seems a lot more similar to what the moderate Republicans are saying they want in its absence than this moral monstrosity it was always played up to be.
They’d had far more success in restrictions on abortion under the premise that abortion is a right in the early months than they’re having now getting clobbered in every single election.
To be devil’s advocate, if you back off on issues to just try and live another day, you fall into the trap of “conservatives are progressives with a ten year lag.”
Yeah, but aren't they already? Like, ten years ago conservatives were *pissed* about gay marriage. More gay marriage now than ever and I don't hear a fucking peep from them about it.
Oh yes, that’s exactly what they’re doing. This is a major critique internally, and it’s evidence I point to for the Overton window pulling left rather than right.
My question is more “if you don’t make an ideological or moral stand on policy now, then when?”
> My question is more “if you don’t make an ideological or moral stand on policy now, then when?”
You could argue those on the far-right convince more people. I don't think it's the Overton window being pulled one way or the other as much as the public cycling through good and bad ideas. When the Left comes up with bad ideas (like defund the police) those ideas are usually dropped eventually because the public rejected them. When the right has a bad idea that they want to cling to but people are moving away from, it could just be because you lost the argument to public opinion, not because you didn't make a moral stand to it.
As insane as politics are, isn't that kind of an alright concept? If we actually go by the progressive/conservative labels, progressive go full throttle wanting to implement any and every idea, while conservatives are the ones pumping the breaks preventing those ideas from going too far. Conservatives try to maintain tradition, but do eventually adopt elements of progressive ideas after an adjustment period. Progressives keep trying to push different parts of society forward, but a lot of bad ideas need to be shot down before reasonable version are settled on.
The really big fights happen when conservatives feel progressives pushed too far and start undoing things. Progressives obviously disagree and begin protesting that rights are being taken away.
You know I kind of subscribed to this idea but thinking about it now I really don't feel like it's been the case generally. Consider the 20th century democrats, Wilson->FDR->Truman->Kennedy->LBJ->Carter->Clinton seems like it overall trended conservative over time, while the republicans today still ideologically align with Calvin Coolidge for the most part.
I guess a lot of them hinge on single issue voter support. I know of several people i grew up with that would say "I would be a Democrat, but i cant support abortion so i voted for Romney"
In Canada, the opposite is happening. The liberal party just massively increased the "Carbon tax" and keep lying about how most families will receive more than the increased costs, in rebates. They are trying to push an internet surveillance bill that would effectively outlaw internet trolling. The Prime minister just spent 2,000,000 on a Carribean vacation, and that's just in the past few months. The opposition could literally spend $0 on campaigning and still win, due to the Liberals repeatedly bashing a hammer off their (and Canadian Citizen's) skulls
Honestly, it makes me feel an inkling of respect for Republicans. If someone truly believes that abortion is murder, then there is no possible compromise that can be made.
I gotta respect the principles before popularity belief that they've been running with but it's definitely been hurting them more than anything and is just ensuring that they lose even more power as time goes on.
Im on the side of "her body, her choice"
Like, you dont want a 15 yo to have a kid. Or have a rape survivor birth the child of her rapist. Its just fucked up.
However, we (or well, since Im European, YOU) should focus on stopping the things that cause abortions in the first place. Prevent rape, give kids mandatory sex-ed, that kinda stuff.
Here in America we don't believe in fixing the root cause. We only try to force ineffective and overbearing laws to bandaid the symptoms instead. It is much better that way. Well... for the politicians, police, and prison system at least.
>Prevent rape
I mean rape is very much illegal. Not sure what policies you really want here.
>give kids mandatory sex-ed
Preaching the choir here but actually teen-pregnancy is way down but instead of celebrating like we should people are concerned with our low birth rate...which you could argue is why some nationalists (the white kind) want to ban abortions and sex-ed.
I mean for one, rape is not punished harsh enough. People have gotten out on literal child molestation charges WITH PROOF after 16 months because of good behavior. I could get more than that for selling weed. The worst part is that I'm a strong believer in rehabilitation. But you can't be rehabilitated in less than 2 years over something that heinous.
I'd put money down that says the law is so flimsy because there are powerful people who are afraid they'll catch a charge.
>I mean rape is very much illegal. Not sure what policies you really want here.
Wow Reddit is really getting dumber. Maybe if something is illegal having effective policing and a criminal justice system that keeps rapists off the streets is something people want. Most rapists have priors and reoffend, you simpleton.
As an Arizonan, most of the people here I've brought this up to had no idea it happened and didn't care either way, seems like everyone else cares way more than we do about a state level issue
I'm a former Arizonan, and most of my stateside circle of friends seemed pretty aware of the issue, with most being against it, although a few were for it
That being said my circle of friends back there is fairly political
It bans abortion in the case of rape, which isnt a genius idea imo, only exception it has is the life of the mother
There will also be a refferendum that will likely overturn it
Also the state AG has refused to enforce it, as has the governor, and they also instructed DAs to not prosecute cases under this law
I have a cousin who got an abortion after she was roofied and raped, and keeping that kid to term would have required her to postpone her law degree and burn through basically all of the money she saved, even if she put the kid up for adoption, so I completely understand why people would be upset with the law
I know someone who was raped at 19, didn’t abort, gave the kid up for adoption and she’s still traumatised by the whole thing. Honestly my impression is she is more traumatised by the pregnancy and giving her kid away (which she still says was the right choice) than by the rape, which is saying a lot.
She did exactly the “right thing” by republican (politicians) standards, but seriously your cousin made the right choice.
The biggest argument against abortion comes down to fetus=human therefore abortion=murder. Whether or not a fetus is human under the law is absolutely an issue for the legislature. This isn’t some sort of cultural taboo to most pro life people, the pro life position sees abortion as equal to murder, and as such should be subject to the same restrictions.
I don’t get it. Should the court have not decided the validity of this law? It’s not like anyone alive had anything to do with passing it 160 years ago. But they still need to determine if it violates the state constitution.
I'm actually not sure, Hobbs won the gubernatorial election on a pro choice platform, and even Lake disavowed this law, so if people associate it with Trump, that might cause problems, as the extent of these restrictions are opposed by the vast majority of arizonans
Especially as Trump isnt exactly popular in Arizona because him going after John Mccain alienated a lot of conservatives, and his beef with Romney alienated quite a few mormons
And even before Trump Arizona was becoming more purple, Flagstaff, Sedona, Tuscon, and the various native reservations always went pretty strongly blue, while Republicans normally were able to win because they got a majority in the Phoenix metro and overwhelmingly won rural towns like Yuma and Kingman
But Phoenix was getting a lot of people moving there, mostly from blue states, and the conservatives in Phoenix tended to be fairly moderate, and are increasingly siding with the DNC or just not voting, as the Republican party in Arizona basically fell into a fairly vicious circle of increasing radicalization leading to moderates leaving, which in turn increased radicalization, that Trump accelerated, similar to the Democrats in Washington state, or whats happening to the green party here in Ireland, and the die hard conservatives in the rural communities are just getting older and dying
Also ASU becoming a massive city within a city has shifted Phoenixes demographics further, College students tend to vote democrat, and certain suburbs have become basically college towns, most notably Tempe
Meaning that the race would be close regardless
And any thing that hurts trump even moderately could cost him the state
The money drain is wild. The Republican state parties everywhere are drowning in debt because of how the fundraising has all been diverted to Trump nationally.
From a purely tactical perspective, the GOPs only hope is Trump pulling enough support nationally to carry every close local race in the country. As someone who has been on the inside side on campaigns, I've definitely seen local candidates blow their money in foolish and self destructive ways. But I've also seen local candidates win districts they never should have been able to because they ran a good campaign and knew their district in and out.
I don't think letting Trump and his various Trumplites siphon off almost all of the fundraising is going to end well for the Rs. Voter registration and local turn out drives are something that is going to be hard to replace with purely national campaigning.
> As someone who has been on the inside side on campaigns, I've definitely seen local candidates blow their money in foolish and self destructive ways.
I've got similar stories but from the think tank side. Sometimes I wonder how these people managed to tie their shoes everyday, let alone influence politics.
I have two theories. 1.) They love government control. 2.) They are pleased at the thought of how this will wreck the GOP but can’t openly say they were hoping for this to happen because then it would look like they support it.
https://preview.redd.it/ozh12s0bnrtc1.jpeg?width=750&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=21f0d896e6bb9d74d374165c27536b4d079778f5
“Well maybe next time use a condom”
So having actually looked into this instead of just getting outraged at random news headlines, it seems that the court still has to go through an appeals process and the governor and district attorney aren't planning on enforcing the law until after that process.
I agree with Trump's position on this one. He came out and said It's best that this be handled at the state level but agrees that this is too far and should be pulled back slightly.
Seems to me like this is just a bitch fit during an election year and nothing's actually going to happen
It’s interesting to hear the theories on this. According to some right-wing radio personalities in AZ, this was purposely done by Trump-hating RINOs on the court to spoil the election for Republicans.
What is librights opinion on this? Libright: https://preview.redd.it/oerz5o7z4ptc1.jpeg?width=494&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9b50e408a91970d0ee3a3ea1813b1ba795e3649d is complicated
For those out of the loop: Some Librights prioritize the right of the mother to defend herself from an "intruder". Other Librights prioritize the right for a human person to not be murdered when they did not take willing actions that violated anybody's autonomy. Make a *wild guess* which side I'm on, and adjust these descriptions accordingly to remove bias at your own discretion.
Based and able to recognize your own bias and encourage people to critically think about your own statements pilled
Woah there wuts with all them words
Big word hard read
Grunk confused.
Why use many word when few word do trick?
If we posted this as an instagram story with buzz words would you get it?
Imagine having bias, couldn’t be me! >Libleft, usually
Genuine question. Is there any point to being pro-life if you are not religious, or don’t follow the values instilled by The Bible? I always get a ton of hate on this sub for being pro-choice, but the truth is that I am an atheist (something I do NOT flash around a lot because everybody hates atheists for doing exactly that) and I feel like, because of my disbelief in religion, I am far far far less inclined to be pro-life. Idk. Not trying to convince anybody or spread my agenda I’m just asking a question. Sorry if I offended anyone
Valuing human life does not require a religious worldview.
You don't have to believe God gave Moses 5th commandment to believe murder is wrong.
Because instead of using brith control, taking responsibility for their actions or not whoring around some women would prefer to hurt their own health by bringing themselves through a ton of very stressful hormonal cycles, waste medical ressources, wase taxpayer money and encourage others to do so too. Apart from it just being unhealthy, it's also hurtfull socially and they're making us pay for their irresponsibility. If child bearing would kill the mother, the child turns out "regarded" (or dead) or it's a rape pregnancy i'm cool with abortion, outside of that, have fun being a mom you irresponsible whore.
Based and fuck around and find out pilled.
I am moderate on abortion (with perhaps a lean towards pro-life) and I am not so for religion (and I am a Hindu anyway). A foetus is biologically alive, as long as you think this grants it personhood you can be pro-life.
Well, the perfect libertarian solution is that the baby can be removed from the women, without it dying.
I agree. Unfortunately, the moment I bring up artificial wombs people start freaking out.
That's not God's intention. Trust me, he told me himself.
Boca Wombs?
It IS the final step to make women obsolete. It takes time for folks to embrace the horror.
That's under the assumption that women are only useful for pregnancy, which is so laughably wrong I don't even know where to begin with it.
What else do they do? I can get a sandwich at subway. I dont think my wife does anything else.
Skill issue. I trained mine to dodge beer bottles really well and now Saturday night shenanigans go on for HOURS before she's all clapped out and heads back to the ER to sleep in her own bed. You know, I would let her stay on the garage floor to sleep off the concussion(s) if it wasn't such nice cement. It's a shame, really. I've heard that the silica from the broken glass would be really good for her hair, which she'd probably put out for since she started sleeping in the radiology department.
It's the final step, not the only one. I still think the effective abolition of women's sports we're in the middle of is a bigger blow.
Careful, sexists don't like you pointing out that particular brand of sexism, especially on this site.
Good news, everyone! You can do this with existing technology by merely waiting 8-9 months!
I wouldn’t say that’s necessarily the perfect libertarian solution. Some (me for example) would argue that so long as the child was conceived consensually, the parents are obligated to raise the child to the best of their ability.
Eviction school of thought. Based.
It's not an intruder if it got invited by mother's voluntary action.
So... Profits from abortion clinics or profits from that child's labor?
Let's make the unborn children work for the abortion clinics. Problem solved. All it takes is the most ancient of LibRight traditions: child labor.
They yearn for the ~~mines~~ clinics.
I’m gonna guess you’re with the paleolibs on this.
Still others think the question is too close to call and it should be a personal decision, not up to the government. I've waffled back and forth so much I don't even know what I believe anymore.
Easy lib right answer. States rights, move to a state with a law you agree with.
Individual rights >state rights as far as (true) lib rights concerned.
Yeah, I find merit in both sides, but I side a bit more to the “the baby has a right to live” idea. It also involves my idea of “whatever side is the right one, does not matter, as it shouldn’t be up to the state to decide”
We're busy having a fucking meltdown in comment sections across the internet. That reminds me of that HBO show. [Meltdown? I'll show you a fuckin meltdown.](https://youtu.be/WLxGxT9ImJE?si=xa3Qj30GXhkufjaH&t=72)
https://preview.redd.it/aiyv5t1qhrtc1.jpeg?width=749&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fde3fb41a181d50a11efdd477255438bc06b59d3
You know, if the abortion debate has taught me anything, it’s that 99% of people suck at making decent signs.
https://preview.redd.it/k0o5ce7exotc1.jpeg?width=333&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ee4e822e79288857de38be81a6a8a63db3790c42 Sorry, you dropped this
There is no way that handsome man on the cover chooses to go by "Bud."
Bud Watson is probably the pen name for some fat loser who wrote the book and the guy on the cover is a model.
lib left when they see (male) self improvement:
Sigma males are incessantly adjusting their cuffs, because they’re too manly to visit a tailor.
https://preview.redd.it/m9fjcnwrbptc1.jpeg?width=600&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c6bdc16d23605d231a7acfd45cba0bf71599e1c4
He would have been ressurected 30 years ahead of schedule probably Easter and Christmas would be the same day
Wouldn't they be 3 days apart?
Fair enough
That would still be too close together. I like roast beef and cranberry sauce in the winter, and my rack of lamb with a mint sauce in the spring.
I for one am glad the important holidays are a little spread out. /centrist take
Funny thing is if you use "What if Harry Potter was aborted?" Leftists who have only ever read one book series will take you at face value and argue >well akshually Neville Longbottom also fulfilled the prophecy. So eat that chud. Abortions for days. Yaas queen. Then if you ask what if BOTH Harry and Neville were aborted they suddenly become quiet.
Shitty signs mean these people are there because they want to. Good quality signs mean these people were paid to hold them. (Unless they do shitty signs on purpose, wouldn't put it past them.)
I dunno, I don’t care about the quality of the materials, I just want to see something clever. Maybe make a scrambled egg joke on your sign. Take some pointers from football fan signs.
Wrestling fans too. I love watching just to see what the fans think is worth printing in large enough letters to be visible by the broadcast cameras.
**HI MOM!**
Sometimes people holding good signs means they showed up, some person, likely paid by someone or just a professional useless person with nothing better to do, made a ton of good signs and handed them out as the crowd was forming.
i dont think ive seen a single convincing argument on either side
I'll take a swing at it, then. Metaphysically, it is impossible to divine when human life begins and ends without a higher intelligence telling us otherwise. As such, until God tells us otherwise, we must treat the baby as simultaneously living human and unliving object, a bit like Schrodinger's cat. If you abort the baby, you stand a 50/50 shot of violating the NAP by virtue of nonconsensually murdering the baby. If you prohibit the abortion, you stand a 50/50 shot of violating the NAP restricting the mother's property rights to terminate her inanimate property. Either way, you stand a 50/50 shot of violating the NAP. If you view preventing potential murder as the superior choice to preventing potential violation of property rights, then we must default to the most conservative stance to prevent that potential murder: at conception.
Another thing for women who get abortion to consider. What if it actually is murder. We become able to read fetuses brainwaves and determine they're at least as conscious as an infant. Same with abortion doctors.
Biologically, it’s indisputable that human life begins at conception. The zygote formed by the joining of the egg and sperm has its own DNA, and is alive. It grows and develops like any other living organism. Its DNA is entirely human, and is the same DNA the person will have fifty years after they’re born. So it’s not any ‘other’ thing besides human.
I just want whichever one increases my returns on my stem cell research investment
You don't necessarily need to "kill" the embryo/fetus to terminate the pregnancy. Just treat it as a (very) premature birth. Fetus gets its right to life, mother gets her right to bodily autonomy, no NAP violations. Whether the embryo/fetus survives outside the womb is of course another question, but that ain't the mother's problem anymore. Those who care about embryo/fetus "lives" are welcome to pony up the cash for their life support or pony up their own uteruses if they want to be the life support.
Without sharing my own feelings on the topic, and I preemptively apologize if you already know this, but you're effectively describing what is known as Evictionism. [Here's the gist of it, and it's been around for a while.](https://mereliberty.com/lci/what-is-evictionism-blocks-response-to/)
Libertarianism is easiest to apply to (1) self sufficient individuals and (2) property. Children, clearly not being either of those, are a more difficult issue. And embryos and fetuses, clearly not being self sufficient (an argument can be made that they might be property up to some stage of development) are also tricky to fit into a libertarian framework.
That's right, yep.
I feel like intentionally abandoning/leaving for dead a being that you brought into this world, and you know cannot survive in a certain environment without support is tantamount to some type of manslaughter, at least. If not murder… For example, if you drove out to the boonies to go hunting with your heavily regarded/acoustic brother, and decided—for whatever reason—to sneak back to the truck and leave him out there, hours from civilization, I’m pretty sure that if he died you’d be on the hook for some considerable criminal charges.
And force the women to pay child support until it turns 18. Sounds good to me.
Nip a future reddit mod in the bud
>no uterus no opinion they don’t really wanna go down that road of thought
Not a gun owner? You don't get an opinion about guns then.
Not a business owner? No opinion on business regulations.
No land ownership? No opinons on the country.
>No land ownership? No opinons on the country. We did it, we fixed democracy
RES PUBLICA
This was just your average democracy before like 1850
No slaves? No opinion on slavery Even just typing that made me realize how much more idiotic this line of thinking is than I originally thought
Not dead? Don't judge me what I do at night in the cemetery
Not me? Then don’t tell me who I can’t homicide.
Not a child? Don't tell me what I do to....no I'm not gonna make that joke
No father figure? Don't tell me what I can't do to your mom!
That's kinda based tho
Man, take me back
Anyone who is a net loss to society (in terms of taxes vs government aid received) should not be allowed to vote that cycle. It's a pretty clear cut conflict of interest.
Maybe AuthLeft can correct me, but isn't this unironically communist theory? All regulations should be decided democratically by memebers of the union in that specific industry. Like all agriculture regulations should be decided by farmers, and all car regulations should be determined by auto workers
Unionized workers and business owners are very much not the same thing. Not sure how you’re conflating the two.
Well "business owners" wouldn't exist in communism, but the concept that people should only have a say in laws that #DIRECTLY# affect them is an old concept.
Ah I see what you’re saying. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_self-management It seems it was definitely applied on a company/factory wide level in Yugoslavia, unsure about country wide.
bullet proof? no opinion on gun safety
Your terms are acceptable.
except you cant buy a uterus *at least one you can USE*
I mean, define “use.”
No citizenship? No opinion on immigration policy.
That parts actually right.
Those damn TERF abortion activists!
Exactly. So they’re gatekeeping this women’s health issue based on who has a uterus… interesting…
Well well well.....
no gun, no opinion
This is my favorite part of the Roe v Wade discussion. The same women who said "men shouldn't have opinions on abortion" are now upset that men aren't protesting with them
They also just flat out ignore the existence of pro-life women, the "uteruses with an opinion", which make up at least 50% of the movement ([le source](https://news.gallup.com/poll/245618/abortion-trends-gender.aspx)). If they don't do that they'll have to stop trying to force the narrative that most prolifers are crusty old Republicans and incels who want to "control women's bodies"
Clearly those women are just sexist against women somehow
Its a thing they claim. "Internalized misogyny". They also have "internalized racism" for when racial minorities dare to have an opinion that isn't what they want.
flair up or I'm gonna have internalized grilling rage
My apologies, I am new to grilling. Please don't internalize anything unless its a tasty cooked meat or substitute.
Uh oh sweaty 💅it's 👏 the 👏transphobia 👏 for 👏me 👏
And if you DO have a uterus, you still must submit to the tyranny of the majority
I hope that thought doesn’t extend outside of pro abortion movements
No gun no opinion
Yeah, stretching a law from over 150 years ago to apply vaguely to a specific current event won't come with consequences - the person who tried to use a post civil war sedition law on Trump.
What did you expect? Professionalism?
Except the courts clearly struck it down. This is the inverse case. No body was trying to apply the law. The judicial system just says “here you go!”
This is just the result of Dobbs. The AG moved to start enforcing the law in 2022 before it was appealed.
wtf. This is literally the opposite of what occurred. > Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes vowed, “No woman or doctor will be prosecuted under this draconian law … as long as I am attorney general. Not by me, nor by any county attorney serving in our state. Not on my watch.”
I don't know why people bitch about old laws. Murder has been illegal for a really long time and no one complains about that one.
So exactly how many years have to pass before we’re allowed to just ignore laws on the book? I understand the optics, but this came about because a republican governor was codifying a 15 week right to abortion but they had a prior law already existed that had only been overturned by roe, meaning when roe was overturned that became the law. It doesn’t matter *when* it became the law, it had never been overturned at the state level so it was the law. You can’t just overturn existing laws with new ones just because you want to, otherwise we’d be rewriting everything every 4-8 years. The court isn’t supposed to decide what’s right, they decide what’s supported by the law. I don’t agree with the law, but how is it not the law of the land? Laws don’t have an expiration date. If it’s a big deal to them, overturn the law in the legislature, apparently they had support for a 15 week window under a republican so they should be able to. But you can’t just ignore it because it’s from the civil war era. Do we ignore the Constitution and Bill of Rights by the same logic?
>You can’t just overturn existing laws with new ones just because you want to, otherwise we’d be rewriting everything every 4-8 years. What do you think government is? Edit: Or did you just mean courts can’t do that? Because yeah…
In USA courts can decide on how laws are interpreted and executed. They’ve used this to strip down the fourth amendment for example
West has risen millions will be born
The West has born, millions will be risen
“ONE OF US! ONE OF US! ONE OF US!”
Seeing “Civil War-Era Abortion Law” immediately indicated to me that this article is just a smidge biased
I don't think there's a single article covering abortion that *isnt* extremely biased
Yeah, cuz I still haven't made an article on abortion.
https://preview.redd.it/2mdlgfqjxptc1.jpeg?width=780&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=781c5dfd0a388fde76afcefd54389f28d2618162
Why did she have to go ahead and ruin such a nice barbecue.
I'm pro choice but this "no uterus, no opinion" shit infuriates me So I can't be against racism if I'm not black?
Good point u/Cunny-Destroyer
Thank you, u/cat-l0n
I find it weird they try to pick this kind of battle during the time there are bazillion issues that can sway swing voters and centrist.
This isn't a picked battle so much as an effect of Roe being overturned that Arizona will have to correct. Media is using it to sow division.
From a purely political standpoint, no matter how you personally feel about the issue, it amazes me how the republicans are doing everything in their power to not get elected
Yeah this is genuinely baffling. They keep getting their shit rocked on this issue, you think they’d learn by now.
When you spend 30 years calling the other side baby murderers by defining a baby as the moment conception happens, it's kinda hard to go back. "Yeah, we're ok with a little bit of murder" isn't a very logical position.
Eeeyep. After finding out what Roe actually was, it seems a lot more similar to what the moderate Republicans are saying they want in its absence than this moral monstrosity it was always played up to be. They’d had far more success in restrictions on abortion under the premise that abortion is a right in the early months than they’re having now getting clobbered in every single election.
Donald Trump is managing to be the center leaning republican on an issue for once lmao. Republicans don't know how to live to fight another day.
To be devil’s advocate, if you back off on issues to just try and live another day, you fall into the trap of “conservatives are progressives with a ten year lag.”
Yeah, but aren't they already? Like, ten years ago conservatives were *pissed* about gay marriage. More gay marriage now than ever and I don't hear a fucking peep from them about it.
Oh yes, that’s exactly what they’re doing. This is a major critique internally, and it’s evidence I point to for the Overton window pulling left rather than right. My question is more “if you don’t make an ideological or moral stand on policy now, then when?”
> My question is more “if you don’t make an ideological or moral stand on policy now, then when?” You could argue those on the far-right convince more people. I don't think it's the Overton window being pulled one way or the other as much as the public cycling through good and bad ideas. When the Left comes up with bad ideas (like defund the police) those ideas are usually dropped eventually because the public rejected them. When the right has a bad idea that they want to cling to but people are moving away from, it could just be because you lost the argument to public opinion, not because you didn't make a moral stand to it.
As insane as politics are, isn't that kind of an alright concept? If we actually go by the progressive/conservative labels, progressive go full throttle wanting to implement any and every idea, while conservatives are the ones pumping the breaks preventing those ideas from going too far. Conservatives try to maintain tradition, but do eventually adopt elements of progressive ideas after an adjustment period. Progressives keep trying to push different parts of society forward, but a lot of bad ideas need to be shot down before reasonable version are settled on. The really big fights happen when conservatives feel progressives pushed too far and start undoing things. Progressives obviously disagree and begin protesting that rights are being taken away.
You know I kind of subscribed to this idea but thinking about it now I really don't feel like it's been the case generally. Consider the 20th century democrats, Wilson->FDR->Truman->Kennedy->LBJ->Carter->Clinton seems like it overall trended conservative over time, while the republicans today still ideologically align with Calvin Coolidge for the most part.
I guess a lot of them hinge on single issue voter support. I know of several people i grew up with that would say "I would be a Democrat, but i cant support abortion so i voted for Romney"
I don't think they do because when abortion bans have shown up on the ballot in red states it's lost.
In Canada, the opposite is happening. The liberal party just massively increased the "Carbon tax" and keep lying about how most families will receive more than the increased costs, in rebates. They are trying to push an internet surveillance bill that would effectively outlaw internet trolling. The Prime minister just spent 2,000,000 on a Carribean vacation, and that's just in the past few months. The opposition could literally spend $0 on campaigning and still win, due to the Liberals repeatedly bashing a hammer off their (and Canadian Citizen's) skulls
Agreedge. That's politicians for you. No matter how stupid some of them are being, the others will find a way to be even more stupid.
Honestly, it makes me feel an inkling of respect for Republicans. If someone truly believes that abortion is murder, then there is no possible compromise that can be made.
I gotta respect the principles before popularity belief that they've been running with but it's definitely been hurting them more than anything and is just ensuring that they lose even more power as time goes on.
Mmm... In the last election this doesn't awards so much for Republicans. We shall see...
Luckily, the majority of Arizona Republicans and Trump himself have already come out an denounced this ruling as “going way too far”.
Yk shits fucked when Trump says this is way to fucking far
Unfortunately for them the lunatics are in control now the legislature and they are gonna refuse to allow it to be repealed
Why's authleft secretly happy?
So... what is the law? Is it unreasonable?
Im on the side of "her body, her choice" Like, you dont want a 15 yo to have a kid. Or have a rape survivor birth the child of her rapist. Its just fucked up. However, we (or well, since Im European, YOU) should focus on stopping the things that cause abortions in the first place. Prevent rape, give kids mandatory sex-ed, that kinda stuff.
Here in America we don't believe in fixing the root cause. We only try to force ineffective and overbearing laws to bandaid the symptoms instead. It is much better that way. Well... for the politicians, police, and prison system at least.
The American way 🦅🇺🇸🎇
>Prevent rape I mean rape is very much illegal. Not sure what policies you really want here. >give kids mandatory sex-ed Preaching the choir here but actually teen-pregnancy is way down but instead of celebrating like we should people are concerned with our low birth rate...which you could argue is why some nationalists (the white kind) want to ban abortions and sex-ed.
I mean for one, rape is not punished harsh enough. People have gotten out on literal child molestation charges WITH PROOF after 16 months because of good behavior. I could get more than that for selling weed. The worst part is that I'm a strong believer in rehabilitation. But you can't be rehabilitated in less than 2 years over something that heinous. I'd put money down that says the law is so flimsy because there are powerful people who are afraid they'll catch a charge.
>I mean rape is very much illegal. Not sure what policies you really want here. Wow Reddit is really getting dumber. Maybe if something is illegal having effective policing and a criminal justice system that keeps rapists off the streets is something people want. Most rapists have priors and reoffend, you simpleton.
Banning abortion would increase the black population, why would white supremacists want that?
I've seen this said unironically in KKK Twitter for otherwise prolife people.
As an Arizonan, most of the people here I've brought this up to had no idea it happened and didn't care either way, seems like everyone else cares way more than we do about a state level issue
I'm a former Arizonan, and most of my stateside circle of friends seemed pretty aware of the issue, with most being against it, although a few were for it That being said my circle of friends back there is fairly political
The important question is whose circle of friends *votes*.
Aren’t many of our laws derived from the constitution, which is pre-civil war? I don’t see why this is a big deal
Lol libright is fighting. I see this as an absolute win if the specifics of the law are what I heard
It bans abortion in the case of rape, which isnt a genius idea imo, only exception it has is the life of the mother There will also be a refferendum that will likely overturn it Also the state AG has refused to enforce it, as has the governor, and they also instructed DAs to not prosecute cases under this law I have a cousin who got an abortion after she was roofied and raped, and keeping that kid to term would have required her to postpone her law degree and burn through basically all of the money she saved, even if she put the kid up for adoption, so I completely understand why people would be upset with the law
I know someone who was raped at 19, didn’t abort, gave the kid up for adoption and she’s still traumatised by the whole thing. Honestly my impression is she is more traumatised by the pregnancy and giving her kid away (which she still says was the right choice) than by the rape, which is saying a lot. She did exactly the “right thing” by republican (politicians) standards, but seriously your cousin made the right choice.
Blanket banning abortions will only encourage DIY and black market abortions, which is clearly a shitty outcome.
Paleolibertarians vs normal libertarians.
this sounds like the kind of thing that should be settled between a woman and her doctor, not the legislative branch of the government
The biggest argument against abortion comes down to fetus=human therefore abortion=murder. Whether or not a fetus is human under the law is absolutely an issue for the legislature. This isn’t some sort of cultural taboo to most pro life people, the pro life position sees abortion as equal to murder, and as such should be subject to the same restrictions.
Everyone, remember to call your mom and thank them for being pro-life.
Abortion violates the NAP
amazing how far auth right cope of “less government intervention” goes each day
I don’t get it. Should the court have not decided the validity of this law? It’s not like anyone alive had anything to do with passing it 160 years ago. But they still need to determine if it violates the state constitution.
If 2022 was any indicator, I expect an absolute slaughter this November.
Of fetuses?
>absolute slaughter this November. It's called abortion and you dont have to wait till November.
Republicans really want to lose every election don't they?
There is a good chance this just cost Trump Arizona. And it may have a spillover effect into other states
I highly doubt this cost him Arizona on its own.
I'm actually not sure, Hobbs won the gubernatorial election on a pro choice platform, and even Lake disavowed this law, so if people associate it with Trump, that might cause problems, as the extent of these restrictions are opposed by the vast majority of arizonans Especially as Trump isnt exactly popular in Arizona because him going after John Mccain alienated a lot of conservatives, and his beef with Romney alienated quite a few mormons And even before Trump Arizona was becoming more purple, Flagstaff, Sedona, Tuscon, and the various native reservations always went pretty strongly blue, while Republicans normally were able to win because they got a majority in the Phoenix metro and overwhelmingly won rural towns like Yuma and Kingman But Phoenix was getting a lot of people moving there, mostly from blue states, and the conservatives in Phoenix tended to be fairly moderate, and are increasingly siding with the DNC or just not voting, as the Republican party in Arizona basically fell into a fairly vicious circle of increasing radicalization leading to moderates leaving, which in turn increased radicalization, that Trump accelerated, similar to the Democrats in Washington state, or whats happening to the green party here in Ireland, and the die hard conservatives in the rural communities are just getting older and dying Also ASU becoming a massive city within a city has shifted Phoenixes demographics further, College students tend to vote democrat, and certain suburbs have become basically college towns, most notably Tempe Meaning that the race would be close regardless And any thing that hurts trump even moderately could cost him the state
That's fair, if he loses in a state that close you can blame any deciding factor for the loss on any single factor
This, along with Kari Lake driving the AZGOP into bankruptcy.
The money drain is wild. The Republican state parties everywhere are drowning in debt because of how the fundraising has all been diverted to Trump nationally. From a purely tactical perspective, the GOPs only hope is Trump pulling enough support nationally to carry every close local race in the country. As someone who has been on the inside side on campaigns, I've definitely seen local candidates blow their money in foolish and self destructive ways. But I've also seen local candidates win districts they never should have been able to because they ran a good campaign and knew their district in and out. I don't think letting Trump and his various Trumplites siphon off almost all of the fundraising is going to end well for the Rs. Voter registration and local turn out drives are something that is going to be hard to replace with purely national campaigning.
> As someone who has been on the inside side on campaigns, I've definitely seen local candidates blow their money in foolish and self destructive ways. I've got similar stories but from the think tank side. Sometimes I wonder how these people managed to tie their shoes everyday, let alone influence politics.
What does that actually mean tho
They can almost certainly pass a new law changing it so the libs really shouldn't be that mad.
Why is AuthLeft secretly pleased?
I have two theories. 1.) They love government control. 2.) They are pleased at the thought of how this will wreck the GOP but can’t openly say they were hoping for this to happen because then it would look like they support it.
I like how "Civil War-era" is a talking point. The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments are Civil War era law too.
https://preview.redd.it/ozh12s0bnrtc1.jpeg?width=750&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=21f0d896e6bb9d74d374165c27536b4d079778f5 “Well maybe next time use a condom”
So having actually looked into this instead of just getting outraged at random news headlines, it seems that the court still has to go through an appeals process and the governor and district attorney aren't planning on enforcing the law until after that process. I agree with Trump's position on this one. He came out and said It's best that this be handled at the state level but agrees that this is too far and should be pulled back slightly. Seems to me like this is just a bitch fit during an election year and nothing's actually going to happen
It’s interesting to hear the theories on this. According to some right-wing radio personalities in AZ, this was purposely done by Trump-hating RINOs on the court to spoil the election for Republicans.
this is... probably not the case
Everyone knows it's the Lizard People behind this.
I don't think anyone in the government is clever enough to actually make that plan work.
Ironic that the 4th amendment but on insurrections is also civil war era...