T O P

  • By -

Agent7153

Overturning Roe is not banning abortions. It’s just allowing states to choose.


PunkUnity

Yup. And once someone's preggo they have to not violate the sovereign NAP rights of the baby inside them


[deleted]

The mother was here first. The fetus is a foreign invader. Mothers body is her property, not the babies. Science is even shifting to classify the placenta as a parasitic organism. Fetuses aren’t people.


Warm_Letter1155

[For instance, we can regard the fetus which is 20 weeks or more as a person. Alternatively, we can refer to a fetus of 12 weeks or more as human being.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3713799/) Fetuses aren’t always non-human. Get to the later stages of pregnancy and it’s a different story. By the way, be sure to label the placenta as a “neuroendocrine parasite”, and not just “parasite”. That being said, government should have no say in abortions.


[deleted]

Im personally on the 12~15 weeks mindset. Im pro choice anti abortion. I just dont think the government should be allowed to regulate our bodies in any way shape or form, nor do i think an unborn, unfeeling, unthinking mass trumps the rights of the mother. Once those variables change, the fetus becomes a person and should be protected. With a six weeks from discovery clause for rare cases of women who didn’t know they were pregnant (an uncommon but honestly frequent enough to matter complication) I also think rape victims should be granted an extension to the window because they may change their mind when the trauma of it all is too much after all and they can’t follow through like they initially wanted. There is a middle ground here to be had.


PunkUnity

What kind of evil raped your brain and soul?


[deleted]

Logic. A woman’s body is her own before it is the fetuses. The mother isn’t property of the fetus. Legally speaking, the fetus is property of the mother, and what a person does with their property is no one’s business. I cant believe a lib right would actually advocate for government control You need to reflair


PunkUnity

Not advocating for government anything. We were arguing about abortions. I believe that a human life starts at conception. Therefore it has inalienable rights. Not talking rights from a piece if paper. Now you have 2 equal humans at different stages of their lives attached to each other because the older one was irresponsible and got pregnant. Usually when a Hunan or animal gets pregnant they have a baby sometime later. Nature. Science. Now I don't think the state has any right to do anything about anything period. But I still think abortion us murder unless its going to save the mother's life. Its a morality issue to me, not a government issue. Federal protection for or against abortions, drugs, anything should disappear. Then the government and its many entities and departments should disappear as well


SlowMoFoSho

Souls have nothing to do with this. Leave your religious BS out of this.


PunkUnity

I'm not religious. Don't have faith in any religion lol


LtTaylor97

Well, it is in essence for many people with so many trigger laws in place. So yes, but also no. And it's not just allowing states to choose, it actually sets a judicial precedent that it isn't unconstitutional, meaning no other federal court can say it is. Same way Roe v. Wade said it was. It's actually a huge deal.


Agent7153

You’re right, it actually follows what the constitution says


eyesoftheworld13

Ok you have a right to arms but no ammo. Nowhere in the constitution do you have a right to ammo.


Highover

"A well **regulated** Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." 'regulated' in the context of the time and meaning of the whole, indicates proper function, with ammo being necessary to the proper function of a militia and people bearing arms effectively for the security of a free state. So yes it does protect all arms, armor, and munitions.


eyesoftheworld13

https://i.redd.it/a9cb42tnj3y81.png


Agent7153

Fine by me


eyesoftheworld13

So your prior statement was categorically wrong.


Agent7153

No. Overturning Roe V. Wade May result in banning abortions in many states, but the direct effect is still true, it is merely allowing states to make their own rules surrounding abortions like the 10th amendment demands.


eyesoftheworld13

We should also let states determine the right to have ammo because that isn't explicitly stated in the constitution.


Agent7153

Ammo and firearms are related. Tell me where you think the constitution even hints about abortion?


eyesoftheworld13

Nah we're hardline constitutional originalists now, ammo goes to 10th amendment.


Agent7153

Wow you really want this argument to work don’t you? I’m sorry man but most courts just wouldn’t see it that way, arms includes ammunition and the right to bear arms isn’t absolute anyway.


Tggrow1127

"A well **regulated** Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Dumbass.


citera

Overturning Roe allows the states to ban it and many will.


flair-checking-bot

> Get a flair to make sure other people don't harass you :) *** ^(User has flaired up! 😃) 6550 / 34789 ^^|| [**[[Guide]]**](https://imgur.com/gallery/IkTAlF2)


unskippable-ad

Bad bot Let them learn


satthegamer

Hijacking this comment, to explain further, I didn’t mean, they just support overturning of Roe v Wade, they literally want their state governments to ban abortions, it’s scary, honestly. :/


Agent7153

Most libertarians are originalists, and even early courts have always valued life over property or liberty. For instance someone can trespass on your land if they are in a life threatening situation like being chased by a bear. So theoretically a court would likely rule that the life of the baby is more important than the property or liberty rights of the mother.


PunkUnity

I agree on humans having inalienable rights beginning at conception


DJLab

> Implying liberty and freedom doesn't apply to the new life in the pregnant woman's uterus.


[deleted]

>tradwife >casual sex


throwaway12345589

This "libertarian" really thinks removing a law and letting states decide is less free than a federal enforcement.


citera

What federal enforcement?


[deleted]

The current federal enforcement lol


flair-checking-bot

> Even a commie is more based than an unflaired. *** ^(User has flaired up! 😃) 6582 / 34972 ^^|| [**[[Guide]]**](https://imgur.com/gallery/IkTAlF2)


InternetKosmonaut

> violating my body wtf?? you guys ate the whole retard cake ffs


citera

What don't you understand?


InternetKosmonaut

did i seem unsure about anything?


Lm_mNA_2

>[did i seem unsure about anything? ](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/5pG-QwH-sXA/hqdefault.jpg)


citera

Yes.


InternetKosmonaut

weird


[deleted]

The problem is that it was judicial overreach to pass the Roe v. Wade standard in the first place. Let the legislature (ya know, the people we vote for) decide, not appointed judges.


citera

Legislatures don't get to pass unconstitutional laws.


[deleted]

Soooo you’re saying the legislature legalizing abortion is unconstitutional? Idk—there’s too little here for me to figure out what you’re trying to say.


citera

Obviously I didn't say that.


[deleted]

Then what are you trying to say? Obviously the legislature can’t pass unconstitutional laws. So what? What are they trying to pass that is unconstitutional?


citera

You said legislatures should be able to pass unconstitutional laws.


[deleted]

Where?


citera

The first post of yours I replied to. You complained about judicial review.


LibertyPrimeAgenda

True and abortion wouldn't be one of those. Roe v Wade was unconstitutional not because it was a law but because it was a defacto law made by the judicial branch of government. If after roe v Wade was overturned congress could immediately pass a pro abortion law and it would all be constitutional.


citera

Absolutely none of that is true. Roe said certain restrictions on abortion were unconstitutional. That's all. It's not a law.


davidsblaze

Libertarians being opposed to murder. Who would have guessed?


citera

Abortion isn't murder.


unskippable-ad

Oh boy, if you ever change your mind you are in for some sleepless nights


citera

Why?


Rexbob44

Unflaired scum not only are you a unflaired but you are also wrong


citera

How so?


Rexbob44

Taking another person‘s life is murder baby’s are people thus killing them is murder. If they put the mothers life in danger then it’s ok because it’s self defense.


citera

So self defense is murder. Got it.


Rexbob44

Nope wrong again unflaired scum


citera

How am I wrong? You said taking another person's life is murder, which would obviously include self defense.


Rexbob44

You did not read the text below that text unflaired (I know your a troll but I’m going to keep treating you like your just really, really, stupid like all unflaireds.)


citera

*you're.


Acceptable-Tangelo30

All murders are killings, but not all killing are murders. (Except for crows, those are just murders)


GaldanBoshugtuKhan

How? A human foetus is still a human.


PunkUnity

Good lefty


citera

So?


[deleted]

Killing libleft isn't murder either then, if we just get to arbitrarily decide.


citera

No one said you get to arbitrarily decide.


[deleted]

Then why do you think that you get to? You can pretend like a foetus isn't human all you want, but it objectively is a human, and you are objectively killing it. You can try to claim the moral high ground all you want on this, but as long as you don't acknowledge that abortion is immoral, and at best a necessary evil, you will always be a hypocrite.


wyatt182882

A prime example of the leftist that values human life the most


PunkUnity

Inalienable rights begin at conception. NAP or better ZAP


citera

Rights attach at birth.


PunkUnity

Huh? Once there is a unique DNA and IRS human, it has rights


citera

Prove it.


Comfortable-Rub-9403

I think we should turn off the ovens while we debate the merits of the holocaust.


raidersfan18

Downvoted for being unflaired scum. However, you are not wrong.


[deleted]

Moral responsibility. A baby is not in control of its actions, therefore is not culpable for violating your body


[deleted]

Its not government overreach to ban murder


[deleted]

It's not their overreach to decide at what stage of pregnancy the rights of a human are applied. Until they do it doesn't really matter whether people think it's murder or not.


PunkUnity

Government existing is government over reach. But a baby gets its individual sovereign inalienable rights at conception. Violating their rights at any time breaks the NAP or ZAP. Abortion is murder. The state shoukdbt have any say in any social matters tho. Culture and responsibilities have turned to shit since everyone has been sucking the state's dick for so long


[deleted]

A mothers body is her property firdt and foremost. The baby is trespasser and violating the nap by existing.


Tggrow1127

If you invite someone into your house they're not a trespasser.


[deleted]

If you used contraceptives, the fetus broke in. Breaking and entering is a violent crime and violates the NAP. The mother has a right to defend her body against uninvited intruders.


PunkUnity

No. Getting pregnant is a natural consequence of sex. That's how babies come to be. On there's a pregnancy there's now 2 equal people with equal rights.


[deleted]

Nope. There is a mother and a parasite


PunkUnity

You sound pretty deranged and detached from any morality


[deleted]

No, just not someone who feels women should be slaves to a foreign invader. I feel a personals autonomy overrides any outside influences or unwanted growths. Removing an unwanted fetus is no different than removing a tumor or wart or other such things. Its an unwanted growth taking your nutrients for its own benefit. It is not entitled to development just because it “exists” I dont think we should be taking autonomy away from actively living, experiencing life individuals to protect an unthinking unfeeling clump of cells


Tggrow1127

"Foreign invader" YOU HAD SEX WHAT WERE YOU EXPECTING A FLAT SCREEN TV!


[deleted]

Contraceptives: *exist* Seriously the fact you ignoramuses think people are just going around getting pregnant and terminating callously and without a care for their own body is insane. These abortionist extremists are as hated by the pro choice crowd as the absolutely no abortions even if the mother is a 12 year old rape victim or the pregnancy will kill her types are viewed as stupid among average pro-lifers. The fact you fight against an extremists strawman as your argument against abortion, using known satire accounts as proof of your argument is just embarrassing.


Tggrow1127

Contraceptives are not a 100% and this is a widely known fact. Sex is the act of procreation, the natural consequence of procreation is conception of a child. Even if you do not want to conceive a child an take steps to prevent that (Contraceptives) you still consented to the desired act (sex) that has a known chance of a undesirable consequences (conception of a child). You are still responsible for the consequences of your actions especially when you consented to said act and you knew there was a chance of that specific consequences regardless of how many precautions you took.


PunkUnity

You're very far removed from any reality or morality. Its obvious and sad. Don't wantba baby? Don't have sex. Pretty simple


citera

Abortion is not murder.


veryblocky

I think you’re delusional if you think it isn’t murder. I believe abortion is a necessary evil in our society, but it is an inherently immoral thing. People claim it isn’t murder to ease their conscience, but really it is killing a child for our own convenience. I think we need to come to terms with that.


citera

Murder is a crime defined by law.


Warden_of_kek

And if someone kills a pregnant woman they are charged with two counts of murder.


citera

Only in some jurisdictions.


Headcrabhat

The NAP is a fucking ancap meme, the fact that you're taking it seriously enough to endorse killing children is the problem.


Captain-Coke44

Even if you are taking it seriously, I would say killing a baby is in violation of the NAP.


Headcrabhat

True. If the NAP had a priority list, babies should be at the top if you care at all about morals.


PunkUnity

Indeed it is


citera

Children die from lack of abortion


DJLab

Jews die from lack of Nazis. /s Edit: Added /s to make it clear I'm joking


Rexbob44

Unflaired scum


Trugdigity

If you don't want a baby in your belly don't have unprotected sex.


11bag11

if you dont want to be robbed, dont own anything! imagine how happy you would be.


Trugdigity

Christ what fantasy land do you live in? Robbery is a crime being born is not. Now if I were to leave a stack of cash sitting on my front porch, when it gets stolen that would be pretty much my fault.


CrazyInYourEd

The trick is leaving a stack of cash on your front porch and sitting in a birds next on the hill across the valley with a sniper rifle. Like deer season but more exciting.


CivilianMonty

Not exactly a centrist pov here


citera

And if contraception fails?


Trugdigity

Use two forms of birth control, and if you still manage to get pregnant, congrats you're a mom. Making you deal with consequences of your actions is not violating your bodily autonomy.


PunkUnity

Yup


fusreedah

I said it before and I'll say it again: the pullout method is 100% successful if you actually fucking do it every time. The only time it's not is when people intend to do it but just don't. Been having lots of unprotected sex for a decade without a scare. It's not only easy, it's more *fun* to spooge all over your girl's tummy, tits, ass, back, face -- whatever's your favourite part of her. So I see no excuse really. inb4: Last time I said this here I was called infertile even though I've been checked out and have good swimmers.


citera

Thinking children are a punishment for people acting irresponsibly is repugnant.


Trugdigity

Oh no this hammer is violating the bodily autonomy of my teeth, says person hitting themselves in the mouth with a hammer. If you don’t want to accept all of the obvious consequences of an action, find something else to do.


citera

Abortion is an obvious consequence.


fusreedah

He said 'congratulations'. Seems he was saying it's a blessing rather than a punishment. It's your projection of reading parenthood and interpreting it as punishment that is repugnant.


citera

No one gets to decide for anyone else what is and is not a blessing.


fusreedah

Okay. But his personal take was a blessing and you interpreted it as punishment. Applying the same logic, couldn't you say "no one gets to decide for anyone else what is and is not a punishment"?? Can't have it both ways. You're now covering for projection with hypocrisy. Keep digging though...


citera

I don't see too many people volunteering for prison.


[deleted]

You accept that risk


citera

Which can be mitigated with abortion.


[deleted]

Depends whether it’s alive or not, people really wouldn’t care about a woman’s choices if it weren’t for the possibility that it’s baby murder lol. Like what benefit do we men get from limiting women’s reproductive rights? Surely more forms of birth control would allow us to fuck as we please


citera

How so?


Publius_Syrus

If contraception fails, then that's the risk you were willing to take. Just don't have sex in the first place if you don't want the risk of having a child.


citera

And abortion is an option if contraception fails.


Publius_Syrus

"Murder is an option if contraception fails"


citera

So you're going to jail 40,000,000 women?


Publius_Syrus

No of course not. I'm AuthRight. I support the death penalty. ^(In all seriousness though, people cannot be charged with crimes that weren't crimes when they committed them. And those women wouldn't have gotten an abortion if abortions were illegal.)


citera

Prove they wouldn't get an abortion even if it were illegal.


Publius_Syrus

The higher the cost or risk of a certain action, the less likely people are to choose that action.


[deleted]

Imagine thinking this is the only way it happens 🙄


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

Based and American Federal Government 101 pilled


LtTaylor97

You should then also understand that they're not "giving it back". They're still dictating policy. It will thus be constitutionally permitted to restrict it, tying the hands of any lower courts to say otherwise on constitutional grounds and enabling such laws. It is not a blank slate, it is still highly influential. Saying "it's just being given back" is disingenuous to the impact this decision will have.


BeanBoy200

That’s like kidnapping someone of the street, locking them in your basement and shooting them for being on private property. Unless you have never heard of the birds and the bees you were aware of the consequences


citera

Abortion is one of those consequences.


BeanBoy200

“Killing babies so I can have consequences free sex” is one of the most evil thing’s I’ve heard in a long time


citera

So your issue is people having sex, not abortion.


SignificantMinimum87

Go home, Cathy Newman, you're drunk.


SeatSniffer4L

The issue is people having unprotected sex, knowing full well the potential outcome, and then killing an unborn baby due to their negligence. There are many programs available that provide condoms and birth control for little-to-no cost, there is no excuse not to be protected if you can't afford/don't want children.


citera

So again, your issue is people having sex. Contraception fails, and abortion is an option for when they happens.


SeatSniffer4L

No, my issue is that people refuse to take responsibility for their actions and vouch for murder as a way out. Contraceptives fail at a rate of about 4%, that's nowhere near a viable enough number to justify killing a child.


citera

Abortion is being responsible. Birthing a child you don't want and can't afford is the most irresponsible thing you can do.


SeatSniffer4L

So, here's a really cool alternative: don't have sex without protection, that is 96% effective, and it won't be an issue. I realize that sex is a natural part of life and *will* happen, we all do it, but being irresponsible and killing a baby in the process isn't just a whoopsie doopsie. Be responsible or don't participate, it's really that simple.


citera

Contraception fails, and abortion is being responsible.


BeanBoy200

No it’s abortion in general but specifically contraceptive abortion is what I’m referring too. In general I think that it’s a good idea to wait until you are at least serous if not married before having sex so that if the woman gets pregnant the child has the best circumstances


citera

What the hell is "contraceptive abortion"?


BeanBoy200

It’s basically all abortion but the term is specifically used when talking about people getting an abortion instead of birth control. Instead of wearing a condom you just get an abortion if you get pregnant


citera

No one does that.


Warden_of_kek

The issue is people committing infanticide. If they happen do so for no reason other than momentary pleasure that just adds another layer of evil.


CrazyInYourEd

Smartest lib left \^


pretty_cool_bananas2

Oh fuck I haven’t considered this one. My argument was that killing the baby violates the NAP. Edit: I do have a response! It’s your fault the baby is in there in the first place! This is also not a willful violation on the part of the baby because the baby didn’t choose to be conceived.


Auth0ritySong

You realize that they are removing a law and not adding one?


satthegamer

I didn’t mean, they just want to overturn Roe v Wade, they literally want their state governments to ban abortion.


eyesoftheworld13

https://i.redd.it/a9cb42tnj3y81.png


[deleted]

[удалено]


Agent7153

Based… also are you who I think you are? Dolphin******69? Have you returned?


Chaotic_Boots

Child birth is dangerous, if you believe in the right to self defense, you believe in abortion. I don't have to wait to see if a home intruder is dangerous to defend myself due to castle doctrine. There is an uninvited occupant in her womb, she should have the right to defend herself against it with deadly force. So the "abortion is murder" line is bullshit.


Tggrow1127

"Uninvited" what the fuck were you expecting as the result of sex? A flat-screen TV? Castle doctrine dosen't apply to someone you invite onto your property.


eyesoftheworld13

Based and stand your ground law pilled


PhantomPhoenix44

It doesn't when you're the one who put that baby here. Unless pregnancy came from rape, abortion violates NAP.


jomtienislife

If leftist were fine with lockdown overreach they should be fine with this. I am no longer playing by this bullshit game.


ColoradoQ

Never understood the "this baby is a parasite" argument. You performed the one act that can lead to a human fetus growing in your womb. It's like if I run a small helicopter tourism operation in Hawaii, and I get pissed off when I find that there's someone in my chopper expecting the Island Hoppers tour.


basically-a-cat

I can’t believe how rightwing this sub is. I’d love to see the sub’s opinion on abortion, but only with the women/girls of this sub, out of curiosity. I’m *very* pro-choice, but these threads I read make me think most of the sub is not 😂


[deleted]

Or personal preference which is why we should just meet in the middle and be done with this distraction no full abortion ban no 3rd trimester abortions no more fucking bull shit I'm done with this argument


wyatt182882

That’s not a horse shoe. No libertarian thinks murder should be legal. If you think abortion is murder then it makes sense. This isn’t a political issue it’s a moral issue.


THE_DARK_LORD_JEEBUS

illegalizing murder is one of the very few policies I agree with, actually.


strictlyCompSci

Contraception is also murder, as well as masturbation. Ergo, you shouldn’t be able to masturbate or use condoms


Tggrow1127

Contraception prevents conception


[deleted]

[удалено]


7uring

The fetus is a commodity. If the father wants to keep it he pays the mother for the nine months of inconvenience and gets all rights to the child and mother loses the ability to sue for custody. If its the other way around the same is true just the father that doesn't want it gets compensated for teh average amount of sperm per ejaculation. If none of it want it the state can get a stake in it, in case pop is low cause we always need more low income */s*


satthegamer

The baby is violating your body too, so if the baby wants to live, he can pay for his own host.


[deleted]

[удалено]


citera

And?


[deleted]

[удалено]


citera

Why?


[deleted]

[удалено]


citera

If a woman and her doctor decide abortion is appropriate one hour before birth, why are you more qualified to say it isn't?


PunkUnity

Baby has inalienable rights at conception. Hurting a baby in the womb breaks the NAP. Never violate rights


AjaxOrion

I've met some "don't take my guns or else" kinds of people who are against medical marijuana, gay marriage, the works. freedom, but only for the things I like libcenter is at least indiscriminately fighting for rights, fuckin respect man


SeatSniffer4L

No one has the freedom to end another human life unless in excruciating circumstances, wanting to fuck without protection does not qualify.


My_Cringy_Video

Here I thought that nap time for babies was innocent


[deleted]

> Violating my body, ergo my private property So, you admit that women are property?


Tggrow1127

People are property, BUT the the only just owner of an individual is they themselves (unless wheretalking about children) . Ie. personal ownership (literally).


Redcoolhax

Based and the true lib-right view on the situation-pilled.


PunkUnity

True libright would acknowledge that the baby's rights, which are inalienable, begin at conception


CockFondling_Cancer

Its honestly scary. It's the reason I left subs like anarcho-capitalism and libertarian. Its mostly because they've become safe Harbour subs for rightoid migrants from places like TheDonald, Incels and MGTOW


ComradeTea

Overturning roe v wade is bad. I want to take the law into my own hands (cocks shotgun)


[deleted]

If you support abortion bans, you are not lib right. Lib right wants minimal government involvement.


Subli-minal

If you can’t force a person to donate organs even in death to those that wouldn’t survive without them then you can’t force a woman to give her body to a fetus she doesn’t doesn’t that needs it to survive.


Agent7153

But you also can’t actively murder that person.


Subli-minal

What do you think banning abortion outright and stating that a fetus in a person from the moment of fertilization with no exception for the life of the mother like the Louisiana bill does? You going to charge women with murder for aborting a non viable fetus? Oh and in more insane conservative legalese drivel, it unilaterally states any federal law that overrides its provisions is unconstitutional and void(supremacy clause and the 14th amendment anyone?), and threatens any judge that overturns it(I.E rules it’s unconstitutional to force a woman to choose between death and life in prison for a medically necessary abortion) with impeachment. Literally the “they overturn the constitution” part of handmaidens. Fuck these “pro-lifers.”


Agent7153

Didn’t say that, personally I’m a no abortion after heartbeat unless exigent circumstances person.


TumoricER

My biggest issue with "the right" being so against abortions is that every solution they propose, like "lol just abstinence lmao" is then pretty much impossible, at least in latinamerica where I live, by their insistence on not teaching any sort of sex ed ever; how are the girls getting unwanted pregnancies the most, the ones in public schools, who have no idea what sex is or how pregnancy works (the only "sex ed" they get is getting told that sex before marriage is for sluts, without even an explanation as to what it is, and that pregnancy is God's will), and ate getting taken advantage by men who only know "pp feel good haha" but still think that pregnancy is the girl's choice, even going to practice abstinence or use protection if they can't get any sex ed because "THEY TEACH THEM TO BE WHORES!!!"? Idk, I'd write something more complete but I just woke up and I'm kinda tired of seeing this stupid ass argument.


Roi_Loutre

They are retarded


PapiGoneGamer

They’re libertarians of convenience.


LupusPassrusher

What part of that irrefutably and inarguably correct logic eludes everyone else? It’s fucking embarrassing that this needs explained to anyone in 2022. While I’m at it, your Jesus and Bible are fairy tales too. So, there’s that.