5 ms·
I tend to err on the side of libertarianism. Everyone can govern hyper locally, why impose your view on others. That avoids much of the conflict. I think in t
by lettergram 4y ago
I tend to err on the side of libertarianism. Everyone can govern hyper locally, why impose your view on others.
That avoids much of the conflict.
I think in this particular issue, the challenge is both sides view it as a global issue and they aren discussing on the same terms. On the one hand life does begin at conception, it’s a scientific fact. The question is whether or not it’s worthy of societies protection.
One view is that creation and life should be protected at high cost.
The other world view believes either their life matters above others OR society is better without certain life.
Listen to the arguments, that’s what it boils down to. Quality of life, career, mental fitness, problems with the fetus, removing genes from the pool — it’s eugenics.
I personally pass no moral judgement, to your point, I see both world views. However, it’s painful to watch people not recognize what it is. The discussions aren’t even framed properly; everyone just talks past one another.
- dwallin 4y agoIt's seems like absolute bodily autonomy would be an extremely libertarian position. You can't get more hyper local than that.
- lettergram 4y agoInteresting you should say that, what about the other body? Are we okay killing dependents? I don’t think it’s as cut and dry.
- WaxProlix 4y agoFrom a libertarian perspective, if someone is dependent on you for food and shelter, what compels you to continue to provide those? There's no moral burden to help someone else, as they have no claim over your resources. Choosing not to supply a fetus with your nutrients and hormones - the result of hard work, fruits of your labour - is totally in line with my understanding of libertarianism.
- lettergram 4y ago[flagged]
- anon291 4y agoSo you must be against child support and child negligence laws right? I for one cannot wait for our new libertarian utopia stepping over the bodies of neglected, abused, and traumatized children. It's scary what some people fantasize about.
- zaphar 4y agoThat doesn't solve the problem at all, Because you still have to decide if the the fetus get's the right to that same absolute bodily autonomy. Take that all the way to the extreme though and you would need to wait for the zygote to get to the point that it can give it's opinion on what should be done with it's body. After all letting the mother decide would be going outside the bounds of her own body and would be violating another human beings right to autonomy. Absolute bodily autonomy doesn't even manage to sidestep the issue.
- stuckinhell 4y agoI'm hoping artificial wombs will settle the autonomy debate.
- rory 4y agoHow would that settle it? Like if you go to get an abortion they extract the fetus and put it into an artificial womb, then put it up for adoption? It's not likely we're all going to stop inseminating each other just because we have a new gestation option.
- lettergram 4y ago
- dwallin 4y agoThe fetus is utterly reliant on the mother to provide a hospitable environment, it seems self-evident that a body that is not autonomous doesn't have the same right to self-autonomy. Just think through the consequences of the argument you are making. You've now established the government as the absolute arbiter of that fetuses best interests and given the government absolute control of the environment it relies upon, aka the mother. Should the mother be required to eat a government mandated meal to make sure that the fetus is getting the nutrition required? What if the mother wants to vigorously exercise? Are you going to strap that woman down to a bed and force feed her veggies to make sure the baby comes to term safely?
- 4y ago