"Any Pro-Life Anarcho-Capitalists Here?" (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
169 ups - 54 downs = 115 votes
227 comments submitted at 05:12:25 on Jan 17, 2014 by PhysicsIsMyMistress
"Any Pro-Life Anarcho-Capitalists Here?" (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
169 ups - 54 downs = 115 votes
227 comments submitted at 05:12:25 on Jan 17, 2014 by PhysicsIsMyMistress
An-cappers being pro-lifers and not caring at all about women's rights. Why am I not surprised.
I thought the whole ideology was based on the individual's right to do whatever the fuck they want?
For white men only.
I realize that this is a bash ancaps thread and I hate to go against the grain but I feel like this issue really isn't tied to anarcho-capitalism as much as it is to general moral theory.
If life begins at conception then I think most of us would agree that the right to choose does not override a human beings right to life. If life begins at birth than the fetus does not possess any rights that outweigh those of the mother.
The question simply is when does life begin. Some of us believe that life begins at conception and therefore abortion represents an initiation of force. Others believe that life begins at birth and therefore stopping a woman from having an abortion is the initiation of force.
Personally, as a pro-life ancap, I believe that forcing a woman to bear the child is the wrong approach. It is my responsibility to convince her of why I believe that the child has rights. It is also my responsibility to provide an avenue whereby the decision to have the child is more beneficial to her than the abortion.
It's a tough position for any human being to be in, I don't envy any woman who has to make the decision and so I feel that ultimately I should try to peacefully convince her.
Be quiet. Read this. Think hard about how bodily autonomy is trumped by right to life only if you're a woman, and if that makes you a moral crusading anti-sex Puritan, or just a regular old misogynist.
What a terribly embarrassing string of analogies for the author.
Her arguments only work if you assume rape and/or assume contraception. If neither is the case then her entire premise falls apart.
It would be more akin to you putting a sign up that says "Come on in" in front of your house then shooting the first person to enter because you didn't actually want them in. You just wanted to seem nice. You closed your doors so it isn't your fault they still got in.
Or imagine you're at a bar and someone buys drinks for everyone else. They then are faced with the tab and say "Oh, bartender, I didn't intend to pay for my actions. I asked that everyone get a drink but you should have known that I wasn't going to pay because I'm not wearing the right clothes. I just wanted to be popular among my friends. The responsibility for my actions is not something I agree to."
> Think hard about how bodily autonomy is trumped by right to life only if you're a woman, and if that makes you a moral crusading anti-sex Puritan, or just a regular old misogynist.
Any guy whose actions lead to a child is also responsible for the life. It just happens that physiologically one party has to bear the results.
it doesn't matter when life begins; being alive doesn't entitle you to use another person's organs without permission (ya know how organ donation is completely voluntary, even when you're a corpse)
So if someone gives you permission to have sex with them but shoots you during intercourse are they in the wrong? I mean, even the decision doesn't give you a right to their body.
and this, my dear children, is what we call a false equivalence... my death isn't a mandatory consequence of a severed physical contact, but by law, I must indeed stop sex as soon as they withdraw their permission, even if we're right in the middle of the act; I am not for fetuses dying, but that's what happens when you detach them from another person's body (and if a person keeps having sex after consent has been withdrawn, then that person is a rapist and I'm not against them being shot)
>and this, my dear children, is what we call a false equivalence... my death isn't a mandatory consequence of a severed physical contact, but by law, I must indeed stop sex as soon as they withdraw their permission, even if we're right in the middle of the act; I am not for fetuses dying, but that's what happens when you detach them from another person's body (and if a person keeps having sex after consent has been withdrawn, then that person is a rapist and I'm not against them being shot)
So if someone lacks the capacity to suddenly leave your house if you invite them in do you have the right to kill them?
I can call the police (or ambulance, etc) to remove them; it may be rude or not compassionate, but not illegal for me to remove an unwelcome guest; I'm under no obligation to let someone move in with me just because I invited them for dinner. Also, a house is not a body. Pregnancy can be fatal. If the unwelcome guest poses a risk of injury or death to the resident, that resident should be able to defend themselves as necessary. edit: actually never mind, houses have nothing to do with bodily autonomy laws so your example is not even relevant
>Pregnancy can be fatal.
Having a guest in your house can be fatal... It rarely is.
>actually never mind, houses have nothing to do with bodily autonomy laws so your example is not even relevant
It's an analogy for personal autonomy. If you do something that results in an understood consequence, something that could have been unlikely, you aren't exempt from the consequences because they are taxing.
Saying "Bartender, get everyone a drink!" Does not exempt you from the bill because it's a drain on your finances.
we're talking about bodily autonomy, it's the only one relevant here
there are circumstances where you can legally force someone to give you their money (payment for goods or services, taxes, etc); under no circumstances can you legally force to give you organs from their body; not for sex, not for pregnancy, not for dire medical emergency. If someone got hit by a drunk driver and needed a blood transfusion, that driver would not be obligated to donate or even test for a match even though the accident is entirely due to his choice to drive intoxicated.
BODILY AUTONOMY is unlike any other
This comment has been linked to in 1 subreddit (at the time of comment generation):
This comment was posted by a bot, see /r/Meta_Bot for more info.
Pro abortion Pro women's choice ancap here, you are attempting to pigeon hole a collective whose philosophy is based upon individuality. Please stop. It's foolish. There's many varied opinions on this issue, just like there is in society.
Although one thing I can say to predict what probably is the universal ancap desired way of resolving the abortion issue is that hopefully in a free market society the technology is invented so that evicted zygotes or foetuses can survive out of the womb after being evicted and therefore develop and be "born" and then adopted by loving families.
Then everyone should be happy :-)
> I thought the whole ideology was based on the individual's right to do whatever the fuck they want?
As long as there is no harm to other individuals, or other individual's property.
Wouldn't an Ancap society only rely on charity to take care of the zygotes which aren't adopted by loving families? So wouldn't that mean that there is a possibility that children are born only to starve, if that charity fails to raise enough money?
The pro lifers will adopt them, seeing as they wanted to preserve the live's of these children when they were non sentient embryos. /s
;-)
I wonder if people who hold that position know how many children that would produce. There are between 800k-1000k abortions a year in America. If we are generous and say that if abortion would be illegal that would result in an extra 250k unwanted children a year. The total number of adopted children currently is around 1.8 million. The total number of foster care children (already burdened by this number) is around 400k. How are you going dump those extra children into this system and only use private charity?
private charity is usually code for 'i don't have to think about it, fuck you.'
> Ancap society
top lel
The trouble is with the definition of individuals. I can completely understand the idea of not harming other individuals, and I can understand being against abortion on those grounds. However, my major disagreement is with the status of a foetus as an "individual" at all. If something can't - and never could - conceive of itself and can't survive on its own, can it be considered an individual? How does one define "individual" at all?
Well you see pro lifers (ugh I hate that label) wish to grant the foetus personhood (aka labelled as human beings with rights) at the moment of inception.
At which this falls apart. For you see, you and I have personhood too! We are human beings! but yet to the pro lifer we don't get the same rights as a foetus, a foetus gets more rights than us even though it is human like you and I. According to the pro lifer a foetus should be allowed to occupy and harvest nutrients from a person's body (the mother) even without consent.
Therefore, you and I should have the same rights. Can we then "parasiticly" harvest nutrients from others without consent? If the answer is no, then why does a foetus get more human rights than us?
But as a pro choice person, I don't regard a foetus as being a person until it develops neural brain activity. Neural activity distinguishes life apart from things like hair and finger nails which are also made of cells.
Usually this occurs around by the time the first trimester of the pregnancy has passed. By this time a mother should have decided whether she would like to evict the cells or not from her body. Therefore ideally the mother (the host) should decide whether to carry out the duration of the pregnancy by this point.
After the first trimester (3 months or so) when neural activity in the foetus is present, I am more willing to call it murder if it's deliberately killed. Any later and you are in infanticide territory.
I don't think you know what anarchism is.
Anarcho-capitalism isn't the same as anarchism. They're both badly thought through ideologies that don't work in real life but they're not the same.
>that don't work in real life
How much of your day do you spend using force to get your way?
Yesterday I opened a jar of pickles that had a really tight lid.
The other night an apparently drunk driver was swerving and I called the cops in with a description of his vehicle. Hopefully they got to him before he hit or endangered anyone else.
In ancap ideology, what I did was a reprehensible and immoral display of oppressive totalitarian statist fascist violation of autonomy and blah blah blah.
Wikipedia: "Anarcho-capitalism (also referred to as free-market anarchism, market anarchism, private-property anarchism)".
Linking to the Wikipedia article doesn't make it any less of a silly idea.
Why do you think the "anarcho" bit is in there?
To establish a lack of government? I'm not sure how that responds to what I said in the slightest.
Do you really think that the reason the majority of people oppose abortion is to just fuck over the rights of women? Like really?
Did I say that? I said they didn't care, redpillers obviously don't care about women.