/r/Libertarian discusses healthcare. "Personally, I have hemophilia." vs. "Your existence is an unsustainable drain on the people around you." (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
37 ups - 13 downs = 24 votes
67 comments submitted at 20:40:57 on Feb 7, 2014 by bluemayhem
Let's say it wasn't hemophilia, but anencephaly, or cystic fibrosis, or whatever you call that disease that causes kids to grow old and die when they are only fifteen.
Do you seriously believe it wouldn't be vastly preferable for the parents to have a kid who is genetically functional?
>Do you seriously believe it wouldn't be vastly preferable for the parents to have a kid who is genetically functional?
That's actually one of the reasons why I support universal healthcare and family planning. Because once society goes full GATTACA at least everyone will have access to the same resources.
that was a good movie.
That sounds like an interesting political conversation to have. Much more interesting than /u/bluemayhem uncreatively ridiculing me for having progressive ideas about how to improve the human condition.
You call saying that people with treatable illnesses should die a progressive idea?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
before conception
omfg
Are you actually four?
I personally would love to see libertarianism cured before conception.
Easy. Give the fetus a blood/alcohol test.
I think you don't know what your'e talking about. You can't test "in utero" "before conception". You seem to be suggesting that either (a) people who carry these diseases should be forced to abort after conception, or (b) they shouldn't be allowed to conceive in the first place.
I originally advocated for removal of hemophilia by testing before conception. The individual in question then specified that he developed the mutation after conception. At that point I raised the idea of testing in utero.
I thought Reddit was pro-abortion. Why is it suddenly a moral outrage that we might use this in a constructive way?
I'm pro-choice because I believe a woman should have control over her own body. Forced abortion is the exact opposite of that. Pressuring women to have abortions is the opposite of that. Telling women they can't get pregnant because they may have a child with a disease you don't like is the opposite of that.
I am a libertarian. We don't force anyone to do anything except respect our rights.
It sounds like your perception of this situation is colored by the inherent liberal assumption that the government must always control everything. Try to expand your mind and imagine a world of free humans controlling their own bodies.
Okay, I'm imagining people getting pregnant and having children despite there being a chance of the child having a genetic disease. Cuz, you know, that already happens.
>omfg
>Are you actually four?
What happened to trying to "speak without feelings?"
Holy shit, you are just the edgiest dude in middle school.
Nobody in this subreddit wants to have a debate about eugenics with you bro. Go home. Don't brigade.
> Don't brigade.
WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS SUBMISSION HOLY SHIT
You seem very prone to overreaction.
What? How dare you, the guy who thinks someone with a treatable illness should be killed wouldn't be prone to that at all!
We don't go into linked thread, and if someone does they're banned.
>Going into linked threads is against the subreddit rules, but it still happens sometimes, even with np links.
I've been subscribed here nearly since the beginning, I know how this place works. Libertarian threads almost always get voted in.
This is a thread dedicated to laughing at you.
So we have Stephen Hawking, who economically costs more in healthcare than he economically producew in salary. Yet his contribution to the advancement of humanity as a whole is so great that he is a net positive.
Next we have landarchist who says he economically produces more than he costs society. Yet his contribution to the advancement of humanity is actually regressive and so he is a net negative. You know what you must do.
Let's say you're a horse's ass instead of well, a horse's ass.