Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 91 to 100 of 100

Thread: Evictionism - Abortion and Libertarianism

  1. #91
    Quote Originally Posted by Invisible Man View Post
    That doesn't answer the question.
    It answers the false conclusion you drew from the question. If the answer to "who is responsible" is "nobody" that doesn't mean that and fetuses who are evicted will be doomed to death. But the ones who are aborted are 100% doomed to death. So doom all of the unwanted babies do death just because you can't guarantee that all of them won't be left to die? What kind of sense does that make? (That last question was rhetorical). It is estimated that there are between half a million and a million abortions per year. There are between 1 to 2 million American couples waiting to adopt at any given point.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #92
    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post
    ...
    If the woman legitimately *has* to have one, and the physician knows that he's going to be defending his action in front of a court that may or may not decide in his favor, then "health and safety of the mother" takes on an entirely new realism that doesn't currently exist.
    On a tangent not really about abortion, keeping the issue between a woman and her Doctor is somewhat problematic in the light of reality. That presupposes that the "Doctor" is both ethical and competent. My experience is that the vast majority of the medical "profession" these days is neither of those. They are not competent, or ethical. The time and thought put into each patient is minimal. They are not thorough, they wing it. They are drug pushers, who follow the policies and procedures prescribed for them by a profit driven medical bureaucracy, aka the pharma-healthcare complex.

    The Covid debacle made this perfectly clear for many people.
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Pharma-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul

    Proponent of real science.
    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  4. #93
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Okay. But you didn't describe the problem you have with evictionism. I'm genuinely curious about that. If a woman who doesn't want to carry a baby to term can stop carrying the baby without killing the baby the harm in that is.....?
    I'm against episiotomies, I'm against planned c-sections, I'm against epidurals - I'm against most of the medical interventions associated with "normal" birth.
    I'm really against any unnecessary medical intervention of any sort.
    You could make the argument that issues like severe cleft palate are a necessary fix, and others might make an argument that it's also unnecessary. I would disagree with those people. I think if you're born with a condition or develop a condition through no fault of your own, medicine should step in and give you a better quality of life if it can. I also disagree vehemently with the "autism acceptance" idiots - if medical treatment could do anything to normalize brain function in the most vulnerable of society, it absolutely should.

    The difference being all of the edge cases I can think of are just that: edge cases. Hard cases make bad law. But leaving aside the fact that abortion is nearly universally elective and therefore doesn't fit with my view of how medicine should generally operate... Leaving aside the fact that women nearly universally voluntarily participated in the action that got them pregnant... If we accept Block's premise that any instance of a woman simply not wanting a pregnancy is a hard case, then that's logically similar to saying "the government should decide who is a good guy who can own guns" or "the government decides who is a citizen and only citizens have constitutional rights". It opens the door for a bunch of dudes in black dresses to wave a magic wand and grant or prohibit en masse the ability to do the thing in question.

    If Blcok had made the argument that some abortions happen as hard cases, and had addressed the need to keep them hard cases, then I would have been more receptive. But he didn't: he said abortion is horrible and should not happen, and then added a huge BUT and he went with a property rights argument. I understand his argument, but I also think I understand why the likes of (IIRC) Becky Akers went ballistic on him in print - pitching unnecessary surgery as a defense of property rights might make logical sense but it doesn't make practical sense. It's very similar to pitching liposuction as the first and only solution to obesity. Hey Walter, I think we missed a couple steps there.
    There are no crimes against people.
    There are only crimes against the state.
    And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.

  5. #94
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    It answers the false conclusion you drew from the question. If the answer to "who is responsible" is "nobody" that doesn't mean that and fetuses who are evicted will be doomed to death.
    But it does mean they could be, and that it would be legal to doom them to death.
    There is nothing to fear from globalism, free trade and a single worldwide currency, but a globalism where free trade is competitively subsidized by each nation, a continuous trade war is dictated by the WTO, and the single currency is pure fiat, fear is justified. That type of globalism is destined to collapse into economic despair, inflationism and protectionism and managed by resurgent militant nationalism.
    Ron Paul
    Congressional Record (March 13, 2001)

  6. #95
    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post
    I'm against episiotomies, I'm against planned c-sections, I'm against epidurals - I'm against most of the medical interventions associated with "normal" birth.
    I'm really against any unnecessary medical intervention of any sort.
    You could make the argument that issues like severe cleft palate are a necessary fix, and others might make an argument that it's also unnecessary. I would disagree with those people. I think if you're born with a condition or develop a condition through no fault of your own, medicine should step in and give you a better quality of life if it can. I also disagree vehemently with the "autism acceptance" idiots - if medical treatment could do anything to normalize brain function in the most vulnerable of society, it absolutely should.

    The difference being all of the edge cases I can think of are just that: edge cases. Hard cases make bad law. But leaving aside the fact that abortion is nearly universally elective and therefore doesn't fit with my view of how medicine should generally operate... Leaving aside the fact that women nearly universally voluntarily participated in the action that got them pregnant... If we accept Block's premise that any instance of a woman simply not wanting a pregnancy is a hard case, then that's logically similar to saying "the government should decide who is a good guy who can own guns" or "the government decides who is a citizen and only citizens have constitutional rights". It opens the door for a bunch of dudes in black dresses to wave a magic wand and grant or prohibit en masse the ability to do the thing in question.

    If Blcok had made the argument that some abortions happen as hard cases, and had addressed the need to keep them hard cases, then I would have been more receptive. But he didn't: he said abortion is horrible and should not happen, and then added a huge BUT and he went with a property rights argument. I understand his argument, but I also think I understand why the likes of (IIRC) Becky Akers went ballistic on him in print - pitching unnecessary surgery as a defense of property rights might make logical sense but it doesn't make practical sense. It's very similar to pitching liposuction as the first and only solution to obesity. Hey Walter, I think we missed a couple steps there.
    You're arguing that somehow technology that might in the future take the government out of the abortion question somehow injects the government in to the abortion question. That doesn't make sense. It isn't about "hard cases" or "soft" cases. @PAF recently made the point that while he thinks abortion is murder, he doesn't want the government involved. Okay. Evictionism would merely give an option where a mother, for whatever reason, who didn't want to continue her pregnancy could decide to not continue her pregnancy without killing her baby. There is no need for "a bunch of dudes in black dresses to wave a magic want and grant or prohibit" anything. Let's say the government didn't exist but artificial womb technology, which already exists, advanced to the point that most people considered it a safe and viable alternative. Some women would chose to have their babies naturally. Some women who now wrestle with the decision to have an abortion would decide to use an artificial womb instead and (perhaps) put the baby up for adoption. So would still abort for whatever reason. It the framework that we have now, with the "men in black dresses", it certainly doesn't make the abortion situation worse. The only possible drawback is that some women who want to have children might still decide to skip the whole morning sickness routine the same way some women today skip breast feeding.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  7. #96
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    On a tangent not really about abortion, keeping the issue between a woman and her Doctor is somewhat problematic in the light of reality. That presupposes that the "Doctor" is both ethical and competent. My experience is that the vast majority of the medical "profession" these days is neither of those. They are not competent, or ethical. The time and thought put into each patient is minimal. They are not thorough, they wing it. They are drug pushers, who follow the policies and procedures prescribed for them by a profit driven medical bureaucracy, aka the pharma-healthcare complex.

    The Covid debacle made this perfectly clear for many people.
    Absolutely.
    But to be fair: Block was making the evictionism argument during a time when probably a lot of us still had a tiny shred of trust in physicians.
    There are no crimes against people.
    There are only crimes against the state.
    And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.



  8. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  9. #97
    Quote Originally Posted by Invisible Man View Post
    But it does mean they could be, and that it would be legal to doom them to death.
    A) It's already legal to doom them to death so that "point" is irrelevant. ​


    B )In a 100% anarchist it would even be legal to doom your toddler to death, because there would litterally be no state to punish you for killing your toddler, so again your point is irrelevant.

    That's why your question, as framed, makes no sense. The reason for your "doomed to death" scenario is 100% because of the social structure you've chosen to look at the technology through and not the technology itself.

    Back to reality. If we looked at it through the lens of a state, a mother who was in a state of pregnancy where abortion is illegal could have the option of evicting the pregnancy. Who pays? Pick one. In Alabama they are currently pushing a bill to make child support retroactive to conception. Or the mom could pay. Or the potential adoptive child could pay. The state already pays WIC which covers prenatal care so that amount could be applied to artificial womb care. It's estimated that pregnancy costs $19,000.so it's not like natural birth is somehow "free." Could birth by machine be cheaper? Possibly. You don't have to worry about liability for the machine "dying" but only for the baby. Right now there are programs where prospective adoptive parents pay for the healthcare of poor expected mothers in exchange for the right to adopt their babies once they are born. An artificial womb regimen would allow that to happen without the mother having to go through the 9 months of being pregnant. There are no downsides. At least not based on any argument you've put forward so far.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  10. #98
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    On a tangent not really about abortion, keeping the issue between a woman and her Doctor is somewhat problematic in the light of reality. That presupposes that the "Doctor" is both ethical and competent. My experience is that the vast majority of the medical "profession" these days is neither of those. They are not competent, or ethical. The time and thought put into each patient is minimal. They are not thorough, they wing it. They are drug pushers, who follow the policies and procedures prescribed for them by a profit driven medical bureaucracy, aka the pharma-healthcare complex.

    The Covid debacle made this perfectly clear for many people.
    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post
    Absolutely.
    But to be fair: Block was making the evictionism argument during a time when probably a lot of us still had a tiny shred of trust in physicians.
    The power of the evictionism argument is that it makes things like arguing whether or not the abortion is really for the "life or health of the mother" or whether the mother was raped or whether the baby is viable is irrelevant. The baby isn't being killed. So who cares about the reason it's being evicted? The only counter arguments I've heard so far is "I don't like anything but natural birth" (tough titty as there is no libertarian argument against c-sections) and "Maybe there will be fewer adoptive parents than women who want to evict." To that I say "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good." The technology could be used under any current abortion legality framework as a harm reduction method. In scenarios where abortion is legal, some women might be convinced to "evict" and give up for adoption rather than going 9 months, giving birth and giving the baby up for adoption. In scenarios where abortion is illegal, it could offer women a way out of a pregnancy they don't want to continue without having to fit into some arbitrary exception.

    Anyway, while the technology is ready for human trials to help save premature babies, it's not expected to be available as a general womb replacement anytime soon.

    See: https://www.technologyreview.com/202...ificial-wombs/

    But 50 years from now, who knows?
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  11. #99
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    You're arguing that somehow technology that might in the future take the government out of the abortion question somehow injects the government in to the abortion question. That doesn't make sense.
    You and Block are talking about what could be. I'm talking about what *is*.

    I am arguing that the government is already part of the question. My visceral reaction to abortion does not immediately rise to the level of calm political discussion. It is a despicable act that destroys women's souls.
    Part of the reason I think that is because I believe surgery is an invasion of the body and any invasion of any kind needs to be weighed very carefully. Women who get elective abortions are not doing this. Neither is Block when he casually talks about surgically removing fetuses.
    I'm not a woman but I think I've been successfully married long enough to have grown enough mangina to understand this is also how most women think. They don't get past the visceral. And I agree with them in this case. This should be taboo, and it's serious enough that I don't really mind putting on the face paint and carrying the totem.

    Block isn't talking to what Luther called the "common folk". I'm not looking down on the common folk - I'm just recognizing that they outnumber us and they're either incapable of or uninterested in following these arguments. So the nuanced arguments are not going to get traction. But appealing to the viscera has a chance. Dr Paul himself has said repeatedly that you change the culture and then the laws follow. Block's argument stands a precisely 0.000% chance of doing this. It is therefore a nonsensical waste of time.

    Anyone who has had surgery should understand this. Particularly surgery with complications. There is no surgery that is risk-free and there never will be. Medicine recently took its mask off when it made us put ours on. Most of what they say is abject bull$#@!, and any technology involving artificial wombs always going to be particularly susceptible. The time for nuanced argument is over. It's time for middle fingers and fists.
    There are no crimes against people.
    There are only crimes against the state.
    And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.

  12. #100
    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post
    You and Block are talking about what could be. I'm talking about what *is*.
    Yes. Exactly. Full stop. This is a hypothetical question. But it's based on advances that are actually being developed.

    I am arguing that the government is already part of the question. My visceral reaction to abortion does not immediately rise to the level of calm political discussion. It is a despicable act that destroys women's souls.
    Okay. And yet there are exceptions that you mentioned where you would allow it. And that's why "the government is part of the question."

    Part of the reason I think that is because I believe surgery is an invasion of the body and any invasion of any kind needs to be weighed very carefully. Women who get elective abortions are not doing this. Neither is Block when he casually talks about surgically removing fetuses.
    There's nothing "casual" about evictionism. We know that abortion will continue to happen. Ban it in one state, it will happen in another state. Women might even travel to Canada at some point.. Harm reduction is not casual. That's a disingenuous argument.

    I'm not a woman but I think I've been successfully married long enough to have grown enough mangina to understand this is also how most women think. They don't get past the visceral. And I agree with them in this case. This should be taboo, and it's serious enough that I don't really mind putting on the face paint and carrying the totem.
    I'm not even sure what you're trying to say here. What should be taboo? Abortion? Evictionism? Any discussion about what happens with a woman's body? In that case then you've just made the case for legalized abortion for all 9 months. I'm not hearing any rational argument from you. Just concern about "despicable acts" (emotional argument), Block not being "serious enough" (emotional argument) and things being "taboo" (emotional argument).


    Block isn't talking to what Luther called the "common folk". I'm not looking down on the common folk - I'm just recognizing that they outnumber us and they're either incapable of or uninterested in following these arguments. So the nuanced arguments are not going to get traction. But appealing to the viscera has a chance. Dr Paul himself has said repeatedly that you change the culture and then the laws follow. Block's argument stands a precisely 0.000% chance of doing this. It is therefore a nonsensical waste of time.
    So don't ever talk about something that people aren't already talking bout. Okay. I think in 2008 even most of the Ron Paul movement didn't know anything about the Federal Reserve. Now that's being talked about in general conversation. Same with blowback.

    Anyone who has had surgery should understand this. Particularly surgery with complications. There is no surgery that is risk-free and there never will be. Medicine recently took its mask off when it made us put ours on. Most of what they say is abject bull$#@!, and any technology involving artificial wombs always going to be particularly susceptible. The time for nuanced argument is over. It's time for middle fingers and fists.
    Nobody said anything was risk free. Carrying a baby to term has plenty of risk. In fact I know one woman who went from being pro life to pro choice after she read about the life threatening complications that Serena Williams had with her pregnancy.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234


Similar Threads

  1. Can Left-libertarianism and Right-libertarianism Peacefully Cohabit an Anarchic Society?
    By Quark in forum Political Philosophy & Government Policy
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08-06-2013, 12:47 PM
  2. Replies: 41
    Last Post: 08-02-2013, 04:16 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-18-2012, 10:58 AM
  4. Replies: 41
    Last Post: 11-30-2010, 03:03 PM
  5. Replies: 35
    Last Post: 03-01-2009, 10:09 PM

Select a tag for more discussion on that topic

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •