SoliFortissimi
Well-known member
Please don't tell me you don't know what liberty means.
"TradWives" Triggering Unhappy Feminists
- Thread starter Jormungandr
- Start date
Blasterbot
Well-known member
Murder isn't liberty brah. I'm reasonably sure that not even the hardest of hardcore libertarian would argue the position that people should be free to murder each other.
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
Liberty does not make you free from natural consequences.
You have two lives, the baby, and the mother. One of the two people made a decision that resulted in the situation where the baby's life is dependent on the mother's, the other did not. That person is therefore responsible for the consequences of that decision, while the other is not.
The fact that she doesn't like those consequences does not remove them.
If I'm driving down a residential road and hit someone at 25 MPH resulting in moderate injuries, unless they literally jumped out in front of me, I'm going to be the one held responsible. The fact that I don't like those consequences doesn't change the fact that I'm the one who hit them, and I'm going to be expected to pay a fine, pay damages, and possibly serve jail time.
A woman choosing to have sex, she similarly has responsibilities for the results of having sex. It's going to cost her time, money, and some suffering, just like time in court will cost me time, money, and some suffering. There are inherent risks to every activity, and just because you don't like them, doesn't mean you get to ignore them.
A man choosing to have sex is also responsible for the child, he simply won't be incubating it within his body, because that's how biology works.
If a woman wants to make absolutely sure she won't have an unplanned pregnancy, she can have a surgery to that effect.
mrttao
Well-known member
This, btw, is something that is absolutely enshrined in western nations.
The govt will hunt down you down and force you to pay for that child.
To the point of even nabbing you if the child is not yours
SoliFortissimi
Well-known member
I told you, the consequence is the monetary cost. Besides, I don't imagine that abortions are stress free operations.
I see no reason for why all of society should suffer for their mistake.
Ixian
Well-known member
Nothing about your stance is "logical", in fact it is highly irrational. The baby is dependent on the mother, because of her own damn choices.
It isn't the responsibility of the child to stop depending on the mother, it is the mothers legal responsibility to care for the child she created. It has absolutely nothing to do with "scripture".
You know what else isn't fair to the child? Killing it while it is at its most defenseless and vulnerable. Great deal for a lazy, deadbeat pos mother however.
You never did answer me, with your clearly laid out feelings on how the mother has no responsibility towards the child she created, up to the point that you support her right to kill said child, you still haven't said how you feel about father's abandoning their child.
The only logical position you can take is that you feel things like child support should be abolished right? After all, the kid should stop depending on their parents, right?
Thats just the cost the mother would pay in your "she should never have to deal with the real consequences of her actions" crazy world you live in.
The cost the child pays is obviously much higher, ya know, like it's life.
Last edited:
Aldarion
Neoreactionary Monarchist
No, it is not. Monetary cost is literally a way to avoid true consequence.
SoliFortissimi
Well-known member
The "child" is a nonsapient clump of cells. Besides, bodily autonomy. You cannot be forced to save or preserve someone with your own body. That's why it's illegal to force someone to donate blood even to save a dying man.
That they should be punished for it. If the mother cannot abandon the child, neither can he.
It's not paying anything. It isn't even alive.
mrttao
Well-known member
at what age does it become sapient?
do you support post birth killing of children until they become fully sapient?
so which is it. nonsapient clump of cells, or "not even alive".
because those are very very different things
your definition is literally shifting within the same post.
Ixian
Well-known member
The "non sentient clump of cells" is a human being in the earliest stages of the human lifecycle.
It is a human life, that isn't debatable.
A child that you created isn't comparable to a stranger that you have no connection or responsibility towards. It was the personal choice of the mother and father to create the person, so they have a responsibility to care for the person.
Except you are advocating for the mothers right to abandon the child via death here, so I'm not certain your opinion is consistent, if a mother can kill a child she doesn't want, then certainly a father should be able to abandon a child he doesn't want? Or do you only think women should be allowed to do that?
The child is absolutely 100% alive from the second the egg is fertilized, thats basic biology.
Skitzyfrenic
Well-known member
You want another secular reason to be pro-life?
Fuck corporations. Do you want to know why all the big corps are pro-choice? Because that means your female workers only stop working for like a half day, instead of months. And they'll definitely come back.
Motherhood is bad for big business.
Fuck corporations. Do you want to know why all the big corps are pro-choice? Because that means your female workers only stop working for like a half day, instead of months. And they'll definitely come back.
Motherhood is bad for big business.
SoliFortissimi
Well-known member
Sufficient Velocity is over there.
Because workers come from thin air, apparently.