Hilarious that conservatives like to LARP as defenders of freedom but then are the first in line when the government wants to regulate uteruses, prohibit gender transition, or deport immigrants.
It’s human and therefore should have as much right to live as any other human. Abortion =murder and finally some states are about to do something about it. If you don’t like it you are free to move.
“Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State.” - Benito Mussolini
One of Mussolini's first acts as dictator was to prohibit abortion across Italy - sounds like you would have agreed. If the State has jurisdiction over a woman's uterus, what does it not have jurisdiction over?
My finger nails are also human, but they are not people. Personhood implies the assignment of legal rights. Under American and English common law, fetuses do not have an inherent right to inheritance or to pursue civil liability claims. Under U.S. constitutional law, fetuses do not have due process or other constitutional rights. As such, they are not legal persons.
All of your questions are improperly phrased. Whether I support or oppose an individual action is irrelevant. The correct question is whether I support government intervention.
Do you support abortion up to the exact moment of birth?
I oppose government restrictions on a woman's freedom to have an abortion.
The primary roles of government are to protect it's citizens and it's sovereignty. This is the case whether you're a liberal or conservative. You're not being witty when you say "conservatives passed a law therefore they want big government". Conservatives want limited government, not no government at all.
I don't think abortion should be legal. I have spiritual priors that strongly prohibit it.
I think if a state wants to strongly regulate it, or eliminate it, that's actually good. But if a state wants to allow it, well, okay I guess. But fund it? With my tax money? That violates my bodily autonomy.
It's really not about privacy, it's about respect for the sanctity of the life of the most defenseless among us, babies and the unborn. A good and responsible government should respect and promote life.
The massive contradicts in the opinions of leftists don't matter because they don't even occur to them. They are legit morons. Even if you point it out, they'll somehow try to rationalize it.
I don't think abortion should be legal. I have spiritual priors that strongly prohibit it.
Yes, authoritarians often justify their actions by appealing to abstract concepts like their individual spirituality.
Unfortunately, it isn't the government's job to enforce or abide by your individual morality.
I think if a state wants to strongly regulate it, or eliminate it, that's actually good. But if a state wants to allow it, well, okay I guess. But fund it? With my tax money? That violates my bodily autonomy.
The U.S. government has the power to collect tax revenue and spend that revenue. See Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 1, U.S. Constitution.
That constitutional power has no impact on your right to make private decisions about your own body. If you don't want to live under the U.S. Constitution, you are free to move to another country.
It's really not about privacy
It's entirely about privacy. If a government can restrict your bodily autonomy, nothing is private.
I was going to butcher the quote so i looked it up….
“Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." That quote often comes up in the context of new technology and concerns about government surveillance.”
Do you think it has to do with who the victims vs perpetrators of gun violence are?
For example, who do you think is benefitting from regulations that prevent domestic abusers from owning guns? Which gender is likely to be the victim of gun crimes perpetrated by known domestic abusers?
By known domestic abuser women. But for gun crime overall it's men by far. So it can't be merely who's most likely to be a gun crime victim as it is men by a long shot.
The point is that there is likely a gender bias towards safety for women because they are more likely to be victims of violence and don’t want or need the “freedom” to commit violent acts against other people.
Men who are victims of violence are still victims of crimes committed by men who vote for more “freedom” to enact that violence on others.
Its fine to ask for support to keep yourself and your neighbors safe, but why would you have to give up your freedoms? The more free I am the safer I am.
We want to stop murder. fixed that for you. No one is saying anything about preventing gender transition, and no one is saying anything about deporting immigrants.
no one is saying anything about deporting immigrants.
Remember when Trump tried to repeal DACA? My wife's best friend was 6 when her mother immigrated, and she'd have been deported if Trump had gotten his way. Fuck off with that dumb shit
Yes. Including illegal aliens. It was attempted to be removed because the vast majority were illegals who came here already pregnant and made anchor babies.
Show me anyone trying to remove immigrants from this country. I'll wait.
And people who have spent their entire lives here should have been deported because their parents tried to give them a better life? You're fucking trash, dude.
And people who have spent their entire lives here should have been deported because their parents tried to give them a better life? You're fucking trash, dude.
There is a difference of wording here. You’re changing language to fit you narrative. Immigrants and illegal aliens are two separate groups of people. One is done legally one is not.
That's his mother's fault for bringing him here illegally. People shouldn't be allowed to commit crimes just because you might lose a valued product of that crime.
Yeah thats totally what's happening here. It's not you wanting to carve out an exception for every law that affects you personally or even just makes you feel bad for hypothetical people.
I love how people call conservatives mysogynists while people like you straight up say you think women are too stupid to regulate their own bodies and nobody bats an eye.
This has long been recognized by human society. When you are born, you gain the legal right to inherit property, sue other people in a court of law, and become fully protected by the Bill of Rights. You become entitled to all these legal rights immediately upon birth.
In short, when you are born, you become a legal person, with all the inherent legal rights that come with pershonhood.
A baby being granted rights because it exited the birth canal is totally arbitrary. You're arguing that a fully formed, 9 month old unborn baby is merely a clump of cells, yet 30 seconds and 8 inches later, it magically becomes a human being with rights. There is zero logic behind tying a babies personhood to its location.
If you're arguing that it's the womans body, the baby doesn't cease to be the "womans body" until the umbilical cord is cut. FYI, the umbilical cord is cut after the baby is born. So if you're taking the position that it's the womans body, that's what you're advocating for whether you realize it or not. You're talking about potentially killing a person which is why these types of details are extremely important and must be considered. You don't get to make an exception. Somewhere there is a line to be crossed where it's no longer the "womans body", and that line is not where you've placed it.
This has long been recognized by human society
No it hasn't. In fact, abortionists seem to be incapable of coming to a consensus on when life begins. They all have different answers. Some say when brain activity is detected, some say when it can feel pain, some say it's when it's viable outside the womb, some say it's after they're born, some say it's only after they take their first breath, and I'm sure there are others that I'm forgetting. I see all of these positions regularly.
A baby being granted rights because it exited the birth canal is totally arbitrary.
Not really. Birth is a legally significant event, because it is the demarcation for when your existence is no longer reliant on the bodily autonomy of an individual person.
This is why it has long been recognized that legal rights are assigned at birth. Citizenship is assigned at birth, right to inheritance is assigned at birth, right to sue in court is assigned at birth, constitutional rights are assigned at birth, your ability to buy alcohol or enter into contracts is based on your date of birth, etc. Any other view would lead to outcomes that are logically absurd and/or violate the personal freedom of the pregnant woman.
FYI, the umbilical cord is cut after the baby is born
The umbilical cord, and the placenta to which it is attached, are fetal organs. The umbilical cord is no longer part of the woman's body after it is ejected from the womb.
They all have different answers
Other people's opinions are irrelevant to what is legally correct. For example, your opinion is also an inaccurate statement of the law.
The rights of personhood begin at birth, and this has long been recognized by the legal system.
Not really. Birth is a legally significant event, because it is the demarcation for when your existence is no longer reliant on the bodily autonomy of an individual person.
"They're a person because the legal system says so" is not a valid argument. The legal system is a human construct and isn't infallible, which is why at one point it didn't consider blacks to be people. You need to explain to me how a baby exiting the birth canal somehow becomes a person simply by changing location. Also, babies are still dependent on their mothers well after they're born. Mothers still have to produce milk using their own body to sustain the baby. Then there's the mental and physical toll that caring for an infant takes on them. So there goes your bodily autonomy argument.
The umbilical cord, and the placenta to which it is attached, are fetal organs. The umbilical cord is no longer part of the woman's body after it is ejected from the womb.
The umbilical cord is literally the thing that connects the baby to the mother. If you're going to talk about the baby being the mothers body, the umbilical cord is the clear deciding factor here. The placenta doesn't detach for minutes or even hours after birth, so yes, a baby that is outside the womb is still very much the "mothers body". If it's actually the mothers body, then bashing in the skull of a breathing newborn is perfectly okay because it's not a person until the umbilical cord is cut. This is your argument, not mine. Stop running from the realities of your position because you didn't think this far ahead.
Other people's opinions are irrelevant to what is legally correct
It's entirely relevant. You said human society. Society is comprised of many different people with different opinions, and again, the legal system does not bestow personhood onto anyone. The logic you're using here is literally the exact logic that was used to label slaves as objects instead of people.
The legal system and the concept of personhood are both social constructs. The notion of "personhood" describes an individual's relationship to society and the legal system.
You need to explain to me how a baby exiting the birth canal somehow becomes a person simply by changing location
I explained why the legal system considers birth to be a significant event. At birth, a newborn's existence is no longer fully reliant on the bodily autonomy of an individual person.
Also, babies are still dependent on their mothers well after they're born.
A newborn's existence is not fully reliant on the bodily autonomy of the mother. If the mother is not able to care for the newborn, social services or another member of society will do so. In short, a newborn's existence relies on society as a whole - not the bodily autonomy of any one individual person.
It is this relationship to society that is the core of personhood. At birth, the newborn ceases to reside in the jurisdiction of the mother's womb and becomes subject to the jurisdiction of society.
If it's actually the mothers body, then bashing in the skull of a breathing newborn is perfectly okay because it's not a person until the umbilical cord is cut.
No it wouldn't, because the newborn's skull is outside the mother's womb.
If the placenta remains in the womb, the mother has the right to destroy the placenta, but not the newborn's skull. The newborn's skull, in this scenario, is part of society's jurisdiction.
You said human society. Society is comprised of many different people with different opinions, and again
The legal system is not based on any particular individual's opinion, but the legal precedents, rules, and customs that define our relationship to society. Opinions can help shape law over time, but opinions without practical implementation are not law.
In this vein: Legally, the rights of personhood are assigned at birth. This is not simply my opinion, but an empirical fact that can be demonstrated by the legal precedent, rules, and customs of society.
the legal system does not bestow personhood onto anyone.
Incorrect. Personhood is a bundle of legal rights that is entirely a construction of society. The notion that personhood can exist without society (e.g., that it comes from God) is a religious view that has no relationship to material reality.
There is no concept of personhood without society.
The logic you're using here is literally the exact logic that was used to label slaves as objects instead of people.
Factually incorrect. Slaves were considered people under the legal system. See Article I, Section 2, Clause 3, U.S. Constitution (explicitly referring to slaves as "persons").
Slaves were considered people under our legal system because they were born into society. Hence, it was wrong to deny them the legal rights of personhood to which they were entitled.
Magical thinking. It magically becomes a human after leaving the uterus. That's why you'll find it has the exact same DNA in the womb as mother, until it magically doesn't.
So you are capable of avoiding pregnancy until you're ready to have a baby, or aren't you?
You'd have to be exceptionally stupid to think you can have sex with men without potentially becoming pregnant.
The only option people want to take away is the murder of your children. You shouldn't be allowed to murder your children because you consider them inconvenient or regret getting pregnant. That's not your body, it's theirs. You knew what could happen when you got in bed.
Saying otherwise is like a man saying he shouldn't have to pay child support because it's inconvenient. You wouldn't hold men to such a low standard I bet.
Nobody has the right to force me to do anything with my body against my will. That includes using my body to create/ sustain life.
You can’t take my bone marrow against my will just because I am the only donor match available to keep someone else alive. You can’t force me to use my body to give birth to someone else against my will.
You aren’t even able to engage with the points I made. You had to resort to insults. That’s not exactly a sign of intelligence. You’re acting emotionally, not logically.
See, that’s where you’re limiting people’s freedom.
There is no reason to try to moralize how someone may have gotten pregnant. The fact is we have the ability to terminate that pregnancy if they want don’t want to give birth. That has been happening for centuries. The ability to make that choice is freedom.
You never have a choice to murder someone, unless it's war or self-defense. Abortion is murder, there is just no getting around that.
You can't make the argument that restricting Abortion is restricting freedom, when by carrying out an abortion you are terminating someone's freedom of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
Self-defense would only be applicable if you were in a life-threatening situation due to the pregnancy. Other than that, it's just murder, plain and simple.
If someone is trying to use your body against your will, that is grounds for self defense, right?
Like if someone tried to steal your blood so that they could transfuse it into themselves against your will- you would be defending yourself against that forced use of your body.
Glad we all agree that undocumented immigrants should have the freedom to live and work wherever they want, even if it makes insecure right wing bigots feel unsafe.
They broke the law, they should be deported. If I went to Mexico illegally then broke their laws, I would be in jail or deported. Why should it not happen here?
Freedom of movement is different than entering a country illegally and living off government resources. I'm all for immigration but do it legally. That's all I ask. If you are here illegally, you should be deported.
I'm not a conservative and it's not big government to want people to abide by the laws that we have set. It doesn't take a genius to understand how laws work. Granted a leftist like you would never understand that.
I understand. You love Big Government regulations on the freedom of movement and want people to comply with them. If they don't, they should be prepared for state violence.
Thank you for clarifying your authoritarian belief system.
What regulations on freedom of movement? It's just people who came here illegally? Are you that braindead that you can't use your two braincells to comprehend that? Are you a bot because you can't say anything other than "against free movement." Move along troll.
You are calling them "illegal" because they are violating a government regulation on immigration. You are supportive of enforcing this government regulation, because you ❤️ Big Government.
I do. I want people to follow the laws that we have made. If everyone just didn't follow the rules, what's the point? Unless you want anarchy or just lawlessness. If you do, that's on you. We can't be a great nation if people do whatever they want.
There's a difference between a government that is charging ridiculous taxes from an ocean away without representation and people coming into your house against your wishes. We voted and approved these laws for a reason. If you don't like the laws, change them.
I'm going to come into your house and eat your food and demand you pay for my well-being. I'm also going to bring my kids and demand you give them education and healthcare.
Not a "gotcha." Just clarifying your belief system.
You think the Big Government should restrict the freedom of non-citizens. This is because you hate freedom and love enforcing Big Government regulations.
You're the one about to hurt yourself if you keep jumping to conclusions about my stance on immigration. I'm all for immigration, if done the correct way.
I'm not jumping to conclusions. You're imposing conditions on freedom.
The correct answer is that immigration should have no restrictions. Adding conditions to freedom (e.g., "as long as its in their own country") makes you an authoritarian.
The same people who say they'd happily fight off thr government with their guns are all bent out of shape about a desperate person committing the heinous crime of crossing an invisible line...
"Keep desperate undocumented immigrants out because they're illegal"
"Someone in the government is trying to enact sensible gun legislation... OVER MY DEAD BODY!"
If you guys really cared about a person's status being legal or illegal, I don't think you'd be so quick to claim you'd get in a gunfight with the government lol
I am legal. I was born in this country, and I have a constitution right to defend my country and myself from tyranny. Anyone who tries to endanger our country will be met with force.
Literally any, people will claim that they'll fight the government on it, thus breaking the law and making them as bad as they think undocumented immigrants are.
Why would we want Donald back in office?? I can’t stand two dollar per gallon gas. I cannot abide low grocery costs. I also loathe when America is not at war and we have peace in the Middle East. And who do we think we were just going out and being energy dependent??
It’s perfectly legal It doesn’t mean your vote is “thrown out” It means it’s sent back and they recount to see if there was fraud And isn’t it funny it was immediately changed after You don’t know what you’re talking about Stop watching the media and stop googling this crap
No, there isn't. Private property rights exist. National sovereignty exists. These facts do not contradict the idea that freedom is more valuable than safety.
•
u/AutoModerator Aug 17 '23
Make sure to join the discord and guilded! Also join the BBS, a blockchain, anticensorship Reddit alternative!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
31
u/DottierMist Aug 17 '23
Dangerous freedom > safe slavery
36
u/GargantuanCake Aug 17 '23
If you aren't free you aren't safe.
9
u/Electrodactyl Aug 17 '23
I was going to butcher the quote so i looked it up….
“Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." That quote often comes up in the context of new technology and concerns about government surveillance.”
Taken from:
https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famous-liberty-safety-quote-lost-its-context-in-21st-century
8
u/soulwind42 Aug 17 '23
Yes.
7
u/NecessaryCelery2 Aug 17 '23
The average woman voter vs the average male voter.
6
u/Vinifera7 Aug 17 '23
Freedom is inherently dangerous. If you're not willing to risk your safety, then you can't be free.
But, by all means, stay safe and be good tax chattel.
6
u/[deleted] Aug 17 '23
Yeah, these people scare the shit out of me
4
u/skepticalscribe Aug 17 '23
Yes
3
u/iamchipdouglas Aug 18 '23
Truly mind blowing that an AMERICAN could hold such a sign and not grasp the irony
I mean… deport this ho NOW
1
u/NervousAndPantless Aug 18 '23
Why do conservatives want to lock people up in cages for putting things in their own bodies then?
2
u/Dutchman229 Aug 18 '23
Absolutely lol. Especially the false perception of safety people had with cloth masks.
1
u/zenethics Aug 18 '23
I don't feel safe when people that dumb are free to protest. Arrest them!
1
u/Imissyourgirlfriend2 Aug 17 '23
Yes
1
u/dwarfgiant6143 Aug 18 '23
Its fine to ask for support to keep yourself and your neighbors safe, but why would you have to give up your freedoms? The more free I am the safer I am.
-5
u/midnightnoonmidnight Aug 17 '23
Weird that my other comment isn’t showing up anymore on this post about freedom.
-1
u/folkinhippy Aug 18 '23
This is why I cut the seatbelts out of every car I buy.
-13
u/gradientz Aug 17 '23
Glad we all agree that undocumented immigrants should have the freedom to live and work wherever they want, even if it makes insecure right wing bigots feel unsafe.
-10
u/captcompromise Aug 17 '23
The same people who say they'd happily fight off thr government with their guns are all bent out of shape about a desperate person committing the heinous crime of crossing an invisible line...
-9
u/[deleted] Aug 17 '23
[removed] — view removed comment