- put your finger in this outlet please...
Abortion is in itself a controversial subject - and it’s the only political or social issue were I always find myself waver.
Being libertarian most issues are automatic, it’s about self-reliance, making own decisions, and fighting to be free from others and free from the state. Most of the time having a libertarian persuasion is consequently reasonably simple; I should be free to make my decisions about myself, my body and my life until I encounter another individual with equal right to his/her body and life.
Comes to abortion however it is not that simple. We´re talking about life after all, but when is the fetus a viable human? After how many months? A woman should have all right to her own body, but should she have so above another human who´s life depends on her decision? Albeit a human only beginning to form.
Putting human life and individuals right to live above all else create a conflict comes to the issue of abortion and I´ve always had a hard time picking a side.
Normally I come to the conclusion that most countries have it about right. This because I cannot in any way or form side with those considering the woman and her right to her body as absolute – not when another life is in the balance, and I can neither side with the other side arguing that life is created and sacred already at conception – if so, why is not each sperm and each egg sacred as well?
Having a couple of months or so to make a decision about abortion is therefore, according to me, a decent compromise.
However, when you start to compromise about life and these kinds of decisions; you always get freaky eugenic trolls like this popping up.
Is a child living on borrowed time until its three years old? And why that limitation? Is a 3,5 year old able to make own decisions or be smart enough to grasp how the government own his or her red butt and can do whatever they want with it. Has a 4y old passed over from parasitic living to become a viable example of human life? Has a 5y old? 6? 7?
If we listen to government and politicians we could assume that the transition to becoming a self-reliant existing being never will occur. Every step of the way, from the cradle to the grave, government entities and different groups owns much, if not all, of us and our decisions.
Could we not make the assumption that government (or our parents) has the right to kill us throughout our entire existence?
Keeping United Nations spokespersons in mind and listening to people like Bill "let´s kill msn" Gates, this notion does not seem as farfetched as it may seem at first glance.
And since we know that there are plenty of Malthusian f*ks roaming around freely, can we not assume then that genocide is always in the cards?
Reading about “scientists” asking for leniency comes to infanticide it seems that we´ve really reach the bottom of the barrel. Not only are our societies crashing before our very eyes due to Fractional Reserve Banking and government running amok – on issue after issue morality too seem to be lost.
Ethics and common sense is no longer part of western societies. Even during the Dark Age´s you could argue that our humanity did not go lost, can we really say the same today?
Regardless I would love to see the first court case were parents snuffed their 2y old because the child was such a burden to family finances and hear these two lowlifes as “experts”.