A *10 year old child* is raped. But her state's laws changed after the SCOTUS decision so that she couldn't get an abortion. Fortunately, she was referred out of state to get it. But this should not happen, and those making such laws belong in an inferno.


“The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons.”

― Fyodor Dostoevsky t.co/sroqCW6csM

@gmcgath Unless we're talking about abortion, and then many on the right have no trouble being more obnoxious than most on the left.

Yet otherwise rational people continue to make this argument. As I said before, abortion (really, anything having to do with reproduction) brings out the stupid in people.


Those who claim otherwise *as a ground for rejecting abortion* are merely begging the question, slipping in "women should not have abortions" with their claim that "a woman should face the consequences of sex".


You do have to "face the consequence" that you might get pregnant; to do otherwise is to evade reality. But childbirth is *not* a consequence reality forces on you, it is a choice you make. And it can't be decided by a mere, "you had sex, now face the consequences".


If you are a woman who chooses to have sex, pregnancy is a consequence that reality might force on you. But that does not mean that you *thereby* have a moral obligation to allow that pregnancy to continue to term.


I have grown very tired of the "[you] should face the consequences of your actions" argument (whether or not this assertion is applied to abortion). Because what they really mean is, "you should face the consequences THAT OTHERS THINK YOU SHOULD". It's question begging.


I've been following the Ukraine war, via real reporters and the mainstream news. The first tell us like it is: People dying. Cities destroyed. The second has largely ignored that in favor of stories about the politics around the war and Ukrainian "human interest" stories.


The new drug war begins.

"South Dakota governor says she will ban abortion pills prescribed online". t.co/NDZA8soPxg

Libertarians: If we break up the country, hold a constitutional convention, or do any of our other big projects, the result will be liberty.

90% of the population: Fuck off, fools. It'll go our way, not yours.

Libertarians: No. It. Won't.

Anyone persuaded by that last?

RT @JonathanTCasey: It is becoming increasingly apparent that many who support "National Divorce" don't do so because they want more individual liberty.

They want National Divorce because they want to allow local tyranny, just in their own particular flavor.

That is not libertarianism.

RT @billblake2018: @PMatzko I have repeatedly pointed out--to no avail--that a national divorce would only create a large number of red or blue tyrannies, unmitigated by a national government which, however poorly, prevents either tribe from having the only say. Such a "divorce" would lead only to tyranny.

@gmcgath Good lord. I had no idea that people could be so....hell, I can't even find a word. Unprincipled? Self-destructive? Contemptuous of themselves, reality, and everyone else?

A reminder: Twitter is a relatively non-toxic place for me because I refuse to put up with the uncivil. If you condescend to me, if you call me names--even indirectly--I'm just going to block you. I have no use for adults who act like badly behaved children.

I wrote this. And the anti-abortionists wrote to contradict me. Not with argument, but with bare assertion. And thereby proved my point. t.co/Kuau2pNufL

Show older

Liberdon is a Mastodon instance for libertarians, ancaps, anarchists, voluntaryists, agorists, etc to sound off without fear of reprisal from jack or zuck. It was created in the wake of the Great Twitter Cullings of 2018, when a number of prominent libertarian accounts were suspended or banned.