Their sentiment is that these young women should be saving themselves for their future husbands, and if they don’t, they’re whores who are getting what they deserve. It goes towards their belief that a man has a right to a woman because she is less than him.
I had so many people try to tell me why free lunch for children is bad and it never came down to anything but I don’t like paying for other people’s kids.
I believe part of free lunch was pushed by Eisenhower, who didn’t want malnourished troops. Odd for the patriotic to not see this any more.
Which is extra hilarious when you realize all we have to do is start actually charging wealthy people taxes and regular people wouldn’t have to pay for anything
If you want the ideological underpinnings of these arguments, there are a few.
The biggest one always boils down to the assertion that Government Is Paying For The Abortions. And that this is bad because it creates an incentive for young people to go out and have unmarried sex.
But there’s a second, arguably more insidious argument that you see crop up on the libertarian-right, which asserts the idea of “negative rights”. These are obligations of inaction that a state can impose on an individual or group, on the grounds that is makes others more free. In this case, the argument is that the fetus has a negative right with respect to the mother. Once you’re pregnant, you no longer have rights to your own body because another person is occupying it. This reasoning stems from the claim that fathers have an equal share in the property that is the child. This community property needs to be protected from a woman who wants to discharge her obligations prematurely at a loss to the man.
Pregnancy becomes a kind of debt that an impregnated woman owes to the impregnating man (and, by extension, the man’s family who also gets some degree of claim to the fetus). The woman is in debt bondage until the pregnancy is over. And the state - which libertarian ideology asserts should exist only to enforce property rights - has an obligation to obstruct the woman from evading payment of what is owed.
By contrast, all those state liabilities - health care, education, social services for children - are “positive rights”. Libertarians assert that these rights are actually an unlawful infringement on one human by another, because they must be paid for out of a communal set of resources. The mother cannot demand any recompense for her maternal state. The child cannot demand any basic standard of living as a minor. These all have to come from another adult (in a libertarian patriarchy, that means the father) and that once again infringes on his property.
It really does just boil down to the idea of Communism Bad.
Once you’re pregnant, you no longer have rights to your own body because another person is occupying it.
Except that a clump of a cells is not a person, so I am not sure how this argument holds.
This reasoning stems from the claim that fathers have an equal share in the property that is the child.
So, does that mean all sperm a man is carrying is also subject to community property rights? Don’t masturbate and destroy shared property, or you can be sued 😂 Sex cells and their less-developed products are not humans and as such not subject to any rights.
By contrast, all those state liabilities - health care, education, social services for children - are “positive rights”. Libertarians assert that these rights are actually an unlawful infringement on one human by another, because they must be paid for out of a communal set of resources.
These kind of services and rights are the reason why people formed civilizations in the first place, that is more organized allocation of resources. They didn’t form civilizations and societies to make some billionaire assholes richer. They don’t maintain social contracts out of the goodness of their hearts or because they’re weak, but because civilization and society provides for them in meaningful and substantial ways. Otherwise it’s slavery, and they have the right to eat the assholes who oppress them.
Who wants to bail out every private for-profit corporation that we allowed to get so big it threatens our economy and national security?
If it’s too big to fail, it’s too big to exist. If the government needs to step in to save them, it should be expected that they will either be broken up or taken partially into government ownership.
Yeah children would be much more attainable if our system was more like Norway where the baby can basically be with mom for 18 months before she returns to work.
In the US they basically expect you back as soon as they baby has left the womb
“Do you really need to go to the hospital for this? I mean, we are still in the middle of the meeting, can’t the baby like…wait, or something”
