Predicar en desiertos

I do agree that ostracism and whatnot can and will help curb such behaviours. However, one cannot ostracize what cannot be seen or known, which is what happens today, with clandestine abortions. Then again, one can't completely stop moral evils. Though I do wonder how as a society we would go about helping people, no matter the circumstance in which the baby was conceived, who wanted to abort. Especially when we're still so divided on whether or not it's morally right or wrong. Considering how that 'person' is inside your 'property', I find that rather interesting. If you do that which may make babies and, in spite of all your precaution, a baby comes over, you ARE responsible for its inception. But it's still an unwanted organism in your body, even if it is a person (which is still up for debate). Then again, since I'm not quite likely to get pregnant (and if somehow I do, then I'm in quite a pickle!), I can't help but feel a certain apathy towards both pregnant women and babies. Don't get me wrong, I do find the debate itself fascinating, but still...

Much like dsayers said, you're switching it for something we UNDERSTAND to be immoral, it does not prove that abortion is moral or immoral, though I do admit that it may poke a hole or two in my arguments, especially in that last paragraph. For the rest, it's not much of an argument to equate what -to many of us- is something that is up to debate, with something where the logical consensus is that it is morally wrong. True enough. It makes me wonder if, in a free society, it would be possible to enforce a ban on abortion. @rosencrantz As for the Rothbard quote, while he is a respectable economist and this could be taken as an argument, it's not really a conclusive one, and Rothbard isn't an absolute authority. The argument may be a well worded one, sure, but neither an ovum nor a baby is an entity that is either rational or that can enter contracts voluntarily. Yet I'm pretty sure one wouldn't kill a baby. Not saying I disagree with Rothbard, since I'm pro abortion, but the issue of responsibility is still valid. I mean, while a woman can give a baby away, why should she carry it in her belly for 9 months, with all the medical expenses that signifies? The circumstances of the conception are surely also something to take into account. I'm assuming the moral implications of an abortion after rape and an abortion after drunken, unprotected sex are quite different. Then we must think whether or not a sperm cell and an egg are initiating the use of force by joining together inside an unsuspecting womb, and whether or not said gametes, now joined, can be disposed of without considering the abortion itself as the initiation of the use of force. While we bash our heads against the wall -or each other, though I'm not sure I can tell the difference- with this discussion, which I do find fascinating, all I can do is hope that those who don't even ask themselves these questions are not denied proper medical treatment for a choice which none of us is yet truly morally justified to condemn. And I also hope that those who DO condemn it, are NOT forced to perform an abortion, or treat or do anything related to those who wish to have an abortion. A moral gray area should never be an excuse to impose on personal freedom. >Sorry, went out on a little rant there

Yes, I'm from Buenos Aires. I don't have a soundcloud of my own performances, though I can probably dig and find a few recordings of the orchestras I play in. Much of our early culture was brought from Europe, so that's why we would probably seem to be better off. Many of our central buildings (Theaters, universities, government buildings) were brought from France. We expelled or killed most slaves when independence came, right before slavery was abolished, and spent decades obliterating the native populace, something no other country did, so on neighboring countries you'd have mixed cultures of slaves, natives, and people of European descent, while here -even until today- there's the idea that Argentina is the Europe of Latin America. Which means nothing, if you consider what Europe's direction seems to be. The thing about our culture is that there's a great mixture. The country's mostly populated by descendants from Spain, Italy, and other European countries (I myself am half Ashkenazim, half southern Italian), from people who came especially after either of the world wars. There's even a huge German community in the western provinces. I would say that Argentina was not necessarily ruined by socialist experiments, but rather was never truly prosperous. In the early 20th century -say, until the 40s or so-, it was a big crony capitalism with monopolies everywhere, to the point where a few families held most of the farming land, and the workers lived in near-poverty conditions, with the state and religion being the main means of oppression. This was seen as an opportunity by Peron, a follower of national socialism, who attempted to introduce a rather fascist regime, with heavy public spending and whatnot. There was a strange back and forth between democracy and military governments after that. Between both, little to no money was left in the public funds, though the poor were significantly better off, they were -and still remain- quite brainwashed. So many different interests have taken the flag of 'Peron' that it means nothing. Then again, it never did, it was a 'third position' between fascism and communism. An attempt at populism. Proverbial bread and circus, that tried to hold the left and the right together. The socialists appeared much later, after the 2000s, I'd say, trying to follow the (impeccable) model set by the Great Leader Jo- Uh... Hugo Chavez. Except -thankfully- with no military support of the government. Rather, they crippled the army, and the AFIP (our version of the IRS) became the main oppression tool. As you can expect, it didn't quite work. We're not as badly off as most of Latin America, but that doesn't mean we're particularly well off when it comes to personal freedoms. To be honest, I don't quite understand it myself. But what I can tell you is that it was never truly prosperous, though it does have the conditions to be so, but the state in Argentina has always been quite the Goliath, it's changed hands between fascists and socialists, but it's like changing between a right or a left boot on your neck. And then there were the "radicales" (Not radical at all, though they were a tad radical... around 1910 or so). Their governments were much like having both boots at the same time, trying to kick at each other, and somehow making things worse. Right now, we have an allegedly right wing president, who's still doing a monstrous amount of public spending, though I've been buried with work lately, so I'm not very well informed of the local political situation. I'm trying to keep up with Europe and the US, though mainly Europe because I'm trying to get into an orchestral academy in Germany -It's great for my resume, and my savings may soon allow it, if the statists don't swallow it whole-.

Besides the debate on whether we would find it moral or otherwise, I can't help but wander if either way anyone has the right to stop such a thing from happening. There is already a market for abortions, and people will keep doing it whether it is legal or not, which means that they do not think it immoral, or just do not care. I am one of those that doesn't quite care, but if abortion was legal, and there wasn't such a big stigma about it, many deaths related to clandestine abortions -quite a big problem where I'm from- would be avoided, because proper medical care would be enabled to the mother. Legally speaking, given the risks of our current statist society, wouldn't abortion be a good solution for men? If abortion were legal, then logically the only duty of a man towards a pregnant woman would be to offer to pay half (or all, damn statists), of the abortion. Were she to refuse, why should he be forced to pay child support? (I'm against the whole concept of child support or family courts no matter the circumstances, but I'm trying to see how it'd fit into current society). I'm not saying the morality of abortion is a moot point. I see good arguments going both ways, and it is a delicate issue. But no matter what we think about it, that does not give anyone the right to legislate on it. It seems objective that if the supply and the demand are there, it should be allowed to happen. It does not seem to be a moral wrong, because the one who is subject to aggression is, as seen by those who wish to abort it, a parasite, or a problem, and not a human being. Then again, this last bit isn't a valid moral argument, since it's not universal, but I find it hard to find a universal standard for this particular matter, and so I try to be as pragmatic as possible.

Hello everyone! I'm Alex, and I'm a musician. I specialize in playing the tuba, tenor tuba, horn, and other variants, though my stable job is as a tuba player at a big local theater. And that's probably how I first became discontented with the system. I mean, I had always taken the corruption for granted, but the last straw must have come with my first theater job, when I was fifteen or so. Everyone I worked with felt they were entitled to their salary, which was paid for by the government. I honestly feel that it's immoral to levy taxes, and for it to go to 'culture', in any of its aspects. So, people who never came to the theater were charged to keep it up? That's outrageous! Imagine how pissed I was upon learning that the entrance fee was minimal, the theater was usually rather full, and that, with some simple math skills, I figured out it could probably run well on its own, without state funding. Years later, nothing has changed in the system, and I'm a bit of a pessimist, and my account name literally translates as "preaching in deserts", which is an essay by Alberti, one of the writers of the original argentine constitution, and quite a liberal man for his time. And being a libertarian in Latin America is, in a way, to preach in deserts, because that's what this continent tends to be, an intellectual desert that blames everyone but themselves for its problems. And so, instead of blaming myself, I'll blame everyone else and call them sheep I've been listening to Stefan for about two years now, I came across his book on UPB originally, in a long personal research trying to understand why I felt so deeply that government was immoral. I guess he puts into words many things I couldn't really develop by myself, and it helped greatly. Finally, I'm quite fascinated by languages, literature, painting, mathematics, biology, and psychology, though I'm not too knowledgeable. Either way, I may or may not be able to post much, but I hope I can bring a little grain of sand to this community!