After Birth Abortion?

Little Billy is so annoying, like most cute eight year old’s can be, but today mama just can’t deal with him anymore. So she pulls out a shotgun and blows his head off. While this is more of a strawman more or less of what after birth abortion is, why stop at a few minutes after the child is born. I mean why not just wait until the kid moves out.

We can argue the abortion argument some other time, it’ll give me another blog to write. The idea that once the child is born you can kill it goes against the child self autonomy. As a huge advocate of children’s rights, the right to life is one that they have. Once born they are no longer inside the mother and if she’s not happy, the idea she can just murder them, shows that this mother is a psychopath.

Under an anarchist society, adoption and payment to the mother would be so much easier. Plenty of parents would be willing to pay a wonderful price to have a child in their lives. The rules and regulations that we have now under a state, make even some of the best qualified people to be guardians of said child, unable to adopt for arbitrary reason.

When we value children as property, and not autonomous individuals, talk like after birth abortion is easy. Once we realize that all children have inalienable right, we realize that we can’t ever support after birth abortions, and only something as evil as the state would back something like this.

If you claim to love children, and see them as unique individuals, you should never support this bill. If you see children as property of their parents, then this bill shouldn’t bother you that much, and I really don’t want to call you a friend. Love child, Love life, Peace All.

 

 

16 thoughts on “After Birth Abortion?

  1. This is a great article. However, there is one concern of mine in this, especially if one is talking about it in the process to an anarchist/in an anarchist society.

    The concern originates from this sentence alone: “I mean why not just wait until the kid moves out.”

    I’m going to take the liberty to rephrase this and potentially put it in the perspective that some children would have if they were also to be obligated to stay with a guardian they do not desire to stay with.

    “I mean, why should I wait until I’m older to move out?”

    Why should they wait I ask? And why should the only alternative to “getting rid” of a child be giving them to adoption? What if the child already has someone who wouldn’t mind having them and that the child also wishes to go with? What if the child wishes to not be in foster care and to fend for themselves? Rather than disallowing them this opportunity, how can we equip them to be able to do so, as their right, while also still living open sheltering to them (similar way some programs do to give shelter to homeless folks, etc, though significantly better and more humane than it would be in a capitalist society as per currently)?

    I make these questions because for youth rights to take place, we also have to consider the idea that maybe some children simply desire to not have parents and want to be independent as fast as possible, or at least reserved the right to decide if that is the choice they desire to take.

    Plus I’m also against the foster care systems as they are because it is also essentially giving a property-like view of young folks, as if they are commodities that can be purchased. Actually, the fact you have to buy them is already worrying me to. No human being is something you should be buying. We don’t do this with adults, why would we do this with young ones?

    I’m not arguing that the foster care system be necessarily destroyed, but I do argue that it should change significantly and to operate under concepts of youth rights. That would mean respecting the choices of children and to eliminate the “having to purchase” them perspective over simply acknowledging whether the child wants to be in a family and if they even want to be in foster care in the first place by giving them the space to become as independent as they can as yet another option.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. The Foster Care system is a branch of the Child Protective Services in every state. It is a material handling system that places the children into a “commodicized” setting. The managerial skills of Child Protective Systems is nil to none, and generally run by inept people. The system is highly Christian oriented and does not account for any particular faith of its “victims” (I can’t think of a better word to describe it). There must be something better than this, but what is it? Being that Child Protection and Custody is a State run program, unfortunately politics enter in these programs that influences where the children finally end up.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Personally I do view it as making more sense to view children as property–with it understood that the parents have obligations towards those children. This has been the way people have been doing it for thousands of years in countless cultures… and they don’t view or practice abortion like we do at all. (We have so many aboritons here compared to other countries!)

    Liked by 1 person

  3. what does children “as property” which 99.9% of parents don’t think that way about their own off spring has to do with Anarchism. Such separated topics have no continuity nor congruity in theme. It appears that you write just to write and it is obviated by what you write: jumbled and in disarray to fill paper.

    Like

    1. I have spoken to many people in political circles, both anarchist and statist who claim children are property of their parents. The fact you don’t makes me feel well. Also this is a place just for to write and think. A place to make my mistakes and learn.

      Like

      1. I can’t believe you follow Richard Spencer! I know who he is and he lives in Oldtown Alexandria, Virginia. Don’t you know he is an alt right bigot, and pounds the table for complete ethnic cleansing in this country. He hates people of color, Jews, everyone who isn’t Caucasian North European. He wouldn’t like you either because ethically you don’t fit the bill, you are part Hispanic as you know. So with him you can join the Jews of Nazi Europe in his mind. And anarchy? Are you kidding. You believe in government and you can’t survive without it and I know why. So don’t be a hypocrite.Get out of fantasy and step back to reality or in a few years you will be very sorry.

        Like

      2. Just cause I follow someone on social media, doesnt mean I believe what they say. And yah, I really dont care. Anarchism is the answers and I will do what I must while I live under a state, play the game you must, just to survive.

        Like

Leave a Reply to Sandra Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s