fiscally right-wing.

socially, a somewhat unusual mash-up of right and left views, but i'd say overall i take the more conservative stance on social issues.

i do not consider myself a libertarian because i don't particularly fully subscribe to the ideology of libertarianism.

I'm spectrum 48k... boom.

No seriously i don't consider myself any of them, i think putting yourself in a pigeon hole is not sensible, because you can pick and choose depending on the situation :)

Eh, I'd suggest something functional would be better.  As there are much less arbitrary decisions.

For example, the commonly used in the US "Survivability" metric.  Where if it medically has a good chance to survive out of the womb it's life should be perserved since people will adopt it.  

Or just general brainwave functions.   Which is used in Europe.  Funniest part about the abortion debate is that it's less of a issue in Europe, but also far more restricted.  

An opinion based soley on "as good a time as any" is not an opinio worth holding in my particular opinion.

Better to just not have a position on it at all.

Left-wing libertarianism or moderate Greens.

I kinda disagree with the "human/ non-human" divide. A first trimester fetus is not functionally all that inferior to a toddler, but they're both valuable because they have the same thing: nearly limitless human potential.  This is not to say that my idealism knows no bounds and abortion shoul never happen, but arguments over what is and isn't human kinda miss the point.

That said, the major reason most parents have abortions is that raising a child from infancy to adulthood costs on average $240,000 dollars. A child COSTS a quarter of a million dollars. Abortion exists as an issue because traditional family structure depended on apprenticeships and child labor. Without those or a reasonable compromise, children become dead weights on families for almost two decades. The cost of raising children has ballooned out of control and abortion became an issue in response.

If pro-life supporters addressed the root economic cause--the real reason people are devaluing the fetuses in question--rather than picketing fences, people would love them. I mean, who doesn't want the cost of raising a child to go down?

It's not like abortion is anything new, though. In the old days they'd just leave an unwanted newborn outside to die of exposure.

Though you are quite correct that more focus should be made on weeding out the underpinning reasons for abortions, and to be fair, many pro-life groups do also engage in charitable work to make the baby they want you to have something more treasured than a financial curse. It's just that the overall narrative woven by the right tends to forget the "good works" part, creating an impression of "we'll fight like hell for that baby until its out of the womb, then it's your problem and you're a drain on society for having that baby that we made you have."

(which, again, is not true for the whole pro-life community, but a contradiction in the right-wing platform as a whole)

I never vote, they all bad at something.

I don't know.

I like free association and property rights. About it, really. Anything that conflicts with those is bad in my books.

It depends on who I'm talking to, and what about, they are usually the ones who give me a label.. I've been called everything from a hippy, to a neoconfederate, to a capitalist pig, to "left of Obama".

Typically, I'd say that I was an anarcho-capitalist, but left anarchists get pissy over semantics.

I don't agree with voting, I believe that the models described by the ideas of cryptoanarchy and agorism are far more effective means of living in the world that I want to live in.

As far as the US is concerned, my political affiliation is irrelevant, as it's painfully obvious that whatever I think, feel, know etc... has no bearing on what an elected official will do.