Posted on 09/27/2003 8:46:49 PM PDT by thoughtomator
Edited on 09/27/2003 9:33:29 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
The question this thread aims to answer:
Is Libertarianism properly in favor or against legal abortion?
This discussion aims to sort out a difference of opinion between myself and tpaine on the subject. I contend a true libertarian must be pro-life, tpaine believes libertarianism supports abortion rights.
tpaine - State laws on murder must conform to our Constitution & BOR's, under the supremacy clause of Art VI.
Oh, I don't fight that at all, I believe in the Rule of Law.
Show me the passage of the Constitution that State laws on murder must conform to.
Nothing in the Constitution prohibits the states from doing so or authorizes the federal government to prevent the states from doing so.
171 MrLeroy
Very bold statement. Goes against every basic principle of our constitution & BOR's..
***************************************
No one has even made an attempt to refute my comments on LeRoys admission that the abortion movement favors a 'states right' to sequestering women from conception to birth.. Telling..
Maybe because that's a silly argument?
Your insistence that I come up with a special definition of what the word 'murder' means to me is 'silly'. LeRoys argument is not.
Nobody is advocating imprisoning pregnant women.
In effect, you are, by insisting that from conception, abortion is criminal. Criminals go to jail.
What is truly telling here is that after being directly asked five times, you are still unable to tell me what the word 'murder' means to you.
Its only 'telling' of your lack of a real argument on the issue.
I have ignored none of your questions. Now you hold mine hostage to what a third party has said? Are you still interested in honestly debating this subject?
You ignore answering the questions of substance in favor of bickering on definitions. Suit yourself on continuing.
The libertarian worldview is quite clear: you have a right to do anything you want so long as you do not harm, defraud, coerce, or otherwise violate the rights of others. Such a simplistic political philosophy fails to address the most difficult and important questions facing man and society. In the case of abortion, libertarian philosophy is at an utter loss in being able to provide answers to the question of when life begins or at what point does an individual have rights. Libertarianism takes from granted that these questions have answers, and hence cannot itself answer them.
To answer these questions you have to draw upon some philosiphical or religous system to which libertarianism is extraneous. That's why libertarians cannot and will never come to a consensus on the matter.
The abortion debate was one of many things that made me realize how bankrupt a philosophy libertarianism is.
Please explain to this non-libertarian what is so ludicrous about charging women who abort their children with murder.
To: exodus; thoughtomator; MrLeRoy
No one? All you have to do is ask.
Are you asking if the many State governments have the power (not a Right) to imprison a woman who might kill her baby?
My answer is no.
Such an act would violate the Constitution, specifically the 4th Amendment, the 5th Amendment, the 8th Amendment, the 9th Amendment, the 10th Amendment, and the 14th Amendment.
Legally, people can't be punished for a crime they might commit.
Of course, that didn't stop the implementation of the Patriot Act, so maybe the Rule of Law doesn't apply within our nation any more.
I find libertarian philosophy adequate to answer any question of government clearly. For example, with abortion, it is completely clear to me that once a human life has begun, it deserves the same respect as any other human life. We all started off as a bunch of cells - that's how human life starts - it's what we are. If rights are a property inherent in a human being (the very basis of libertarianism), then a human being has those rights once it is an individual human being. The presence of a unique set of human DNA proves the presence of a discrete individual human. I don't need to appeal to God's wisdom in order to make this an open and shut case.
It seems the number of actual libertarians, the ones committed to the cause of human freedom above all else, are very few. 'exodus' also understands the fundamentals, but I cannot say that for certain about any other poster to this thread. From what I have seen in this discussion, he and I are the only ones committed to holding the freedom of humanity above all other causes.
The best way to truly understand what libertarianism is, is to read Leviathan, written 1660 by Thomas Hobbes in London. It is the derivation - from precise definition - of the rights of man. I trust you will find it most interesting.
To: thoughtomator
That's also the view of Republicans and Democrats. It's just that drug-warriors and flower-sniffers (was that un-PC? So sorry) have different ideas of what "harm" is.
To the drug warrior conservative type, any use of party supplies other than alcohol is "harmful" to morals, society in general, and even the world, in that it encourages "crime" everywhere, and our insistence that morality not be used to determine what gets printed encourages pornography, also destroying our kids and promoting the rape of helpless women; but that's not as dangerous as our insistence on "free thinking," and challenging society's declared morals, endangering children and probably conspiring to commit treason with nations that also want to destroy American values.
To the flower-sniffing liberal types, talking out loud without editing our un-PC thoughts, walking past a "disadvantaged" person without opening a wallet, fighting against "necessary" government programs, not feeling guilty about the "horrible" crimes historically committed only by white men, and turning and looking at a pretty girl, treating her like a sex object and thus promoting the rape of helpless women; all that is "harmful" to society, but not as dangerous to society as our insistence on thinking for ourselves, which harms all those folks we ignore because of our selfish focus on our own issues. On top of that, for some reason we just can't understand the benefits of world government.
Yes, I'm playing, but as you can see, there's a lot of truth in what I just said.
To: thoughtomator
So Republicans have the answer to the abortion question?
The Republican Party officially oppose abortion, but we have a Republican President in office, and both his mother and his wife have said that they favor Choice, many Republicans nationwide are pro-choice, and many Freepers who claim to be Republican have said that they support that "right," too.
The Democrat Party officially approves of abortion, but many members of the Democratic Party are strongly against abortion, so they are no closer to an "answer" than the Republicans.
The search for an answer to this problem isn't a uniquely libertarian dilemma.
Nothing in the Constitution prohibits the states from doing so or authorizes the federal government to prevent the states from doing so. 171 MrLeroy
Very bold statement. Goes against every basic principle of our constitution & BOR's
[Exodus]
Are you asking if the many State governments have the power (not a Right) to imprison a woman who might kill her baby? My answer is no.
Yet you want states to prohibit abortion from conception on, correct? -- How would you enforce your law?
Such an act would violate the Constitution, specifically the 4th Amendment, the 5th Amendment, the 8th Amendment, the 9th Amendment, the 10th Amendment, and the 14th Amendment. Legally, people can't be punished for a crime they might commit.
Ahh, - I see, ~"might"~` is your qualifyer. How would you enforce your law against a woman caught in the act of attempted abortion? Would she be released to attempt so-called 'murder' again, until she succeded?
To: thoughtomator; JohnGalt; tpaine
I am a Christian, and libertarianism is a philosophy, not a party. I oppose abortion. Other libertarians on this very thread favor that "right."
There's lots of Christians in the Republican Party who favor choice. There's a lot of Christians in the Democratic Party who oppose choice. There's lots of atheists in both those political parties who are equally undecisive on the atheistic answer to the question.
It seems religion has very little to do with anyone's view on abortion, other than as a justification for holding the opinion they've decided upon.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.