Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Libertarianism and Abortion

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.


TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 351-392 next last

1 posted on 09/27/2003 8:46:49 PM PDT by thoughtomator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: tpaine
The table is set... I am eager to hear what you have to say.
2 posted on 09/27/2003 8:47:32 PM PDT by thoughtomator (Right Wing Crazy #5338526)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thoughtomator
I contend a true libertarian cannot be pro-life, tpaine believes libertarianism supports abortion rights

Those two positions are identical. Did you mean to say 'a true libertarian cannot be pro-choice'?

3 posted on 09/27/2003 9:18:22 PM PDT by TrappedInLiberalHell (Hillary walks into a bar. Let's hope it leaves a nice bump on her forehead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TrappedInLiberalHell
Doh okay maybe I'm too tired to start this debate tonight...

I meant to say that I think libertarians must be pro-life.
4 posted on 09/27/2003 9:19:44 PM PDT by thoughtomator (Right Wing Crazy #5338526)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Admin Moderator
Can you please change the original post as per #4
5 posted on 09/27/2003 9:22:13 PM PDT by thoughtomator (Right Wing Crazy #5338526)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: thoughtomator
Fixed.
6 posted on 09/27/2003 9:34:22 PM PDT by Admin Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: thoughtomator
I am not a Libertarian, but to cite CATO and Neil Boortz, they believe that abortion should be left up to the woman/family and that government should stay out. CATO's report on abortion does support laws to curb abortions, such as parental notification, etc.
7 posted on 09/27/2003 11:05:00 PM PDT by neb52
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thoughtomator
#72: Schwarzenegger's campaign accounts $2.4 million in red ^

__________________________________________

To: narses
It's a yoke narses..

Find somewhere to buy yourself a sense of humor.. -- And a copy of our constitution.

72 posted on 09/26/2003 8:30 PM PDT by tpaine ( I'm trying to be Mr Nice Guy, but politics keep getting in me way. ArnieRino for Governator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

______________________________________


To: tpaine
Yeah, drugs, whores and dead babies, great material for a stand up comic.

74 posted on 09/26/2003 8:32 PM PDT by narses ("The do-it-yourself Mass is ended. Go in peace" Francis Cardinal Arinze of Nigeria)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

______________________________________


To: tpaine
Tpaine, you need to brush up some yourself on founding documents.

Remember this little gem?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."


[1]- Libertarianism and abortion are incompatible on the most fundamental level.

[2]- The first of all rights you must respect, if you wish to emerge from a Hobbesian state of war, is the right to life.

[3]- Notice that these rights are endowed by the Creator, not the government.

[4]- Once a life is created, no self-respecting libertarian can countenance its termination, pre or post birth.

207 -t mator-

_____________________________________

Mator, - you 'set' the table with your 4 claims above. -- Address them with supporting facts, then I'll respond.

And, - I'll correct your opening supposition:

"tpaine believes [our constitution] supports abortion rights."
8 posted on 09/28/2003 9:25:13 AM PDT by tpaine ( I'm trying to be Mr Nice Guy, but politics keep getting in me way. ArnieRino for Governator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Fair enough.

[1] Libertarianism and abortion are incompatible at the most fundamental level.

Libertarianism is a political philosophy in which liberty should be maximized; history shows that human beings are happiest and most propserous when they are free. This much I think we will agree. Liberty is the freedom to act in any manner one sees fit that does not infringe upon the equal liberty of others.

The life cycle of a human being begins at conception - this is biological fact and not open to interpretation. Human beings are created by no other process.

Of natural, inalienable rights, the highest is the right to life; without life, no other right can exist. Other inalienable rights support the right to life, such as the right to self-defense. If you have no right to live, then the right to self-defense cannot be asserted, as it would be nonsensical in such a context.

[2]- The first of all rights you must respect, if you wish to emerge from a Hobbesian state of war, is the right to life.

I've largely answered this in the previous paragraphs. To elaborate I will discuss the significance of the Hobbesian state of war.

Hobbes' state of war is that of complete anarchy; it is the natural state of a human being in the absence of any social compact. In this state of war, all recourse to violence is equally legitimate; since there is no law, there is no injunction against violence. It is undesirable to be in this state because in it, life is "nasty, brutish, and short". The first, and necessary step, for human beings to emerge from this state of war is for each human being to relinquish his recourse to violence against others, in exchange for others to relinquish their recourse to violence against him. This is the right to life - the right not to be murdered by another human being, and it is the basis of every free system of government.

[3]- Notice that these rights are endowed by the Creator, not the government.

One need not have any religious preference to support this statement. The relevance of this statement to secular government is to place inalienable rights outside the realm of government, as they must be if the men ruled by that government are free and not slaves. One need not believe in a Creator to see the wisdom of inalienable rights existing regardless of government, since even a non-religious view of inalienable rights derives them from the natural essence and constitution of the human being.


[4]- Once a life is created, no self-respecting libertarian can countenance its termination, pre or post birth.


Thus, having established the inalienable nature of the right to life, as a necessary precondition of the emergence of the Hobbesian state of war; and also having shown through irrefutable biological science that life begins at conception; knowing that a life conceived is unique, as evidenced by its unique DNA; it therefore follows that the right to life exists at the moment of conception.

Noting that inalienable rights do not compel any other human to act, but rather compel him to refrain from acting in a way that infringes upon the rights of others, I continue, that the right to life compels others not to perform any act intended to end a human life other than in the context of a Hobbesian state of war.

Thus, if there is to be any respect for the right to life, it is therefore necessary to compel individuals to respect that right, and thus, abortion, which is explicitly intended to end another human life, cannot be countenanced by any free people.


Such is the libertarian case against abortion; if to be libertarian is in fact to respect the liberty of others.
9 posted on 09/28/2003 9:53:23 AM PDT by thoughtomator (Right Wing Crazy #5338526)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: thoughtomator
As long a fetus is dependent on the mother for survival, liberty requires that the mother be free to do with it as she pleases. Forcing someone to undertake inconvenience, effort, discomfort, or expense on behalf of another is the antithesis of liberty. The theory on which the "pro-lifers" insist that women must be forced to do these things in order for the fetus to survive, is the same theory under which socialists and communists insist that the more able people in society should be forced to subsidize the less able, so that, for example, crack whores and gangbangers get the same standard of medical care as engineers and bankers, and profoundly retarded children get extravagantly expensive "special education" programs (while bright children have to make do with the standard public school assembly line). It may be a very virtuous thing for the well-off to CHOOSE to expend their surplus resources on helping others, but it is not virtuous for government to force them to do so -- in fact it is slavery.
10 posted on 09/28/2003 10:02:12 AM PDT by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thoughtomator
REPUBLICAN LIBERTY CAUCUS POSITION STATEMENT
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-rlc/721810/posts


What is the RLC's position on abortion?

Neutral. We have both pro-lifers to pro-choicers, and in between. As far as libertarian groups go, you'll find that we are probably the most tolerant of the pro-life viewpoint. Our immediate past chairman, Cong. Ron Paul (R-TX, 14th Dist.) is very pro-life. Many other members are pro-choice. As libertarians, we oppose Federal funding of abortion under any circumstances.

It is not a litmus test, and it is not an issue that is often debated internally. However, the California RLC website www.LibertyCaucus.org, has sponsored a debate on the issue between two prominent members.


11 posted on 09/28/2003 10:02:48 AM PDT by tpaine ( I'm trying to be Mr Nice Guy, but politics keep getting in me way. ArnieRino for Governator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker
Your arguments are very similar to those of Prof. Peter Singer, who argues that parents should have the right to kill dependent children, because of that same dependence, that the child cannot survive independently.

Contrary to your assertion, it is not antithetical to liberty to 'force' a mother not to kill her child. A mother has chosen by her own free will to undertake the acts of which pregnancy is a result - there is no compulsion to get pregnant. Once she is pregnant, however, there are now two lives to be considered, not just one, both are human, and both in a free society must have their inalienable rights protected.
12 posted on 09/28/2003 10:11:05 AM PDT by thoughtomator (Right Wing Crazy #5338526)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: tpaine; Admin Moderator
Admin, if it is not too much trouble, can you please again correct the original post so that it accurately reflects tpaine's opening position: "tpaine believes [our constitution] supports abortion rights."

Thanks again.
13 posted on 09/28/2003 10:26:43 AM PDT by thoughtomator (Right Wing Crazy #5338526)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: thoughtomator
'Is Libertarianism properly in favor or against legal abortion? [...] I contend a true libertarian must be pro-life [...]' -thoughtomator

I don't think that this issue needs to be a 'litmus test' for individuals to wear the label 'libertarian'. A 'libertarian' argument could be made from either direction ['pro-life' or 'pro-choice']. However, if I were forced to choose which argument was the strongest [and therfore more 'libertarian'] I would choose the 'pro-life' side.

The more traditional 'libertarian' agrument [in favor of 'abortion rights'] is based on the right of a woman to make her own decisions about her body without the interference of the state in a personal matter. This is a simple argument based on traditional libertarian priciples such as non-initiation of force, self ownership, and limiting the scope of the state in 'victimless' acts.

This is all well and good as long as you view only the [potential] mother as the only concerned party in the matter. However, if there is any possibility that the fetus is indeed a human life [rather than just a collection of inconvenient cells] then the matter gets rather more complex.

If we are indeed dealing with an unborn human life then the woman seeking a abortion is actually initiating force upon another individual [the unborn baby]. In this case the unborn child is also protected by the right of self ownership. This would also mean that the abortion is not a 'victimless act' since the unborn child would be protected by the same rights as the woman.

Please note that I do not pretend to know at what point in development a simple collection of cells becomes a [legally protected] human. I don't personally agree with some in the 'pro-life' camp that this [legally protected status] occurs at the moment of conception. However, I am at odds with many in the 'pro-choice' camp that do not recognize the child as having any rights until the moment of birth.

As a 'libertarian' I believe that the most important role and only legitimate use for the state is to prevent the initiation of force [or coercion, or fraud] against individuals. I think that no matter how this issue is approached that someone will complain that their rights are not being properly protected. So I would argue that the rights of the unborn child trump those of the woman seeking the abortion. If we are incorrect in this matter [using the state to prevent abortions] then we are simply preventing the woman access to a medical procedure. We should error on the 'safe' side and prevent any possibility of one individual from taking the life of another [if it can be prevented] since this is where the greater danger lies.

14 posted on 09/28/2003 10:32:14 AM PDT by MayDay72 (...Free markets...Free minds...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thoughtomator
Children who have already been born can survive with help from parties other than the mother. If those parties wish to provide the help, then more power to them, but they should not be forced. As long as the mother is the only person who can help the fetus, she may choose to do so, but should not be forced.
15 posted on 09/28/2003 10:37:56 AM PDT by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: thoughtomator
A mother has chosen by her own free will to undertake the acts of which pregnancy is a result - there is no compulsion to get pregnant.

Not necessarily. And when you rely on this, you are implying that if she became pregnant by means of rape of incest, then she should be free to have an abortion. But then that position doesn't square with the notion that an embryo or fetus is a full-fledged human person, entitled to protection at the expense of an unwilling mother.

16 posted on 09/28/2003 10:42:33 AM PDT by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker
Children who are sufficiently developed but not yet born may also be supported by others by way of medical technology, yet under the law, such a child, before birth, can legally be assassinated by a doctor.

But I have a problem with even the 'supported by others' statement. Which other? And how? What if there is no other willing to support the child? Would you advocate the government force someone to support the child, or alternatively, force taxpayers to finance the government's support of a child, or alternatively, allow the abandonment of children, so that they might live or die as nature would have it?

I do not speak of forcing any woman to do anything. I do not advocate forced pregnancy. She has freely chosen to undertake the act that created a new human life.

To cut to the chase, at what point do you believe that a human being is invested with his natural and inalienable rights?
17 posted on 09/28/2003 10:46:39 AM PDT by thoughtomator (Right Wing Crazy #5338526)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker
With regards to situations of rape and incest pregnancies: rape is indeed a special case, since the mother has not freely chosen the act that leads to the creation of new life. In the case of incest, this is not generally true, rather only where the incest is actually rape rather than consensual, in which case it would properly be considered under whatever solution is arrived at for rape-pregnancy.

Of the 45 million aborted pregnancies since Roe v. Wade, a very small number of them are actually due to rape. Since we are considering the general case, any modifications we find to be just in the case of a rape are not generally applicable, and are in fact a completely separate discussion.
18 posted on 09/28/2003 10:50:51 AM PDT by thoughtomator (Right Wing Crazy #5338526)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker; thoughtomator
'As long as the mother is the only person who can help the fetus, she may choose to do so, but should not be forced.' -GovernmentShrinker

There is an important difference in this matter between knowingly initiating deadly force and refusing life-saving resources. If I met a starving man on the street I could refuse to give him food or money. However, If I shot him with a gun this would be a different matter.

'Contrary to your assertion, it is not antithetical to liberty to 'force' a mother not to kill her child.' -thoughtomator

I agree. My point exactly.

19 posted on 09/28/2003 10:52:40 AM PDT by MayDay72 (...Free markets...Free minds...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: thoughtomator
Thus, having established the inalienable nature of the right to life,

Not at issue.

as a necessary precondition of the emergence of the Hobbesian state of war;

Libertarians are not anarchists.

and also having shown through irrefutable biological science that life begins at conception;

'Bio life' does not trump the rights of the mother.. See post #10

knowing that a life conceived is unique, as evidenced by its unique DNA;

Not at issue.

it therefore follows that the right to life exists at the moment of conception.

Not so. The legal consequenses of such a theory would be ludicrous. -- In effect, all fertile females from conception to viablity could be charged with murder for aborting..

Noting that inalienable rights do not compel any other human to act, but rather compel him to refrain from acting in a way that infringes upon the rights of others,

You are begging the question that the mothers non-viable baby has inalienable rights, separate from its mother. They cannot be separated. Thus, the mothers rights are inalienable.

I continue, that the right to life compels others not to perform any act intended to end a human life other than in the context of a Hobbesian state of war.

Defense of your own life and body is not anarchy, -- "a Hobbesian state of war".

Thus, if there is to be any respect for the right to life, it is therefore necessary to compel individuals to respect that right,

Hobson's choice. A dilemma.. How to "compel" liberty? I choose the womans freedom over a states compulsory 'laws'.. In fact, I contend the state has been given no power to compel in this issue.
Before viablity, abortion is not a criminal act.

and thus, abortion, which is explicitly intended to end another human life, cannot be countenanced by any free people.

Free people cannot countenace governmental powers that intrude upon an individuals life & liberty to this extent. The enforcement of such prohibitory laws violate our basic constitutional principles.

Such is the libertarian case against abortion; if to be libertarian is in fact to respect the liberty of others.

I find your case more authoritarian than libertarian.

20 posted on 09/28/2003 11:16:56 AM PDT by tpaine ( I'm trying to be Mr Nice Guy, but politics keep getting in me way. ArnieRino for Governator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: thoughtomator
But I have a problem with even the 'supported by others' statement. Which other? And how? What if there is no other willing to support the child? Would you advocate the government force someone to support the child, or alternatively, force taxpayers to finance the government's support of a child, or alternatively, allow the abandonment of children, so that they might live or die as nature would have it?

To cut to the chase, at what point do you believe that a human being is invested with his natural and inalienable rights?

When it has taken a breath of air. Philosophical and religious debates can roam around in gray area 'til the cows come home, but we need a bright line for legal purposes, and this is as bright as it gets. But even at that point, it's interests do not outweigh the rights of others not to be forced to support it. If you can't support yourself, and nobody else is able and willing to support you, you die. Life isn't a fairy tale.

21 posted on 09/28/2003 11:43:30 AM PDT by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
All of your arguments are based on protecting the rights of the woman from intrusive actions by the state other invividuals. I understand this. And this is clearly the right position if the woman is the only individual with rights that would be effected by her decision [i.e. this would be a 'victimless act'].

But how can you be sure that the fetus has no rights? When do these rights begin [conception, birth, some other time]? Should we arbitrarily decide that the fetus has no rights simply because it makes the issue so much 'cleaner' [one involved individual rather than two] or because the woman can argue for her rights but the unborn cannot represent themselves?

22 posted on 09/28/2003 12:00:23 PM PDT by MayDay72 (...Free markets...Free minds...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker
'Philosophical and religious debates can roam around in gray area 'til the cows come home, but we need a bright line for legal purposes, and this is as bright as it gets. -GovernmentShrinker

If this discussion were about taxation then I would agree. However, a 'wrong' decision on this issue will not simply cause someone to be taxed at a rate of 23.262% rather than 23.153%. A 'wrong' decision on this issue would allow the murdering of an individual to occur without any protection by the state. Are you absolutely 100% sure the the rights of individuals begin when the individual has first 'taken a breath of air'? If you are right then we are just disposing of some useless organic material when an abortion is performed. But if you are wrong...

23 posted on 09/28/2003 12:16:11 PM PDT by MayDay72 (...Free markets...Free minds...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Okay then. It is established that the right to life is inalienable; and that libertarians do not desire the conditions of Hobbes' state of war; and that a life conceived is unique, as evidenced by its unique DNA.

'Bio life' does not trump the rights of the mother.. See post #10

Can you please define what you mean by 'bio life'. Are we all not biologically alive? What distinguishes 'bio life' from other life?

"it therefore follows that the right to life exists at the moment of conception. [thoughtomator]

Not so. The legal consequenses of such a theory would be ludicrous. -- In effect, all fertile females from conception to viablity could be charged with murder for aborting..

I do in fact claim that abortion is murder, it being incontrovertible that the procedure is the deliberate taking of a human life without the justification of self-defense.

You are begging the question that the mothers non-viable baby has inalienable rights, separate from its mother. They cannot be separated. Thus, the mothers rights are inalienable.

First you will need to establish that viability is a necessary precondition to the inalienable rights of a human being. I agree that the mother's rights are inalienable. I assert that the baby, viable or not, also has inalienable rights, based on its humanity, and the acknowledgment that human beings have inalienable rights.

Also, outside the Hobbesian state of war, the rights of every human being are bounded by the equal rights of every other human being. Thus my right to life is preconditioned on the relinquishment of any claim to take your life, and vice versa, or we do end up in fact in the Hobbesian state of war.

"I continue, that the right to life compels others not to perform any act intended to end a human life other than in the context of a Hobbesian state of war." [thoughtomator]

Defense of your own life and body is not anarchy, -- "a Hobbesian state of war".

This is true, but this is the definition of self-defense. A child is in the overwhelming majority of cases not a threat to the life of the mother. I will grant that if the threat to the life of the mother were certain, or nearly so, then abortion could be countenanced on that basis.

"Thus, if there is to be any respect for the right to life, it is therefore necessary to compel individuals to respect that right,..." [thoughtomator]

Hobson's choice. A dilemma.. How to "compel" liberty? I choose the womans freedom over a states compulsory 'laws'.. In fact, I contend the state has been given no power to compel in this issue.

A person's freedoms are limited by the equal freedoms of others. Thus, as I have no right to take your life, a mother has no right to take her child's. If I did have the right to take your life, the reverse would be true, and neither of us would have actual liberty, but rather would be reverted to the state of war. The state not only has the power to prohibit (not compel - no action is being compelled) in this case, but the responsibility to do so, as the legitimate arbitrator of disputes between where one man's rights begin and his neighbor's end. Just as the law can justly prohbit me from murdering you, the law can justly prohibit a woman from murdering her child.

Before viablity, abortion is not a criminal act.

It is not technically criminal while the law permits it; although the legitimacy of the current law is highly dubious (SCOTUS legislating through Roe v. Wade and others). It is morally criminal because it is murder.

With respect to the term 'viability', I request a definition, as the term can be highly subjective.

Free people cannot countenace governmental powers that intrude upon an individuals life & liberty to this extent. The enforcement of such prohibitory laws violate our basic constitutional principles.

Prohibition of abortion does not intrude upon an individual's right to life, excepting the above noted case where the pregnancy constitutes a certain threat to the mother's life, in which case she may kill it on self-defense grounds, tragic as that may be. As far as the intrusion upon liberty, as you phrase it, I see no intrusion on any valid liberty. No man has liberty to murder another man. No libertarian defines liberty as freedom to murder. The defense of liberty is in fact the only legitimate grounds under which a government can prohibit, as it is the reason why government is instituted among free men in the first place; thus it may legitimately prohibit murder, theft, and torture.

If you feel a basic Constitutional principle is contradicted here, tell me explicitly what principle that is and how it is derived.

I find your case more authoritarian than libertarian.

Authoritarian means relying upon an authority, without question. Far from relying on any authority without question, the principles of inalienable rights are empirically provable. It is no more authoritarian to accept the right to life as truth than it is to accept the law of gravity as truth. Thus, the defense of the right to life, foremost among liberties, is fundamentally and inherently libertarian.

I would appreciate it, should you feel compelled to label my point of view, that you use accurate language to do so.

24 posted on 09/28/2003 12:27:34 PM PDT by thoughtomator (Right Wing Crazy #5338526)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: MayDay72
The trouble is that there is no answer to this question without reference to religious/philosophical beliefs that are inherently unproveable, and about which there is widespread disagreement. The dangers of allowing a government to pronounce one set of unproveable beliefs "true" and forcing the citizenry to abide by it, are not small. We've seen in China and Romania, in particular, this principle invoked in a way to coerce abortion (China) and to coerce child-bearing (Romania), both on the grounds that the government-sanctioned "truth" is that economic and military progress is clearly for the greater good, and more important than allowing individuals freedom of choice in the matter of reproduction.
25 posted on 09/28/2003 12:29:50 PM PDT by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker
When it has taken a breath of air. Philosophical and religious debates can roam around in gray area 'til the cows come home, but we need a bright line for legal purposes, and this is as bright as it gets.

This is indeed an intellectually consistent, bright line. It also permits the gruesome procedure of 'partial-birth' abortion right up until the actual moment of birth, and can be construed to allow the killing of the child if it can be prevented from taking a breath after it is born.

There is an even brighter line that can be drawn, and that is the moment of conception. This line has the advantage of being supported by all of our knowledge of biology and medicine.

But even at that point, it's interests do not outweigh the rights of others not to be forced to support it. If you can't support yourself, and nobody else is able and willing to support you, you die. Life isn't a fairy tale.

No child can support itself until it learns the means to do so - again your argument dovetails with that of Prof. Singer. Also implied by your statement is that the injured, sick, and elderly may also be legitimately abandoned to die, since they cannot support themselves. You are not the first to propose such a standard, but I am not sure you want to know where the modern precedent for such a point of view was established.

26 posted on 09/28/2003 12:35:06 PM PDT by thoughtomator (Right Wing Crazy #5338526)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: MayDay72
All of your arguments are based on protecting the rights of the woman from intrusive actions by the state other invividuals. I understand this. And this is clearly the right position if the woman is the only individual with rights that would be effected by her decision [i.e. this would be a 'victimless act'].
But how can you be sure that the fetus has no rights?

Until it is viable, it will die if separated from the mother. Thus the mother has the inalienable [unseparable] rights.

When do these rights begin [conception, birth, some other time]?

The USSC has said at 'viablity'. Sounds reasonable to me. -- As medical techniques advance, viability could change; -- then insurers would have the ethical dilemma of paying for heroic measures to keep accident victims normally unviable babies alive.
Are you willing to pay this cost in ~your~ premiums?

Should we arbitrarily decide that the fetus has no rights simply because it makes the issue so much 'cleaner' [one involved individual rather than two] or because the woman can argue for her rights but the unborn cannot represent themselves?

We have to decide at some point. As I wrote earlier:
Free people cannot countenace governmental powers that intrude upon an individuals life & liberty to this extent. The enforcement of such prohibitory laws violate our basic constitutional principles.

27 posted on 09/28/2003 12:43:16 PM PDT by tpaine ( I'm trying to be Mr Nice Guy, but politics keep getting in me way. ArnieRino for Governator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: thoughtomator
While "partial birth" abortion and abandoning grandpa to starve after his stroke are ugly scenarios, they are also scenarios that very few people actually want to undertake, and in which quite a few people would offer to take over responsibility for the helpless individual. To my mind, it is well worth weighing the relative harm done by allowing such actions, against the harm done by allowing government to forcibly interfere.
28 posted on 09/28/2003 1:07:16 PM PDT by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker
'The trouble is that there is no answer to this question without reference to religious/philosophical beliefs that are inherently unproveable, and about which there is widespread disagreement.' -GovernmentShrinker

True. I agree. But the realm of the 'religious/philosophical' is where 'natural rights' exist. I'd hate to 'throw the baby out with the bath water' [pun intended] and abandon other 'natural rights' [property ownwership, self-defense, etc.] simply because one group or another [including the state] felt that that issue had 'widespread disagreement' of opinion and the apparent right was based 'inherently unproveable' 'religious/philosophical beliefs'.

29 posted on 09/28/2003 1:09:54 PM PDT by MayDay72 (...Free markets...Free minds...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker
When you're weighing harm, are 45 million aborted babies in the US since Roe v. Wade on the scale?
30 posted on 09/28/2003 1:17:24 PM PDT by thoughtomator (Right Wing Crazy #5338526)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker
'"[P]artial birth" abortion and abandoning grandpa to starve after his stroke are ugly scenarios [...] To my mind, it is well worth weighing the relative harm done by allowing such actions, against the harm done by allowing government to forcibly interfere.' -GovernmentShrinker

As I stated above [19] I think that there is a profound distinction between knowingly initiating deadly force and refusing potentially life-saving resources. Individuals may find either immoral, but one is clearly murder and the other may not be defined as murder.

It is cleary an acceptable role for the state [even a 'libertarian' state] to prevent murder [the initiation of deadly force upon an individual] or prosecute those commiting such a crime.

31 posted on 09/28/2003 1:26:36 PM PDT by MayDay72 (...Free markets...Free minds...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: thoughtomator
Naturally, I could counter all of your #24 comments, but most will be covered if I start here:

"Thus, if there is to be any respect for the right to life, it is therefore necessary to compel individuals to respect that right,..." [thoughtomator]

Hobson's choice. A dilemma.. How to "compel" liberty? I choose the womans freedom over a states compulsory 'laws'.. In fact, I contend the state has been given no power to compel in this issue.

A person's freedoms are limited by the equal freedoms of others. Thus, as I have no right to take your life, a mother has no right to take her child's.

Until viablity, she & child are unseparable. She retains all rights to her & her/childs body.

If I did have the right to take your life, the reverse would be true, and neither of us would have actual liberty, but rather would be reverted to the state of war.

Not at issue.

The state not only has the power to prohibit (not compel - no action is being compelled) in this case,

Nope, not in this case.

but the responsibility to do so, as the legitimate arbitrator of disputes between where one man's rights begin and his neighbor's end.

The Mother/unviable child issue does not equate to neighbors disputes.

Just as the law can justly prohbit me from murdering you, the law can justly prohibit a woman from murdering her child.

Exactly as the USSC ruled. After viability a mother can be charged with murder, using due process.
Before viability, fiat laws on abortion declaring it to be murder violate due process,not to mention a lot of other individual rights.

_____________________________________

Before viablity, abortion is not a criminal act.

It is not technically criminal while the law permits it; although the legitimacy of the current law is highly dubious (SCOTUS legislating through Roe v. Wade and others). It is morally criminal because it is murder.

Our constitution is not beholden to your concepts of morality. -- In fact, the 1st amendment forbids congress, state, & local legislators from respecting the establishments of any specific 'moralities'.

With respect to the term 'viability', I request a definition, as the term can be highly subjective.

I'll settle for the one our USSC uses.

-----------------------------------

Free people cannot countenace governmental powers that intrude upon an individuals life & liberty to this extent. The enforcement of such prohibitory laws violate our basic constitutional principles.

Prohibition of abortion does not intrude upon an individual's right to life,

Of course it does. Prohibitive, fiat type law limits life & freedom by definition.

excepting the above noted case where the pregnancy constitutes a certain threat to the mother's life, in which case she may kill it on self-defense grounds, tragic as that may be.

Yep, self defense can be clear cut, ~or not~ .. And such deaths are tragic.

As far as the intrusion upon liberty, as you phrase it, I see no intrusion on any valid liberty. No man has liberty to murder another man.

Let a jury decide her liberty. Not a fiat law declaring murder if an unviable baby dies.

No libertarian defines liberty as freedom to murder. The defense of liberty is in fact the only legitimate grounds under which a government can prohibit, as it is the reason why government is instituted among free men in the first place; thus it may legitimately prohibit murder, theft, and torture. If you feel a basic Constitutional principle is contradicted here, tell me explicitly what principle that is and how it is derived.

You belabor a point on liberty that is not at issue, then wave the flag..

------------------------------------

I find your case more authoritarian than libertarian.

Authoritarian means relying upon an authority, without question.

Fine

Far from relying on any authority without question, the principles of inalienable rights are empirically provable.

Fine again.

It is no more authoritarian to accept the right to life as truth than it is to accept the law of gravity as truth.

Not the way you are using the word "life". Your moralities version of a "right to life" is authoritarian, as you wish our state to enforce it upon your peers. Case in point, your words above:
"It is morally criminal because it is murder."

Thus, the defense of the right to life, foremost among liberties, is fundamentally and inherently libertarian. I would appreciate it, should you feel compelled to label my point of view, that you use accurate language to do so.

Your quote above tells the tale..

32 posted on 09/28/2003 1:50:19 PM PDT by tpaine ( I'm trying to be Mr Nice Guy, but politics keep getting in me way. ArnieRino for Governator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: thoughtomator
Agit-prop is used often by authoritarians..
Rarely by libertarians.
33 posted on 09/28/2003 1:56:03 PM PDT by tpaine ( I'm trying to be Mr Nice Guy, but politics keep getting in me way. ArnieRino for Governator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: MayDay72
It is cleary an acceptable role for the state [even a 'libertarian' state] to prevent murder [the initiation of deadly force upon an individual] or prosecute those commiting such a crime.
-MD72-



Exactly as the USSC ruled. After viability a mother can be charged with murder, using due process.

Before viability, fiat laws on abortion declaring it to be murder violate due process,not to mention a lot of other individual rights.
34 posted on 09/28/2003 1:59:57 PM PDT by tpaine ( I'm trying to be Mr Nice Guy, but politics keep getting in me way. ArnieRino for Governator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

Comment #35 Removed by Moderator

To: tpaine
I have dinner plans so I have to go out... I will continue this conversation later, it is most interesting.
36 posted on 09/28/2003 2:39:27 PM PDT by thoughtomator (Right Wing Crazy #5338526)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: TimWhitworth
'If I accepted the proposition that there could be a life form too small to be seen with the naked eye, and yet as valuable and important as a person, I could accept that a libertarian government should attempt to prevent abortions.' -TimWhitworth

I would be inclined to agree with you that a fetus of that size ['too small to be seen with the naked eye'] does not have the full rights as an individual. However a 8 1/2 month fetus can 'be seen with the naked eye' [or even a much younger fetus]. Where would you 'draw the line'?

Thoughtomator would grant rights at the moment of conception. GovernmentShrinker would consider the child to have full rights 'when it has taken a breath of air'. I don't find either of these opinions appealing.

Maybe your 'too small to be seen with the naked eye' test isn't such a bad idea. But who's eye? Do you need to have 20/20 vision? From what distance?

I know that I am 'knit-picking' here but this is an issue of life versus death. On one hand a microscopic mass of organic cells and on the other hand an individual with inalienable rights.

37 posted on 09/28/2003 2:42:44 PM PDT by MayDay72 (...Free markets...Free minds...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: MayDay72
Thoughtomator would grant rights at the moment of conception. GovernmentShrinker would consider the child to have full rights 'when it has taken a breath of air'. I don't find either of these opinions appealing.
-MD72-


Then accept our constitutional standard of viability.
BTW, you have ignored #27, where I asked:

As medical techniques advance, viability could change; -- then insurers would have the ethical dilemma of paying for heroic measures to keep accident victims normally unviable babies alive.

Are you willing to pay this cost in ~your~ premiums?


38 posted on 09/28/2003 2:54:19 PM PDT by tpaine ( I'm trying to be Mr Nice Guy, but politics keep getting in me way. ArnieRino for Governator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
'As medical techniques advance, viability could change; -- then insurers would have the ethical dilemma of paying for heroic measures to keep accident victims normally unviable babies alive. [...] Are you willing to pay this cost in ~your~ premiums?' -tpaine

Am I 'willing'? Sure. Can I afford it? That is a more difficult question...

Am I 'willing' to send my children to private school [instead of public school]? Am I willing to donate to charity [rather than to welfare]? Am I 'willing' to save for my retirement [rather than depending on social security]?

There are lots of things that I am 'willing' to do...But I don't have many options after 35% of my income is confiscated from my paycheck...After paying for all of these wonderful 'free' services that the state provides [most of which I will probably never use] there is only enough cash to pay for rent, food and transportation.

I apologize if this answer seems like a 'dodge'. I don't pretend to have all the answers. That is why I am a FReeper [lookin' for answers].

The point that I am trying to make is that there are many solutions to these problems. However, our options are quite limited when we try to apply them to the [statist/collectivist] real world. I am sure that I don't have to remind most libertarians and conservatives that the state is the root of many of these problems and that sometimes I feel like a 'dog chasing my own tail' trying to solve this stuff [socialism] with half-ass solutions [socialism-lite] rather than real solutions [true individual liberty].

39 posted on 09/28/2003 3:49:22 PM PDT by MayDay72 (...Free markets...Free minds...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
in response to the original question posted, it seems that a liberitarian would face the same challenge as anyone else, when does life begin. many libs take the stance that you are not truly a functional being until you have the capablitly of abstract reasoning ( the ability to compare nontangibles, ideas etc.) but as many of us know, there are a massive amount of adults lacking this ability who are guaranteed rights and services based on their age alone. i believe a liberitarian might answer that all conscious being are guaranteed a "bubble" of personal freedom around them, which still leaves the question is the fetus a being of its own , on its own, with its own thoughts and capabilities. no political philosophy stance can answer te abortion question because they rely on hard science and facts for their empirical proofs. and to date the science on this issue is muddled at best. too many special intrest groups on ither side seem to have attempted to polarize the issue instead of taking an honest look at it. which leaves the rest of us with what we have learned from others and our own gut reaction.
40 posted on 09/28/2003 4:11:53 PM PDT by GsYBE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: MayDay72
As medical techniques advance, viability could change; -- then insurers would have the ethical dilemma of paying for heroic measures to keep accident victims normally unviable babies alive. [...] Are you willing to pay this cost in ~your~ premiums?' -tpaine

Am I 'willing'? Sure.

Fine, if kept to private insurance schemes.. -- Yet we all know that private/government boundries have virtually ceased to exist in medical insurance. - Thus in effect you admit that socialistic means are OK if used to 'good' ends..

but, Can I afford it? That is a more difficult question... Am I 'willing' to send my children to private school [instead of public school]? Am I willing to donate to charity [rather than to welfare]? Am I 'willing' to save for my retirement [rather than depending on social security]? There are lots of things that I am 'willing' to do...But I don't have many options after 35% of my income is confiscated from my paycheck...After paying for all of these wonderful 'free' services that the state provides [most of which I will probably never use] there is only enough cash to pay for rent, food and transportation.

I apologize if this answer seems like a 'dodge'.

Seems? -- It is.
Quite a long effort too..
- I think you realise what a socialistic hole you've dug, and are trying to rationalize it with volume..

I don't pretend to have all the answers. That is why I am a FReeper [lookin' for answers]. The point that I am trying to make is that there are many solutions to these problems. However, our options are quite limited when we try to apply them to the [statist/collectivist] real world.

Yep - Sure thing.. Yet you want to add to the "[statist/collectivist]" laws in this country by prohibiting abortion... Counterintuitive.

I am sure that I don't have to remind most libertarians and conservatives that the state is the root of many of these problems and that sometimes I feel like a 'dog chasing my own tail' trying to solve this stuff [socialism] with half-ass solutions [socialism-lite] rather than real solutions [true individual liberty].

Well at least you see some of the dichotomy in your own reasoning.
The "real solutions [to] [true individual liberty]", are to be found by restoring respect for our constitutional basics..
Not by advocating abortion 'law'.

41 posted on 09/28/2003 4:41:30 PM PDT by tpaine ( I'm trying to be Mr Nice Guy, but politics keep getting in me way. ArnieRino for Governator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
'Fine, if kept to private insurance schemes.. -- Yet we all know that private/government boundries have virtually ceased to exist in medical insurance. - Thus in effect you admit that socialistic means are OK if used to 'good' ends..' -tpaine

I admit nothing of the sort. Wonderful extrapolation. Your argument reminds me of some of the stuff that the statists [Cultural Jihad, Kevin Curry, etc.] around here sometimes spew against libertarians: 'You don't support the War On Drugs? Then you must be a dope smoking libertine...'

'Yet you want to add to the "[statist/collectivist]" laws in this country by prohibiting abortion... Counterintuitive.' -tpaine

Yet you want to arbitrarily legitimatize a procedure that may [or may not] be the murdering of an individual. If your arbitrary 'standard of viability' is incorrect then wouldn't we be guilty of allowing the initiation of deadly force against an individual? If there is even the slightest possibility that abortion is the murder of an individual then isn't protecting the life of the individual far more important than any minor loss of a womans freedom by preventing a medical procedure?

'The "real solutions [to] [true individual liberty]", are to be found by restoring respect for our constitutional basics.. Not by advocating abortion 'law'.' -tpaine

I agree with 'restoring respect for our constitutional basics', however this particular issue isn't well addressed [if addressed at all] in that document. Yah...I know...'Roe V. Wade'...I got my copy of the 'Constitution' right here...Lemme see here...Oh yah! This must be what Justice Blackmun was lookin' at: If I squint really hard, turn down the lights and hold my breath for a couple o' minutes I can almost make out the phrase 'right to privacy' in the left margin...Or it may just be a booger from Alex Hamilton...

42 posted on 09/28/2003 5:31:28 PM PDT by MayDay72 (...Free markets...Free minds...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: GsYBE
I believe a liberitarian might answer that all conscious being are guaranteed a "bubble" of personal freedom around them,

Yep, and we are arguably not a conscious being until we are capable of survival after birth. -- Viable, - as the USSC puts it. I can live with that argument, that concept of consiousness & rights.. No one has come up with a better one to date, imo.

which still leaves the question is the fetus a being of its own , on its own, with its own thoughts and capabilities.

No, it isn't the real question, as a 1st trimester fetus is by definition unviable.

No political philosophy stance can answer te abortion question because they rely on hard science and facts for their empirical proofs. and to date the science on this issue is muddled at best.

The 'stance' on viability is based on common sense, imo, - it's a judgement call, not a scientific 'fact'. -- Thus; - States are free to prosecute women who abort after the 2nd trimester for murder.
They don't because juries, in their 'judgement calls', will not convict..

43 posted on 09/28/2003 5:37:35 PM PDT by tpaine ( I'm trying to be Mr Nice Guy, but politics keep getting in me way. ArnieRino for Governator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: MayDay72; Cultural Jihad
I won't bother responding further.

The cultural jihad comparison showed you are out of control.. - Thanks.
44 posted on 09/28/2003 5:45:11 PM PDT by tpaine ( I'm trying to be Mr Nice Guy, but politics keep getting in me way. ArnieRino for Governator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
How to "compel" liberty? I choose the womans freedom over a states compulsory 'laws'.. In fact, I contend the state has been given no power to compel in this issue.

Prohibition and compulsion are two separate things. Compel means 'to force [to do something]'. Prohbit means 'to prevent [from doing something]'.

There is nothing that I would force anyone to do. I would forbid - not compel - any person to kill their child, absent the previously granted condition of genuine self-defense from grievous injury or death. It does not compel anyone to do anything; if nothing at all is done, the child lives, and I will be perfectly satisfied with that. The child can be adopted the day of birth, for all I would care, as long as no person deliberately terminated the child's existence. You might say that I would 'compel' the woman to carry the child, but that is incorrect; the sequence that creates life is not compelled, but it has already begun. Human beings start as a bunch of cells. That bunch of cells is nevertheless a unique human life at the very beginning of its journey.

I won't even begin to engage in the cynical game of measuring viability. How would you appreciate someone evaluating whether it is convenient to have you live? This is a human life we are talking about.

I do begin to see the difference in our basic assumptions. I believe that liberty, far from being a mere political system, is actually built in to the very constitution and definition of a human being. The yearning for liberty is contained even within those few cells, waiting to be expressed. Man is meant to be free - is this not universally accepted among libertarians?

She retains all rights to her & her/childs body.

Can you not see the parallel to slavery? This statement says that one human owns another human being. I believe that, in the future, abortion will be viewed by historians with equal horror as is held now about the practice of slavery. I cannot see this as compatible with any tenet of libertarianism. In what other case does a libertarian say someone owns someone else?

Regarding the Supreme Court's definitions:

I'll settle for the one our USSC uses.

Well, this is an authority that you are relying on. I doubt very many libertarians really approve of the recent record of the Supreme Court, however. They approve of the War on Drugs, they approved of government bodies deciding between equal citizens on the basis of race... this is not a record of perfect libertarianism that one can take as authority.

"It is morally criminal because it is murder." I stand by that. Moral means behavior which favors survival; this is the purpose of moral codes. One need not accept a moral code to value survival. (This is why we have the words immoral, to describe behavior that favors death, and amoral, which is behavior indifferent to survival, rather than just one antonym for 'moral'.) Respecting life, noting that a man cannot take another man's life, this is different qualitatively than declaring Sharia and lopping off heads (the phantom strawman you imply lurks in the background). I do not rely on the authority of any code or counsel, but offer a reasonable explanation about why a person that values liberty should abhor abortion.

If it is I that is authoritarian, what then is the authority that I have relied upon to you in making this case? (You have relied on the Supreme Court, a dubious candidate at best; remove the possiblity of impeachment and they would wield an absolute dicatorship. This is by definition authoritarian.)

45 posted on 09/28/2003 9:59:44 PM PDT by thoughtomator (Right Wing Crazy #5338526)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: thoughtomator
How to "compel" liberty? I choose the womans freedom over a states compulsory 'laws'.. In fact, I contend the state has been given no power to compel in this issue.

Prohibition and compulsion are two separate things. Compel means 'to force [to do something]'. Prohbit means 'to prevent [from doing something]'. There is nothing that I would force anyone to do.

Your hoped for unconstitutional 'laws' would force women to term in unintended pregnancies.

I would forbid - not compel - any person to kill their child, absent the previously granted condition of genuine self-defense from grievous injury or death.

Killing a child, murder, ~is~ already forbidden everywhere in the US. Early term abortion is not the murder of a 'child'.

It does not compel anyone to do anything; if nothing at all is done, the child lives, and I will be perfectly satisfied with that. The child can be adopted the day of birth, for all I would care, as long as no person deliberately terminated the child's existence. You might say that I would 'compel' the woman to carry the child,

Yep, you advocate that government compel others in order to be "satisfied with that".

but that is incorrect; the sequence that creates life is not compelled, but it has already begun. Human beings start as a bunch of cells. That bunch of cells is nevertheless a unique human life at the very beginning of its journey.

Not at issue.

I won't even begin to engage in the cynical game of measuring viability. How would you appreciate someone evaluating whether it is convenient to have you live? This is a human life we are talking about.

Cynical emotional appeal

I do begin to see the difference in our basic assumptions. I believe that liberty, far from being a mere political system, is actually built in to the very constitution and definition of a human being. The yearning for liberty is contained even within those few cells, waiting to be expressed. Man is meant to be free - is this not universally accepted among libertarians?

Liberty is indeed built into our Constitution. - Even for a pregnant woman.

She retains all rights to her & her/childs body.

Can you not see the parallel to slavery? This statement says that one human owns another human being.

She does own that life within her. It is an inseparable part of her till viability.

I believe that, in the future, abortion will be viewed by historians with equal horror as is held now about the practice of slavery. I cannot see this as compatible with any tenet of libertarianism. In what other case does a libertarian say someone owns someone else?

Pregnancy is a unique case.

Regarding the Supreme Court's definitions:

I'll settle for the definition of viablity our USSC uses.

Well, this is an authority that you are relying on. I doubt very many libertarians really approve of the recent record of the Supreme Court, however. They approve of the War on Drugs, they approved of government bodies deciding between equal citizens on the basis of race... this is not a record of perfect libertarianism that one can take as authority.

'Viablity' stands as a valid term in the issue.

"It is morally criminal because it is murder." I stand by that. Moral means behavior which favors survival; this is the purpose of moral codes. One need not accept a moral code to value survival. (This is why we have the words immoral, to describe behavior that favors death, and amoral, which is behavior indifferent to survival, rather than just one antonym for 'moral'.) Respecting life, noting that a man cannot take another man's life, this is different qualitatively than declaring Sharia and lopping off heads (the phantom strawman you imply lurks in the background). I do not rely on the authority of any code or counsel, but offer a reasonable explanation about why a person that values liberty should abhor abortion.

You would impose your moral code on others, in the name of liberty..

If it is I that is authoritarian, what then is the authority that I have relied upon to you in making this case?

Your Gods? Your inate moral superiority? You tell me..

(You have relied on the Supreme Court, a dubious candidate at best;

Nope, I rely on our constitution. Pregnant women have liberties. Early term abortion is one of their liberties.

remove the possiblity of impeachment and they would wield an absolute dicatorship. This is by definition authoritarian.)

Do you really think that if the USSC ruled our RKBA's is NOT an individual right, and the government backed them, that the people of the US would bow to this 'dictatorship'? Get a grip.

46 posted on 09/29/2003 8:25:53 AM PDT by tpaine ( I'm trying to be Mr Nice Guy, but politics keep getting in me way. ArnieRino for Governator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker
You spittled out, "As long a fetus is dependent on the mother for survival, liberty requires that the mother be free to do with it as she pleases." Of course in your haste to pontificate, you succeeded beyond your wildest dreams in proving a vacuous perspective ... crib-bound infants and toddlers are just as dependent, you've just advocated wholesale murder if the woman feels inconvenienced! But knowing you'll parse it to mean dependent like a parasite, here's a hint: think in terms of self defense as a rationale for terminating a pregnancy, but don't automatically attach a 'right to a dead child' to it. Except for rape, pregnancy is optional. Get it?]
47 posted on 09/29/2003 10:14:18 PM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: tpaine; thoughtomator; MayDay72; GsYBE; TimWhitworth; GovernmentShrinker
All of these questions are answered by Doris Gordon and the other authors on Libertarians for Life
http://www.l4l.org/library/index.html

People who dig holes may not kill other people who break their legs falling into those holes.

Human life begins at fertilization by scientific and taxonomic criteria.
Even unintended actions have consequences. Even if you try to watch for other cars when you run a red light, you are responsible for any harm you do.
The unborn child is created by the biological actions of the mother and the father.
If the mother was not a willing participant in sex, she has a claim against the father, not the child.
If the pregnancy results due to failure of contraceptives, the child is still not an aggressor against the mother.


The child did not create himself or herself. The child did not and does not aggress against the mother by gestating in her uterus, where she put him or her even if by accident or because of failure of contraception.

The right to life - not to be killed - does not vary according to any subjective valuing of human beings. Either all humans have the right not to be killed by an act of aggression of another, or no humans have the right to life.


The mother is not being forced to become pregnant if abortion is outlawed. She is forbidden by society to infringe the right to life of the child that she has created in a helpless, dependent state.
She is responsible for the care of the child until she can arrange for someone else to voluntarily care for the child.

Life is not fair. The mother-child relationship is more immediate than the father-child relationship until the child is born. That does not mean that the mother may kill her child.
48 posted on 09/29/2003 11:02:13 PM PDT by hocndoc (Choice is the # 1 killer in the US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
Marvin,
This is where it gets harder to convince most people, my husband included, but...

Actually, even in rape, abortion is elective. The father may be punished by society, but the mother can't aggress against the child, by libertarian (and conservative).

Technically, biologically, the mother created the oocyte, the womb. She did not intend to be pregnant, but because of the actions of the father, a child who didn't exist at the time of the rape, comes into being. That child has a right to life that is equal to the mother's.

The only reason for abortion is to remove a threat to life to the mother.
49 posted on 09/29/2003 11:09:55 PM PDT by hocndoc (Choice is the # 1 killer in the US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: hocndoc
Pregnancy has a higher 'life risk' for a woman than non-pregnancy, on a day-to-day basis. With rape, the balance ought be possible such that if the termination option is not exercised within (perhaps) eight weeks from the time of the criminal act, then the child has the right to be born via early termination when the child is viable outside her body (and that time is getting lower and lower, even reaching now to the artifical placenta).
50 posted on 09/29/2003 11:23:50 PM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 351-392 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson