Libertarianism and Abortion

[thoughtomator]

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.

[GovernmentShrinker]

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.

[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? 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?

[MayDay72]

'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...

[thoughtomator]

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.

[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. 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.

[thoughtomator]

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.

[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?

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.

[GovernmentShrinker]

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.

[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.' -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'.

[thoughtomator]

When you're weighing harm, are 45 million aborted babies in the US since Roe v. Wade on the scale?

[MayDay72]

'"[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.

[tpaine]

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..

[tpaine]

Agit-prop is used often by authoritarians..
Rarely by libertarians.

[tpaine]

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.

[thoughtomator]

I have dinner plans so I have to go out... I will continue this conversation later, it is most interesting.

[MayDay72]

'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.

[tpaine]

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?

[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. 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].

[GsYBE]

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.