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 previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 381-392 next last
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]

To: MHGinTN
After 15 weeks, it's actually safer for the mother to carry to term than to have an intentional abortion. It's certainly safer for the child.

I don't agree that a victim of rape should kill her child. Just as it's wrong to kill people who fall into a hole you dig, it's wrong to kill someone else when you both fall into a hole that a third party dug, even if you could use their dead body as food or as a tool to get out of the hole.

Libertarians for Life addresses abortion in case of rape **and the mother's parental obligation**
http://www.l4l.org/library/aborrape.html

51 posted on 09/29/2003 11:53:39 PM PDT by hocndoc (Choice is the # 1 killer in the US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
Infants and toddlers are not dependent specifically on the mother. An embryo/fetus in the womb is. Totally different situations. Other people can offer to care for infants and toddlers, so that no one is being forced against their will to provide for another.
52 posted on 09/30/2003 5:03:58 AM PDT by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker; MHGinTN
To: MHGinTN
Infants and toddlers are not dependent specifically on the mother. An embryo/fetus in the womb is. Totally different situations. Other people can offer to care for infants and toddlers, so that no one is being forced against their will to provide for another.
# 52 by GovernmentShrinker

*********************

For the "viability" argument to logically hold water, a mother would have the "right" to abandon her child any time it became inconvenient, even if no one wanted it, even if it meant the kid would die of exposure.

If the mother can't be "forced" to care for her child, you can't force other people to do it for her. That means that up to about age ten, a child has no "right" to live at all, because he still can't survive on his own.

53 posted on 09/30/2003 6:34:25 AM PDT by exodus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker; MHGinTN
Check out the definition of "viability" --

-- 1) Capable of living, developing, or germinating under favorable conditions.
Very few of us are viable on our own, without help from others. That's why we developed civilization in the first place, to create favorible conditions for live.
54 posted on 09/30/2003 6:43:24 AM PDT by exodus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: tpaine; B. A. Conservative; Tauzero; OWK; paulklenk; Twodees; balrog666; RonPaulLives; ...
Here's a good discussion of what a "Right" is.
55 posted on 09/30/2003 6:59:22 AM PDT by exodus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: exodus
There are no rights, only traditions respected by the community. A community that does not respect the so-called right-to-life, maybe many things, but it is not a Christian community, and not a community I relish living in.

I don't much care, at this stage what non-Christians do to themselves, but with 20,000,000 women living amongst us, voting, holding positions of power, who have contracted to murder their own babies, I do believe that has an effect on both my culture, my liberty, and the prospects of preserving liberty in the future.


56 posted on 09/30/2003 7:06:56 AM PDT by JohnGalt (Attention Pseudocons: Wilsonianrepublic.com is still available)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: carenot; eabinga; countrydummy; farmfriend; Tony in Hawaii; kennyo; bd476; uglybiker; Scutter; ...
I tried to ping @e-bot, but it said "Could not find anybody named @e-bot"

Free Republic chat server is open at http://chat.agitator.dynip.com, if anyone wants to discuss this issue.

57 posted on 09/30/2003 7:32:23 AM PDT by exodus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: JohnGalt
There are no rights, only traditions respected by the community.

*********************

That's surprising coming from you JohnGalt, I thought you were a libertarian.

58 posted on 09/30/2003 7:35:50 AM PDT by exodus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: thoughtomator
The rights of the unborn are as important as the rights of anyone else.
59 posted on 09/30/2003 7:41:14 AM PDT by Protagoras (The only thing worse than drugs is the War on Drugs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: exodus
I am a rightwing libertarian, as opposed to a leftwing libertarian. I have a theory on self-government and a love for a version of liberty conceptualized by the Welsh-Irish-Scottish as opposed to the French libertarians and their ideological libertarianism.


It's a worthy discussion because I consider my anti-war left-libertarians friends to be better bedfellows than the 'big government conservatives.'




60 posted on 09/30/2003 7:42:44 AM PDT by JohnGalt (Attention Pseudocons: Wilsonianrepublic.com is still available)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 381-392 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