A number of people here are Conservatives first, and Libertarians second

[CPUd]

Evictionism: The Only True Libertarian Position on Abortion
Walter E. Block

At the Ron Paul Festival, I gave a short lecture on abortion. Moving past the pro-life versus pro-choice issue, I offered the libertarian position of evictionism, which provides the best compromise on this issue. In a nutshell, the argument for evictionism is as follows:

1. The unborn fetus is trespassing into the womb of the woman.
2. The rights of all fetuses are equal.
3. Therefore, the only right choice would be evicting the fetus. Killing it would be wrong.

Half way in to the video, I explain the practical aspects of evictionism as the technology of the health industry becomes more capable of saving more fetuses at earlier trimesters. Toward the later quarter of the video, I handle objections to evictionism.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/evictionism-the-only-true-libertarian-position-on-abortion/

 

[Gh34]

I wouldn't really say anything that "Christian States" ever did was very "Christian".

It doesn't really matter what a Tyrannical Dark Ages Theocracy thought....all that matters is that somehow, a "clump of cells", that happens to have a heartbeat, separate DNA, its own organs and body parts, whose body is literally living, growing, and kicking inside of a womb...can be aborted, or stillborn, or miscarried; in which that "clump of cells" no longer has a heart beat, is no longer producing DNA, or developing organs and body parts, whose body is no longer living, growing, or kicking, and is then expelled from the womb.....

what matters is how you can have that, but not come to the realization that the "clump of cells" in question, make up a living human being, just currently unborn. And with the knowledge that the unborn is living, how the hell can we be indifferent or supportive of his or her murder?

See, I don't know about you...but i would rather see every single person who uses drugs in America voluntarily go to prison for the maximum sentence as established by the law....than allow one unborn child, completely guiltless and innocent of any wrongdoing, be murdered by his or her own parents.

If the body has different DNA than yours, then it isn't your body. And if the body can be killed, then it must be living. And if you kill someone elses body....that is called murder. I'm very against murder, and I will never vote for someone who isn't.

That's egalitarian/humanism which was adopted in the modern era of post-enlightenment, and this was derived from platonic principles, not Judeo-Christian ones. Same thing with Women's rights, etc.

 

[AuH20]

I just wanted AUH20 to explain to me how Trump is a paleo-conservative, because he's given that label to him before. I do like some of Trump's foreign policy positions like opposing the Iraq War, opposing nation building, opposing overthrowing dictators in the Middle East, opposing entangling alliances, etc. But, I don't see his views on domestic issues as being conservative and wanted AUH20 to try to explain how Trump can accurately be labeled a paleoconservative in light of his more liberal views on domestic issues.

Trump isn't a paleo. He's borrowed key planks of the paleo philosophy.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/evictionism-the-only-true-libertarian-position-on-abortion/

Block has done a lot of good stuff, but his position is basically the same as Rothbard's. Neither are actually 100% libertarian. "Evictionism" is a subset of libertarianism that is more Randian Objectivist than libertarian.

 

[Libertas Aut Mortis]

That's egalitarian/humanism which was adopted in the modern era of post-enlightenment, and this was derived from platonic principles, not Judeo-Christian ones. Same thing with Women's rights, etc.

Woah woah woah, slow down power ranger.

Drop the labels. This issue is pressing, not because of egalitarian humanism....but because millions of unborn human beings are being killed every year, by choice. In the past, people were lucky to have a child survive pregnancy, then birth, then their first year....then their childhood, and then get through being a teenager....and then not die by the time you were married....and then not die ect ect ect..

We live in a time with a very different standard of living. We largely do not have to have 18 children hoping a few will survive. If we choose to have 18 children, we will likely end up will all 18, losing none (or very few) along the way.

This is an issue because it is being facilitated by the government, it has been ruled upon by an activist left-wing court, and the basic premise that "All Men are Created Equal...with Life, Liberty ect..." is being shit on.

Don't try to justify deliberate murder with Judeo-Christian values.

Science is science. The unborn, is living. When you abort, the unborn is dead. Thus to abort, is to murder (unless you are insinuating that the unborn was an enemy combatant, and Congress has declared war on the unborn; as the unborn is technically not a US Citizen, and not necessarily to be given the full rights and privileges of a Natural BORN citizens....thus they must be regarded as any other foreigner....who may be killed in war)

Go ahead. Tell me that we are at war with the unborn menace...and then I might understand how it could be even remotely acceptable to murder millions of people every year.....but even then, I would ask...what is our goal in this endevour? Is this a Just War?

When in doubt...pull out.

 

[euphemia]

It used to be that conervatives were for a conservative (limited) government. That changed about the mid 70s to mean conservative on social issues. Now they are both big government parties, but differ on the issues government should focus on.

 

[69360]

It's just a name, a word. If it was Trump and Sanders, I would vote for Sanders simply because I see him as an honest person and not a lying asshole like Trump. I obviously don't agree with socialism.

 

[Brett85]

It used to be that conervatives were for a conservative (limited) government. That changed about the mid 70s to mean conservative on social issues. Now they are both big government parties, but differ on the issues government should focus on.

What are the "social issues?"

 

[otherone]

And thus the Libertarian movement fractures itself, with a number of libertarians saying they'd support Bernie, etc. over a conservative.

What's a "Libertarian movement"? Was that ever a thing, here?

 

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Conservatism is dead, and has been dead since at least the post-World War II era. The conservatives of today are the progressives of previous generations. In twenty or thirty years, so-called "conservatives" will sound exactly like Bernie Sanders. Such is the leftward march of democracy.

Conservatism is dead, and a good riddance it is. Reaction is the future. Reaction understands power is what must be seized.

 

[Dianne]

Is there some kind of test to determine if you are a libertarian. Actually to me, a libertarian wouldn't give a shit what you are; i.e., conservative, liberal, as long as you don't infringe upon his personal rights. I was registered and voted democratic all my life pre Ron Paul. Back then the democratic party did pretend to be anti war. I worked on the campaign committee for George McGovern. I campaigned for Bill Clinton. It's easy for me to see now that there is truly no difference in the parties. Both are globalist owned schills robbing all Americans and the world blind.

There is no way in hell I would vote for Hillary or Bernie. There is no way in hell I would vote for Cruz or Rubio. The only reason I might vote for Trump, is because he told the truth about George Bush telling a lie to lead us into war. And, Trump says let Russia deal with Syria while we stay out of it. The rest of the neocons, including Hillary, are ready to declare a no fly zone and shoot down Russian aircraft leading us to WW3.

 

[Gh34]

Woah woah woah, slow down power ranger.

Drop the labels. This issue is pressing, not because of egalitarian humanism....but because millions of unborn human beings are being killed every year, by choice. In the past, people were lucky to have a child survive pregnancy, then birth, then their first year....then their childhood, and then get through being a teenager....and then not die by the time you were married....and then not die ect ect ect..

We live in a time with a very different standard of living. We largely do not have to have 18 children hoping a few will survive. If we choose to have 18 children, we will likely end up will all 18, losing none (or very few) along the way.

This is an issue because it is being facilitated by the government, it has been ruled upon by an activist left-wing court, and the basic premise that "All Men are Created Equal...with Life, Liberty ect..." is being shit on.

Don't try to justify deliberate murder with Judeo-Christian values.

Science is science. The unborn, is living. When you abort, the unborn is dead. Thus to abort, is to murder (unless you are insinuating that the unborn was an enemy combatant, and Congress has declared war on the unborn; as the unborn is technically not a US Citizen, and not necessarily to be given the full rights and privileges of a Natural BORN citizens....thus they must be regarded as any other foreigner....who may be killed in war)

Go ahead. Tell me that we are at war with the unborn menace...and then I might understand how it could be even remotely acceptable to murder millions of people every year.....but even then, I would ask...what is our goal in this endevour? Is this a Just War?

When in doubt...pull out.

It's based on egalitarianism, this whole issue. The abortion obsession was pushed by first wave feminists. It stems from the enlightenment philosophy of egalitarianism, it has nothing to do with judeo-christian values. The Vatican did not even declare life to formally began at conception until the 19th century.

 

[Gh34]

What are the "social issues?"

The ones you and your ilk obsess over, you know what they are, especially the one that drives you apoplectic, to the extent that you'd vote for the biggest warmonger possible simply because he might possible be 'slightly less bad' on the issue..despite historically for thousands of years no one really caring about it in practice.

 

[Cabal]

If the body has different DNA than yours, then it isn't your body. And if the body can be killed, then it must be living. And if you kill someone elses body....that is called murder. I'm very against murder, and I will never vote for someone who isn't.

Your conclusion is missing at least one premise. You never establish personhood, you leap to it. You go from living body to someone elses body. What makes it someone's body? You never establish this, and this is the premise by which you arrive at the conclusion of murder, so your argument doesn't really follow until you do establish personhood. And this personhood must also be applicable to all stages of pregnancy from fertilization on, from single-celled zygote, to embryo, to fetus if you intend on classifying abortion at all stages to be murder of an individual, human person.

When does personhood begin? Because, quite honestly, I'd say you have your work cut out for you if you intend on claiming the above to be individual people no different in terms of individual, human personhood to those humans who have been born. And, to be clear, I do not fit into the "pro-life" or "pro-choice" crowds. I tend to find both extremes to be equally unreasonable and arbitrary.

 

[Libertas Aut Mortis]

It's based on egalitarianism, this whole issue. The abortion obsession was pushed by first wave feminists. It stems from the enlightenment philosophy of egalitarianism, it has nothing to do with judeo-christian values. The Vatican did not even declare life to formally began at conception until the 19th century.

Fine, I'll bite. Explain to me the correct way of looking at the issue...and feel free to counter my arguments while you are at it. Because, at least to me, justifying the murder to the unborn is even more of a "Cruel War against Mankind" than Slavery.

So please, elaborate on how killing a human being should be acceptable.

 

[Ronin Truth]

No they aren't. That's like being brown eyed first and blue eyed second. Or like being statist first and anarchist second.

 

[cajuncocoa]

I consider myself Libertarian, period.

 

[cajuncocoa]

Even by libertarian standards (which I'm not one) if abortion really is murder than its apporpriate to want to ban it and to put a high priority on banning it.

Didn't you say you were leaving? I don't care if you stay, just asking.

 

[cajuncocoa]

What are the "social issues?"

Everything that doesn't fall under economic issues or foreign policy: abortion, gay rights, immigration, welfare, environmental issues, education issues, etc.

 

[Libertas Aut Mortis]

Your conclusion is missing at least one premise. You never establish personhood, you leap to it. You go from living body to someone elses body. What makes it someone's body? You never establish this, and this is the premise by which you arrive at the conclusion of murder, so your argument doesn't really follow until you do establish personhood. And this personhood must also be applicable to all stages of pregnancy from fertilization on, from single-celled zygote, to embryo, to fetus if you intend on classifying abortion at all stages to be murder of an individual, human person.

When does personhood begin? Because, quite honestly, I'd say you have your work cut out for you if you intend on claiming the above to be individual people no different in terms of individual, human personhood to those humans who have been born. And, to be clear, I do not fit into the "pro-life" or "pro-choice" crowds. I tend to find both extremes to be equally unreasonable and arbitrary.

Sure, I would turn simply to this. As soon as a cell has a unique and separate DNA from the host body. Simple as that. I personally do not know if that is at conception, or if that is a longer process....but that is, rationally, when life begins.

The unfertilized egg, is wholly of the mother. The sperm is wholly of the father. Once they do their magic mixing....and they they combine together to create an unique organisim. In your pictures, it seems as though the cell is replicating...so i would say, yes, that is a life.