Abortion, a slimebag’s best friend

[Sola_Fide]

I need to read that article, but you missed my point. I completely believe that its possible to be a pro-life libertarian. Heck, I AM a pro-life libertarian. Sola_Fide said that it is NOT possible to be a pro-choice libertarian, and that's what I was questioning. That would mean Rothbard wasn't a libertarian, which, considering he all but invented the ideology in the modern era, would be odd.

Regarding evictionism, the Blockean view of evictionism would allow eviction even if the eviction will lead to death. That's where I disagree with it. I don't think anyone would have a problem with evictionism that does NOT lead to death (Or at least serious injury.)



I don't really want to Devil's Advocate the tresspassing argument, since I really don't agree with it, but it does exist.

Libertarianism is pro-life only. If you are not pro-life, you cannot be a philosophical libertarian:

Being Pro-Life Is Necessary to Defend Liberty
by Congressman Ron Paul

Pro-life libertarians have a vital task to perform: to persuade the many abortion-supporting libertarians of the contradiction between abortion and individual liberty; and, to sever the mistaken connection in many minds between individual freedom and the "right" to extinguish individual life.
Libertarians have a moral vision of a society that is just, because individuals are free. This vision is the only reason for libertarianism to exist. It offers an alternative to the forms of political thought that uphold the power of the State, or of persons within a society, to violate the freedom of others. If it loses that vision, then libertarianism becomes merely another ideology whose policies are oppressive, rather than liberating.

We expect most people to be inconsistent, because their beliefs are founded on false principles or on principles that are not clearly stated and understood. They cannot apply their beliefs consistently without contradictions becoming glaringly apparent. Thus, there are both liberals and conservatives who support conscription of young people, the redistribution of wealth, and the power of the majority to impose its will on the individual.

A libertarian's support for abortion is not merely a minor misapplication of principle, as if one held an incorrect belief about the Austrian theory of the business cycle. The issue of abortion is fundamental, and therefore an incorrect view of the issue strikes at the very foundations of all beliefs.

Libertarians believe, along with the Founding Fathers, that every individual has inalienable rights, among which are the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Neither the State, nor any other person, can violate those rights without committing an injustice. But, just as important as the power claimed by the State to decide what rights we have, is the power to decide which of us has rights.

Today, we are seeing a piecemeal destruction of individual freedom. And in abortion, the statists have found a most effective method of obliterating freedom: obliterating the individual. Abortion on demand is the ultimate State tyranny; the State simply declares that certain classes of human beings are not persons, and therefore not entitled to the protection of the law. The State protects the "right" of some people to kill others, just as the courts protected the "property rights" of slave masters in their slaves. Moreover, by this method the State achieves a goal common to all totalitarian regimes: it sets us against each other, so that our energies are spent in the struggle between State-created classes, rather than in freeing all individuals from the State. Unlike Nazi Germany, which forcibly sent millions to the gas chambers (as well as forcing abortion and sterilization upon many more), the new regime has enlisted the assistance of millions of people to act as its agents in carrying out a program of mass murder.

The more one strives for the consistent application of an incorrect principle, the more horrendous the results. Thus, a wrong-headed libertarian is potentially very dangerous. Libertarians who act on a wrong premise seem to be too often willing to accept the inhuman conclusions of an argument, rather than question their premises.

A case in point is a young libertarian leader I have heard about. He supports the "right" of a woman to remove an unwanted child from her body (i.e., her property) by killing and then expelling him or her. Therefore, he has consistently concluded, any property owner has the right to kill anyone on his property, for any reason.

Such conclusions should make libertarians question the premises from which they are drawn.

We must promote a consistent vision of liberty because freedom is whole and cannot be alienated, although it can be abridged by the unjust action of the State or those who are powerful enough to obtain their own demands. Our lives, also, are a whole from the beginning at fertilization until death. To deny any part of liberty, or to deny liberty to any particular class of individuals, diminishes the freedom of all. For libertarians to support such an abridgement of the right to live free is unconscionable.

I encourage all pro-life libertarians to become involved in debating the issues and educating the public; whether or not freedom is defended across the board, or is allowed to be further eroded without consistent defenders, may depend on them.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I agree with Ron Paul... but a lot of libertarians don't.

 

[matt0611]

Why is he being charged with murder? The "fetus" or "unborn baby" has "no rights" because they're "not persons" according to abortion supporters.

 

[tod evans]

Why is he being charged with murder? The "fetus" or "unborn baby" has "no rights" because they're "not persons" according to abortion supporters.

I think it is a strategic attack on RvW implemented by federal prosecutors in Fla.

 

[bunklocoempire]

Remee and John create a situation enriching themselves that the innocent has no control over and then John bails himself out at the expense of the innocent.

Goldman Sach's style -sometimes liberty lovers fall for it.

It's no wonder government along with the Goldman Sach's of the world want to constantly de-humanize the taxpayer.

 

[Sola_Fide]

I agree with Ron Paul... but a lot of libertarians don't.

It's our job to put them on the defensive and persuade them of the contradiction between abortion and individual liberty. I believe that there are several different ways to go about ending abortion legislatively, but that is not even what Ron's focus is in that piece. Ron's focus is what is philosophically consistent with liberty. You cannot be philosphically consistent with liberty and support abortion.

 

[JCDenton0451]

Abortion, a slimebag’s best friend

Oohhh. It's threads like that make me worry this movement is doomed.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Oohhh. It's threads like that make me worry this movement is doomed.

Being Pro-Life Is Necessary To Defend Liberty by Ron Paul
http://www.l4l.org/library/bepro-rp.html

 

[jclay2]

What a horrible piece of shit. This guy deserves death, but I guess life would suffice.

 

[QuickZ06]

Takes two to make life, but only one to kill it.

 

[Smart3]

Abortion is an initiation of force. There is no way around it. This has to do with libertarianism.

Sure. Except you still haven't provided any reason to treat fetuses as persons. When you're able to do this, and go against thousands of years of thinking, please do.

The law on murder says you can only be charged it for killing a living human, and nothing else (no murder charges for killing animals, businesses, already-dead bodies, etc.)

And this guy is being charged with what? Murder.

Our understanding of Murder must be revised anyways, to not include pulling the plug on a loved one or euthanizing a person who is inevitably going to die (say from a fatal car crash). I would also support a new word, to describe the unlawful killing of near-sapient species (Gorillas, Chimpanzees, Bonobos, Dolphins, etc) which would also be severely punished.

 

[JCDenton0451]

Being Pro-Life Is Necessary To Defend Liberty by Ron Paul
http://www.l4l.org/library/bepro-rp.html

Seriously, this is general politics subforum. What does a local crime story have to do with politics? Why is this thread five pages long? Maybe we should discuss Immigration Reform instead?

 

[Sola_Fide]

Seriously, this is general politics subforum. What does a local crime story have to do with politics? Why is this thread five pages long? Maybe we should discuss Immigration Reform instead?

Every thread on the general politics board has something to do with philosophy or theology. This is the kind of movement we are in.

One of the things that angers me more than anything is the soft censorship that people like you think that they can employ against Christianity. You have a false dichotomy set up in your mind that puts theology in one quiet corner of the world and secularism in the other public part of the world. It's your thinking that's wrong. Theology is the ruling discipline and it informs every philosophy, including atheism.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Sure. Except you still haven't provided any reason to treat fetuses as persons. When you're able to do this, and go against thousands of years of thinking, please do.


Our understanding of Murder must be revised anyways, to not include pulling the plug on a loved one or euthanizing a person who is inevitably going to die (say from a fatal car crash). I would also support a new word, to describe the unlawful killing of near-sapient species (Gorillas, Chimpanzees, Bonobos, Dolphins, etc) which would also be severely punished.

Oh man...you are all over the place. "Near-sapient" species like gorillas and dolphins deserve the protection of the law, but babies in the womb don't?

Yes, our understanding of murder is always being revised. In Germany, they revised the understanding of murder to mean that Jews were dogs and inhuman...not deserving of the protection of the law. That you would now endorse that same kind of thinking shows me how intellectually bankrupt you really are. You should be ashamed of your inconsistency.

 

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

probably said this in this thread before, but tired of the woman being able to decide if a fetus is a person or not. Also the dude probably feared 18 years of child support slavery, not saying what he did was right

 

[tod evans]

probably said this in this thread before, but tired of the woman being able to decide if a fetus is a person or not.

I hope this case goes as I envision, that being that the father is able to establish his right as a parent en-utero....

By filing murder charges the door is open.

 

[ninepointfive]

What a horrible piece of shit. This guy deserves death, but I guess life would suffice.

sometimes people are pro birth. after that, just send them off to war or what have you.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Our understanding of Murder must be revised anyways, to not include pulling the plug on a loved one or euthanizing a person who is inevitably going to die (say from a fatal car crash). I would also support a new word, to describe the unlawful killing of near-sapient species (Gorillas, Chimpanzees, Bonobos, Dolphins, etc) which would also be severely punished.

Animals don't have rights, killing them isn't a violation of the NAP because animals are not covered by libertarian ethics, nor should they be.

Also the dude probably feared 18 years of child support slavery, not saying what he did was right

How is that "Slavery"? Didn't he consent to create the child?

sometimes people are pro birth. after that, just send them off to war or what have you.

Yeah, we call them "Republicans".

 

[RonPaulFanInGA]

The guy pleaded guilty:

http://www.wusa9.com/news/article/2...e-Lee-into-taking-abortion-pill-pleads-guilty

 

[dillo]

Do pro-lifers support the womans right to abort based on self defense? One could certainly argue that any pregnancy has to potential to kill the mother, does the childs right to life trump the mothers? What about rape victims, should they be crowned murderers as well?