Can you be pro-choice and a libertarian?

[PRB]

If natural law is broken it becomes consistent with natural law to break natural law. Its paradoxical.

Natural law is PRESCRIPTIVE, not DESCRIPTIVE. and somehow God's commandments are impossible to break?

 

[Christian Liberty]

Natural law is PRESCRIPTIVE, not DESCRIPTIVE. and somehow God's commandments are impossible to break?

Where does natural law come from? Nature.

Where do humans come from (in the absence of God). Nature.

If a human breaks a natural law, what happens? The breakage becomes natural.

Is this person then breaking natural law? No.

 

[PRB]

Where does natural law come from? Nature.

You are confusing "laws of nature, laws of physics, descriptive" with "what people call natural law as a means of governing human affairs, a prescriptive proposal"

Where do humans come from (in the absence of God). Nature.

No disagreement here.

If a human breaks a natural law, what happens? The breakage becomes natural.

If humans break any law, it can only be a man made and not natural law. All human actions are natural, as it's physically possible by nature.

Is this person then breaking natural law? No.

A person is only physically capable of breaking laws which are man made, not overcome any physical limitations imposed by nature.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

Men debating this issue creeps me out.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Men debating this issue creeps me out.

Does whether an unborn child is a life or not depend on what gender the person who is considering the issue is?

 

[angelatc]

Does whether an unborn child is a life or not depend on what gender the person who is considering the issue is?

In my experience, the answer to that depends on whether you're pro-life or pro-choice. Pro-lifers have no such qualms, but pro-choicers won't hesitate to shut down the debate by playing the gender card.

 

[Paulbot99]

In my experience, the answer to that depends on whether you're pro-life or pro-choice. Pro-lifers have no such qualms, but pro-choicers won't hesitate to shut down the debate by playing the gender card.

It gets rather funny when I mention that most pro-lifers I know are women and most pro-choicers I know are men.

 

[Zippyjuan]

It gets rather funny when I mention that most pro-lifers I know are women and most pro-choicers I know are men.

It is actually pretty close. According to a Gallop poll, men are 42% pro choice and 50% pro life and women are 47% pro choice and 46% pro life.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/162548/americans-misjudge-abortion-views.aspx

It shows women slightly more pro choice.

For all adults, it was 45% pro choice and 48% pro life. Pretty even split. (remaining numbers are "no opinion")

 

[PRB]

In my experience, the answer to that depends on whether you're pro-life or pro-choice. Pro-lifers have no such qualms, but pro-choicers won't hesitate to shut down the debate by playing the gender card.

Yeah, because if you're pro-life, you're not pro-choice, by definition, you don't believe it's a woman's right to choose, therefore gender/sex is irrelevant.

 

[Christian Liberty]

In my experience, the answer to that depends on whether you're pro-life or pro-choice. Pro-lifers have no such qualms, but pro-choicers won't hesitate to shut down the debate by playing the gender card.

I find it weirdest of all when pro-choice men play the gender card in arguments like this. If it was really supposed to be a woman's issue only, the least pro-choice men could do is lead by example and shut up.

 

[eduardo89]

Men debating this issue creeps me out.

"Men" who refuse to stand up for the rights of unborn children and are ok with their offspring being murdered creep me out.

 

[Keith and stuff]

Yes, a person can be pro-choice and a libertarian. There is no one correct way to be libertarian.

Pretty much. It was a strange question, IMO.

Maybe he hasn't seen this bumper sticker before?

 

[Christian Liberty]

I'm pro-choice on all non-aggressive acts.

There, that better?

 

[PRB]

I'm pro-choice on all non-aggressive acts.

There, that better?

Define aggression

 

[jkob]

I guess it really depends on what one is arguing. For instance, you have people like Walter Block who believe life begins at conception but argue from evictionism anyway on property rights grounds. Nonetheless, he is still reasoning the unborn child as a human being. So I'd say he's a libertarian, albeit flawed on that point.

On the other hand, if you are arguing your pro-choice position from the perspective that unborn children aren't human, I could not consider you libertarian anymore than I could consider someone who believes black people or Jews aren't human to be libertarian. If the NAP doesn't apply to ALL humans its meaningless. Hey, maybe only cops and soldiers are "really" people

Wouldn't 'evictionism' violate the NAP? I think it would since the removal of the unborn would result its death and assuming it was the choice of the mother to get pregnant(as in consensual) it was act on her part to that life there. This is how I rationalize the exception for rape altho in my heart I do believe it still to be wrong from a purely pro-life standpoint. Perhaps in the future as technology advances, the unborn will be able to remain viable outside the mother's womb and 'evictionism' would make more sense.

 

[otherone]

Define aggression

The sheep says:

"non-issues are important."

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Wouldn't 'evictionism' violate the NAP? I think it would since the removal of the unborn would result its death and assuming it was the choice of the mother to get pregnant(as in consensual) it was act on her part to that life there. This is how I rationalize the exception for rape altho in my heart I do believe it still to be wrong from a purely pro-life standpoint. Perhaps in the future as technology advances, the unborn will be able to remain viable outside the mother's womb and 'evictionism' would make more sense.

No. A fetus/baby is no different than any other human being - it possesses no more or less rights than anyone else. It is no more or less a violation of the NAP to not provide a baby with sustenance than it is to decline to care for any other person.

This says nothing of the morality of a position, mind you. Simply that, under libertarian theory and law, one cannot be forced to care for another person. If this is not true, you will need to present the case that a baby is either not human, and also is privy to rights that humans do not possess, or that theft/initiatory force is acceptable (which, at this point, you'd be arguing against the very basis of the NAP). Good luck, in either case.

 

[bunklocoempire]

Consistency is where it's at.

We all have a good idea of how human life works, like biological fathers and mothers and how life is formed and carried.

All of us are here because of the actions of others.

Not one of us has called our own selves into existence.

But we're supposed to get together and decide what constitutes a "full set of rights" based on cell count?

Recognizing rights exist for new life in the womb is just how it is -until someone shows me that a tiny life can call itself into existence against the wishes of two parties that called it's life into existence. <-- THAT is the mental gymnastics an anti-life libertarian has to deal with.

A pro-life libertarian concerned with the NAP or freedom from government has a much easier time being consistent.

Rights are yours from the moment of your existence. No group made up of others, others who were called into existence by still others, can deny those rights exist.

Life, deal with it.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Perhaps in the future as technology advances, the unborn will be able to remain viable outside the mother's womb and 'evictionism' would make more sense.

That is the goal. Once the embryo can be safely removed and placed in stasis, then unwilling mothers can do that and proper adoptive mothers and fathers can take over as guardians.

Solomon's Knife

 

[PRB]

That is the goal. Once the embryo can be safely removed and placed in stasis, then unwilling mothers can do that and proper adoptive mothers and fathers can take over as guardians.

Solomon's Knife

That would be nice, then we can actually call abortionists for what they are, murderers who have a choice.