Can you be pro-choice and a libertarian?

[Anti-Neocon]

Look around yourself. Research. Come up with your own philosophy. Never take a stance on something that doesn't seem right to yourself. Never feel pressured into believing in something wrong just cause you won't feel a part of the club (in this case the "libertarian" club). Ron himself voted against repealing Glass-Steagal, which certainly wasn't a purist libertarian thing to do. He voted on what he believed was right, not what was "libertarian".

 

[eduardo89]

My hope for this issue issue would be, use some form of birth control so the poor baby does not have to die, Geeesh!

Many studies have shown that increased use of birth control lead to a higher abortion rate.

In Sweden, between 1995 and 2001, teen abortion rates grew 32% during a period of 'free' government-funded condoms, oral contraceptives and over-the-counter emergency contraception.
http://sti.bmj.com/content/78/5/352.full

A recent ten-year study in Spain was reported to have found the same thing:

Contraception use increased by about 60%, the abortion rate doubled. In other words, even with an increase in contraception use, there weren’t fewer unwanted pregnancies, there were more.
http://www.jillstanek.com/2011/01/s...tions-double-researchers-cant-figure-out-why/

Another study:

In fact, while contraceptive use among these women went up significantly over that period—from 49.1% to 79.9%—the abortion rate rose even more dramatically—from 5.52 to 11.49 per 1000 women.

In other words, a 63% increase in contraception use was accompanied by a 108% increase in abortions.
http://www.contraceptionjournal.org/article/S0010-7824(10)00327-6/abstract

And another:

THE EFFECTS OF INCREASED ACCESS TO EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION ON SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASE AND ABORTION RATES

The results indicate that while county-level access to emergency contraception was unrelated to trends in sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) and abortions before access changed, access afterwards led to a statistically significant increase in STD rates (gonorrhea rates), both overall and for females as well as abortions.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1465-7295.2012.00498.x/abstract

and another:

Relationships Between Contraception and Abortion: A Review of the Evidence

The reason for the confusion stems from the observation that, within particular populations, contraceptive prevalence and the incidence of induced abortion can and, indeed, often do rise in parallel, contrary to what one would expect.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2900603.html (Guttmacher is a Planned Parenthood affiliated 'research' institute)

and another:

A high correlation between abortion experience and contraceptive experience can be expected in populations to which both contraception and abortion are available. ... women who have practiced contraception are more likely to have had abortions than those who have not practiced contraception, and women who have had abortions are more likely to have been contraceptors than women without a history of abortion.

— Christopher Tietze, "Abortion and Contraception." In Abortion: Readings and Research [Toronto: Butterworth & Co., 1981]
http://www.hli.org/cloning/578?task=view

 

[FloralScent]

I have no problem with leftivists and other assorted dullards cutting out their flawed genetic material. It strengthens the gene pool and means less competition for limited resources for my progeny. What is the correct libertarian position? I have no idea and I don't care.

 

[FloralScent]

My hope for this issue issue would be, use some form of birth control so the poor baby does not have to die, Geeesh!

This is obviously the correct choice but leftivists are ghouls.

 

[otherone]

No, you cannot. Being a libertarian means you believe that rights are inherent to our humanity and chief among those is the right to life from which all other rights are derived. If you reject the right to life you reject every other natural right.

From the LP website:



1.4 Abortion

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

 

[CaptUSA]

If you have come to an answer easily on the abortion question, then you haven't thought about it deeply enough.

There are good libertarian arguments to be made on both sides.

Personally, I am pro-life, but I have serious concerns about how that is enforced.

 

[eduardo89]

From the LP website:
1.4 Abortion

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

That wasn't very nice changing my name in the quote to Santorum.

And f*ck the LP.

 

[otherone]

That wasn't very nice changing my name in the quote to Santorum.

And f*ck the LP.

awwwww....you want nice?
Eff the LP, who directly answer the OP?

 

[eduardo89]

awwwww....you want nice?
Eff the LP, who directly answer the OP?

The LP do not define what libertarianism is, unless of course you consider Bob Barr to be a libertarian.

 

[otherone]

The LP do not define what libertarianism is, unless of course you consider Bob Barr to be a libertarian.

Who does?

 

[Cleaner44]

there is no liberty in war, borders and taxes.

Agreed.

 

[cajuncocoa]

I think it depends on the beliefs of the individual libertarian. If said libertarian believes that life begins at conception, they would be pro-life; if not, they may be pro-choice. Since we also believe in the non-aggression principle, we don't force our beliefs on others....instead, we just try to peacefully convince them of our viewpoint.

 

[jllundqu]

Madison320, I am pro-choice and very much a libertarian. I am sympathetic towards the pro-life view, but my primary concern is about making the State a mediator in pregnancies. If the mother decides not to have the baby, you cannot protect the liberties of the fetus unless you violate the liberties and privacy of the mother and the father, and I am opposed to that. I don't want the State in my wallet or in my bedroom, so why would I want the State in our pregnancy?

Rothbard is pro-choice and has written extensively about it. No one would dispute Rothbard's libertarianism. If you must nit-pick, the pro-life "ban all abortions" folks should call themselves paleo-conservative and not libertarians.

Devil's advocate: Where is the line drawn, in your mind? Can a woman decide to terminate a pregnancy at 38 weeks when the baby is alive, viable, and healthy? If your answer is "No a woman can't (read: does not have the right to) do that" then you DO believe in SOME government interference.

 

[thoughtomator]

I think that if you follow the philosophy of freedom and the science of biology to their logical conclusions, you can't be comfortable with abortion. If our rights are endowed on us by our Creator, then it's the moment of creation at which we get those rights. These rights are not a suspension of natural law (you don't have a right to medical intervention to make sure your zygote doesn't fall out of the fallopian tube), but should you survive what nature throws at you, you should not be subject to human violence as well.

 

[PRB]

Devil's advocate: Where is the line drawn, in your mind? Can a woman decide to terminate a pregnancy at 38 weeks when the baby is alive, viable, and healthy? If your answer is "No a woman can't (read: does not have the right to) do that" then you DO believe in SOME government interference.

I'm against government interference on matters which require violation of privacy to enforce. So what happens in your car and in your bedroom, is not the government's business.

 

[willwash]

This question does not reframe the debate in any way. It still boils down to whether a fetus is classified as a human being or not, which is a philosophical question far outside the scope of what the proper extent of government is generally.

 

[PRB]

This question does not reframe the debate in any way. It still boils down to whether a fetus is classified as a human being or not, which is a philosophical question far outside the scope of what the proper extent of government is generally.

your point is that if someone/something is a human being, then it's the government's business to abuse power to protect him/her/it?

 

[willwash]

your point is that if someone/something is a human being, then it's the government's business to abuse power to protect him/her/it?

If someone/something is a human being, it should be treated as are all other human beings. The relevant questions are 1) is the fetus a human being or not, and 2) does the government have the power to stop human beings from being killed. If the answer to both is yes, then government may rightfully outlaw abortion. If the answer to either is no, then it cannot.

 

[PRB]

If someone/something is a human being, it should be treated as are all other human beings.

A 12 year old is a human being, so the person has the same rights as a 50 year old? such as the right to consent to sex?

 

[Paulbot99]

A 12 year old is a human being, so the person has the same rights as a 50 year old? such as the right to consent to sex?

So you say the government can set an age of consent?