Can you be pro-choice and a libertarian?

[PRB]

While this is true, you have to admit that the paleo strategy as well as the more recent movement in the U.S. over the last few years has introduced a lot of social conservatism to the movement and has made it so people associate libertarianism with social conservative/tea party dogma. It really irks me personally because it leads people to believe there's only this more so-con/right-wing version of libertarianism when there are plenty who hold more leftist views on social issues.

is this an appeal to so-cons or so-libs?
http://archive.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/drunkdriving.html

 

[kcchiefs6465]

While this is true, you have to admit that the paleo strategy as well as the more recent movement in the U.S. over the last few years has introduced a lot of social conservatism to the movement and has made it so people associate libertarianism with social conservative/tea party dogma. It really irks me personally because it leads people to believe there's only this more so-con/right-wing version of libertarianism when there are plenty who hold more leftist views on social issues.

But then a lot of others associate libertarianism with smoking drugs and running around naked.

It's whatever political side of the paradigm one falls under that determines which fallacy they use to dismiss actual solutions... or even debate for that matter.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

While this is true, you have to admit that the paleo strategy as well as the more recent movement in the U.S. over the last few years has introduced a lot of social conservatism to the movement and has made it so people associate libertarianism with social conservative/tea party dogma. It really irks me personally because it leads people to believe there's only this more so-con/right-wing version of libertarianism when there are plenty who hold more leftist views on social issues.

Yes, I totally agree. The appealing to "right-wingers" has long irked me. I've been trying to get the political types to recruit the "left-wingers" as well. My words fall on deaf and naive ears.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

But then a lot of others associate libertarianism with smoking drugs and running around naked.

It's whatever political side of the paradigm one falls under that determines which fallacy they use to dismiss actual solutions... or even debate for that matter.

Good point.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

is this an appeal to so-cons or so-libs?
http://archive.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/drunkdriving.html

Pretty sure this appeals to neither. Ditto for privatisation of public goods.

 

[DamianTV]

The essence of Libertarianism is the ability to choose everything for yourself. Choose to get vaccinated or not get vaccinated. Choose to start a business or work for someone else. Pro-Choice is often wrongly percieved as "only choosing to murder all babies". Many in the Pro-Life crowd will only see things this way, not all, but many. What is so often missed is that just because a crime occurs, it does not automagically give someone else the Right to step in and decide that persons fate. One can oppose certain actions being considered a crime or not, but that is the extent of the power that they have over those who perform the actions they disagree with. Its the exact same argument with Pot, Speeding, Taxes, and damn near everything. "You dont have the Right to NOT pay Taxes", which just authorizes theft, however, things are usually taken a step further where the person making the demands wants to go in and take the non taxpayers money by force, and will as often as possible, seek Govt to enact violence against the non taxpayer.

Theres two sides to Pro-Choice. Those that have to make the extremely difficult choice of having an abortion could be percieved as the murder of a baby. However forcing that person to have the baby makes the person having that baby feel just as much a victim. Its a downward spiral of violence from both sides. Thus, instead of trying to make a person have and take care of said baby, a better more productive alternative would be to encourage non violent solutions such as offer adoption. Or maybe even better is to get off the "sex is sin" idea and promote birth control like Condoms. Then, there is a lot less conflict after the consequences of getting pregnant to begin with.

 

[Saint Vitus]

I am personally pro-life, but politically pro-choice. I am against abortion in my personal/family life, but I recognize that it is up to each individual/family to make that decision.

 

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

 

[Origanalist]

If you had qualified it as a right to autonomous life I would have agreed. One has no right to a donor's blood supply, for instance, or the right to use a donor's body as a filtration device for their waste's in order to maintain their life. That a community or culture would consider such donor service to be virtuous does not negate the right of the donor to deny providing those services. Furthermore, the fact that a donor supplies such service on any given day or any given moment does not obligate the donor to continue such service.

That's the kind of nonsensical garbldygook that people have to use to justify killing their offspring. Catchphrases like donor for a mother and parasite for offspring.

You had sex, now you're pregnant and you're killing the kid. Call it what it is.

 

[compromise]

Pro-war, pro-tax, pro-border enforcement?

You can be a libertarian and for any of those things. See the Libertarian Defense Caucus, the Geo-libertarians and the Hoppeians.

Libertarianism is defined in so many ways that the label has little meaning any more.

 

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

 

[Sola_Fide]

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.

I completely disagree with this. The idea that rights are "inherent in our humanity" is natural law nonsense. The Biblical and Christian view of rights is that rights are imputed based on God's command.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I completely disagree with this. The idea that rights are "inherent in our humanity" is natural law nonsense. The Biblical and Christian view of rights is that rights are imputed based on God's command.

While I agree with you, I think his point when he says "inherent to our humanity" is that no human being has a right to take them away from any other human being.

 

[Nirvikalpa]

anything that requires a doctor's expertise is a medical procedure, regardless of whether it's cosmetic or fatal or necessary.

Thank you, apparently some here can't grasp that radical concept.

 

[Snew]

As usual, it all depends on the definition of when life legitimately begins.

 

[jllundqu]

My question was still not answered.

If you are pro-choice, where do you draw the line? If you think it is 'OK' for a woman to have an abortion at 6 weeks.... is it ok at 14 weeks? 24 weeks? 38 weeks? At what point does the fetus warrant legal protection (from the pro-choice POV)?

***For the record, I am personally pro-life, but hold a pro-choice view in terms of policy.

 

[PRB]

I completely disagree with this. The idea that rights are "inherent in our humanity" is natural law nonsense. The Biblical and Christian view of rights is that rights are imputed based on God's command.

How is natural law nonsense any more nonsense than God's command nonsense?

 

[jkob]

What it comes down to is whether or not you believe the unborn are a human life. If you're one of those people that make the point to call the child a "fetus" or a 'mass of cells' or whatever then I can at least see the logic in your position even tho I disagree completely but the people that recognize it as a human life and find abortion personally abhorrent but still support that murder I can't comprehend.

 

[Christian Liberty]

How is natural law nonsense any more nonsense than God's command nonsense?

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

 

[Christian Liberty]

What it comes down to is whether or not you believe the unborn are a human life. If you're one of those people that make the point to call the child fetus or a 'mass of cells' or whatever then I can at least see the logic in your position even tho I disagree completely but the people that recognize it as a human life and find abortion personally abhorrent but still support that murder I can't comprehend.

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