Divisive libertarian issue; where do you sit?

[QuickZ06]

How to start a "Hot Thread" at RPF in Three Easy Steps:

1 - Abortion is _______.

2 - Alex Jones says _______.

3 - Homosexuals are ________.

4. Glenn Beck is _________.

 

[Matthew5]

The act of picking and choosing who is a human being, or an individual, is the equivalent of picking and choosing who get's to have rights.

If people have the power to declare one another of not being worthy of their innate natural rights, you cannot protect natural rights, or liberty at all.

The entire idea of natural and individual rights, is that they're inclusive to ALL.

The act of abortion, is the notion, that we have the power to pick and choose which "group" does not get rights. It's an act of exclusion, and the epitome of inequality.

QFT

A pro-"choice" libertarian is an oxymoron. Libertarianism involves the preservation of human rights. The destruction of humans is counterproductive to that end.

 

[TheGrinch]

As libertarians, we should see that there are legitimate arguments on both sides (even though you may not agree), to where I don't think it should be such a deal-breaker... I mean, let's face it, this is probably the one issue where compromise is actually necessary, because it is just such a divisive battle to where both sides just refuse to even acknowledge each others arguments. There is little either side will ever do to sway any further than compromise, let's face it. In today's politics, it's pretty much demagoguery to even try to appeal to it.

At least late-term abortions aren't allowed, that's where I have a really hard time seeing an argument in favor of it. You had your "choice" in the first two terms, you've had more than enough time.

 

[TheGrinch]

QFT

A pro-"choice" libertarian is an oxymoron. Libertarianism involves the preservation of human rights. The destruction of humans is counterproductive to that end.

And the other side will then appeal to the mother's natural right over what she creates, and we get nowhere. It's a deadend street and nothing but divisive.

No one is changing any minds, especially when you have many people who are actually against abortion but support the mother''s choice. It can even make you seem hypocritical as a libertarian to acknowledge the dangerous black markets that prohibition creates, yet push for exactly that here.

(To be clear, I am staunchly pro-life, especially after it can be shown that there is even a little bit of a developed child in there, no question, but as Dr. Paul would say, I think you need to change the morality of the people, not try to stop them from what they're going to do through laws).

 

[Danan]

The act of picking and choosing who is a human being, or an individual, is the equivalent of picking and choosing who get's to have rights.

If people have the power to declare one another of not being worthy of their innate natural rights, you cannot protect natural rights, or liberty at all.

The entire idea of natural and individual rights, is that they're inclusive to ALL.

The act of abortion, is the notion, that we have the power to pick and choose which "group" does not get rights. It's an act of exclusion, and the epitome of inequality.

Everybody picks and chooses. Some simply pick other moments than others.

 

[Matthew5]

And the other side will then appeal to the mother's natural right over what she creates, and we get nowhere. It's a deadend street and nothing but divisive.

No one is changing any minds, especially when you have many people who are actually against abortion but support the mother''s choice. It can even make you seem hypocritical as a libertarian to acknowledge the dangerous black markets that prohibition creates, yet push for exactly that here.

(To be clear, I am staunchly pro-life, especially after it can be shown that there is even a little bit of a developed child in there, no question, but as Dr. Paul would say, I think you need to change the morality of the people, not try to stop them from what they're going to do through laws).

I don't accept that as a valid argument, but then I guess that proves your point.

I tend to disagree with Dr. Paul here. While it is true that a moral reconciliation must be made as a society, some situations are too urgent for that to occur. When your own people and its government are involved in a genocide, it's important to take action now to put a stop to it. We feel the same sense of urgency to end immoral actions of our government on other nations.

 

[TheGrinch]

I don't accept that as a valid argument, but then I guess that proves your point.

I tend to disagree with Dr. Paul here. While it is true that a moral reconciliation must be made as a society, some situations are too urgent for that to occur. When your own people and its government are involved in a genocide, it's important to take action now to put a stop to it. We feel the same sense of urgency to end immoral actions of our government on other nations.

Dr. Paul actually agrees with you (and I do for the most part), I'm just saying that according to his other teachings and our other beliefs, I could see how plenty could be opposed without wanting it to be a law, with all the baggage prohibition brings.

 

[Danan]

QFT

A pro-"choice" libertarian is an oxymoron. Libertarianism involves the preservation of human rights. The destruction of humans is counterproductive to that end.

It's really not that easy, be intellectually honest here. You could make good arguments about the starting point of what we consider to be humanity, the origin and nature of individual rights, etc. You could also make the case that the baby is a trespasser on (in) the woman's property and still be ideologically consistent libertarian.

I'm not saying those are my position. Personally I'm pretty much indifferent on the issue (as a political topic) and haven't made up my mind yet. Since I believe you won't be able to do very much via the law, I don't really invest too much time thinking about it. If anybody who considers to have an abortion would ask me for personal advice I would advocate not to do it and to give the baby up for adoption. Should I (heaven forbid!) accidentially make a girl pregnant, I would urge her to have the child and be there for it (even though I'm currently not in the best situation for that, but that's nothing that can't be changed).

I just find it silly to argue that there is one clearcut intellectual answer to this subject. It might be clear to people from a religous, or an emotional point of view, though. But not everybody shares those beliefs.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

I think some of you guys will realize what is going on the second you find yourselves in a mob looking down at a woman and her doctor in her country home for the crime of abortion. This lady did not pay for your police services, infact she has her own police service but your group have easily routed her private police service and you are just ready to dole out your version of justice for on this woman and her doctor.

That is when some of you guys would wake up. Hate abortion all you like, but it is none of your business what a woman does with the baby growing insider her. Please think carefully about how this pro life position would be policed in a free society.

It is the immorality of society. Abortions would happen whether they are legal or not. They are less dangerous to the woman now that proper medical care is available. People need to respect life. That is our biggest hurdle. The bombing of countries, the MSM sound bites of X number killed, as they switch back and forth through gossip does not help. We are conditioned to not respect anything but time. How much time to make a buck, how much time until I have to be here, etc. The people need a mass awakening. Abortion is evil. Whether they punch their stomach, or whether a man in a surgeon's gown performs it.

No amount of laws can dictate immorality. Quite simply, people are fucked up.

 

[thoughtomator]

I'm pro-life, but I don't think traditional pro-life strategies work, so I voted on the fence as I really don't like people demagoging either side of the issue. To solve the abortion problem we really need a massive cultural change.

 

[GuerrillaXXI]

My position on this is based on how long the fetus has been developing in the womb. If it's just a fertilized egg or an amorphous clump of cells, then aborting it doesn't bother me. But if the fetus has developed to the point where it has a brain and the capacity to feel pain, then I'm very much opposed to aborting it. Once a fetus has a functioning brain, I consider it to be a person who has rights.

Does the right to life of a mostly-developed fetus trump the right of the mother to ownership of her own body? I would say yes, since the mother freely chose to engage in an action that she knew could get her pregnant (this excludes rape, of course). That's not the fault of the person living inside her. Once she has allowed the fetus to become a person, I believe she has an obligation to protect that person, much as parents have an obligation to protect their children after birth.

 

[newbitech]

I didn't see the choice for, "I don't have a vagina".

 

[Matthew5]

It's really not that easy....

This was merely a summation of my position. Ultimately, I do believe it is that easy.

A: This is only a complicated issue because we've made it one. Even the Church (bare with me here) in her 2,000 year history, has not really needed to issue an opinion on life because it was never a major issue. It is only now, with the Sexual Revolution, the degradation of personal responsibility, and medical science creating an "out" that we're forced to face this issue. The truth of the matter didn't change just because we allowed these things to creep into our social make-up.

B: I also believe we can scholasticize this thing to death (no pun intended), but we're not dealing with a traditional form of property. Two human beings come together to create something unique and transfer life to another being. If given the opportunity to form, this human will enjoy the same rights that we do in the natural world.

Therefore, libertarians can't view this as a properties rights issue, but one of preservation of human rights.

 

[Matthew5]

And in all this property rights argument, people tend to block out the decisions that were made to have intercourse. It's a cop out to talk about women having rights over their bodies and not holding them responsible for the decision they made to have sexual intercourse. It only serves to feed the irresponsible behavior of people (yes, men included).

Decision we make have irreversible consequences. Having sex is one of those.

 

[Origanalist]

I didn't see the choice for, "I don't have a vagina".

So because you don't have one.....?

 

[kcchiefs6465]

I didn't see the choice for, "I don't have a vagina".

God have mercy on the woman who tries to abort my child.

 

[newbitech]

So because you don't have one.....?

I can't see how a man's opinion in the matter, matters. Unless you are the doctor, the priest, the babies daddy, or the mothers father. If you don't have a vagina and you are one of these, than I hope you and your mate have worked this out already.

If not, you probably shouldn't be having sex. If you have, I can't see how it's any of my business whatever you decided. It's not like I can force your mate to squeeze out a baby over you or any of the other men there.

My answer to this question, where do I sit on the topic. It's simple, I have no vagina, its not really possible for my opinion on the matter to be any more well formed than that.

I believe that life should be protected and I believe that the person who must protect it first is the person whose vagina creates the life. If that person is unwilling and unable to protect that life, I am not sure if there is anything I can do about it.

 

[newbitech]

God have mercy on the woman who tries to abort my child.

God have mercy on the woman who bears your child as well. God have mercy on all of us.

 

[Danan]

B: I also believe we can scholasticize this thing to death (no pun intended), but we're not dealing with a traditional form of property. Two human beings come together to create something unique and transfer life to another being. If given the opportunity to form, this human will enjoy the same rights that we do in the natural world.

Therefore, libertarians can't view this as a properties rights issue, but one of preservation of human rights.

I still don't see why property rights wouldn't work here. If you are on my property and don't leave on your own I can use force to evict you from my property. If the fetus is just another human being with all the same rights (and that also means no additional rights), that would mean I could evict it.

Would you also argue that you can't legally keep a starving person from stealing your food, because that would mean their death? That's a slippery slope that could lead to an legitimation of welfare and all kinds of laws.

Keep in mind that I don't say there aren't any other good reasons to be morally against abortion and maybe even to outlaw it (as I said, I haven't made up my mind on that issue). It's just that abortions are not inherently unlibertarian, or that you can also make a good case for why it shouldn't be illegal from a libertarian point of view.

 

[acptulsa]

Almost as usual, I couldn't find an option on the poll to vote for.

There's no way I force a woman through nine months if that represents a risk to her life, or if she was raped. I also dislike the idea of encouraging back alley butchery and coat hangars. That said, there's also no way I force the residents of a state to fund abortion if the majority of the residents of voting age consider it murder. I also agree with kcchiefs that the father's rights are completely ignored, and shouldn't be (barring rape, of course). Washington seems completely unwilling to factor him into their little equation.

Yes, it affects the way I vote. I vote for candidates who vote for states' rights.