(split from FW thread) Abortion Debate

[kkassam]

It all matters where you believe rights start at.

If you believe the unborn (up to a certain age) don't have rights then pro-choice is the libertarian stance.

If you believe the unborn have rights, then pro-life is the libertarian stance.

Ron Paul himself has delivered 4,000 babies and is very pro-life. One of his arguments is he can get sued if something happens with the unborn baby/fetus.....that would mean the fetus has rights.


It's probably pretty close to a 50-50 split for libertarians....I wouldn't say either is the more libertarian stance. It all depends on beliefs.

To me, it is even deeper than that. I think it depends on where you really believe life begins at. Conception? Birth? Somewhere in the middle? I don't think this is really a political issue but more of a moral one. Most people make the decision on whether they are for or against abortion based on their beliefs, their family and community influence, etc. I don't think the government should be involved with abortion either way. If you want to get one, you should find a doctor who shares your beliefs that will actually do the procedure. But aborting a birth affects you, your relationship with the person you conceived with, your family, etc.

There is an important distinction made here. Libertarianism (more specifically the deontological libertarianism I see mostly expressed by people on this forum as opposed to the consequentialist variety favoured by people like David Friedman) is a political philosophy that says that noone, including the government, may initiate violence against persons or their property. These persons have claims against all other people called rights. The reason that self-identified libertarians disagree on abortion policy is not that their political philosophy differs, but because they have a different notion of at what point personhood begins and rights are acquired. NB: the dispute is not over when life begins, many libertarians would concede that a 1 day old foetus and a adult cow are both alive, but that both may be killed because neither of them are rights-possessing persons.

In summation, libertarianism, which is purely a political philosophy and not an entire moral theory (all of you know that there can be atheist libertarians & Christian libertarians with real disagreements over moral issues) while it can resolve issues like whether taxation or involuntary detention ought to be licit, cannot determine alone whether abortion should be. Some further moral view about personhood is necessary. There is no single libertarian view on abortion.

If I may make some appeal to authority, the Walter Block includes abortion (along with immigration, incitement, and voluntary slave contracts) as one issue on which libertarians may legitimately disagree. I also strongly recommend his lecture and articles[pdf] on the topic of abortion for a compelling and characteristically radical solution to the abortion dilemna, which he characterizes as a compromise between standard pro-life and pro-choice views.

 

[ChaosControl]

To me, it is even deeper than that. I think it depends on where you really believe life begins at. Conception? Birth? Somewhere in the middle? I don't think this is really a political issue but more of a moral one. Most people make the decision on whether they are for or against abortion based on their beliefs, their family and community influence, etc. I don't think the government should be involved with abortion either way. If you want to get one, you should find a doctor who shares your beliefs that will actually do the procedure. But aborting a birth affects you, your relationship with the person you conceived with, your family, etc.

So it is okay to allow murder because someone else doesn't believe it is murder?

 

[Kregisen]

True, but I would also add the variable of whether or not someone believes the government can effectively reduce abortion rates if they believe it to be a morally wrong action.

In the same way government prohibition of drugs created a black market and more addicts, government prohibition of abortion might lead to similar unintended consequences. (see what happened in Mexico)

The unintended consequences argument aids the argument to legalize all drugs, but I much prefer to argue principles than "practical consequences" I guess you could say. Sure, the laws against drugs don't stop people from using drugs, they're everywhere....but I'm against it first and foremost because it's an infringement of freedom.

Sure, if you prohibited abortion, many would still be done in back alleys, but if there's nothing you can do about it, there's nothing you can do about it.

You could make the very same argument for first-degree murder....if you ban murder, it still goes on. That doesn't mean you should legalize it.

 

[QueenB4Liberty]

He probably felt the need to distinguish it because there is rampant ignorance out there about it, and it continues to be perpetuated; you're a prime example!




(sadly) the LP is irrelevant. Can you cite for me where Rothbard was pro-abortion?

As I have said, the libertarian position of being able to own your own body and the concept of dignity of the individual means that it is impossible to advocate abortion, a form of murder, and be libertarian.

.....ok you believe in bodily ownership so you can't call yourself pro-life. Or you don't believe in bodily ownership, which you've already said you are pro-life so you don't. If women own their own bodies, why shouldn't they be able to abort? I understand a fetus is a living human being, I don't understand how libertarians can say they believe in bodily ownership and be pro-life. It's inconsistent. "I believe a woman owns her body, unless there's a fetus inside..." *door opens for exceptions*

 

[VBRonPaulFan]

So it is okay to allow murder because someone else doesn't believe it is murder?

Well that's a little different I guess. Do the rights of the child supersede the rights of the mother carrying the child?

 

[VBRonPaulFan]

There is an important distinction made here. Libertarianism (more specifically the deontological libertarianism I see mostly expressed by people on this forum as opposed to the consequentialist variety favoured by people like David Friedman) is a political philosophy that says that noone, including the government, may initiate violence against persons or their property. These persons have claims against all other people called rights. The reason that self-identified libertarians disagree on abortion policy is not that their political philosophy differs, but because they have a different notion of at what point personhood begins and rights are acquired. NB: the dispute is not over when life begins, many libertarians would concede that a 1 day old foetus and a adult cow are both alive, but that both may be killed because neither of them are rights-possessing persons.

In summation, libertarianism, which is purely a political philosophy and not an entire moral theory (all of you know that there can be atheist libertarians & Christian libertarians with real disagreements over moral issues) while it can resolve issues like whether taxation or involuntary detention ought to be licit, cannot determine alone whether abortion should be. Some further moral view about personhood is necessary. There is no single libertarian view on abortion.

If I may make some appeal to authority, the Walter Block includes abortion (along with immigration, incitement, and voluntary slave contracts) as one issue on which libertarians may legitimately disagree. I also strongly recommend his lecture and articles[pdf] on the topic of abortion for a compelling and characteristically radical solution to the abortion dilemna, which he characterizes as a compromise between standard pro-life and pro-choice views.

Very well said. That is essentially the point I was trying to make, I just wasn't as articulate about it as you were

 

[QueenB4Liberty]

Well that's a little different I guess. Do the rights of the child supersede the rights of the mother carrying the child?

I think this is it for pro-lifers. The rights of the fetus are greater than the rights of the woman carrying it, temporarily.

 

[Sentient Void]

I live in the Boston, MA area and am a staunch An-Cap libertarian. I am *mostly* pro-choice, personally, but see and understand both sides of the argument. however, I believe there are practical and moral grounds to being pro-choice.

For moral/deontological grounds, I point to Rothbard. Although some may say it is a 'cold' approach, I feel that Rothbard's explanation behind being pro-choice is sufficient and logically consistent with liberty and said self-ownership. It may sound cold, but the fetus, according to the mother, would be viewed as a parasitic entity that is committing aggression on her person (as unintended it may be). Sounds messed up, I know - but if we are to follow the principles of liberty to their logical conclusion... well, there it is. In the end, she and the father must work it out themselves and live with any moral consequences and that of their conscience.

For practical/consequential grounds... I point to (as did others) the concept of unintended consequences.

BTW, I refer to myself as 'mostly pro-choice', because even though I understand and agree mostly with Rothbard on his conclusion, I have a personal view that abortion should not be done after a point as to when the fetus could survive outside the womb with support (through charity or hospital donations/assistance). Even still, I would *never* advocate enforcing this view on anyone at any governmental level.

 

[Matt Collins]

If women own their own bodies, why shouldn't they be able to abort?

I own my own body and my house. Why can't I kill my roommate?

I understand a fetus is a living human being, I don't understand how libertarians can say they believe in bodily ownership and be pro-life. It's inconsistent. "I believe a woman owns her body, unless there's a fetus inside..." *door opens for exceptions*

Because by killing another human being, they have violated the rights of that other human being. They have denied that other human being their right life. It's really simple.

The rights of the fetus are greater than the rights of the woman carrying it, temporarily.

No, the rights are equal.

 

[QueenB4Liberty]

I live in the Boston, MA area and am a staunch An-Cap libertarian. I am *mostly* pro-choice, personally, but see and understand both sides of the argument. however, I believe there are practical and moral grounds to being pro-choice.

For moral/deontological grounds, I point to Rothbard. Although some may say it is a 'cold' approach, I feel that Rothbard's explanation behind being pro-choice is sufficient and logically consistent with liberty and said self-ownership. It may sound cold, but the fetus, according to the mother, would be viewed as a parasitic entity that is committing aggression on her person (as unintended it may be). Sounds messed up, I know - but if we are to follow the principles of liberty to their logical conclusion... well, there it is. In the end, she and the father must work it out themselves and live with any moral consequences and that of their conscience.

For practical/consequential grounds... I point to (as did others) the concept of unintended consequences.

BTW, I refer to myself as 'mostly pro-choice', because even though I understand and agree mostly with Rothbard on his conclusion, I have a personal view that abortion should not be done after a point as to when the fetus could survive outside the womb with support (through charity or hospital donations/assistance). Even still, I would *never* advocate enforcing this view on anyone at any governmental level.

I agree with everything you said. +1776

 

[QueenB4Liberty]

I own my own body and my house. Why can't I kill my roommate?


Because by killing another human being, they have violated the rights of that other human being. They have denied that other human being their right life. It's really simple.

No, the rights are equal.

You can't murder another human being. I can't believe you're comparing a fetus inside a woman to a roommate. Not even comparable.

How can they be equal? The woman is denied her right to liberty and to pursue happiness/own her body as long as the fetus is inside? How are the woman's rights not violated if she is FORCED to remain pregnant?

 

[specsaregood]

How are the woman's rights not violated if she is FORCED to remain pregnant?

She waived away her rights when she chose to participate in the act that got her pregnant? Thus, no violation.

 

[Matt Collins]

You can't murder another human being. I can't believe you're comparing a fetus inside a woman to a roommate. Not even comparable.

An unborn child is another human being

How can they be equal? The woman is denied her right to liberty and to pursue happiness/own her body as long as the fetus is inside? How are the woman's rights not violated if she is FORCED to remain pregnant?

ANSWER THIS:
How are you not violating the rights of the unborn child by killing it?

And in 99.99% of pregnancies, the woman was not raped which means it was a choice to engage in activity that could lead to pregnancy.

 

[Agorism]

Should it be illegal to drink alcohol while pregnant?

Just asking.

People shouldn't of course, but is it enforceable to monitor what people are doing on this level?

 

[Matt Collins]

Should it be illegal to drink alcohol while pregnant?

Yes it absolutely should because harm will be caused to another individual in the course of this activity.

but is it enforceable to monitor what people are doing on this level?

I do realize however that it is by and large not enforceable.

 

[Kregisen]

I think this is it for pro-lifers. The rights of the fetus are greater than the rights of the woman carrying it, temporarily.

The rights of the fetus are conflicting with the rights of the mother. I believe the right to life is greater than the right to your body.

She waived away her rights when she chose to participate in the act that got her pregnant? Thus, no violation.

I think that argument has nothing to do with this at all. People's choices don't matter, in the end whether someone got raped or chose to have sex, that doesn't change whether there is a fetus with or without rights or not.

You wouldn't ban abortion because "they chose to have sex therefore it's a just punishment" - it's not to punish the mother, it's to protect the rights of the child.

Should it be illegal to drink alcohol while pregnant?

Just asking.

People shouldn't of course, but is it enforceable to monitor what people are doing on this level?

This is a much grayer area....in principle, yes it should be illegal to consume alcohol while pregnant but the practicality of enforcement and unintended consequences (if you can't consume alcohol while pregnant....where does the line stop? Can you not do anything else deemed "dangerous"?)





I think there are very good arguments on both sides of this but I'm pro-life.

 

[KAYA]

He probably felt the need to distinguish it because there is rampant ignorance out there about it, and it continues to be perpetuated; you're a prime example!




(sadly) the LP is irrelevant. Can you cite for me where Rothbard was pro-abortion?

As I have said, the libertarian position of being able to own your own body and the concept of dignity of the individual means that it is impossible to advocate abortion, a form of murder, and be libertarian.

Agree 100%. The pro-"choice" libertarian position is hypocritical and deeply flawed. The taking of innocent life for the conveyance of another is as anti-liberty as it gets.

 

[FrankRep]

He'd probably say abortion. The Judge and Beck both aren't libertarian there.

Quit perpetuating the idea that libertarianism is pro-abortion

I would have to reject Libertarianism if it was pro-Abortion. Thanks for defending Matt.

 

[ChaosControl]

I would have to reject Libertarianism if it was pro-Abortion. Thanks for defending Matt.

Same here.

 

[jmdrake]

Napolitano himself has come out saying that he describes himself as a "Pro-life libertarian". If he feels the need to distinguish it then I'd say it's pretty accepted.

Plus the libertarian platform, libertarian powerhouses like Rothbard, etc, all were pro-choice.

Well that's one interpretation. Another is that libertarians are split evenly on the issue so you have "pro-life" and "pro-choice" libertarians. Anyway if you believe a fetus is an individual than having an abortion is no more of a private decision than is killing your newborn in the "privacy" of your own home. And you have to have a really seared conscience to go as far as some have in suggesting that a baby that has almost come to term, is pulled halfway out the birth canal and is then killed is somehow not an individual.