(split from FW thread) Abortion Debate

[KAYA]

Ok, so instead of abortion, how about if women just remove the fetus from their bodies. It dies? So that'd be okay. Letting it die. But saying you are obligated to give the fetus your resources for 9 months because you had sex is bullshit. Rothbard sums up the abortion debate quite nicely. It may be harsh, but no one has the right to use your body without your consent. Period. Just like if someone is on your property you dislike, you can kick him off. Even if you invite him on, you aren't forced to accommodate him. You can't kill him, but since fetuses that are aborted couldn't survive out of the womb anyhow, sadly there isn't another choice. (Unless you think it should just be removed and you could watch it die)

You can say you do not believe in bodily ownership, and that's fine. But if you believe a woman can't get an abortion, you should also believe it should be illegal to drink alcohol when pregnant, eat certain foods, do certain activities, etc. And all of it is anti-liberty. Someone's rights have to take priority here. You can say the fetus trumps a grown human being, but realize it is what you're saying, and that's anti-liberty.

Extermination of innocent life is what's anti-liberty. And your statement in bold is sick and twisted. Why stop there? According to that logic I guess parents have no obligations to feed and cloth their children since you believe it is bullshit that they be obligated to give up their resources just cause they had sex. Liberty does NOT mean one should be free from the consequences of their own actions. On the contrary, liberty is about personal responsibility and living with the consequences of ones own actions.

 

[LibertarianfromGermany]

I think she did have complete control, because if she said 'No', it wouldn't have happened.

We're just going to keep arguing in circles if this continues, so I'm just going say that I don't think holding my position goes against property rights because I believe this to be a specific circumstance where one party is choosing to completely eliminate the property rights of another, even though that party is responsible for things even getting to that point to begin with and the party losing their life is not responsible at all.

I don't see a violation of property rights because I don't see it as a violation at all. I suppose I could take my stance further involving rape & incest, but that's not an area I feel like getting into an ideological quagmire with. I can only hope technology makes this particular area of the argument obsolete, and soon.

Let's just respectfully agree to disagree then. I believe that one should have complete control over what happens to one's own body and unless either by having violated someone else's rights (which simply having sex does not equal to) or having explicitly agreed on giving up that right at an earlier point. If neither of those two things happened, you should have the right to remove anyone and anything from your body, by force if needed.

 

[.Tom]

So it's okay to kidnap someone and put them in a cage for the rest of their life for taking a pill?

 

[low preference guy]

So it's okay to kidnap someone and put them in a cage for the rest of their life for taking a pill?

Bad argument. Is it OK to put someone in a cage for locking a door? Well, if the door is locked to ensure that someone inside starves to death, of course it's OK to put them in a cage.

 

[QueenB4Liberty]

Extermination of innocent life is what's anti-liberty. And your statement in bold is sick and twisted. Why stop there? According to that logic I guess parents have no obligations to feed and cloth their children since you believe it is bullshit that they be obligated to give up their resources just cause they had sex. Liberty does NOT mean one should be free from the consequences of their own actions. On the contrary, liberty is about personal responsibility and living with the consequences of ones own actions.

So you are against removing the fetus and watching it die. Once the fetus is born, parents can give it up. Even up to certain ages in some states. Not everyone is responsible. I would never have an abortion of my own, but I do realize that it's not my place to speak for other women because I don't know their circumstances, and I'm not willing to pay for their children if they need to go on welfare. What if you're addicted to drugs? You should have a baby even though even if you stopped the drugs for the duration of the pregnancy your body would be a horrible incubator for a fetus?

I don't have any problems with preventing unwanted pregnancies and doing everything possible to discourage abortion, but in the end, it's the woman's choice because unlike a born human being, the woman is the only person who can take care of the fetus. And like I said earlier, you'd have to make all these draconian laws like making alcohol illegal for pregnant woman, making certain foods illegal, prohibiting certain activities, pretty much anything that could possibly induce a miscarriage. It's easier just doing everything in your power to discourage it.

Abortion to me is about bodily autonomy and with me you either have it or you don't.

 

[charrob]

Barney Frank on "pro-lifers":

...had to throw this one out there when I saw this thread:

Conservatives believe that life begins at conception and ends at birth.
~Barney Frank
​

..

 

[tasteless]

So you are against removing the fetus and watching it die. Once the fetus is born, parents can give it up. Even up to certain ages in some states. Not everyone is responsible. I would never have an abortion of my own, but I do realize that it's not my place to speak for other women because I don't know their circumstances, and I'm not willing to pay for their children if they need to go on welfare. What if you're addicted to drugs? You should have a baby even though even if you stopped the drugs for the duration of the pregnancy your body would be a horrible incubator for a fetus?

I don't have any problems with preventing unwanted pregnancies and doing everything possible to discourage abortion, but in the end, it's the woman's choice because unlike a born human being, the woman is the only person who can take care of the fetus. And like I said earlier, you'd have to make all these draconian laws like making alcohol illegal for pregnant woman, making certain foods illegal, prohibiting certain activities, pretty much anything that could possibly induce a miscarriage. It's easier just doing everything in your power to discourage it.

Abortion to me is about bodily autonomy and with me you either have it or you don't.

Do you support a parent's right to put a 1 month old baby on the street?

 

[QueenB4Liberty]

Do you support a parent's right to put a 1 month old baby on the street?

No, why would I? You can give the child up for adoption or drop him off at a foster home, etc. if it's born.

 

[tasteless]

No, why would I? You can give the child up for adoption or drop him off at a foster home, etc. if it's born.

OK, but while you're looking for someone to transfer custody to, you still have to take care of the baby right? And if you can't find someone to take it, you can't just abandon it, right?

 

[.Tom]

OK, but while you're looking for someone to transfer custody to, you still have to take care of the baby right? And if you can't find someone to take it, you can't just abandon it, right?

Wrong.

You can just abandon it. No one should be forced to keep someone else alive.

 

[Bman]

Quit perpetuating the idea that libertarianism is pro-abortion

It's not pro-abortion, but it is pro-choice. That doesn't mean that some people who overall consider themselves to be Libertarians are not pro-life.

Directly from the LP platform.

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.

 

[justinc.1089]

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)

DAMN that is a good point that I have NEVER thought about. Man am I feeling stupid right now for never having thought about that.

That is a good question, can the government making abortions illegal really reduce the number of abortions... hmm.

One thing that comes to my mind though, is what if the government subsidizes legal abortions? And therefore increases the number of them, just like making them illegal would do if that actually did cause more abortions to occur?

If we talk theoretically and assume that making abortion illegal increases the number of abortions, I'm thinking on the making abortion legal side the government subsidizing them by funding them to make them available would also increase the number of abortions. So I'm thinking it would be about the same even if that theory is correct.

But I am still in favor of it being illegal because to me it only makes logical sense to define life as beginning at conception. It makes scientific sense to me because if you try to use a later point in life, where maybe a brain develops, whatever idk, it would become very, very hard to determine if that point had been met or not yet. The point where life would be said to begin would also become very arbitrary then as well, since one second a fetus (baby/ unborn child) would not be a person, and then in the next second it would be a person.

Maybe since you brought up that excellent pro-choice point, you could also tell me at what point you think a fetus/ unborn child/ baby should be considered alive? And killing it should be considered murder? I'm seriously just curious because pro-choice people hardly ever say when they define life's start, and for pro-life people like me, we see the only logical point to define life's start as being the first point where you can scientifically see cells starting to form a person. Or well at least thats my opinion on it, but I'm sure other pro-life people have similar thoughts even if they are for different reasons why.

I know religion is a big reason, but its not for me. I would rather rely on looking at the matter from a scientific perspective than a religious one, because to me it seems easier to define when life begins according to science than religion since religon can at times be vague in my opinion.

 

[justinc.1089]

It's not pro-abortion, but it is pro-choice. That doesn't mean that some people who overall consider themselves to be Libertarians are not pro-life.

Directly from the LP platform.

The Libertarian Party? Is that some ultra-liberal party?

When the LP gets like .05% of the vote, how much does the actual party really matter?

I bet if you took a poll on here among people on here that consider themselves libertarians, not necessarily Libertarian voters perhaps though, you would see around a 50/50 split on the issue.

Some libertarians think you should have the right to choose (to kill or not kill an unborn child, the hard truth), because they buy into the whole "right" to choose propaganda.

And other libertarians think the individual has a natural right to life.

Just because the LP officially sided on pro-choice doesn't mean all libertarians have to be pro-choice, or that most are. All that means is that way back decades ago the pro-choice libertarians may have had 50.1% of a vote against 49.9% of the vote of pro-life libertarians. And that wouldn't even include thousands of libertarians not even involved with that. Heck, I'm a libertarian but I have yet to ever cast a vote for the actual party because I'm young and haven't participated in many elections yet.

(I feel like I was misled into voting for Baldwin instead of Barr. I heard Barr voted for the patriot act, but later found out apparently he did that so they could put a sunset clause in it. And I don't like the CP's drug war support and religious stuff either, so I would have rather voted for Barr knowing what I found out months later.)

 

[tasteless]

Wrong.

You can just abandon it. No one should be forced to keep someone else alive.

So it's OK for a parent to starve their children? Leave their kids out on the street? Play an online videogame while allowing their child to die?

 

[.Tom]

So it's OK for a parent to starve their children? Leave their kids out on the street? Play an online videogame while allowing their child to die?

Putting a gun to someones head and forcing them to work to feed someone else that they don't want to is not okay.

Abandoning your child out in the street is not something I would do, but I don't believe any individual should be forced to take care of anyone else against their will.

With that said, in a free society I'm sure there would be plenty of charitable individuals and groups that would help take care of the child, way better than the State could I might add.

 

[tasteless]

Putting a gun to someones head and forcing them to work to feed someone else that they don't want to is not okay.

Abandoning your child out in the street is not something I would do, but I don't believe any individual should be forced to take care of anyone else against their will.

With that said, in a free society I'm sure there would be plenty of charitable individuals and groups that would help take care of the child, way better than the State could I might add.

So what you are saying is, parents have no responsibility to their children and vice versa?

Then are parents doing something wrong if they forbid their children from going out at night? Would you support intervention against the parents on behalf of the children? After all, the children are responsible for themselves and the parents are infringing on their freedom.

 

[foofighter20x]

Just throwing this out there to add to the discussion:

With respect to abortion, the best libertarian argument is the one that posits reproductive rights within the individual woman.

For, if the power of the state to interfere with reproductive rights is admitted in the case of whether a woman should have the right to terminate a pregnancy, then the precedent of state interference in reproductive rights generally is conceded.

And a logical end to such an admission would lay the foundation for the state to limit or deny the reproductive rights of a woman to carry a pregnancy to term. While we would not likely see general eugenics or population control laws, the state would likely used the power conceded to intervene where it feels the woman is unfit to motherhood.

I need not elaborate on the details of government's past forays into these topics approximately a century ago. See Buck v. Bell and the forced sterilization and eugenics laws circa 1910-1940.

I pretty pro-life, but this argument is why I say that any laws regarding abortion must be left to the most local level of government possible.

 

[jmdrake]

No, why would I? You can give the child up for adoption or drop him off at a foster home, etc. if it's born.

Do you support late term abortions then? A partial birth abortion is a halfway completed birth. That's like putting your kid halfway out the house then shooting him in the head and claiming it was ok because he was still on your property.

 

[jmdrake]

Seriously though if this is your idea of "libertarians". That property > *. Then yeah I will say I am certainly not a propertarian.

The "property rights over everything" argument is flawed in multiple ways. For instance my children are not my property. But I they are having a temper tantrum in the store I have a right to pick them up and physically carry them out. (I've done it before). I fall more in like with the rights-responsibilities and/or rights = exercise of free will school of thought.

 

[Akus]

....One thing that comes to my mind though, is what if the government subsidizes legal abortions?......

It actually does. In fact, that was one of the Libertarian party talking points on why Evangelical Christians should vote Libertarian...

I am also thinking (since it's an abortion debate thread) that wouldn't it be nice if every single pro-life person, instead of getting God complex and shoving their views down everyone's throat through legislation, would just go to the abortion clinic, find a woman wishing to abort her child, and offer to adopt the new born? It doesn't have to be some crazy number of kids, even just 1 would do.....

That way the newborn baby will not be aborted, the Christian pro-life family can raise a child with wholesome Christian values and the mother who wanted to abort and didn't wouldn't have to put up with a child she never wanted.