(split from FW thread) Abortion Debate

[jmdrake]

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.

Pro life people actually try to do that. But the federal government has passed laws making it illegal to try to talk to women headed to an abortion clinic once they have gotten outside the "free speech zone". Yes the "right" to an abortion which is not in the constitution actually trumps the first amendment these days.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

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

The black market in illegal abortions would certainly increase, and their profits would increase. Overall numbers might very well stay exactly the same, as the "taboo/rebellion/illegal" factor would not apply to this particular situation (to increase numbers).

 

[.Tom]

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.

The relationship between parents and their children should be a voluntary association just like any other. You can make the rules for your house and your children can choose to live there if they want, just like any other landlord/tenant arrangement. However, most children want to be with their parents assuming they are not being abused, and will therefore probably follow your rules.

 

[QueenB4Liberty]

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.

No, I don't support late term abortions. I don't support abortions when the fetus is viable because then it could live outside the womb without the mother.

 

[QueenB4Liberty]

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?

Well I don't believe in just abandoning your born baby because like I said, you can transfer custody to someone else. When it's the size of a pea inside of you that isn't really possible. Until we have artificial incubators, I'll support women making decisions for themselves about what they think is best for them.

 

[that1guy]

Everyone that is so strongly against abortion needs to immediately go and adopt a rape baby, or a crack baby, or a handicap baby that the parents have absolutely no chance at giving a decent life.

All we need are millions more children that will be brought up in a terrible environment. Whom, more times then not, will have very crappy lives and ultimately become burdens on society. On a rather cynical note, i betcha those children often end up voting more liberal, looking for the free ride.

So many people are absolutely horrible parents, giving children very unhappy lives. Do you really want them to have a number of kids? If so, then first thing in the morning, you need to contact the adoption agency, because they're going to. It's not like they are going to think about the consequences first, and then decide not to have sex... that would be the responsible thing to do. And i'm just not naive enough to think they'll do that.

 

[jmdrake]

Everyone that is so strongly against abortion needs to immediately go and adopt a rape baby, or a crack baby, or a handicap baby that the parents have absolutely no chance at giving a decent life.

All we need are millions more children that will be brought up in a terrible environment. Whom, more times then not, will have very crappy lives and ultimately become burdens on society. On a rather cynical note, i betcha those children often end up voting more liberal, looking for the free ride.

So many people are absolutely horrible parents, giving children very unhappy lives. Do you really want them to have a number of kids? If so, then first thing in the morning, you need to contact the adoption agency, because they're going to. It's not like they are going to think about the consequences first, and then decide not to have sex... that would be the responsible thing to do. And i'm just not naive enough to think they'll do that.

There are already so few babies available for adoption that people are going halfway around the world to China to adopt newborns. Argument fail.

 

[tasteless]

The relationship between parents and their children should be a voluntary association just like any other. You can make the rules for your house and your children can choose to live there if they want, just like any other landlord/tenant arrangement. However, most children want to be with their parents assuming they are not being abused, and will therefore probably follow your rules.

How does an infant voluntarily enter a relationship with a parent?

Well I don't believe in just abandoning your born baby because like I said, you can transfer custody to someone else. When it's the size of a pea inside of you that isn't really possible. Until we have artificial incubators, I'll support women making decisions for themselves about what they think is best for them.

Even if the decision is murder?

 

[idirtify]

Even if the decision is murder?

Of course not. Stop misdefining the action. “Murder” is killing (non-consensual, without justification) an individual person with rights (redundant). Speaking of such a person; it’s impossible for anything that’s inside of them to have individual rights. It’s not yet an individual person under any definition of the term as it relates to rights.

Using terms that are dependant on the concept of “rights” is merely a tactic when discussing that which can not possibly have rights.

 

[tasteless]

Of course not. Stop misdefining the action. “Murder” is killing (non-consensual, without justification) an individual person with rights (redundant). Speaking of such a person; it’s impossible for anything that’s inside of them to have individual rights. It’s not yet an individual person under any definition of the term as it relates to rights.

Using terms that are dependant on the concept of “rights” is merely a tactic when discussing that which can not possibly have rights.

So geographic location is all that determines personhood? Personhood only begins once you are outside of the womb?

Which is more of a person, a 28 week premature baby that has been delivered, or a full term baby that is still in the womb but minutes away from delivery?

 

[idirtify]

So geographic location is all that determines personhood? Personhood only begins once you are outside of the womb?

Elementary biology establishes that the pre-born can not have rights; as does any elementary science that deals with location of matter. The elementary distinction is of course that the unborn is INSIDE another’s body, which dictates that it can not physically or literally or practically be an “individual person” (the term implying the characteristic of having rights).

“Individual” means “single / solitary / separate unit”. Although the pre-born may arguably exist as a somewhat defined “individual” human, its location inside the body of a certified “individual person” inescapably means that it can not be a “person”; since everything about rights are dependant on the body of the person occupying its own space.

Which is more of a person, a 28 week premature baby that has been delivered, or a full term baby that is still in the womb but minutes away from delivery?

Say whatever you want about degrees of pre-personhood, but it won’t much matter to the fact that being inside another’s body makes individual rights impossible.

 

[Gray Seal]

As there exists natural rights, amongst these rights are the privacy rights. It should be acknowledged that privacy rights should include the right to one's own health and to reproduction. Parents also have rights. The state should not be able to intercede upon natural rights.

The Bill of Rights lacks a specific recognition of these rights though they are represented in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. No Supreme Court opinion has recognized a right to one's health, reproduction, nor parental rights though partial inconsistent definitions and references do exist in opinions (Pierce vs Sisterhood, Griswold vs Connecticut).

It is troubling that so many self described libertarians believe the power of the state, with a simple majority, can negate natural rights. Is it because you believe control over your own health is the business of the state? Should the state control your reproduction? Does the state interest in your children supersede decisions you have in their regard? The consequence of such positions has be been bad and will be dire.

To give controlling interest in any of these areas to the state is a severe detriment to freedom. Proselytize, convince, argue all you want to individuals to make ethical decisions but never should these rights be diminished. We should unite in protecting natural rights and not propose they be swept away.

 

[tasteless]

Elementary biology establishes that the pre-born can not have rights; as does any elementary science that deals with location of matter. The elementary distinction is of course that the unborn is INSIDE another’s body, which dictates that it can not physically or literally or practically be an “individual person” (the term implying the characteristic of having rights).

“Individual” means “single / solitary / separate unit”. Although the pre-born may arguably exist as a somewhat defined “individual” human, its location inside the body of a certified “individual person” inescapably means that it can not be a “person”; since everything about rights are dependant on the body of the person occupying its own space.



Say whatever you want about degrees of pre-personhood, but it won’t much matter to the fact that being inside another’s body makes individual rights impossible.

So as I understand, you are saying the unborn child is a person, but not an individual and therefore lacks rights. The fact that they are located in the womb dictates that they have no rights, just like how a person in a jail cell lacks rights.

Then should we punish all pregnant women for infringing on their childrens' rights by holding them in the womb?

As there exists natural rights, amongst these rights are the privacy rights. It should be acknowledged that privacy rights should include the right to one's own health and to reproduction. Parents also have rights. The state should not be able to intercede upon natural rights.

The Bill of Rights lacks a specific recognition of these rights though they are represented in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. No Supreme Court opinion has recognized a right to one's health, reproduction, nor parental rights though partial inconsistent definitions and references do exist in opinions (Pierce vs Sisterhood, Griswold vs Connecticut).

It is troubling that so many self described libertarians believe the power of the state, with a simple majority, can negate natural rights. Is it because you believe control over your own health is the business of the state? Should the state control your reproduction? Does the state interest in your children supersede decisions you have in their regard? The consequence of such positions has be been bad and will be dire.

To give controlling interest in any of these areas to the state is a severe detriment to freedom. Proselytize, convince, argue all you want to individuals to make ethical decisions but never should these rights be diminished. We should unite in protecting natural rights and not propose they be swept away.

What about the right to life?

It is troubling that so many self described libertarians will marginalize a certain subset of human beings by calling them nonhuman and/or denying them their rights. It is troubling when libertarians oppose the State when it tries to protect the fundamental right to life, and in the next breath, cite State court decisions as a reason why the right to privacy overrides the right to life.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

What about the right to life?

It is troubling that so many self described libertarians will marginalize a certain subset of human beings by calling them nonhuman and/or denying them their rights. It is troubling when libertarians oppose the State when it tries to protect the fundamental right to life, and in the next breath, cite State court decisions as a reason why the right to privacy overrides the right to life.

+1. The incoherency and disingenuousness of these self described libertarians, who turn on or turn off recognizing the few legitimate roles of the State to suit their preference per issue, is one of the main internal reasons why the movement has failed to galvanize a political coalition to restore liberty. As shown with Paul in 2008, the rift between the LP and the CP is mendable if the right unifying candidate is sought. The movement would have been a lot stronger a lot earlier, if libertarians had manned up and supported restoring legal protection to the unborn.

 

[klamath]

Libertarians that support abortions=neocons times 10. I have far more respect for anarchists that believe in the law of the jungle (might makes right) where there is no self rightious belief in "their rights and freedom!"

 

[Gray Seal]

What about the right to life?

It is troubling that so many self described libertarians will marginalize a certain subset of human beings by calling them nonhuman and/or denying them their rights. It is troubling when libertarians oppose the State when it tries to protect the fundamental right to life, and in the next breath, cite State court decisions as a reason why the right to privacy overrides the right to life.

There are not any natural rights which are more important than others. They are all important.

You do not agree. You do not believe people should own their healthcare nor their reproductive decisions. Have you thought through the potential consequences of this position?

Does the health and life of the fertilized egg take precedence over the woman's health and life?

Should all women be required to register with the state when they may be pregnant? Women can not be trusted to look out for an embryo. It is not the woman's decision as to what the embryo is exposed to. All aspects of a pregnancy should be at the discretion of the state.

Do you want protection from the state for determining your healthcare? Should the state determine what medical treatments you will or will not have? Or do you want such protection but not for pregnant women?

 

[tasteless]

There are not any natural rights which are more important than others. They are all important.

You do not agree. You do not believe people should own their healthcare nor their reproductive decisions. Have you thought through the potential consequences of this position?

Does the health and life of the fertilized egg take precedence over the woman's health and life?

Should all women be required to register with the state when they may be pregnant? Women can not be trusted to look out for an embryo. It is not the woman's decision as to what the embryo is exposed to. All aspects of a pregnancy should be at the discretion of the state.

Do you want protection from the state for determining your healthcare? Should the state determine what medical treatments you will or will not have? Or do you want such protection but not for pregnant women?

You do not believe people have a right to live.

Have you thought through the potential consequences of this position?

I want protection for the right to life. Because without the right to live, you cannot have any other rights.

Since when does healthcare involve the intentional destruction of human life? Sounds like the opposite of healthcare to me. Murder != healthcare.

Since when does punishing murder restrict reproductive rights? If the woman became pregnant voluntarily, she exercised her reproductive rights. If involuntarily, it was the rapist who infringed on her reproductive rights, she should not punish the child by killing it.

 

[Gray Seal]

+1. The incoherency and disingenuousness of these self described libertarians, who turn on or turn off recognizing the few legitimate roles of the State to suit their preference per issue, is one of the main internal reasons why the movement has failed to galvanize a political coalition to restore liberty. As shown with Paul in 2008, the rift between the LP and the CP is mendable if the right unifying candidate is sought. The movement would have been a lot stronger a lot earlier, if libertarians had manned up and supported restoring legal protection to the unborn.

I do not think it is incoherency nor disingenuousness which troubles you. What turns you off is a different core basis for determining government function. One is based upon morality where the defense of embryos enables the state to negate all natural rights of an individual at its discretion. The other is based upon freedom and inalienable natural rights. Neither is right nor wrong on their face but the question remains as to the successful functionality of either approach.

Morality is not a good basis for governance. It is dependent upon a group belief system rather than a model of promoting the value of freedom for individuals. There will be compromising of freedom when morality is used to determine governance.

Freedom philosophy has the role of government domestic policy to be reserved to protection against fraud, pollution, and coercion. What do you see as government's legitimate role?

 

[Gray Seal]

You do not believe people have a right to live.

Have you thought through the potential consequences of this position?

I want protection for the right to life. Because without the right to live, you cannot have any other rights.

Since when does healthcare involve the intentional destruction of human life? Sounds like the opposite of healthcare to me. Murder != healthcare.

Since when does punishing murder restrict reproductive rights? If the woman became pregnant voluntarily, she exercised her reproductive rights. If involuntarily, it was the rapist who infringed on her reproductive rights, she should not punish the child by killing it.

You can not get around the health and life question in pregnancy. It has to be decided which life takes precedence. Is it the life of the pregnant woman or the life in the womb? Whose health takes precedence? It is not as simple as saying, "I want protection of the right to life." Whose life? Whose health? At the expense of whom?

If you think there is a natural right to be a parent, to have inalienable reproductive rights, to have inalienable health choices for yourself then there is a different conclusion than if you think natural rights do not exists but are determined by group morality which is enforced by the state.

 

[Krugerrand]

Elementary biology establishes that the pre-born can not have rights; as does any elementary science that deals with location of matter. The elementary distinction is of course that the unborn is INSIDE another’s body, which dictates that it can not physically or literally or practically be an “individual person” (the term implying the characteristic of having rights).

“Individual” means “single / solitary / separate unit”. Although the pre-born may arguably exist as a somewhat defined “individual” human, its location inside the body of a certified “individual person” inescapably means that it can not be a “person”; since everything about rights are dependant on the body of the person occupying its own space.

Say whatever you want about degrees of pre-personhood, but it won’t much matter to the fact that being inside another’s body makes individual rights impossible.

That's very interesting. None of the biology courses I had taught about "rights." None of the biology books I read taught about "rights."

However, fundamental biology does teach that like produces like. Chickens produce chickens. Humans produce humans. Fundamental biology teaches that the human embryo is a unique organism from its mother just like an un-hatched chicken inside the egg is a separate organism from the hen.