Why aren’t libertarians rejecting Rand Paul’s fight against Planned Parenthood?

[Dianne]

They are actually attempting to portray Libertarians as those who feel comfortable allowing murder as a form of freedom of speech. Not just murder, but "contract" killings. Rand needs to jump straight on their ass about this.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

An inconsistent one, yes. Atheists cannot be consistent libertarians.

It's only inconsistent if you think the unborn is a person, which is the very issue in contention.

 

[Brett85]

It's only inconsistent if you think the unborn is a person, which is the very issue in contention.

What is it? A dog?

 

[Sola_Fide]

It's only inconsistent if you think the unborn is a person, which is the very issue in contention.

No, that's not the only inconsistency. Brett offered one glaring inconsistency I quoted that you haven't answered yet.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

What is it? A dog?

I actually don't have an opinion, totally indifferent.

The only point I'm arguing is that this debate (on whether the unborn should be considered a person or not) lies outside libertarianism.

Libertarianism does not logically entail or excludes either position.

Libertarianism is a set of rules governing interactions between persons; it does not define what a person is.

There are a number of grey areas (unborn children, minors, mentally incompetent adults) where libertarianism is silent.

 

[Sola_Fide]

I actually don't have an opinion, totally indifferent.

The only point I'm arguing is that this debate (on whether the unborn should be considered a person or not) lies outside libertarianism.

Libertarianism does not logically entail or excludes either position.

Libertarianism is a set of rules governing interactions between persons; it does not define what a person is.

There are a number of grey areas (unborn children, minors, mentally incompetent adults) where libertarianism is silent.

You not having an opinion is revealing of your inconsistent worldview.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Revolution 3.0, is it a libertarian principle that makes Justin Raimondo denounce the initiation of force against innocent foreigners?

 

[Dianne]

If it is moving, it is alive.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

You not having an opinion is revealing of your inconsistent worldview.

To be inconsistent is to hold contradictory opinions.

Which opinions of mine contradict?

Revolution 3.0, is it a libertarian principle that makes Justin Raimondo denounce the initiation of force against innocent foreigners?

Yes, clearly.

 

[Sola_Fide]

To be inconsistent is to hold contradictory opinions.

Which opinions of mine contradict?



Yes, clearly.

Clearly? But you said a libertarian principle does not inform the issue of abortion. It clearly does.

 

[Jan2017]

Ron Paul had introduced "Sanctity of Life" bills in Congress a couple times I think.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

@Sola Fide

The libertarian analysis begins after it's been decided whether the unborn is a person.

If it's a person, then abortion is murder. If not, not.

The libertarian principle which prohibits aggression against persons (on the basis of which Raimondo criticizes US foreign policy) says nothing about whether the unborn is a person.

 

[Sola_Fide]

@Sola Fide

The libertarian analysis begins after it's been decided whether the unborn is a person.

If it's a person, then abortion is murder. If not, not.

The libertarian principle which prohibits aggression against persons (on the basis of which Raimondo criticizes US foreign policy) says nothing about whether the unborn is a person.

But you said libertarianism is "outside" of this entire debate. It clearly is not. There is a clear libertarian principle that prohibits the initiation of force against innocent babies.

If you want to engage in the insane debate that says a baby is not a baby until it passes through a birth canal, you can go ahead and have that debate with someone else. I'm not going to do it. But I'd prefer you have that debate with someone like me who has seen ultrasounds of their own children in the womb. That debate might teach you something.

But to say there is no libertarian principle that informs abortion is clearly wrong.

 

[euphemia]

There is also the principle of government involvement and whether the federal government should regulate or pay for anything besides what the Constitution allows.

 

[Brett85]

The libertarian principle which prohibits aggression against persons (on the basis of which Raimondo criticizes US foreign policy) says nothing about whether the unborn is a person.

Can a libertarian take the position that life doesn't begin until the age of 10?

 

[Brett85]

And Raimondo doesn't even argue that the unborn isn't a person. He just argues that the woman should have the right to kill the baby since it's within her own body.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

But you said libertarianism is "outside" of this entire debate. It clearly is not. There is a clear libertarian principle that prohibits the initiation of force against innocent babies.

There is a clear libertarian principle which prohibits aggression against persons.

That principle has no bearing on the abortion question until/unless it is agreed that unborn baby is a person.

And libertarianism does not tell you whether the unborn baby is a person or not.

Hence, and this will be the last time I repeat myself, the abortion debate is fundamentally beyond the scope of libertarianism.

Libertarians can be pro-choice or pro-life; either position is consistent with libertarianism.

This has always been the consensus view, it's why the LP from its very inception took no official position on abortion.

If you want to engage in the insane debate that says a baby is not a baby until it passes through a birth canal, you can go ahead and have that debate with someone else. I'm not going to do it. But I'd prefer you have that debate with someone like me who has seen ultrasounds of their own children in the womb. That debate might teach you something.

As I said, I don't actually care one way or the other.

But when you have this debate with someone who does care, you should realize that personhood (like property) is not an observable physical fact, it is an ethical concept.

You cannot "prove" that an unborn baby should be considered a person by reference to its physical characteristics.

 

[Sola_Fide]

There is a clear libertarian principle which prohibits aggression against persons.

That principle has no bearing on the abortion question until/unless it is agreed that unborn baby is a person.

And libertarianism does not tell you whether the unborn baby is a person or not.

Hence, and this will be the last time I repeat myself, the abortion debate is fundamentally beyond the scope of libertarianism.

Libertarians can be pro-choice or pro-life; either position is consistent with libertarianism.

This has always been the consensus view, it's why the LP from its very inception took no official position on abortion.



As I said, I don't actually care one way or the other.

But when you have this debate with someone who does care, you should realize that personhood (like property) is not an observable physical fact, it is an ethical concept.

You cannot "prove" that an unborn baby should be considered a person by reference to its physical characteristics.

How do you prove that a baby before it passes through the birth canal is not a person (your language)?

 

[thoughtomator]

Even a libertarian under the delusion that there is nothing wrong with industrialized abortion isn't going to be happy about the government paying for it to the tune of a half billion dollars plus per year.

 

[Sola_Fide]

And Raimondo doesn't even argue that the unborn isn't a person. He just argues that the woman should have the right to kill the baby since it's within her own body.

That's a good point. Given that principle, why is it not acceptable that a parent have the right to have their born child murdered?