Posted on 02/09/2015 8:08:09 PM PST by Morgana
In January, Professor Jan Narveson and I debated whether libertarians should support abortion. Narveson claimed abortion only involves a mother’s right not to have a child, while I argued abortion violates the non-aggression principle (NAP) by killing babies.
In his response to my argument, Narveson claims embryos, whom science defines as preborn babies during their first eight weeks of development, are not “people.” Narveson suggests the reason is the abilities to think, desire, exercise one’s will, dream, etc. (hereinafter “think, etc.”) are not “within the reach of … embryos.” Narveson concludes that, accordingly, the NAP does not apply to abortion at this developmental stage.
However, Robert George and Christopher Tollefsen’s book Embryo: A Defense of Human Life (2nd edition, 2011) argues that an embryo, which begins as a cell called a zygote after conception, meets the scientific definition of a human being. As it has 46 chromosomes and full genetic material, this zygote is a male or female organism of the species Homo sapiens.
The embryo is genetically unique from the mother or father and has the inherent — albeit undeveloped — capacity to think, etc. After conception,[i] the embryo begins developing according to its genetics, a process that will end in the individual’s adulthood. The mother’s body and nutrients only provide a nourishing environment for the embryo to self-develop.
Also, as George and Tollefsen further argue, there are several moral problems with the claim that embryos are not people because their ability to think, etc. is not “within reach.” For one, infants do not have abstract thoughts, significant self-awareness, or motivations to act, and so do not think and desire in a sophisticated manner. So, depending on when Narveson considers a mental achievement to be “within reach,” his logic may permit the killing of humans after birth.
A second problem George and Tollefsen identify concerns embryos’ inherent but undeveloped capacity to think, etc. If there is a direct relationship between the developed capacity to think, etc. and moral dignity, then as the chart I have drawn below illustrates, there could be a social hierarchy of moral worth.
chart
Accordingly, those with perceived “higher” moral dignity on the above line could abuse those with “lower” dignity.
A third problem George and Tollefsen identify is that even adults have many mental capacities that could take over a year(s) to fulfill. Examples include capacities to learn a new language, earn a doctorate, become business-savvy, and play the guitar. Thus, even adults can have completely undeveloped mental capacities, and so may not fully meet Narveson’s requirement for personhood.
In summary, embryos are “people” with the inherent capacity to think, etc. Moreover, as the moral problems with the “within reach” argument illustrate, inherent in embryos is the same moral dignity as adults. Thus, to deliberately abort embryos or unborn babies at any developmental stage is to violate the NAP.
[i] Identical twinning can occur in the third week after conception, which marks the origin of a resulting twin’s life.
bump
Before Roe v Wade they supported abortion for the first 100 days, but by 1974 they had gotten up to full libertarian speed, and have supported full term abortion, ever since.
libertarians simply like the pretentious label.
Too many - and now the majority of current “Libertarians’, IMO - are actually “Libertines”.
If something gets in the way of their destructive (self and otherwise) pleasures, they want to remove laws and replace them with lawsuits. And who’s going to act as a lawyer for the unwelcome in the womb, after the damage has been done?
This is too bad, because I have some attraction to some of the tenants of old-school libertarianism.
Libertarians were always libertines, they never changed.
Obviously libertarians should be pro-life. It’s the ultimate expression of respect for the individual. My guess is that 99% of libertarians on FR are pro-life. The right wing of libertarianism is virtually indistinguishable from conservatism. The region where they intersect is probably best called classical liberalism.
Got a single cell with human DNA = human
Scientists Reconstruct Faces From DNA Samples
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2014/03/20/scientists-reconstruct-faces-from-dna-samples/
original paper with images...
Modeling 3D Facial Shape from DNA
http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1004224
I wouldn’t say that 99% of them here are pro-life, having interacted with so many of them.
As far as the ones that do claim to be pro-life, why would they work so hard for an anti-conservative movement that isn’t pro-life and that is a social liberal movement?
My bio actually ran as the only libertarian candidate in his county for years. Until he realized what libertarians were all about.
And itt wasn’t about individual liberty.
Trying again.
My BIL actually ran as the only libertarian candidate in his county for years. Until he realized what libertarians were all about.
And it wasn’t about individual liberty.
(to the PTB, PLEASE add the ability to autocorrect within at least a two minute review period!) ;)
How many libertarians on FR support the Libertarian party? Practically none as far as I can tell. Which isn’t surprising since most are basically just conservatives who give a somewhat wider berth to individual liberty than the average conservative.
We do have supporters of the libertarians’s party, and conservatives don’t become libertarians.
People who are NOT conservative become libertarians.
Yes, they’re about individual liberty, at least the principled ones who actually read and think. I had a brief fling with the Libertarian party back around the 2000 election. The town I lived in at the time happened to be where the chairman of the state Libertarian party lived. He was a chain smoking contrarian who carried a copy of the constitution in his pocket. In the contacts I had with him I had no reason to think he was anything but pro-liberty. I also quickly realized that he and that crowd were completely hopeless politically and had no real interest in being otherwise. I got in the voting booth and had the stark realization that as lame as the Republicans were, at least they were out on the field getting dirty fighting the Democrats rather than just being a debating society on the sidelines. I pulled the lever for Bush and returned to the Republican fold and haven’t looked back.
Like I say, there’s lots of overlap between right wing libertarians and conservatives, most of whom vote Republican when push comes to shove.
Yes, and there is overlap with libertarians and the hard left, that is why they are not conservatives.
The individual libertarian has to decide if he votes with the left, for his own party, or with the right when it comes time to vote, of course how much damage can they do in between elections as they work to defeat conservatism.
There certainly are left wing libertarians, and they are basically dumb bunnies with screwed up ideas just like other left wingers. Right wing libertarians support most of the conservative agenda with the main area of difference being marijuana legalization. Most people are able to understand this.
Obviously libertarians should be pro-life. and all of the ones i know are. the LibertarianE might not be. My libertarian side says no government schools, no government banks and no stealing peoples property. taxes according to the constitution,
Exactly, and LibertarianE is a good term.
That may've been true in 2000; but would you pull for the current batch of Republicans?
The ones that refused to evict Boehner?
The ones that refuse to defund/abolish the out-of-control agencies like the IRS, NSA, and EPA?
The ones that refuse to take a stand for any principle that they claim they stand for?
The ones that, before the November elections, were already talking about pushing amnesty?
The ones that have, over the last decade, shown themselves to be indistinguishable from the Democrats?
Why on Earth would anyone want to vote for them?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.