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.
I’m here in pa and all the libertarians i know are very conservative. Right to travel without a license which you don’t need unless you operate a vehicle. which i don’t. i use a personal conveyance. They taught me more about history, law and truth than i could say most conservatives i know. and some put their lives, wealth and sacred honor at stake more than i have. sorry. i’ll get flamed.
Sure, of course they are conservative, that is why they are not conservatives and call themselves libertarians. They are not conservative.
What do you think it means when someone says that they are becoming more “libertarian” on social issues?
Libertarian is a description of a social liberal who is too liberal to be a conservative.
But as usual we have to play this game that no, libertarians are all conservatives, they just like the name libertarian better, and of course totally disagree with their party that they founded, and it’s platform.
Unless of course this was a liberal forum, then they would be telling us all that they share with us as liberals.
I think it’s silly to think they’re indistinguishable from Democrats. It’s not even worth wasting keystrokes to explain why that is, in my opinion. And yes, I would vote for a modern Republican, especially one like, say, Ted Cruz. I agree with Sarah Palin and William F. Buckley that you support the most conservative candidate in the race at hand. Sometimes that means holding your nose in the general but that’s just life in this imperfect world of ours.
Yer a gud ritiner, in pa.
No, libertarian can also mean a social conservative who thinks it’s people’s responsibility to govern themselves rather than have the government do it for them. That’s why, for instance, a libertarian might disagree with marijuana use yet support its legalization. To anyone fluent with basic logic, this is not an irresolveable paradox. And there are many other issues that follow along similar lines.
No, there is one thing we know, libertarian DOES NOT mean social conservative.
As I’ve said, you can be a social conservative without requiring the law to enforce your beliefs.
Not really, we have watched you guys, the libertarian/left, Warren court, and the left, dismantle America for 60 years, as you changed our laws and our culture.
That is the contradiction with you guys, it is like your open borders immigration, it is totally contradictory and fantasy.
Really? What have they done in the last decade that makes you want to stand up and proudly declare I am a Republican
?
Because I'm thoroughly disgusted with them on the national level.
And yes, I would vote for a modern Republican, especially one like, say, Ted Cruz. I agree with Sarah Palin and William F. Buckley that you support the most conservative candidate in the race at hand. Sometimes that means holding your nose in the general but that’s just life in this imperfect world of ours.
Nope.
No more holding my nose
for me — I promised myself that when, to my eternal shame, I voted McCain.
(But it did save me from the shame of voting Romney.)
I don’t know who this “you guys” is you’re imagining. I don’t believe in any of the stuff you just rattled off.
You guys trying to erase America with your social liberalism, as you have mentioned so far, drugs.
As a libertarian you must also know their infantile position on immigration.
I hear you but we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
Au contraire...
I’m split on the marijuana issue. I’m definitely to the right of William F. Buckley on it, but I’m also not totally convinced that the benefits of keeping it illegal outweigh the unintended consequences.
Yes, the doctrinaire libertarian position on immigration is ridiculous.
And I really don’t consider myself a libertarian. More like a conservative with strong libertarian and classical liberal influences from reading guys like Hayek, Mises, Sowell, Bastiat etc.
He’s right about libertarians in general of course. That’s why I specifically said right wing libertarians. They have fewer of the problems that he brings up and more of the virtues of conservatives. In fact, the word libertarian is elastic enough that in my opinion it can apply to the pro-liberty, genuinely constitutionalist end of conservatism. There’s a region in there where there’s some overlap.
Sure you don't. You just call yourself one.
Based on the libertarian’s argument (in this article), would he concede to being FOR a ban on abortion after 8 weeks? Or at least prohibiting late term abortions (except in extremely dire circumstances)?
You must be talking about “conservo-libertarian” on my profile page. I wrote that in the early 2000s as I was moving from libertarianism into conservatism.
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.