Libertarianism and Abortion

[thoughtomator]

The question this thread aims to answer:

Is Libertarianism properly in favor or against legal abortion?

This discussion aims to sort out a difference of opinion between myself and tpaine on the subject. I contend a true libertarian must be pro-life, tpaine believes libertarianism supports abortion rights.

[exodus]

Can you name a tax you have ever paid voluntarily?
*********************

No.

[exodus]

That you believe that taxation and war are necessary tells me that you grant some power to a supra-state, which would make you a left-libertarian.
*********************

Civilization is impossible without government.

[exodus]

Who is your libertarian thinker of choice?
*********************

Robert Heinlein.

Really.

[JohnGalt]

There is no right of self-defense in the sense one can discern some universal truth from your scenario.

If the couple goes on trial and claims self-defense, it will be up to their peers to determine whether the community will accept that argument and determine whether the state will punish or not punish.

Why not use a two-year old as an example? Why does it have to be a question of in utero?

[tpaine]

The libertarian princip of non-violence is not akin to pacificism; we all have a moral duty to defend our lives, property, and family.

The princip is that its immoral to compel others through violence to certain actions (like taxation to build an army and finance a war.)
88 -JG-

---

-- The princip is that its immoral to compel others through violence to certain actions, [like anti-abortion 'laws'] that would limit decisions about family.

[JohnGalt]

It's the size of that government we are talking about. If you believe in an all powerful state on the size of the DC-tax regime, I contend, civilization, let alone a culture that respects liberty is doomed.

[exodus]

If you 'have' (Rights) but can not exercise them, you hold an abstract, not a piece of property or an institution.
*********************

I have them, and I can excercise them.

If Rights are made "against the law," I can expect to be punished for using them, but they're still there.

They're not property, Rights are a part of all of us. They cannot be taken away while we still live.

[JohnGalt]

That is an application, or a libertarian defense of pro laissez faire abortion. I am well versed in the arguments.


I was responding, in context, to a self-styled 'libertarian' who believes it's okay for the state to enforce rights through violence which is anethema to the libertarian world view.

[JohnGalt]

Sorry, friend, but that is Orwellian political speak to me.

A mugger can deprive me of my rights later today, or maybe an agent of the federalis.

[exodus]

It's the size of that government we are talking about. If you believe in an all powerful state on the size of the DC-tax regime, I contend, civilization, let alone a culture that respects liberty is doomed.
*********************

I do not believe in an all-powerful government. I believe in limited government.

I believe in the Rule of law.

Our national government today is not what it's supposed to be, as I'm sure you know. Ben Franklin wouldn't be happy.

[exodus]

My wife & I decide to abort her just discovered pregnancy. As we prepare to do so, the police enter our home to prevent us from doing so under our State's new 'anti-abortion amendment'.

Do we have a right of self defence in this instance?
*********************

Of course.

You have the Right of Self-defense even while you're breaking the law.

[exodus]

Sorry, friend, but that is Orwellian political speak to me.
*********************

Well, that comment I don't understand.

How is championing Rights Orwellian?

[tpaine]

"It does not preclude violent defence of ourselves, our loved ones," --
Indeed it does not, and it would apply in this circumstance, imo:

-- My wife & I decide to abort her just discovered pregnancy. As we prepare to do so, the police enter our home to prevent us from doing so under our States new 'anti-abortion amendment'.

Do we have a right of self defence in this instance?
99 tpaine

---

If the couple goes on trial and claims self-defense, it will be up to their peers to determine whether the community will accept that argument and determine whether the state will punish or not punish.

Why not use a two-year old as an example? Why does it have to be a question of in utero?
-JG-

---

The argument here is about early term abortion, not the murder of viable children.

And, -- you would have the state prohibit abortion, making it a defacto criminal act. Juries who obeyed the 'law' could find offenders guilty as charged..

[JohnGalt]

You stated your belief, contrary to my belief, that rights are universal, they exist like gravity or water.

However, these rights, when violated, still exist.

What practical value is a right that merely exists in the abstract but has no earthly value? Your rights are strictly theoretical and cannot be proved; in Western traditions if a theory cannot be falsified (i.e. the opposite can not be argued) then its not a theory.

[exodus]

A mugger can deprive me of my rights later today, or maybe an agent of the federalis.
*********************

A mugger isn't "depriving you of your Rights," a mugger is attacking you. You still have your Rights.

A burglar doesn't deprive you of your Right of Property, he steals your stuff. You still have the Right of Property.

A government doesn't deprive you of any Right, it just infringes, punishes you, if you excercise those Rights. The Rights are still there, just "hidden" from public view.

Rights can not be taken away.

[thoughtomator]

The condition on which your rights may not be infringed is your willingness to respect the equal rights of others. If you deny a brand-new human being his or her right to life, what claim do you have to have your own right to life respected? Killing the child forfeits the obligation of others not to infringe your own rights.

[tpaine]

I was responding, in context, to a self-styled 'libertarian' who believes it's okay for the state to enforce rights through violence which is anethema to the libertarian world view.
108 -JG-


You too are saying "it's okay for the state to enforce rights through violence" in the matter of prohibiting early term abortion, no?

[JohnGalt]

'viable children' is a completely subjective and ever changing standard. Hardly the basis for a universal discussion on rights.

Just so are clear on where I stand, I don't care what non-Christians do to themselves because it would serve no purpose. However, there is an effect on my liberty and the erosion of my rights in a democracy to have 20,000,000 women living amongst us who contracted to murder their own children.

If political entities were reduced to nothing larger than 100,000, I would have no problem with each city-state regulating their sphere as they saw fit; Lord knows I would not want City-state A to be regulating what I am doing in City-state B.

[tpaine]

Clever, but no cigar.

[JohnGalt]

I am a Christian Rightwing libertarian, so I do not subscribe to the libertarian non-violence princip, though I believe its a great humanistic tool for viewing world events.

I am saying I don't care; I am apathetic to the issue. I would rather not pay taxes to support such a use of the state's power, but I just don't care.

My concern is only that 20,000,000 women have contracted to murder their own children and that has an effect on my liberty.