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]

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
*********************

Self-defense can easily be proven, and has been. It's instinct. Even a man who's decided to kill himself by submerging himslf in water until he drowns will stand up when he runs out of air. It's an instinct, it's built in.

Property also has been proven. It's called territorialism in animals, "capitalism" in humans; the desire to own things.

[JohnGalt]

Proven? By what standard? Your baby example?

You are going through exercises that are strictly ideological (owing to their roots in French elite's perhaps) not practical.

[u-89]

Liberals who say that government has no business in the abortion issue are of course flagrant hypocrites because they believe the government has jurisdiction in all of life's affairs (except this one). Libertarians on the other hand have the legitimacy to question the issue because they honestly promote limited government and maximum personal liberty. A question was posed - what is the proper position on abortion for the libertarian? The answer is that there is no correct universal position for libertarians on this issue. It all depends on one's personal belief system.

The government is charged with the duty of protecting life so the abortion debate revolves around one's opinion of what is life and when it begins. To pro-lifers the answer seems obvious while to others the question is either answered by a differing conclusion or is unknowable. The question is is abortion no different than having a wart removed or is it the taking of another individual's life. Since there is not a universally held belief then the debate shifts to one of the proper roll of government regulation. To some pro-lifers federal allowance of abortion is a grievous affront but they would gladly accept federal prohibition. Other pro-lifers would be content to return the issue to the states and so I think would many pro-choicers. Whether the unborn are human life deserving of legal protection or an unviable tissue mass to be dealt with according to the discretion of the bearer is immaterial to the fact that this clearly is not constitutionally a federal matter.

If we restore the matter to its proper jurisdiction of the individual states we will greatly cut down on the amount of strife in the country over the issue. As for the role of government how do we come to terms between those who believe there is legitimate regulation or prohibition and those who believe there is none? The only solution is to submit to the tyranny of the democratic process (republican version of course). While majority rule does not necessarily make laws right and in some cases the courts are correct in striking down laws it should be remembered here that we are not talking about property rights or state sponsored racial discrimination or other such things which go against the natural rights of man and liberty. Abortion is a matter of life itself (except to those who refuse to believe a child in the womb is at any time human). A free people can then vote with their feet when the ballot box fails them. New York would be one way, Utah another. Live where one feels most comfortable, one way or the other. If you remain in a prohibition state seek services if you desire them where they are available. Perhaps not a perfect solution but probably the best we can hope for on an issue where there is no universally held clear belief like there is on laws against murder, assault, theft and fraud. (just for the record I am a libertarian and pro-life)

[jammer]

I agree with you. One of the few legitimate functions of government is to protect against the use of force or fraud. If the fetus is a human being, the anti-"force" function is not only legitimate, but required.

[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-

---

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.
-T mator-

---

You are simply begging the question of whether a state has the power to proclaim an early abortion as a 'childs' murder, and to use unconstitutional methods to enforce such a 'law'.

In our republic the answer to the begged question is no..

[exodus]

"...in Western traditions if a theory cannot be falsified (i.e. the opposite can not be argued) then its not a theory."
*********************

Even if a theory can be "proven," that doesn't mean it's true. Newton's theories were "proven" correct, until Einstein came up with a theory that "proved" Newton's theories wrong.

A theory is a working hypothesis, nothing more.

[thoughtomator]

I agree with your approach. Where we part ways is the question of when human life begins. I don't think there is any room for opinion or interpretation on this - it is long-established, proven, hard scientific fact that human life begins at conception. Without acknowledgment of this fact, I would think about the situation precisely as you do.

But inconvenient as the fact may be, I cannot be honest with myself and deny it. Life begins at conception, and that's reality, no matter how inconvenient or intractable a problem that may present in crafting a solution to the abortion issue.

[tpaine]

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


'Viablity' was only used by the USSC to define the point at which states could prohibit abortion as being murder.

[JohnGalt]

I may have misunderstood you, but you layout why I believe debating theories on rights is an ideological exercise not a practical one.

[thoughtomator]

It depends on what the definition of the word 'murder' is. Going by the definition under which it has been used for thousands of years, it is the purposeful taking of an innocent life. Abortion is, by definition, murder - it is not an 'interpretation'. If abortion is not murder, then I am stumped as to what definition of murder might not apply.

[exodus]

exodus - You have the Right of Self-defense even while you're breaking the law.
tpaine - Clever, but no cigar.
*********************

Are you saying that Rights are determined by what the law allows?

[tpaine]

"it is long-established, proven, hard scientific fact that human life begins at conception."
-t mator-


Of course 'life begins'.. This is a given, as we agreed in the first few posts..

We disagreed here where you claimed:

"it therefore follows that the right to life exists at the moment of conception."

And I, answered at #20:

Not so. The legal consequenses of such a theory would be ludicrous. -- In effect, all fertile females from conception to viablity could be charged with murder for aborting..

[exodus]

Proven? By what standard? Your baby example?
*********************

Yes, by my baby example of a kid who yells "MINE" when you take his toy. Also by my animal example, where even animals have property, their territory.

Also by a new example, a kitten I'm feeding who tried to bite me when I got too close to his food.

Territorialism in nature is an accepted theory by all scientists, JohnGalt. That instinct is the Right of Property.

[exodus]

You are going through exercises that are strictly ideological (owing to their roots in French elite's perhaps) not practical.
*********************

I'm basing my points on observations that you can and have seen around you, JohnGalt, and I'm basing them on science. How much more practical do I need to be?

You've mentioned your Christian beliefs several times. Have I offended you by not offering scriptural examples?

[JohnGalt]

That is an example of behavior in animal societies; in England, for example, the Crown owns the entire country and one merely leases their land from the Crown.

[exodus]

You are going through exercises that are strictly ideological (owing to their roots in French elite's perhaps)
*********************

I have no idea how the French define libertarianism.

[thoughtomator]

And I continued to say that indeed they have murdered their children, in fact.

Which leads us to a sticking point: how do you define murder?

[tpaine]

You have your moral ideas about 'murdering' life, while most of your peers have others..

We the people have agreed, as per our constitution, to respect a real live newly pregnant womens human rights.

Your moral ideas, if enforced by the state, would violate the womans rights.

[tpaine]

Nope.

[exodus]

A question was posed - what is the proper position on abortion for the libertarian? The answer is that there is no correct universal position for libertarians on this issue. It all depends on one's personal belief system.
*********************

Apparently you're right, u-89.