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.

[thoughtomator]

That's a dodge. What is your definition of murder, that you do not see abortion as being a murder?

[exodus]

exodus - Are you saying that Rights are determined by what the law allows?
tpaine - Nope.
*********************

Then you have the Right of Self-defense even while you're in the process of breaking the law.

Gimme my cigar. :)

[tpaine]

Cute, but no cigar.

[exodus]

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

Politics is a science too, JohnGalt, and Rights are an important part of understanding how men work together.

I believe that Rights, and the understanding of Rights, has a practical purpose. Without Rights, we wouldn't be men. Without acknowledgement of Rights, we would have anarchy. Without government recognition of Rights, we would have a tyranny.

[MrLeRoy]

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

No, they would simply recognize that the woman, by voluntarily engaging in an act whose outcome was the vital need of another person for her bodily resources, has acquired the obligation to provide those bodily resources.

[JohnGalt]

That is the problem with your theory on rights as abstracts; it has no practical matter.

I appreciate that you are trying to argue libertarianism as a praexology which is the Rightwing libertarian point of view, however, your reliance on a rights system or at least that you see value in debating abstract rights is often the cause of so many anti-libertarian critiques.

Where as theories on government and the protection of cultural tradition or rights has merit, would it not seem reasonable to state that a practical definition of rights are those liberties that the current culture tolerates at that moment and geographical location in time?

I could move into a cave in the Arctic Circle and claim all of my rights, but it hardly has any practical application to community and culture.

[exodus]

tpaine - "...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?
exodus - Of course. You have the Right of Self-defense even while you're breaking the law.
tpaine - Clever, but no cigar.
exodus - Are you saying that Rights are determined by what the law allows?
tpaine - Nope.
exodus - Then you have the Right of Self-defense even while you're in the process of breaking the law. Gimme my cigar. :)
tpaine - Cute, but no cigar.
*********************

You're not being very consistent, tpaine.

If Rights are God-given, inalienable, they can not be legislated away. Even if government makes laws against abortion, and you violate those laws, you still have the Right to defend yourself when the police start shooting at you.

[exodus]

That is the problem with your theory on rights as abstracts; it has no practical matter.
*********************

I do not see Rights as abstracts.

Rights are real, and can be demonstrated. Rights can be applied, and Rights are practical; we based our system of laws upon them, and every other nation bases their laws upon them, too.

[JohnGalt]

"we based our system of laws upon them"


We did? I used England as an example where the land is leased from the Crown to the people. Is that not a radically different conception of property rights than the American experience?

Or is it, IYO, merely an arbitrary difference?

[tpaine]

That's a dodge. What is your definition of murder, that you do not see abortion as being a murder?
-tm-


No dodge.
I define murder the same way our USSC did when they said that states could not prohibit early term abortion by claiming it was murder.

[exodus]

I appreciate that you are trying to argue libertarianism as a praexology which is the Rightwing libertarian point of view, however, your reliance on a rights system or at least that you see value in debating abstract rights is often the cause of so many anti-libertarian critiques.
*********************

The only people who've ever argued with me about Rights, before you, were socialists. Your position that there are no such thing as Rights makes me think you may be, too. You say that government, "society," has sovereignty over any individual's actions. That view I define as socialism.

I think socialists are wrong, of course.

Rights are not "abstract," but socialist theory is. They have to train people to accept "State" ownership over "that's mine" individual ownership. Even a mother who tells the kids "everything is ours together, we're a family" will tell her kids "get your dirty hands off of my clothes, " and that's not just a convenient way of expressing herself; in her mind, that is her dress, and nobody will take it from her.

[exodus]

Where as theories on government and the protection of cultural tradition or rights has merit, would it not seem reasonable to state that a practical definition of rights are those liberties that the current culture tolerates at that moment and geographical location in time?
*********************

No. What society tolerates has no bearing on Rights at all, except that Rights might be infringed by that society.

No society can be free where Rights are not acknowledged and protected.

[tpaine]

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

No, they would simply recognize that the woman, by voluntarily engaging in an act whose outcome was the vital need of another person for her bodily resources, has acquired the obligation to provide those bodily resources.

You are simply rephrasing your idea that the state can force 'obligations' upon a woman for becoming pregnant.
Not so. -- She has the liberty to abort. -- It is constitutional.
Your insistance that she can be sequestered and forced to term, -- is not.

[JohnGalt]

I suggest you need to read more about libertarian thought.

"You say that government, "society," has sovereignty over any individual's actions. "


No where did I say any such thing; I said that here in the United States 2003 the government regulates every aspect of our lives so debates about rights are completely abstract and thus have no meaning. If I understand your point of view, you use rights sometimes to define the rules of human existance (praexology.) We are in agreement if that is the case.

However, you then say: "has sovereignty over any individual's actions" which is what you said. Because states have the power to regulate rights, and they do, and you believe in states, by your construct you are the one exercing a socialist (ideological) world view.

Liberty as the forefathers saw it was not protected by rights or the state, but by institutions which would be maintained and handed down through the generations. Rights are reflected in these insitutions.

I will open up a new can of worms; do African fathers have a right as parents to exercise their cultural tradition of preforming clitorechtomies on their baby girls?

[exodus]

exodus - "we based our system of laws upon (Rights)" JohnGalt - We did? I used England as an example where the land is leased from the Crown to the people. Is that not a radically different conception of property rights than the American experience? Or is it, IYO, merely an arbitrary difference?
*********************

There is no difference in the Right of Property between that system and ours. I think that's what you're asking.

The people of England under that system didn't own anything. They had permission to use the land from the King, the actual owner of the property.

We don't have a King. No one person owns the entire country.

[MrLeRoy]

the woman, by voluntarily engaging in an act whose outcome was the vital need of another person for her bodily resources, has acquired the obligation to provide those bodily resources.

She has the liberty to abort. -- It is constitutional.

I was making an ethical rather than a constitutional statement---but are you claiming that the Constitution bars states from restricting or banning abortion? If so, provide evidence for your claim.

[tpaine]

Now you've got it kid.. The cigar's
in the mail. But why are you belaboring the obvious?
Have you make a point about the constitutionality of abortion law?

[MrLeRoy]

here in the United States 2003 the government regulates every aspect of our lives so debates about rights are completely abstract and thus have no meaning.

Their practical meaning is in their ability to sway people's ideas as to how they ought to vote. The abstract claim that persons of African descent have rights has certainly had practical consequences in this country's history.

Liberty as the forefathers saw it was not protected by rights

Of course not---rights are a definition of proper liberty.

[JohnGalt]

The government owns 33% of the land out right, owns the money supply and determines it value, and the government owns the financing mechanisms for which so many of us (I am 29) require to purchase a home.

England, still to this day, leases their land from the crown, they don't own it.

[exodus]

I said that here in the United States 2003 the government regulates every aspect of our lives so debates about rights are completely abstract and thus have no meaning.
*********************

Yes, government regulations are getting worse all the time, because people don't know what's happening, and thus don't fight what they can't see.

Debates about Rights are not meaningless. Without offering evidence that the government is wrong to infringe upon our Rights, with people not even knowing what Rights are (as you've demonstrated) how can people correct the tyrannical actions of our government?

Rights are no more meaningless today than they were when the recognition of the Rights of Man founded our nation. Education in those Rights can return our nation's commitment to freedom.