Libertarianism and Abortion

[tpaine]

You denied that the state had the power to sequester a potential abortion 'criminal' , yet you say she would have to be watched, maybe even restrained, ---

[exodus]

exodus - If the mother can't be "forced" to care for her child, you can't force other people to do it for her. That means that up to about age ten, a child has no "right" to live at all, because he still can't survive on his own.
Dave in Eugene of all places - Thanks for the ping. Not sure exactly what you mean by this, but I think the law generally prohibits abandonment.
*********************

Thanks for your comments, Dave in Eugene of all places.

You caught the main point of my comment. Without someone to care for them, small children are no more "viable" than a baby in the womb.

Following the reasoning of the Court, that little kid runing and playing over there, no matter how cute or how noisy he gets, is an unviable tissue mass if his mother decides that he is too inconvenient to have in her life. Her Right of Privacy makes the simplification of her life legal, even though the little boy will die.

After all, it's her life, and she has the Right to pursue her dreams.

I bet even a liberal feminist wouldn't accept that argument, but the reasoning is consistent with the Court's decision. Both babies are unviable without their mother.

[tpaine]

Sorry kid, but posting the pics as a ploy was beyond the pale for me..

You're dismissed for bad manners.
Take a hike.

[thoughtomator]

Well, if you're not mature enough to actually look at what you're discussing, then there is no point to continue.

For your information, you are no libertarian. Truth is central to the libertarian quest for answers. At best, you're a small-government liberal, if such a thing can be said to exist.

Your namesake was no less direct in making his case than I am here. He would never have resorted to the cop-outs that you have substituted here for argument.

[exodus]

You denied that the state had the power to sequester a potential abortion 'criminal' , yet you say she would have to be watched, maybe even restrained
*********************

Okay, I see what happened now, thanks.

Yes, the State can not legally sequester any person, not even a "potential" murderer, if no actual crime has been committed; however, in your second question, you asked me what options a government would have (with abortion outlawed) if the woman "attempted" an abortion, whether she should be turned loose to try to abort the baby again.

In that case, with abortion defined as murder, an attempted abortion is an attempted murder, a crime for which anybody would be subject to imprisonment.

In the case of a woman with a baby in her womb, there would be two person's in the cell, one of whom had already proven that she wanted the other person dead.

Since we could not remove the baby without killing him ourselves, the only other option would be to restrain the woman, in order to prevent the murder of the baby by the woman.

[exodus]

To: thoughtomator
Good lord, -- are you one of those creeps that run around with their abortion pics on the side of the van?
# 259 by tpaine
*********************

It may be a little ichy for fainthearted folks, but those are pictures of living babies.

Thet're not dead, they're alive.

I think both pictures are beautiful. The baby's hand holding the surgeon's finger is especially uplifting. I'll be showing that picture to my kids tomorrow.

[exodus]

Check out the pictures if these babies.

I love the one of the baby holding the surgeon's finger. I'd forgotten about that story. If I remember right, the surgury corrected a genetic defect on the baby's spine.

The baby went full term, and was born healthy. The surgery was a complete success.

[exodus]

Sorry I missed you in Agitator's Free Republic Chat room, I was ansering a few of these posts addressed to me.

A reminder for all you folks on this thread, the Free Republic chat server is open at http://chat.agitator.dynip.com, if anyone wants to discuss this or any other conservative issue.

[JohnGalt]

Apologies that I could not keep up with this engagement, and now feel hopelessly behind to respond to your many posts.


If you continue to believe that education on your 'rights theory' will improve our lot, you are essentially making the liberal's appeal to 'awareness.' Power, on the otherhand, and systems of government tends to make sense to people and seperation and the ability for seperate political groups to choose their own destinies seems to make sense to people be it the former Yugoslavia or the America of 1860-61.

[JohnGalt]

There are plenty of Rightwing libertarians, or radical localists, who believe its perfectly reasonable to restrict abortion and use the power of the state to prevent it.

[JohnGalt]

But it does interfere.


We are not going to budge from this point, are we?

Rights aka traditions are too important to me to leave them to abstracts and hopes that through education, we will be set free.

[traditionalist]

So Republicans have the answer to the abortion question?

No, but scholasticism, the Burkian tradition, and other conervative political philosophies do.

The Republican party is just that, a party, not a political philosophy.

[traditionalist]

There are plenty of Rightwing libertarians, or radical localists, who believe its perfectly reasonable to restrict abortion and use the power of the state to prevent it.

Agreed, but they must ground their arguments on principles of non-libertarian (not necessarily anti-libertarian) philosophy.

[JohnGalt]

I disagree.

The problem is that there is no universal right to life in the practical sense, however, we should be able to live in a community (an organic political construct) that respects a 'right to life' thus giving the meaning to the word 'right.'

Rightwing libertarianism is a theory on self-government based on the nature of man securing and maintaiing his liberties within his community rather that an appeal to abstract rights to be recognized by all of man kind.

[traditionalist]

Some libertarians back the philosophy of the constitutionalists view on abortion rights, as I've been arguing.. Some here back the beliefs of the 'states rightists' moral majority view. Some in between. -- Where do you stand?

I'm not a libertarian. I believe that men, in addition to rights, have obligations, which include caring for those in their society who cannot care for themselves. That includes children, both born and preborn. Furthermore, the state has the morally legitimate power to compel men to fulfill their obligations if they fail in them, or punish them for not fulfilling them. Hence the state has the power to punish a woman for aborting her child, or abandoning him, or failing to provide him proper care and nutrition.

The problem with libertatianism is that it ignores social obligations which are absolutely essential for a society to survive. It also provides no justification for why men have rights, and hence it provides no guidance as to when men acquire those rights.

[traditionalist]

we should be able to live in a community (an organic political construct) that respects a 'right to life' thus giving the meaning to the word 'right.'

Upon what basis do you make this assertion?

[JohnGalt]

Personal preference.

Preservation of Western culture, which includes both pagan and Christian traditions, is of importance to me.

[tpaine]

Some libertarians back the philosophy of the constitutionalists view on abortion rights, as I've been arguing.. Some here back the beliefs of the 'states rightists' moral majority view. Some in between. -- Where do you stand?

I'm not a libertarian. I believe that men, in addition to rights, have obligations, which include caring for those in their society who cannot care for themselves.

The only difference we have in that respect, is that you assume the government has the power to compel us to perform obligations as it arbitrarily specifies.

That includes children, both born and preborn.

Nope, not 'preborn'. That's your arbitrary moral judgement, not law.

Furthermore, the state has the morally

In our constitution we have given no such 'moral' powers.

legitimate power to compel men to fulfill their obligations if they fail in them, or punish them for not fulfilling them.

Yep, states have legitimate delegated powers, under the rule of constitutional law.

Hence the state has the power to punish a woman for aborting her child,

Nope, that's a moral decision, -- the woman has not ceded that power to the state.

or abandoning him, or failing to provide him proper care and nutrition.

Agreed. Child neglect is criminal.

The problem with libertatianism is that it ignores social obligations which are absolutely essential for a society to survive.

Our constitution is a very libertarian style document. It served us well till about 100 years ago, when the socialistic prohibitionists gained the power to start subverting it.. They are still busy, as is evident..

It also provides no justification for why men have rights, and hence it provides no guidance as to when men acquire those rights.

A meaningless generalization. It seems libertarians are your prefered scapegoat, so you bash them with your BS.

[tpaine]

---- we should be able to live in a community (an organic political construct) that respects a 'right to life' thus giving the meaning to the word 'right.'

You can prohibit early term abortion. --- But not in this country, not under our constitutional rules of law.

Rightwing libertarianism is a theory on self-government based on the nature of man securing and maintaiing his liberties within his community rather that an appeal to abstract rights to be recognized by all of man kind.

Our constitution recognises that community standards can be the basis for reasonable regulatory laws, providing that such laws do not violate our basic individual human rights, as outlined in our BOR's.
Get it?

[JohnGalt]

"individual human rights, as outlined in our BOR's.
Get it?"


But you (or really the courts) are the one determing when these 'rights' begin so they have no meaning. Even worse, you believe that the state has a right to determine what a local community deems as rights--which is not mentioned or implied in the Consitution. The Bill of Rights is only a list of things the federalis cannot do.

Since you believe the state should be ideally, the Consitution, you believe in a large state since it would take a large state in order to ensure these rights in every nook and cranny. As a rightwing libertarian, I look at large states as inherently corrupt.

Look how many so-called 'libertarians' (see thoughtomator) claim they believe in a right to life but have no problem with the state dropping 'bunker-busters' on civilians.