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.

[MrLeRoy]

the Constitution does indeed bar states from restricting or banning early term abortion

Provide evidence for your claim: quote the text that does this. You're not swallowing that "emanating from penumbras" bunk, are you?

Nothing in the Constitution prohibits the states from doing so or authorizes the federal government to prevent the states from doing so.

Very bold statement. Goes against every basic principle of our constitution & BOR's.. I suggest you read our 9th & 10th amendments as to states powers, and those delegated/retained by the people..

I'm very familiar with them---they're the main support for my "very bold statement."

The Ninth does not say WHICH unenumerated rights are "retained by the people"---and it CERTAINLY does not say that ALL unenumerated rights are retained by the people. The Tenth indicates that since the power to restrict abortion is not "delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States," this power is "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." It does not decide whether any given state or its people have that power, but leaves it up to each state's constitution.

Conclusion: if a state's constitution gives it the power to restrict abortion, then it has that power under the United States Constitution.

[traditionalist]

Personal preference.

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

I see. So the community has a right to impose whatever personal preferences happen to be held by a majority.

[JohnGalt]

Hardly a 'right', but just the opposite.

Communities tend to impose "whatever personal preferences happen to be held by a majority" or a vocal minority for that matter.

That is all that matters. Do you see the difference?

[MrLeRoy]

LeRoys admission that the abortion movement favors a 'states right' to sequestering women from conception to birth.

I thought that was just a rhetorical curlyque. What do you mean by "sequestering"? Pregnant women should of course have complete freedom of movement.

[traditionalist]

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

It is no more arbitrary than your moral judgement that a preborn human being does not have a right to life, or that the mother of a preborn child does not have an obligation to care for him.

Agreed. Child neglect is criminal.

What makes criminalization of born child neglect any less arbitrary than criminalization of pre-born child neglect? What makes criminalization of born child murder any less arbitrary than pre-born child murder?

Our constitution is a very libertarian style document.

Nonsense. While the constitution does not authorize the Feds to impose social obligations upon the citinzery, it does empower the states to do it. C.f the 10th ammendment. Laws prohibiting work on Sundays, prostitition, sodomy, abortion, obscenity and the like were on the books of most states since the founding of our Republic. Some of the very same people who wrote the constitution wrote those state laws.

The assertion that our Republic was ever libertarian, or that the founders were libertarians, is BS.

[traditionalist]

Hardly a 'right', but just the opposite.

Communities tend to impose "whatever personal preferences happen to be held by a majority" or a vocal minority for that matter.

That is all that matters. Do you see the difference?

Yes, but that misses the point. What I'm trying to get as is the standard by which to judge the moral legitimacy of the preferences the community wishes to impose. On what basis, for instance, would you condemn the preferences being imposed upon white people in Zimbabwe? Or upon back people in the Jim Crow South? Or upon Jews and Slavs in Nazi Germany?

Or are you prepared to say that all these preferences were legitimate on the basis that the majority approved of them?

Or are you a nihilist?

[traditionalist]

The Bill of Rights is only a list of things the federalis cannot do.

Not true. The 14th Amendment applies the BOR to the states. If you don't believe me, read the speaches made during the debate Congress had prior to the vote on the said amendment. I've read them. Every single one of the supporters of the amendment in Congress explicitly stated that one of its purposes was to impose the Bill of Rights on the states.

[traditionalist]

What do you mean by "sequestering"? Pregnant women should of course have complete freedom of movement.

What if the woman is caught attempting to get an abortion? Would it not be reasonable to sequester her in order to prevent her from getting one?

What if she is a known drug addict or alcoholic? Would it not be reasonable to sequester her in order to prevent her from poisoning her child?

[traditionalist]

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

Why is it, then, that states had been doing this since the begining of the Republic until 1973? Was there an amendment passed in 1973 that I am not aware of?

[JohnGalt]

I am greatly concerned that these concepts are foreign to a 'traditionalist.'

"On what basis, for instance, would you condemn..."

The victims of the policies were disarmed so they could not defend themselves. A culture that respects the right of self-defense knows when its time to fight (when they come for the guns).

That standard is generally Western and Christian traditions. Many are too lazy to read about the history of their people (the difference between Sparta and the hoplites for instance, or Prussian versus Scottish versus Austrian theories on liberty) and thus find comfort in all encompassing 'rights theory' that sprung from the French Revolution, enforced by the state and interpreted by the all-knowing judges.

I am a Christian patriot and find nothing legitimate about the DC-tax regime.

[JohnGalt]

The 14th Amendment destroyed the only true contribution the American's made to Republican self-government. It was also ratified illegally, but it is a classic example of left-wing libertarian thought.

[tpaine]

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?

But you (or really the courts) are the one determing when these 'rights' begin so they have no meaning.

Our rights to life, liberty, & property exist. We've discussed the hopeless dilemma of separating rights in the inseparable early pregnancy of woman/unviable child; - thus your claim that I & the courts 'determine their beginning' is meaningless noise.

Even worse, you believe that the state has a right to determine what a local community deems as rights

Our constitution is our supreme Law of the Land. Believe it.

--which is not mentioned or implied in the Consitution.

You contend our rights are not constitutionally outlined? Daft..

The Bill of Rights is only a list of things the federalis cannot do.

Belied by both the supremacy clause & the 14th. You need to study.

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.

Are you 'all there' this morning? Your line above is pointless babble..

As a rightwing libertarian, I look at large states as inherently corrupt.

Yep, libertarians want limited government.. What else is new?

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.

Bad manners.. Ping him about it, not me.

[MrLeRoy]

What if the woman is caught attempting to get an abortion? Would it not be reasonable to sequester her in order to prevent her from getting one?

No more reasonable than sequestering a person caught attempting to hire a hitman.

What if she is a known drug addict or alcoholic? Would it not be reasonable to sequester her in order to prevent her from poisoning her child?

No; we do not currently sequester anyone for what they MIGHT do, so why would we start then?

[JohnGalt]

"Our constitution is our supreme Law of the Land"

Anti-law maybe (or failed law.) You wish to seperate the experience of this Consitution and this nation (failed) and in turn hold up the Consitution as if you are Moses. Go on pretending that this land can be ruled by limited government; go pull levers every November and see what happens, but call me a soothsayer, but nothing changes. It just gets worse every year.

Sure it would be great if the country was held in check by the Consitution, and I support national politicians who wish to return to his narrow parameters, but its not going to happen in my lifetime so I take responisbility for it.

"You contend our rights are not constitutionally outlined? Daft.. "

You realize the fear of including the BoR in the Consitution was the fear that the people would think these were there only rights?

I mentioned thoughtmator to demonstrate that you and I shared common ground on certain issues, and Mssr. TM has no moral high ground over you, IMO.

[traditionalist]

That standard is generally Western and Christian traditions.

Okay, now we're getting somewhere. Yes, I happen to agree with you. The only problem is that now you're moving away from libertarian political philosophy, because the Western and Christian traditions envision a role for the state that is far greater than merely the nightwatchman role than libertarians envision.

The Christian tradition affirms the power of the state to enforce prohibitions of the moral law of "victimless" crimes. However, the extent to which provisions are to be enforced is dicated by prudence. If it enforcing of such a provisions does more harm than good, it should not be enforced.

[tpaine]

The Ninth does not say WHICH unenumerated rights are "retained by the people"---

Which logically would mean that all "others" are..

and it CERTAINLY does not say that ALL unenumerated rights are retained by the people.

Another bold/weird idea. Why would we limit our own unenumerated rights, without specifically delegating such power to our governments?

The Tenth indicates that since the power to restrict abortion is not "delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States,"

The power to violate a womens [or any persons] rights are prohibited by both the supremacy clause & the 14th.

is this power is "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." It does not decide whether any given state or its people have that power, but leaves it up to each state's constitution.

States powers are lmited by the constitution. Live with that fact.

[traditionalist]

No more reasonable than sequestering a person caught attempting to hire a hitman.

We throw such people in jail for attempted murder.

No; we do not currently sequester anyone for what they MIGHT do, so why would we start then?

Actually, we do. Known durg addicts are often prohibited from engaging in activities that put other people in danger. A drug-addicted mother can have her children taken away by social services.

I have not thought through the possible unintended consequences of a policy of sequestering drug-addicted pregnant women, and then taking away their children after birth, but if such a policy would on net save lives, I would support it.

[JohnGalt]

The Christian tradition give the state the power to enforce capital punishment and make war (though it has lots of rules about that and there is a grand difference between Just War, Orthodox Christians, and neoconservative rules on that subject.)

Other than that, Christ simply did not think a sound survival strategy was constant revolution, though he did tell us to arm ourselves.

That said, "libertarian political philosophy"-- I disagree Cracker libertarianism is very much in line with the Christian world view; at least I have found no problems thus far. Your immediate focus on prosecuting crime is rather odd.

English law, unlike your more Prussian example, until relatively recently, believed that law enforcement was generally a private function, though a Sheriff could get involved in 'capital cases' (murder, rape and 'grand theft.') Wants law became a 'common' of course they needed stuff to go after in order to rationalize their growth so socially less tolerable things were targeted.

Rather, in the eyes of the Christian Cracker libertarian, the state exists to preserve our liberties and rights (yes our rights but we mean something different than Frenchie) which includes namely property rights, the right to exclude anyone we want or admit anyone we want.

Thus a practical working explanation for the right to life would be the right for the community to prohibit an abortionist from selling his wares in town.

[MrLeRoy]

The Ninth does not say WHICH unenumerated rights are "retained by the people"---

Which logically would mean that all "others" are..

Rubbish; those rights may have been ceded to states through their constitutions.

Why would we limit our own unenumerated rights, without specifically delegating such power to our governments?

See above.

The power to violate a womens [or any persons] rights are prohibited by both the supremacy clause & the 14th.

Which part? "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed"?

States powers are lmited by the constitution.

Some are. You have yet to demonstrate that the power to restrict or ban abortion is among them.

[traditionalist]

The 14th Amendment destroyed the only true contribution the American's made to Republican self-government. It was also ratified illegally, but it is a classic example of left-wing libertarian thought.

Oh, okay. So you do not recognize the 14th Amendment. Yes, you are right, without the 14th Amendment, the BOR does not apply to the states. I just wanted to be clear on whether you in fact recognize the amendment.

Out of curiousity, what is your view on the 13th and 15th Amendments?