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]

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

We throw such people in jail for attempted murder.

I don't believe that's the law under which we convict them. But if we did decide to make seeking an abortion a crime, that would still not amount to wholesale "sequestering."

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

Known durg addicts are often prohibited from engaging in activities that put other people in danger.

That is not "sequestering" them.

A drug-addicted mother can have her children taken away by social services.

That is not "sequestering" her.

[JohnGalt]

Neither of those Amendments were inspired by the forces of good or liberty, neither were ratified properly, and the 15th was cited to pass absurdist Voting Rights legislation that allows non-English speakers, non-property holders, and certain groups the ability to vote themselves other people's property (we use to call that stealing now we call it prescription drug benefit.)

Of course, outlawing slavery is not a bad thing, where as giving the federalis the opportunity to regulate who votes and who doesn't in the states is stupidity.

[traditionalist]

A drug-addicted mother can have her children taken away by social services.

That is not "sequestering" her

We typically throw durg abusers in jail, or put them on probation, or some such thing. I know that as a libertarian you probably oppose that, but that's not the issue.

[traditionalist]

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.)

The Christian tradition gives the state much more power than that. Read Acquinas.

[JohnGalt]

I was just listing two examples, as opposed to your first example of 'law enforcment.' Don't let that take us off track.

I dare to mention it, but you seem to have come full circle on the concept of rights, perhaps a clarification on your part?

[MrLeRoy]

A drug-addicted mother can have her children taken away by social services.

That is not "sequestering" her.

We typically throw durg abusers in jail, or put them on probation, or some such thing.

That's true whether or not they are pregnant---or even female---and so is of no relevance to the question of sequestering pregnant women.

[traditionalist]

I was just listing two examples, as opposed to your first example of 'law enforcment.' Don't let that take us off track.

Oh, I misunderstood you. I was under the impression that that was the role to which you restricted the state. So what do you believe to be the proper role of the state?

I dare to mention it, but you seem to have come full circle on the concept of rights, perhaps a clarification on your part?

I'm a Thomist. I believe the state's duty is fostering the common good. That includes protecting God-given rights, enforcing social obligations, and outlawing vices from which it is possible for a majority to abstain, among other things.

As a Thomist, I reject the notion that there is such a thing as a right to vice; only a right to virtue. There is no right to drug abuse, no right to pronography, no right to prostitution, no right to to adultary, no right to fornication, no right to sodomy, etc. The state is perfectly within its competence in restricting these things. The question is one of prudence: does prohibiting such things help or hurt the common good? The answer to that is sometimes yes and sometimes no.

Here are a couple Summa articles that deal with this question:

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/209602.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/209603.htm

I would recommend the whole section on Human Law, if you have the time.

[traditionalist]

That's true whether or not they are pregnant---or even female---and so is of no relevance to the question of sequestering pregnant women.

Actually, a lot of states are especially tough on pregnant drug abusers.

[traditionalist]

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.

By that same argument, the community could prohibit a drug dealer from selling his wares in town, which is fine by me, but somehow I think a libertarian would reject this conclusion.

BTW, what if the abortionist is conducting abortions on his own property which is close to the community?

[MrLeRoy]

a lot of states are especially tough on pregnant drug abusers.

I'd need a lot more detail before I'd concede that they were "sequestering" those women.

[JohnGalt]

"libertarian would reject this conclusion."

A left libertarian would, but not me...though communities that tend to spend a lot on preventing commerce of certain substances tend to be corrupt--see any town in Kentucky that is still 'dry.'

I would probably just choose not to live there or vote with my feet.

If an abortionist was preforming captial crimes on his own property I would suggest that the warrant system seems pretty sound. Arrest him and put him on a trial before his peers; then the abortionist can talk about 'rights' till he is blue in the face, all the way to the gallows. ;)

[traditionalist]

I'd need a lot more detail before I'd concede that they were "sequestering" those women.

If a pregnant women is caught using drugs, in some states she can be taken into protective custody so that she does not take any more to harm her child. She is also given a longer sentence than if she were not preganant, and the child can be taken away after birth.

I agree with you that it would be unreasonable to do something like this to a woman if she merely had a history of drug use.

[JohnGalt]

I can't do this justice, but let me ask, what is your preferred size for a state?

[traditionalist]

I can't do this justice, but let me ask, what is your preferred size for a state?

I support the traditional Christian doctrine of subsidiarity: a matter should be handled on the most local level possible. Where it is impossible to handle a matter locally, it should be referred to a higher level, all the way up to a national level, which seems to be the optimal place to have the highest level of government.

So to answer your question, there should be a federal government for the nation, in the traditional sense of the word, but the role of this government should be minimal. Then there should governments at the provincial, county, municipal, and neighborhood levels, each with increasingly more involvment in the citizen's daily life.

[JohnGalt]

Well, we are in (general) agreement but I am still curious why you did not recognize that I am merely the libertarian version of the system you outlined.

[MrLeRoy]

If a pregnant women is caught using drugs, in some states she can be taken into protective custody so that she does not take any more to harm her child. She is also given a longer sentence than if she were not preganant, and the child can be taken away after birth.

I can support that level of "sequestering."

[tpaine]

--- I reject the notion that there is such a thing as a right to vice; only a right to virtue. There is no right to drug abuse, no right to pronography, no right to prostitution, no right to to adultary, no right to fornication, no right to sodomy, etc.
The state is perfectly within its competence in restricting these things.
The question is one of prudence: does prohibiting such things help or hurt the common good? The answer to that is sometimes yes and sometimes no. ----

----- there should governments at the provincial, county, municipal, and neighborhood levels, each with increasingly more involvment in the citizen's daily life.
-traditionalist-

---

We are in general agreement
-john gault-

---

I can support that level of "sequestering."
316 -mrleroy-

---

Gentlemen, this republic is in serious trouble if your views are in any way representitive of todays 'conservatives'.

Yall are advocating a type of communitarianism, imo..

[MrLeRoy]

Yall are advocating a type of communitarianism, imo..

Not me---I'm just advocating the minimum goverment action necessary to defend the rights of unborn persons.

[traditionalist]

Well, we are in (general) agreement but I am still curious why you did not recognize that I am merely the libertarian version of the system you outlined.

Well, libertarianism, conventionally defined, is the philosophy that the only purpose of government is to protect individual rights. The conventional definition denies any mandate to further, or even the existence of the common good. You seem to affirm that government, on various levels, should further the common good, over and above protecting rights, so by conventional standards, you are not a libertarian. But, if you wish to call yourself such, no one's stopping you. At the end of the day it's just a label, and it's the substance of a philosophy, not its label, that is important.

[MrLeRoy]

libertarianism, conventionally defined, is the philosophy that the only purpose of government is to protect individual rights. The conventional definition denies any mandate to further, or even the existence of the common good.

I don't agree that libertarianism denies the existence of the common good. But I do agree that libertarianism denies any governmental mandate to further the common good---and I support that position.