Posted on 09/27/2003 8:46:49 PM PDT by thoughtomator
Edited on 09/27/2003 9:33:29 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
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.
Am I 'willing'? Sure.
Fine, if kept to private insurance schemes.. -- Yet we all know that private/government boundries have virtually ceased to exist in medical insurance. - Thus in effect you admit that socialistic means are OK if used to 'good' ends..
but, Can I afford it? That is a more difficult question... Am I 'willing' to send my children to private school [instead of public school]? Am I willing to donate to charity [rather than to welfare]? Am I 'willing' to save for my retirement [rather than depending on social security]? There are lots of things that I am 'willing' to do...But I don't have many options after 35% of my income is confiscated from my paycheck...After paying for all of these wonderful 'free' services that the state provides [most of which I will probably never use] there is only enough cash to pay for rent, food and transportation.
I apologize if this answer seems like a 'dodge'.
Seems? -- It is.
Quite a long effort too..
- I think you realise what a socialistic hole you've dug, and are trying to rationalize it with volume..
I don't pretend to have all the answers. That is why I am a FReeper [lookin' for answers]. The point that I am trying to make is that there are many solutions to these problems. However, our options are quite limited when we try to apply them to the [statist/collectivist] real world.
Yep - Sure thing.. Yet you want to add to the "[statist/collectivist]" laws in this country by prohibiting abortion... Counterintuitive.
I am sure that I don't have to remind most libertarians and conservatives that the state is the root of many of these problems and that sometimes I feel like a 'dog chasing my own tail' trying to solve this stuff [socialism] with half-ass solutions [socialism-lite] rather than real solutions [true individual liberty].
Well at least you see some of the dichotomy in your own reasoning.
The "real solutions [to] [true individual liberty]", are to be found by restoring respect for our constitutional basics..
Not by advocating abortion 'law'.
I admit nothing of the sort. Wonderful extrapolation. Your argument reminds me of some of the stuff that the statists [Cultural Jihad, Kevin Curry, etc.] around here sometimes spew against libertarians: 'You don't support the War On Drugs? Then you must be a dope smoking libertine...'
'Yet you want to add to the "[statist/collectivist]" laws in this country by prohibiting abortion... Counterintuitive.' -tpaine
Yet you want to arbitrarily legitimatize a procedure that may [or may not] be the murdering of an individual. If your arbitrary 'standard of viability' is incorrect then wouldn't we be guilty of allowing the initiation of deadly force against an individual? If there is even the slightest possibility that abortion is the murder of an individual then isn't protecting the life of the individual far more important than any minor loss of a womans freedom by preventing a medical procedure?
'The "real solutions [to] [true individual liberty]", are to be found by restoring respect for our constitutional basics.. Not by advocating abortion 'law'.' -tpaine
I agree with 'restoring respect for our constitutional basics', however this particular issue isn't well addressed [if addressed at all] in that document. Yah...I know...'Roe V. Wade'...I got my copy of the 'Constitution' right here...Lemme see here...Oh yah! This must be what Justice Blackmun was lookin' at: If I squint really hard, turn down the lights and hold my breath for a couple o' minutes I can almost make out the phrase 'right to privacy' in the left margin...Or it may just be a booger from Alex Hamilton...
Yep, and we are arguably not a conscious being until we are capable of survival after birth. -- Viable, - as the USSC puts it. I can live with that argument, that concept of consiousness & rights.. No one has come up with a better one to date, imo.
which still leaves the question is the fetus a being of its own , on its own, with its own thoughts and capabilities.
No, it isn't the real question, as a 1st trimester fetus is by definition unviable.
No political philosophy stance can answer te abortion question because they rely on hard science and facts for their empirical proofs. and to date the science on this issue is muddled at best.
The 'stance' on viability is based on common sense, imo, - it's a judgement call, not a scientific 'fact'. -- Thus; - States are free to prosecute women who abort after the 2nd trimester for murder.
They don't because juries, in their 'judgement calls', will not convict..
Prohibition and compulsion are two separate things. Compel means 'to force [to do something]'. Prohbit means 'to prevent [from doing something]'.
There is nothing that I would force anyone to do. I would forbid - not compel - any person to kill their child, absent the previously granted condition of genuine self-defense from grievous injury or death. It does not compel anyone to do anything; if nothing at all is done, the child lives, and I will be perfectly satisfied with that. The child can be adopted the day of birth, for all I would care, as long as no person deliberately terminated the child's existence. You might say that I would 'compel' the woman to carry the child, but that is incorrect; the sequence that creates life is not compelled, but it has already begun. Human beings start as a bunch of cells. That bunch of cells is nevertheless a unique human life at the very beginning of its journey.
I won't even begin to engage in the cynical game of measuring viability. How would you appreciate someone evaluating whether it is convenient to have you live? This is a human life we are talking about.
I do begin to see the difference in our basic assumptions. I believe that liberty, far from being a mere political system, is actually built in to the very constitution and definition of a human being. The yearning for liberty is contained even within those few cells, waiting to be expressed. Man is meant to be free - is this not universally accepted among libertarians?
She retains all rights to her & her/childs body.
Can you not see the parallel to slavery? This statement says that one human owns another human being. I believe that, in the future, abortion will be viewed by historians with equal horror as is held now about the practice of slavery. I cannot see this as compatible with any tenet of libertarianism. In what other case does a libertarian say someone owns someone else?
Regarding the Supreme Court's definitions:
I'll settle for the one our USSC uses.
Well, this is an authority that you are relying on. I doubt very many libertarians really approve of the recent record of the Supreme Court, however. They approve of the War on Drugs, they approved of government bodies deciding between equal citizens on the basis of race... this is not a record of perfect libertarianism that one can take as authority.
"It is morally criminal because it is murder." I stand by that. Moral means behavior which favors survival; this is the purpose of moral codes. One need not accept a moral code to value survival. (This is why we have the words immoral, to describe behavior that favors death, and amoral, which is behavior indifferent to survival, rather than just one antonym for 'moral'.) Respecting life, noting that a man cannot take another man's life, this is different qualitatively than declaring Sharia and lopping off heads (the phantom strawman you imply lurks in the background). I do not rely on the authority of any code or counsel, but offer a reasonable explanation about why a person that values liberty should abhor abortion.
If it is I that is authoritarian, what then is the authority that I have relied upon to you in making this case? (You have relied on the Supreme Court, a dubious candidate at best; remove the possiblity of impeachment and they would wield an absolute dicatorship. This is by definition authoritarian.)
Prohibition and compulsion are two separate things. Compel means 'to force [to do something]'. Prohbit means 'to prevent [from doing something]'. There is nothing that I would force anyone to do.
Your hoped for unconstitutional 'laws' would force women to term in unintended pregnancies.
I would forbid - not compel - any person to kill their child, absent the previously granted condition of genuine self-defense from grievous injury or death.
Killing a child, murder, ~is~ already forbidden everywhere in the US. Early term abortion is not the murder of a 'child'.
It does not compel anyone to do anything; if nothing at all is done, the child lives, and I will be perfectly satisfied with that. The child can be adopted the day of birth, for all I would care, as long as no person deliberately terminated the child's existence. You might say that I would 'compel' the woman to carry the child,
Yep, you advocate that government compel others in order to be "satisfied with that".
but that is incorrect; the sequence that creates life is not compelled, but it has already begun. Human beings start as a bunch of cells. That bunch of cells is nevertheless a unique human life at the very beginning of its journey.
Not at issue.
I won't even begin to engage in the cynical game of measuring viability. How would you appreciate someone evaluating whether it is convenient to have you live? This is a human life we are talking about.
Cynical emotional appeal
I do begin to see the difference in our basic assumptions. I believe that liberty, far from being a mere political system, is actually built in to the very constitution and definition of a human being. The yearning for liberty is contained even within those few cells, waiting to be expressed. Man is meant to be free - is this not universally accepted among libertarians?
Liberty is indeed built into our Constitution. - Even for a pregnant woman.
She retains all rights to her & her/childs body.
Can you not see the parallel to slavery? This statement says that one human owns another human being.
She does own that life within her. It is an inseparable part of her till viability.
I believe that, in the future, abortion will be viewed by historians with equal horror as is held now about the practice of slavery. I cannot see this as compatible with any tenet of libertarianism. In what other case does a libertarian say someone owns someone else?
Pregnancy is a unique case.
Regarding the Supreme Court's definitions:
I'll settle for the definition of viablity our USSC uses.
Well, this is an authority that you are relying on. I doubt very many libertarians really approve of the recent record of the Supreme Court, however. They approve of the War on Drugs, they approved of government bodies deciding between equal citizens on the basis of race... this is not a record of perfect libertarianism that one can take as authority.
'Viablity' stands as a valid term in the issue.
"It is morally criminal because it is murder." I stand by that. Moral means behavior which favors survival; this is the purpose of moral codes. One need not accept a moral code to value survival. (This is why we have the words immoral, to describe behavior that favors death, and amoral, which is behavior indifferent to survival, rather than just one antonym for 'moral'.) Respecting life, noting that a man cannot take another man's life, this is different qualitatively than declaring Sharia and lopping off heads (the phantom strawman you imply lurks in the background). I do not rely on the authority of any code or counsel, but offer a reasonable explanation about why a person that values liberty should abhor abortion.
You would impose your moral code on others, in the name of liberty..
If it is I that is authoritarian, what then is the authority that I have relied upon to you in making this case?
Your Gods? Your inate moral superiority? You tell me..
(You have relied on the Supreme Court, a dubious candidate at best;
Nope, I rely on our constitution. Pregnant women have liberties. Early term abortion is one of their liberties.
remove the possiblity of impeachment and they would wield an absolute dicatorship. This is by definition authoritarian.)
Do you really think that if the USSC ruled our RKBA's is NOT an individual right, and the government backed them, that the people of the US would bow to this 'dictatorship'? Get a grip.
To: MHGinTN
For the "viability" argument to logically hold water, a mother would have the "right" to abandon her child any time it became inconvenient, even if no one wanted it, even if it meant the kid would die of exposure.
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.
-- 1) Capable of living, developing, or germinating under favorable conditions.Very few of us are viable on our own, without help from others. That's why we developed civilization in the first place, to create favorible conditions for live.
Free Republic chat server is open at http://chat.agitator.dynip.com, if anyone wants to discuss this issue.
There are no rights, only traditions respected by the community.
That's surprising coming from you JohnGalt, I thought you were a libertarian.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.