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]

The table is set... I am eager to hear what you have to say.

[TrappedInLiberalHell]

I contend a true libertarian cannot be pro-life, tpaine believes libertarianism supports abortion rights

Those two positions are identical. Did you mean to say 'a true libertarian cannot be pro-choice'?

[thoughtomator]

Doh okay maybe I'm too tired to start this debate tonight...

I meant to say that I think libertarians must be pro-life.

[thoughtomator]

Can you please change the original post as per #4

[Admin Moderator]

Fixed.

[neb52]

I am not a Libertarian, but to cite CATO and Neil Boortz, they believe that abortion should be left up to the woman/family and that government should stay out. CATO's report on abortion does support laws to curb abortions, such as parental notification, etc.

[tpaine]

#72: Schwarzenegger's campaign accounts $2.4 million in red ^

__________________________________________

To: narses
It's a yoke narses..

Find somewhere to buy yourself a sense of humor.. -- And a copy of our constitution.

72 posted on 09/26/2003 8:30 PM PDT by tpaine ( I'm trying to be Mr Nice Guy, but politics keep getting in me way. ArnieRino for Governator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

______________________________________


To: tpaine
Yeah, drugs, whores and dead babies, great material for a stand up comic.

74 posted on 09/26/2003 8:32 PM PDT by narses ("The do-it-yourself Mass is ended. Go in peace" Francis Cardinal Arinze of Nigeria)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

______________________________________


To: tpaine
Tpaine, you need to brush up some yourself on founding documents.

Remember this little gem?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."


[1]- Libertarianism and abortion are incompatible on the most fundamental level.

[2]- The first of all rights you must respect, if you wish to emerge from a Hobbesian state of war, is the right to life.

[3]- Notice that these rights are endowed by the Creator, not the government.

[4]- Once a life is created, no self-respecting libertarian can countenance its termination, pre or post birth.

207 -t mator-

_____________________________________

Mator, - you 'set' the table with your 4 claims above. -- Address them with supporting facts, then I'll respond.

And, - I'll correct your opening supposition:

"tpaine believes [our constitution] supports abortion rights."

[thoughtomator]

Fair enough.

[1] Libertarianism and abortion are incompatible at the most fundamental level.

Libertarianism is a political philosophy in which liberty should be maximized; history shows that human beings are happiest and most propserous when they are free. This much I think we will agree. Liberty is the freedom to act in any manner one sees fit that does not infringe upon the equal liberty of others.

The life cycle of a human being begins at conception - this is biological fact and not open to interpretation. Human beings are created by no other process.

Of natural, inalienable rights, the highest is the right to life; without life, no other right can exist. Other inalienable rights support the right to life, such as the right to self-defense. If you have no right to live, then the right to self-defense cannot be asserted, as it would be nonsensical in such a context.

[2]- The first of all rights you must respect, if you wish to emerge from a Hobbesian state of war, is the right to life.

I've largely answered this in the previous paragraphs. To elaborate I will discuss the significance of the Hobbesian state of war.

Hobbes' state of war is that of complete anarchy; it is the natural state of a human being in the absence of any social compact. In this state of war, all recourse to violence is equally legitimate; since there is no law, there is no injunction against violence. It is undesirable to be in this state because in it, life is "nasty, brutish, and short". The first, and necessary step, for human beings to emerge from this state of war is for each human being to relinquish his recourse to violence against others, in exchange for others to relinquish their recourse to violence against him. This is the right to life - the right not to be murdered by another human being, and it is the basis of every free system of government.

[3]- Notice that these rights are endowed by the Creator, not the government.

One need not have any religious preference to support this statement. The relevance of this statement to secular government is to place inalienable rights outside the realm of government, as they must be if the men ruled by that government are free and not slaves. One need not believe in a Creator to see the wisdom of inalienable rights existing regardless of government, since even a non-religious view of inalienable rights derives them from the natural essence and constitution of the human being.


[4]- Once a life is created, no self-respecting libertarian can countenance its termination, pre or post birth.


Thus, having established the inalienable nature of the right to life, as a necessary precondition of the emergence of the Hobbesian state of war; and also having shown through irrefutable biological science that life begins at conception; knowing that a life conceived is unique, as evidenced by its unique DNA; it therefore follows that the right to life exists at the moment of conception.

Noting that inalienable rights do not compel any other human to act, but rather compel him to refrain from acting in a way that infringes upon the rights of others, I continue, that the right to life compels others not to perform any act intended to end a human life other than in the context of a Hobbesian state of war.

Thus, if there is to be any respect for the right to life, it is therefore necessary to compel individuals to respect that right, and thus, abortion, which is explicitly intended to end another human life, cannot be countenanced by any free people.


Such is the libertarian case against abortion; if to be libertarian is in fact to respect the liberty of others.

[GovernmentShrinker]

As long a fetus is dependent on the mother for survival, liberty requires that the mother be free to do with it as she pleases. Forcing someone to undertake inconvenience, effort, discomfort, or expense on behalf of another is the antithesis of liberty. The theory on which the "pro-lifers" insist that women must be forced to do these things in order for the fetus to survive, is the same theory under which socialists and communists insist that the more able people in society should be forced to subsidize the less able, so that, for example, crack whores and gangbangers get the same standard of medical care as engineers and bankers, and profoundly retarded children get extravagantly expensive "special education" programs (while bright children have to make do with the standard public school assembly line). It may be a very virtuous thing for the well-off to CHOOSE to expend their surplus resources on helping others, but it is not virtuous for government to force them to do so -- in fact it is slavery.

[tpaine]

REPUBLICAN LIBERTY CAUCUS POSITION STATEMENT
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-rlc/721810/posts


What is the RLC's position on abortion?

Neutral. We have both pro-lifers to pro-choicers, and in between. As far as libertarian groups go, you'll find that we are probably the most tolerant of the pro-life viewpoint. Our immediate past chairman, Cong. Ron Paul (R-TX, 14th Dist.) is very pro-life. Many other members are pro-choice. As libertarians, we oppose Federal funding of abortion under any circumstances.

It is not a litmus test, and it is not an issue that is often debated internally. However, the California RLC website www.LibertyCaucus.org, has sponsored a debate on the issue between two prominent members.

[thoughtomator]

Your arguments are very similar to those of Prof. Peter Singer, who argues that parents should have the right to kill dependent children, because of that same dependence, that the child cannot survive independently.

Contrary to your assertion, it is not antithetical to liberty to 'force' a mother not to kill her child. A mother has chosen by her own free will to undertake the acts of which pregnancy is a result - there is no compulsion to get pregnant. Once she is pregnant, however, there are now two lives to be considered, not just one, both are human, and both in a free society must have their inalienable rights protected.

[thoughtomator]

Admin, if it is not too much trouble, can you please again correct the original post so that it accurately reflects tpaine's opening position: "tpaine believes [our constitution] supports abortion rights."

Thanks again.

[MayDay72]

'Is Libertarianism properly in favor or against legal abortion? [...] I contend a true libertarian must be pro-life [...]' -thoughtomator

I don't think that this issue needs to be a 'litmus test' for individuals to wear the label 'libertarian'. A 'libertarian' argument could be made from either direction ['pro-life' or 'pro-choice']. However, if I were forced to choose which argument was the strongest [and therfore more 'libertarian'] I would choose the 'pro-life' side.

The more traditional 'libertarian' agrument [in favor of 'abortion rights'] is based on the right of a woman to make her own decisions about her body without the interference of the state in a personal matter. This is a simple argument based on traditional libertarian priciples such as non-initiation of force, self ownership, and limiting the scope of the state in 'victimless' acts.

This is all well and good as long as you view only the [potential] mother as the only concerned party in the matter. However, if there is any possibility that the fetus is indeed a human life [rather than just a collection of inconvenient cells] then the matter gets rather more complex.

If we are indeed dealing with an unborn human life then the woman seeking a abortion is actually initiating force upon another individual [the unborn baby]. In this case the unborn child is also protected by the right of self ownership. This would also mean that the abortion is not a 'victimless act' since the unborn child would be protected by the same rights as the woman.

Please note that I do not pretend to know at what point in development a simple collection of cells becomes a [legally protected] human. I don't personally agree with some in the 'pro-life' camp that this [legally protected status] occurs at the moment of conception. However, I am at odds with many in the 'pro-choice' camp that do not recognize the child as having any rights until the moment of birth.

As a 'libertarian' I believe that the most important role and only legitimate use for the state is to prevent the initiation of force [or coercion, or fraud] against individuals. I think that no matter how this issue is approached that someone will complain that their rights are not being properly protected. So I would argue that the rights of the unborn child trump those of the woman seeking the abortion. If we are incorrect in this matter [using the state to prevent abortions] then we are simply preventing the woman access to a medical procedure. We should error on the 'safe' side and prevent any possibility of one individual from taking the life of another [if it can be prevented] since this is where the greater danger lies.

[GovernmentShrinker]

Children who have already been born can survive with help from parties other than the mother. If those parties wish to provide the help, then more power to them, but they should not be forced. As long as the mother is the only person who can help the fetus, she may choose to do so, but should not be forced.

[GovernmentShrinker]

A mother has chosen by her own free will to undertake the acts of which pregnancy is a result - there is no compulsion to get pregnant.

Not necessarily. And when you rely on this, you are implying that if she became pregnant by means of rape of incest, then she should be free to have an abortion. But then that position doesn't square with the notion that an embryo or fetus is a full-fledged human person, entitled to protection at the expense of an unwilling mother.

[thoughtomator]

Children who are sufficiently developed but not yet born may also be supported by others by way of medical technology, yet under the law, such a child, before birth, can legally be assassinated by a doctor.

But I have a problem with even the 'supported by others' statement. Which other? And how? What if there is no other willing to support the child? Would you advocate the government force someone to support the child, or alternatively, force taxpayers to finance the government's support of a child, or alternatively, allow the abandonment of children, so that they might live or die as nature would have it?

I do not speak of forcing any woman to do anything. I do not advocate forced pregnancy. She has freely chosen to undertake the act that created a new human life.

To cut to the chase, at what point do you believe that a human being is invested with his natural and inalienable rights?

[thoughtomator]

With regards to situations of rape and incest pregnancies: rape is indeed a special case, since the mother has not freely chosen the act that leads to the creation of new life. In the case of incest, this is not generally true, rather only where the incest is actually rape rather than consensual, in which case it would properly be considered under whatever solution is arrived at for rape-pregnancy.

Of the 45 million aborted pregnancies since Roe v. Wade, a very small number of them are actually due to rape. Since we are considering the general case, any modifications we find to be just in the case of a rape are not generally applicable, and are in fact a completely separate discussion.

[MayDay72]

'As long as the mother is the only person who can help the fetus, she may choose to do so, but should not be forced.' -GovernmentShrinker

There is an important difference in this matter between knowingly initiating deadly force and refusing life-saving resources. If I met a starving man on the street I could refuse to give him food or money. However, If I shot him with a gun this would be a different matter.

'Contrary to your assertion, it is not antithetical to liberty to 'force' a mother not to kill her child.' -thoughtomator

I agree. My point exactly.

[tpaine]

Thus, having established the inalienable nature of the right to life,

Not at issue.

as a necessary precondition of the emergence of the Hobbesian state of war;

Libertarians are not anarchists.

and also having shown through irrefutable biological science that life begins at conception;

'Bio life' does not trump the rights of the mother.. See post #10

knowing that a life conceived is unique, as evidenced by its unique DNA;

Not at issue.

it therefore follows that the right to life exists at the moment of conception.

Not so. The legal consequenses of such a theory would be ludicrous. -- In effect, all fertile females from conception to viablity could be charged with murder for aborting..

Noting that inalienable rights do not compel any other human to act, but rather compel him to refrain from acting in a way that infringes upon the rights of others,

You are begging the question that the mothers non-viable baby has inalienable rights, separate from its mother. They cannot be separated. Thus, the mothers rights are inalienable.

I continue, that the right to life compels others not to perform any act intended to end a human life other than in the context of a Hobbesian state of war.

Defense of your own life and body is not anarchy, -- "a Hobbesian state of war".

Thus, if there is to be any respect for the right to life, it is therefore necessary to compel individuals to respect that right,

Hobson's choice. A dilemma.. How to "compel" liberty? I choose the womans freedom over a states compulsory 'laws'.. In fact, I contend the state has been given no power to compel in this issue.
Before viablity, abortion is not a criminal act.

and thus, abortion, which is explicitly intended to end another human life, cannot be countenanced by any free people.

Free people cannot countenace governmental powers that intrude upon an individuals life & liberty to this extent. The enforcement of such prohibitory laws violate our basic constitutional principles.

Such is the libertarian case against abortion; if to be libertarian is in fact to respect the liberty of others.

I find your case more authoritarian than libertarian.