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.

[Liberal Classic]

Point 1: There are no 'true' libertarian any more than there are 'true' conservatives. Rational people can politely disagree on some issues while remaining in agreement on others, and all the while remaining conservative or libertarian. There are as many differences between individual conservatives as there are between libertarians and conservatives as a whole. There are moderates and extremists, radicals and stuffy old traditionalists in every political party. Likewise there are always a few nuts. This seems to be one of the constants of human nature.

Correlary to point 1: Claiming that one follows the 'one and only true' way of politics is likely to give the impression that one is not a rational and polite person but of the other variety.

Point 2: To paraphrase Jefferson, governments are instituted among men to secure unalienable rights such as that of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, among others. This is the whole of good government, and when it becomes destructive to these ends it is our right to change or abolish it altogether.

Correlary to point 2: One concludes that the government must not be destructive of life, and that a government which is destructive of the life, liberty, or the happiness of its people or other rights among them should be altered or abolished.

Point 3: Children are alive before they emerge from the womb. In the strict scientific sense, haploid cells are themselves discrete living organisms, however without the union of the male with the female haploid cell neither is or ever could be a person. After such a union though, the fertilized egg will with good fortune grow into an adult with the fullness of time. But it is important to note that any fertilized egg that is not a man will never grow into a man, and a fertilized egg of a horse will never grow into anything but a horse. A human egg after fertilization can be nothing at all but the human species, it will always be a human, and as all animals die it will always die as a human animal.

Given point 2 that government should not be destuctive of life and point 3 that children in the womb are alive, one must conclude at the very least that the government should not advocate or condone abortion in any way shape or form such as our government does now. There are always those people who believe the government should do more to facilitate the practice of abortion by paying for it through taxpayer funds, by secretly allowing minor female children to have the operation without parental concent. Those sorts of things the government must equivically not do.

How far the government should go in discouraging the practice of abortion is open to some debate. Those people who do not believe that life exists in the womb cannot agree that the government should not condone the practice at all. Those people see aboriton as nothing more than a form of hysterectomy. Why some people should protest hysterectomies is beyond them. However, I do not believe that there is only a woman's reproductive organs at stake in the practice. I know very well that an individual life is at stake. Rational people can disagree to the extent to which the government should act to oppose this practice, if all agree that the practice ends a life.

[Liberal Classic]

Since when are libertarians committed to non-violence? If rights are what we say they are, they are worth killing and dying to defend.

Those who refuse to support and defend a state have no claim to protection by that state. Killing an anarchist or a pacifist should not be defined as "murder" in a legalistic sense. The offense against the state, if any, should be "Using a deadly weapon inside city limits," or "Creating a traffic hazard," or "Endangering bystanders," or other misdemeanor. However, the state may reasonably place a closed season on these exotic asocial animals whenever they are in danger of becoming extinct.
-- Heinlein

[thoughtomator]

Ah close to my heart... a Heinlein libertarian!

[exodus]

thoughtomator - "Ending slavery was most certainly worth shedding blood to do"
JohnGalt - This line jumps out of me as it violates the libertarian non-violence principle.
*********************

The "non-violence" principle is just the moral decision to not infringe upon the Rights of others. It does not preclude violent defence of ourselves, our loved ones, our property, neighborhood, State, or nation.

It does not prevent armed rebellion against a tryannical government, as happened in the Revolution when we gained our independence, nor does it prevent the defense of our nation when attacked by a hostile enemy, which is what happened when the United States invaded the Confederacy.

[exodus]

To: Liberal Classic
Ah close to my heart... a Heinlein libertarian!
# 83 by thoughtomator
*********************

Heinlein should have started his own religious denomination.

I'd happily join his "cult."

[Liberal Classic]

I'd rather be a Heinlein libertarian than a Rand libertarian either way. :)

[tpaine]

I see that we will end up disagreeing based on our differing concepts of when and how a human being is invested with rights.
-thoughtomator-

Yep. -- 'We the people' made an agreement long ago that an individuals inalienable rights to life, liberty, & property were not to be violated.

It is constitutionally logical that a newly pregnant woman does not lose her rights as an individual at the instant of conception, just as it is logical that the potential child does not gain separate individual rights till viablity..

The dilemma of separating rights in inseparable bodies cannot be resolved.
If we must err it should be to the advantage of upholding the womans rights to her own life & liberty.

Decrees that early term abortion are criminal murder would violate our constitution. State laws 'regulating' early abortion would violate individual rights in being enforced.

Thus, we cannot infringe upon a pregnant womans rights without violating our own constitution. I'll stand with it.

[JohnGalt]

The libertarian princip of non-violence is not akin to pacificism; we all have a moral duty to defend our lives, property, and family.

The princip is that its immoral to compel others through violence to certain actions (like taxation to build an army and finance a war.)

[thoughtomator]

I don't find it at all logical that a child should not be considered to have rights until 'viability'. I find the entire concept of 'viability' to be cynically contrived precisely in order to deny the hard truth about what a human being actually is. A human being starts as a bunch of cells, and there is no reason that a human being at the beginning of its life should have any fewer rights than a human being at the end of its life. Life begins at conception; when we say we can judge whether a life is worthy to be free, it is a pretense to be God.

The whole point of freedom is that man himself is limited in the decisions he can make concerning another man. Deciding when that other man is worthy of life itself falls well outside those limits.

[JohnGalt]

I'm not a Rand libertarian; Rand supported supra-states to enforce her version of libertarianism. Most suspect it came from her reliance on Prussian theories on liberty--at least from the analysis I have read on her thought.

Randianism would make up the radical center of the current libertarian ideology; radical because of its support of state sponsored violence.

[JohnGalt]

So even when they are legislated away, or you are thrown in jail or your property seized when you exercise the right, you would declare that you still have the right?

In my opinion, that reduces rights to zero practical value, and makes rights strictly theoretical.

[exodus]

To: thoughtomator
The (non-violence) principle is that its immoral to compel others through violence to certain actions (like taxation to build an army and finance a war.)
*********************

Taxation is necessary, as is War.

Neither of those government powers violate freedom unless they're abused.

[Blood of Tyrants]

One of the basic tenants of the Libertarian philosophy is that one person's rights cannot override another person's rights. The right to live would seem to be a basic right to most people.

[exodus]

So even when they are legislated away, or you are thrown in jail or your property seized when you exercise the Right, you would declare that you still have the Right?
*********************

Yes, I would still have those "illegal" Rights, no matter how many laws are made against them.

The Rights would be infringed by a tyranny, not abolished.

[JohnGalt]

Taxation to the DC-tax regime is hardly necessary; it is nothing more than extortion out of fear the IRS will take everything I own.

Can you name a tax you have ever paid voluntarily?

That you believe that taxation and war are necessary tells me that you grant some power to a supra-state, which would make you a left-libertarian.

Who is your libertarian thinker of choice?

[JohnGalt]

If you 'have' them but can not exercise them, you hold an abstract, not a piece of property or an institution.

[exodus]

In my opinion, (the fact that laws can be made prohibiting the exercise of Rights) reduces Rights to zero practical value, and makes rights strictly theoretical.
*********************

A practical example against that position is the fact that Congress can pass a law saying that only the color blue will be used in the sky, because blue skys make people happy.

People who mention the red and orange will be thrown in jail, but those colors will still be up there, no matter how strict the enforcement of the legislation.

[JohnGalt]

Congress passes absurd laws like that all the time which discredits their right to tax and make war on the face of it.

They can pass a law tomorrow saying its just fine and dandy for Heather to have two mommies; it doesn't change anything. They can even grant Heather's mommies the right to a state sanctioned marriage...so what? It's not a right the community I wish to live in would recognize.

[tpaine]

thoughtomator - "Ending slavery was most certainly worth shedding blood to do"

JohnGalt - This line jumps out of me as it violates the libertarian non-violence principle.

---

The "non-violence" principle is just the moral decision to not infringe upon the Rights of others. It does not preclude violent defence of ourselves, our loved ones, our property, neighborhood, State, or nation.
-exodus-

---

"It does not preclude violent defence of ourselves, our loved ones," --
Indeed it does not, and it would apply in this circumstance, imo:

-- My wife & I decide to abort her just discovered pregnancy. As we prepare to do so, the police enter our home to prevent us from doing so under our States new 'anti-abortion amendment'.

Do we have a right of self defence in this instance?

[exodus]

Taxation to the DC-tax regime is hardly necessary; it is nothing more than extortion out of fear the IRS will take everything I own.
*********************

Any tax is paid only because of fear. If people didn't fear punishment, no tax would be paid at all.

Taxation as it is today in our nation is excessive, confiscatory, and unfair.

We live in a tryannical Democracy, which violates the Constitution and the principle of the Rule of Law.