Abortion and Rights: Applying Libertarian Principles Correctly

Libertarians for Life ^ | Doris Gordon

[fod]

fyi bump for your education

[gjenkins]

Great article. You know, Ron Paul just gets better and better.

[jlogajan]

it shows why libertarian principles apply to human beings from conception

I'm afraid that's about as convincing as Ayn Rand's proofs that tap dancing was a superior form of art.

[Elihu Burritt]

In almost all human affairs, your right to do anything with your own body ends when your actions affect the same right of another person, or the body of that person.

[fod]

fine, as long as we realize life ("that other's body") begins conception

[lavaroise]

This article does not approach the population theme. What about simply say that to heal, one must study healing, and hence one must not kill the sick or the healthy, but one must find a cure. I agree that pregnancy is a blessing as well as a health problem (as stated to Eve in the Bible by the way), but to find a cure to pregnancy, killing the feotus violate hypocrat's principles that are fundamental to not only mere non-agression, but to improvement of medicine. Yes, sadly, medicine improves when treatments are tried on people. Killing is not an option, suffering is the only path.

As from a religious point of view, abortion is repulsive to God. Worse, abortion is a resort to secular powers of killing, an enslavement, not an emancipated act (contrary to what feminists believe) that balances the forces of governance. For instance, any person condemned or punished should undergo a trial before, why can't feotuses be given the right to a trial, to public scrutiny? Why does it have to be a completely private matter?

[Elsie]

Which has more right to life?

A human fetus...........
or......
A bald eagle one?

[CounterCounterCulture]

BUMP for later viewing.

Thanks for the post.

[FourtySeven]

Sadly, this post does not resolve the conflict between the mother's rights, and the unborn's right in every case of pregnancy since ...

"Still, Objectivism denies that child support is slavery. In discussing born children, Nathaniel Branden, when he was Rand's closest associate, wrote, "The key to understanding the nature of parental obligation lies in the moral principle that human beings must assume responsibility for the consequences of their actions." He did not explain exactly why we must. Yet he was correct to insist that "the basic necessities of food, clothing, etc.," are the child's "by right."

...does not address any case where a woman is raped, and pregancy is the result. Clearly, it was not her action that resulted in the pregnancy, thus she has no responsibility, by this argument above, to the fetus.

Note, simply saying that she was "there" for the rape, so that's an "action" on her part is ludicrous, as I'm sure anyone who thinks about it can see.

[fod]

Sorry this was not comprehensive enough, try this: Abortion in the Case of Pregnancy Due to Rape

[Free the USA]

FYI

[Free the USA]

bump

[toenail]

I wish like hell that the LP was explicitly pro-life. The L4L'ers are a fine group, but with the LP's pro-abort plank, many will simply not support the LP.

[Alas]

No one has the right to murder a baby in the womb!

[Bonaparte]

Pro-abortionists contend that the "right" to kill her unborn baby is implicit in a woman's right to control her body. But if a third party kicks her in the abdomen, killing that baby, she has been deprived of her right to give birth to that baby, ie. to control her own body. What penalty would pro-aborts prescribe for such an offense? By their reasoning, the assailant should only be charged with something like strong-armed robbery or, at most, mayhem, since a developing human being in its mother's womb is (to them) nothing but the mother's personal property or, at most, a part of her body. But all biologists identify an unborn child as belonging to the human species, homo sapiens. And how can an unborn child, being a member of the human species, be legally defined as property? It is against the law to hold a member of the human species as chattel. But what about mayhem, ie. depriving another of the use of a body part necessary for survival or self-defense? This also fails to apply, since a baby in the womb is necessary neither to a woman's survival or self-defense -- in fact, he is often a hindrance to both. Indeed, nowhere in the literature of biology is he defined or referred to as a "body part," but rather as a separate entity of his own, dependant for a limited time on his mother, for nourishment and protection -- specifically, a young organism in the early stages of development, not an "organ." You see the difficulty here? Unless the pro-aborts recognize what biology recognizes, that an unborn child is a human organism, there is no criminal charge to which his killer can be held liable.

BTW, twenty-four states now agree with my reasoning and will try such an assailant for the crime of murder, ie. the taking of an innocent human life.

My question to the pro-aborts on this thread is --

Why is the taking of an innocent human life murder when committed by a passing stranger, but is not murder when committed by that developing human being's mother?

Unless a pro-abort is prepared to argue what no biologist will or is prepared to argue for the legitimacy of human chattel, they will be hard put to come up will a reasonable reply to this question.

[k2blader]

I wish like hell that the LP was explicitly pro-life. The L4L'ers are a fine group, but with the LP's pro-abort plank, many will simply not support the LP.

Often enough, I feel the same about the GOP.

[jla]

Sorry this was not comprehensive enough, try this: Abortion in the Case of Pregnancy Due to Rape

And you have just touched on what I believe to be the biggest pitfall of the Pro-Lifers...rape & incest.
Millions, myself included, find abortion abhorrent. And it's agreed by the aforementioned that life begins at conception; that this life is indeed precious.
So, how come the proviso appears in the great majority of Conservative and/or Republican opinions on abortion that outlaw it except in the case of rape or incest? Wouldn't terminating a birth brought about by rape or incest put them in the same league as the Pro-Choicers? Wouldn't this be an unwanted pregnancy?

Abortion is vile, and it's certainly inhumane. A lot of us can easily agree on that. The hard part is remembering that in cases of rape or incest.
I know I struggle with it, as have many well-intentioned Conservatives.

[toenail]

In the case of incest, who usually takes the girl to the abortionist? The man who molested her. Abortionists are an incestuous man's best friend -- they can hide the crime and revert the girl back to a sex toy.