Posted on 05/20/2002 2:51:41 PM PDT by dubyajames
Abortion and Libertarianism: A Conclusion
by W. James Antle III
The abortion debate needn't be an endless rehashing of political minutiae when it can serve as an occasion for reexamining libertarian first principles. It touches on humanity as the basis for individual rights and the prohibition against initiatory violence.
Libertarians reject aggression against other human beings, including lethal violence against the innocent. But some defend the killing of fetuses on the grounds that the fetus is a potential rather than actual human being, a human going to be rather than a human being as William Westmiller would say.
Those making this argument fail to show the biological, genetic or ontological difference between what kind of being the fetus is and what kind of being a newborn is. Certainly birth is a monumental event. But the being that was born is the same being that was in the womb just moments before -- what miraculous change in its fundamental nature takes place simply due to the trip down the birth canal? If the development of the fetus is uninterrupted, it is an essential part of its nature to make this journey. Developmentally, it seems more accurate to say that the fetus is a potential infant in the same sense that an infant is a potential toddler or adolescent. A new being is not formed, but one organism reaches a new stage of development.
Skin cells contain human life. So do gametes. But neither have the potential to become a complete human being on their own. At conception or the simulation thereof that is cloning, a self-contained, distinct physical organism comes into existence that, unless interrupted, will actively develop into the various more mature stages of the life of a member of the human species. Sperm, eggs and somatic cells will not.
One can say that they have fertilized eggs but only became a father upon their children's birth. But the act of fertilizing the eggs was a necessary prerequisite of that person's fatherhood and if any of those specific fertilized eggs had not been allowed to continue developing, the specific children that this father has would not be here today. That clearly shows an individuated being. We were all once fetuses and if we had been killed as fetuses, we would no more be in existence as the individuals we are today than if we had died as infants or teen- agers.
Sapience may be one of the characteristics that makes the human species unique, but it does not define an individual's membership in that species. Humans have the capacity to reason, but even after birth this capacity is not always actualized (infants, the severely disabled, the comatose). Some mock the claim that a fetus has any rights by pointing to the absurd spectacle of fetuses exercising their rights to bear firearms, own businesses or come up with innovative ideas. But it would be equally absurd to imagine an infant doing any of those things, yet few (Peter Singer comes to mind as an exception) would endorse killing infants. Why? Because we know infants are humans and as they continue to develop cognitively, humans have the capacity for all of these things. Humans have inherent worth on the basis of their humanity, which in turn is the basis of all rights -- the intrinsic value that necessitates individual autonomy.
Reason makes human beings different from other animal-organisms, but this does not imply some sort of soul-body duality. We are essentially animal-organisms, we don't inhabit organisms, and we thus come to be when the organism that we are comes to be.
Mr. Westmiller chides abortion opponents for divorcing the birth of new people from the "disgustingly pleasurable sexual act" that creates them. Yet it is his position that actually does that. This sexual act is in fact what produces the being that leaves the womb at birth -- there could be no birth if the being was not already in the womb. It is this sexual act that creates the parental responsibility. The stork does not bring new babies; the sexual choices of free men and women do. We recognize that because of this act parents have an obligation to provide support for their children and not evict them from the crib and let them die. Logically, it is untenable to suggest that no responsibility exists until the being they have brought into existence leaves the birth canal. Nor will it do to suggest this somehow implies that people have no recourse against sexual mistakes. It is simply the case that such recourses must stop short of intentionally causing the death of another human being that came about not by its own will, but by the voluntary actions of its parents.
What about rape? Many pro-choicers hold the confused view that if fetuses are to have any rights, then they must have more rights than other human beings. They can be forgiven for this because many pro- lifers seem to share this illogical notion. If human beings can legitimately be killed in self-defense, fetuses are no different. This case can be made in instances of rape, when the mother did not consent to the act that imposes parental obligations, and it is unassailable in instances when the mother's life is endangered. Where it is not legitimate is in the estimated 98 percent of the more than 1 million abortions that take place annually in the United States which are purely elective.
This misconception also explains the fear of "fetus cops." Simply because a few deranged child-welfare bureaucrats believe that preventing every possible parental activity that may place a child at even the most miniscule risk warrants unprecedented state intervention in every home does not mean the proper libertarian response is to proclaim a parental right to beat, torture and kill children. Similarly, just because regulation of every act by a pregnant woman that might conceivably put some fetus at risk would be undesirable does not mean that there is a right to destroy that fetus for any reason or no reason whatsoever. Reasonable distinctions can also be made between serving as governor of Massachusetts and delivering a crack baby.
A pro-life libertarianism respects the individual from the moment that the specific organism that each of us are comes into existence. Such libertarianism isn't contradictory, for it recognizes the rights of every human being, foremost the right to life. Government cannot "solve" the abortion issue. But libertarians must ask if an abortion right gives license to initiatory violence. If so, libertarians must not abort the basis of their own movement.
W. James Antle III is a freelance writer and former researcher for a political consulting firm. He is a senior writer for Enter Stage Right and staff columnist for several other webzines.
That's for sure.
He should be laughing at you. After all, clowns make people laugh.
You said:
You guys never tire of trying to link a philosophy with a political party.
I said:
"So, if I understand you right, libertarians, have nothing in common with the Libertarian Party."
You said:
As usual you don't understand right.
LMAO You're hillarious!
I said:
"Hmmm. And I suppose, in your world, republicans have nothing in common with the Republican Party and democrats, have nothing in common with the Democratic Party."
You said:
Very little.
You can't be serious. No one could be that, out of touch with political reality.
Are you saying that republicans don't belong to other political parties beside the Republican Party? Or that democrats are not found in other political parties than the Democratic Party? Or that the overriding thing that makes Republicans different than others is that they believe in republicanism? Or the overriding thing about Democrats is that they believe in Democracy?
For voting purposes, an individual can only have one politcal affiliation. Personally, I don't know any republican, who is a member in good standing with the Democratic Party, or visa-versa, while holding onto their original political affiliation. I knew a few republicans who joined the Reform Party, so they could vote for the "Little General" and I know some democrats, who switched to the Republican Party back in 1980, to vote for Ronald Reagan. Btw, they're still Republican Party members too. But in 35 years of political involvement, I've never seen the type of political crossovers, you're talking about. Never! I think you better get a better understanding of what a political independent and a moderate are.
The basic problem you and some other folks have, is that, for all intents and purposes, there are no differences between republicans and democrats, or their political parties. That's simply not true and a read of their platforms indicates clear political differences. You're trying to establish a set of facts, that have nothing to do with reality and is little more then shallow attempts to ridicule those of us, who are republicans and proud to be members of the Republican Party. Nailed you, bucko!
More convoluted reasoning from the mind of a libertarian. You still don't understand politics and acting like a fool on this public forum, does you no good in my eyes.
He should be laughing at you.
I'm not a Libertarian.
Libertarians admittedly aren't always funny. Look at Bill Maher.
No one will ever be accused of getting you confused with a libertarian. You are an authoritarian. It's a clown that you ARE.
Libertarians admittedly aren't always funny. Look at Bill Maher.
He's no more a libertarian that you are. But you both ARE clowns.
(Not to mention a liar because you know Bill Maher is not a libertarian.)
Main Entry:
1re·pub·li·can
Pronunciation: ri-'p&-bli-k&n
Function: noun
Date: 1697
1 : one that favors or supports a republican form of government
Main Entry: dem·o·crat
Pronunciation: 'de-m&-"krat
Function: noun
Date: 1740
1 a : an adherent of democracy b : one who practices social equality
You have made a fool of yourself, but it is not the first time.
Ignorance and Libertarianism, soup and sandwich.
The sharp-witted host of ABC's "Politically Incorrect" has mentioned his interest in libertarian ideas many times on the show, and has had prominent libertarians -- including David Boaz, Charles Murray, Harry Browne, and Russell Means -- as guests.http://www.self-gov.org/maher.htmlQuotable:
From the November 12th 1997 "Politically Incorrect," speaking to guest David Boaz (Cato Institute vice president and author of Libertarianism: A Primer):
"Well, our theme today seems to be just how much the government should stick their nose in what we do, which is appropriate, because, David, you're one of our leading libertarians. I count myself as a libertarian, also."
He can count himself as anything he wants but that won't make it so. You count yourself as human, I rest my case.
Willful ignorance is ignorance still.
I don't see Maher's name there.
Boaz has been on Rush Limbaugh's show, does that make Rush a libertarian?
Is Ron Paul a libertarian?
Ah, it must have been the other "sharp-witted host of ABC's Politically Incorrect."
Nice try at dodging. You listed names of people that a website called libertarians. His name isn't there. Are you as slow witted as you seem?
You forgot to answer these questions.
While not a libertarian, but deciededly against the Roe v. Wade inspired abortion industry, I'm glad to see voices in the libertarian community coming out against abortion. You make your case on libertarian principles as you see them. Other libertarians make the opposite case on alleged libertarian principles as well, and I am sure they can make a fair go of it for some in their audience. Republicans have the same problem, and they don't even have the shared common philosophy the libertarians have, but instead stand only as a pragmatic coalition of politcal party.
We also see quite good logic and principle cited by Pro Life individuals with great basis in religion, ethics and natural law.
What we seldom see however are the great arguments and logic put forth by Robert Bork in The Tempting of America. Within that book he talks about how the process of our government was perverted from legitamacy in the Roe v. Wade decision and therefore legitamacy will never be obtained on the path we are now on.
Only in going back to the process and how it was or wasn't perverted by judicial activism, will this issue be settled in a manner that all sides will consider legitament, even when not wholey satisfactory in the view of some. It was that way in Civil Rights legislation which became a largely settled matter, and it must be that way in this issue as well.
I wish to see the matter settled on a constitutional, legislative and legal basis, not on a basis founded only on liberal, leftist, conservative, libertarian, Libertarian, or Republican principles...only then can we advance beyond the social fight over Roe v. Wade.
No matter how dumb you look, you keep trying to wiggle out of your inane comments.
Just forget all the fluff and obfuscation,
Are you trying to make the case that anyone who says they are a libertarian is one? Or a Republican? Or a Democrat?
Yes or no.
Some issues can be very complex and difficult, and principled people can have honest differences and come to different conclusions. Or they may be torn by conflicting arguments so that they have not yet made up their minds, or they may be open to counter-arguments that could change their minds.
Abortion is one of those difficult issues: Is the fetus a separate human being, so that aborting it is murder and hence a violation of the principle of non-initiation of force? And if so, is that true for the entire period of gestation from conception to birth, or only beyond some point in the fetus' development? To what extent is the mother responsible for nurturing the fetus if it was involuntarily conceived (e.g., rape)? What if the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother? Or her health? And at what level of health risk could an abortion be justified even if the fetus is accorded the full rights of a human being?
When an issue is not clear-cut and there is considerable dispute, then it is perfectly reasonable for a political party to leave it as an open question which requires further debate and analysis. That's why the Libertarian Party requires a two-thirds vote of convention delegates to amend or adopt a Platform plank, but only a majority vote to delete a Platform plank. The Libertarian Party's Platform represents those issue positions upon which there is broad agreement among libertarians. Where such agreement is lacking, the Platform is either silent (e.g., the death penalty) or limited in its scope (e.g., abortion).
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.