Now you've got it!
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.
Perhaps I miss your point.
In the efforts made to restore the Constitution to its rightful influence, I am glad that there are many people of divergent views seeing the merit to it as a primary goal in political life.
Care to make a wager? I'll prove that Sowell claims the label and if I do, you shut up, retract all of the nonsense you spout and promise to never post about libertarians again. You game goofy?
Thus, he explained that embedded within the common law is knowledge gained through a long history of trial and error. This insight led Hayek to the conclusion that law, like the market, is a "spontaneous" order-the result of human action, but not of human design.
Those revelations by Hayek are incompatible with Libertarianism, which is based on hubris, ignorance and open antagonism to concepts like prescription.
Perhaps Thomas Sowell gets included in the list of libertarians because he HAS claimed to be a libertarian. (What he's said he's NOT, is a "conservative.") (Heh, heh, heh!)
Q: I know you're usually referred to as a conservative. Do you think of yourself that way?
A: I don't. Because if by "conservative" you mean trying to preserve something from the past, I have no particular reason to do that. Right now, the public schools as they exist I would not want to conserve. There are other things I would want to conserve. But conserving something just because it's there has no appeal for me.
Q: What would your preferred label be?
A: I prefer not to have labels, but I suspect that "libertarian" would suit me better than many others, although I disagree with the libertarian movement on a number of things -- military preparedness, for instance.
Reviewer's note: Dr. Sowell appears misinformed on this issue. Libertarians have nothing against "military preparedness." It's the maintaining troops in 100 countries spread over the entire globe that Libertarians oppose.
Q: Is being a black libertarian tough? What are the assumptions people most often make about you?
A: Being a liberal or a conservative or a Marxist has never made that much difference in my life. I've never been someone who was courting popularity. I was a Marxist during the height of the McCarthy era.
Q: You do have a knack.
A: [Laughs.] I missed the trend.
Oops. Sorry, "Thomas." I didn't read this before I posted.
I thought it was particularly satisfying that Dr. Sowell said, "I'm not a conservative. That @#$% Roscoe is a conservative. I want to be a far from him on the political spectrum as I can get!" ;-)
Let's not talk about general principles. Let's talk about The Law (the Constitution).
The Constitution does not recognize anything that's not born as a "person." You have to be born to be a "person" under the Constitution, because the Constitution requires that the decadal Census count ALL "persons"...but the unborn have NEVER been counted. Ergo, they are not "persons." And they NEVER will be, unless the Constitution is changed. Since the unborn are NOT "persons," they have none of the rights of "persons" under the Constitution.
Libertarians reject aggression against other human beings, including lethal violence against the innocent.
THIS Libertarian only completely rejects aggression against other persons.
I was attempting to show, substantive links between political philosophies and political parties. Long winded? May be. Lack of understanding? You mean, like being a libertarian and not understanding what politics is all about? Is that the lack of understanding you're getting at?
Look, throwing down the gauntlet of dictionary definitions, is fine, but you have to back it up with some principled debate. You've not backed up your rhetoric with anything. What you have done, is cut and run.
I think its fair to say, the libertarian philosophy --- that upholds the principles of absolute and unrestricted liberty -- is at the heart of the Libertarian Party.
I think its fair to say, the republican philosophy --- a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens, entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law --- is at the heart of the Republican Party.
I think its fair to say, the democrat philosophy --- a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections --- is at the heart of the Democratic Party.
This doesn't mean that aspects of certain political philosophies, can't be found in other political philosophies, or other political platforms, for that matter. I just don't believe, that politics is the smorgasbord you're making it out to be. After all, aren't libertarians suppose to be above all else, political absolutists, or perhaps, that only applies, when its convenient for them to be.
Suffice it to say, I won't bother you with further "longwinded" communiques, at this time. Besides, that's standard fair around here. The ongoing political war between Republicans and Libertarians, republicans and libertarians, will continue here on FreeRepublic.
Next time though, bring something more to the debate, then just some dictionary definitions.
Libertarians can't help themselves. They're afflicted with the same know-it-all-bloviator gene that keeps Fidel Castro's jaws flapping for hours on end about nothing of significance.
It's "fair to say" if you're illiterate, or a damn liar.
I've already posted to you the Statement of Principles of the Libertarian Party, which make it very clear that Libertarians do NOT support "absolute and unrestricted liberty":
"We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose."
What part of that bolded clause do you not understand?
I'm neither "illiterate, or a damn liar". Watch them personal insults, boy. I was talking specifically about, the libertarian philosophy, which according to FReeper "Thomas Jefferson", is different then the political platform of the Libertarian Party. Of cousre, I don't agree.
It's not my problem, that you Libertarians/libertarians, can't stay on topic and disagree with each other so often.
You are illiterate, or a damn liar. This is EXACTLY what you wrote:
I think its fair to say, the libertarian philosophy --- that upholds the principles of absolute and unrestricted liberty -- is at the heart of the Libertarian Party.
I showed you--if you can read--that "absolute and unrestricted liberty is NOT "at the heart of the Libertarian Party."
Once again...put on your glasses, if you're having trouble:
"We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose."
That is most certainly NOT "absolute and unrestricted liberty."
Going through life, in the dark, seems like a habit you Libertarian/libertarians find hard to break. So be it.
Now you've got it!
I ACCEPT YOUR SURRENDER.
If you are capable of honest discourse and would like to differentiate yourself from dimwits like Roscoe and Kevvie boy and CJ, let me know.
There are plenty of concepts with which to disagree honestly. There is no need to make things up and discuss people instead of ideas. Or try to mislead people into thinking that libertarianism is something which it is not because they cannot debate the ideas themselves. These people are here to disrupt this site and for no other purpose, maybe you can rise above it.
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.