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.
Well done.
Did you pick up your gauntlet?
I will still try to get the quotations from A Conflict of Visions that I refered to earlier for you and those that asked for them...but my copy is 130 miles away, so it may take a few days, *grin*.
When you libertarians get above the political "Mendoza Line" of acceptance in America, look me up. Until then, the LP platform and the libertarian agenda will be nothing, but what its always been. An irrational and illogical, fringe, extremist, far fetched political agenda.
I suppose you will have further myopic rantings and incoherent rhetoric to spew my way. What else is new?!
"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."
So you post childish pictures. Not bad, for a conservative.
The LP platform states that "...individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose". That's just another way of saying, libertarians "support the principle of absolute and unrestricted liberty". I see no difference between the two. Such a concept is standard LP rhetoric and is nothing more then a support for chaos and anarchy. If you want to interpret it in your usual illogical manner, feel free.
As for debating, that's something you been avoiding, in favor of name calling and hyperventilated diatribes.
Btw, the picture is you all the way. Hahahahahahaha Just like your party, living in the dark ages.
For an advocate of individual liberty and limited government to decide that it makes more sense to work within the Republican Party than the Libertarian Party is no different than a person making a decision that one can work more effectively for environmentalism within the Democratic Party than in the Green Party.
The joining of egg and sperm creates a new, self-contained physical organism. It is this new organism that is a new, genetically distinct human being. It may be true in some cosmic sense that contraception or even abstenience may cause a human being to not come into existence. But an abortion kills a human being that already exists.
Simply because we have failed to recognize an entity's "personhood" in the past is not an adequate argument for continuing to do so in the future. Part of the American political experience has been its progress toward recognizing all human beings as persons.
I notice the resident polecats showed up to spray their scent on the proceedings.
Keep up the good fight!
I'm sure Al Gore thought the same way about the greenies. Think about how many votes Nader got, and how much Gore lost Florida by. Now start thinking about the fact that many many Conservatives are gettin' fed up or are already fed up with Bush and Co. "pretending" to be conservative. Think about the fact that Conservatives are much more capable of thinking for themselves and being independent than liberals. Chances are, quite a few Conservatives are going to look else where for somebody who is not a RINO/CINO.
I'd hate to see a liberal get in the WH again, but at the current rate that the GOP/Bush and Co. are straying away from the Conservative platform, that may just happen. Hopefully, the GOP will learn a most painful lesson, and stop this trying to act like democRats foolishness.
Think I'm crazy? Nine months ago, even perhaps six months ago, those criticizing Bush were few in number (albeit vocal at times). Now you'll find many criticizing him, whether it be over Saudi Arabia, CFR, or illegal immigration or whatever. Once you step over that line of criticizing your political leader, it's pretty easy to start looking elsewhere for candidates that better represent your values and beliefs.
Although I don't have the precise numbers to back it up (due to many who read FR and choose to lurk and either not register or register and just not post), I'd be willing to bet there are more libertarians than you think here, as well as those disenchanted with Bush (finding the disenchanted is easy, just read back a month or two through articles dealing with Bush's policiies).
As opposed to blindly supporting a party/President that is selling out to the left, going against campaign promises and party platform, and choosing to ignore Saudi Arabia's links to terrorism?
I think I'll take living in the dark ages as opposed to compromising my Conservative beliefs, thank you very much.
The idea that President Bush is losing conservative support is BS.
George W.Bush is the most conservative president we've had, since Ronald Reagan. However, that doesn't mean conservatives agree with Bush 100% of the time. I don't agree with Bush 100% of the time. Let's remember, the home of the American conservative movement, is the Republican Party. There is no real conservative platform. By and large, the conservative movement, as portrayed by the ACU, supports the Republican Platform. And there is a political reality that conservatives must face. There aren't enough conservatives around to help the Republican Party gain and hold onto a political majority in the Congress. That's a fact. Conservative-Republican's must appeal to independent and dissatisfied Democrats, in order to build a winning coalition.
Hopefully, the GOP will learn a most painful lesson, and stop this trying to act like democRats foolishness.
I think you're listening to Rush Limbaugh to much.
The main voices of criticism that are being launched at President Bush, are coming from those million or so, dissatisfied members of the Reform Party, Libertarian Party, Constitution Party and the Natural Law Party. They dwell in substantial numbers, here on FreeRepublic, but outside, in the real world, have no power or influence whatsoever.
Selling your political beliefs out in order to gain a victory isn't much of a victory is it?
I think you're listening to Rush Limbaugh to much.
Don't listen to him anymore (haven't for a few years now). If he thinks Bush is selling out, then I might have to start listening to him again. Thanks for letting me know, I'll have to try and catch him sometime.
The main voices of criticism that are being launched at President Bush, are coming from those million or so, dissatisfied members of the Reform Party, Libertarian Party, Constitution Party and the Natural Law Party. They dwell in substantial numbers, here on FreeRepublic, but outside, in the real world, have no power or influence whatsoever.
I'm sure Gore and the elder Bush believe those third parties have no power or influence either. Those third parties that have no power or influence, the ones with candidates named "Nader" and "Perot" didn't have any influence in two out of the last three elections, now did they?
It's all about victory! The Founding Fathers knew that too, when they created our system of governing and politics, and the same is true today. First off, I'm not selling out my political beliefs, not for one minute. But political reality dictates, if you want an opportunity to control the reins of government, you must win election victory. I'm not satisfied sitting on the sidelines and being a political back bench bomb thrower. May be you are.
As Ronald Reagan said:
"When I began entering into the give and take of legislative bargaining in Sacramento, a lot of the most radical conservatives who had supported me during the election didn't like it. "Compromise" was a dirty word to them and they wouldn't face the fact that we couldn't get all of what we wanted today. They wanted all or nothing and they wanted it all at once. If you don't get it all, some said, don't take anything.
"I'd learned while negotiating union contracts that you seldom got everything you asked for. I have no expectations of making a hit every time I come to bat. What I seek is the highest possible batting average.
"If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that's what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it."
Ronald Reagan, from his autobiography, An American Life
... candidates named "Nader" and "Perot" didn't have any influence in two out of the last three elections, now did they?
Perot did hurt Bush41 and cost him the election in 1992. I think people have seen what a mistake, the Reform Party was. I don't follow Nadar or the details of ultra-liberal thinkers, but I don't believe you'll see old Ralph receiving 2.7 million votes again. The left hates President Bush and will work for strict unity in 2004.
Those conservatives who are aren't satisfied with Bush and choose to vote third party, will be offset by independent voters, who view George W.Bush as an honest and trustworthy leader. Remember, conservatives aren't a majority and conservative candidates must appeal to the independent voters, in order to win elections.
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.