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.
And history will repeat itself - A unified left combined with a fractured right will put a liberal in the WH. In 2000 it was a unified right and a fractured left that put GWB in the WH. In 92, it was a unified left and a fractured right that put a liberal in the WH. So on and so forth.
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.
Bush41 and Gore told themselves the same things I'm sure.
There is a little song that Bush should be listening to. If the democrats are able to field somebody that can pull in the Nader votes, then all of the independents together won't be enough to re-elect him.
LITTLE TEXAS LYRICS
Dance (Porter Howell/Dwayne O'Brien)
Take your time and watch your step
You'd better get it right
Or you'll get left behind
The way you're dancin' I can tell
That someone else is on your mind
You'd better dance with the one that brung ya
You'd better hold on to the one that loves you
You'd better turn around before we're through
And dance with the one that brung ya
You'd better dance
And that sparkle in your wanderin' eye
Has struck you blind as far as I can see
Take one step back and look again
You're gonna leave with him
Or stay with me
You'd better dance with the one that brung ya
You'd better hold on to the one that loves you
You'd better turn around before we're through
And dance with the one that brung ya
You'd better dance
Well now we've gone this long
Don't let it slip through your hands
Dance with the one that brung ya
You'd better hold on to the one that loves you
You'd better turn around before we're through
And dance with the one that brung ya
You'd better dance with the one that brung ya
You'd better hold on to the one that loves you
You'd better turn around before we're through
And dance with the one that brung ya
You'd better dance
Yeah
I voted for him because I believed he could do good things and was the best man for the job. After 9/11 when he began tilting to the left (way more than any "compromise" excuse can account for), he lost my faith and confidence. When his administration began to constantly try and scare the crap out of us with unsubstantiated alerts and the like, I knew they were grasping for straws, to try and keep a "wartime" feel about things (and his approval ratings up). When they act like Saudi Arabia doesn't exist and ignore the Saudi's ties to 9/11 and to the suicide bombers and instead tell us it's our local potheads and crackheads that are funding the terrorists, I know that they are no better than Clinton was when it came to his scandals and the like that he tried to cover up or pretend didn't exist. He won't be getting my vote in the next election.
You're dreaming. Are you sure your not a liberal disruptor?
There will be no fractured right in 2004. The fringe rightwing will waste their votes, as usual, on a candidate from the list of perpetual losers. President Bush will get the usual Republican vote, along with the vast majority of conservatives. Throw in the mix, a majority of independents and some Democrat crossovers and you have a solid victory for Bush.
... his administration began to constantly try and scare the crap out of us with unsubstantiated alerts and the like...
You sure scare easy. Stop being a wimp and stop whining! Show some courage and cojones!
All in all, you don't know what you're talking about. The US and Saudi Arabia, have had a good relationship for 80 years, that has been beneficial to both countries. We get cheap oil, they get big bucks. OTOH, if you're ingesting an illicit drug, like cocaine or heroin, there is a good chance, some of the money you paid for it, is going to a rouge state that supports terrorism. And finally, there have been NO scandals in the Bush administration. If you don't want to vote for Bush, that's fine. But don't expect your scurillous allegations, rumor and innuendo, to go unchallenged.
President Bushes support among all American's, remains at historically high levels. If you look at the entire record on Bush, you would see a pretty good record, so far. The Bush administartion, has promoted a fairly conservative agenda. Kyoto is dead, the ABM treaty is history, a NMDS is reality, Bush said NO ICC for the USA, Bush says RKBA is constitutional, Bush told Cuba/Castro the embargo stays and Bush has given working American's, two tax cuts. The list goes on. Along with winning the war on terrorism, Bush is doing a great job for America and the American people.
I'll agree that their is a minority that recognize it as a full individual human being, but they are very small in number even within the anti-abortion movement.
For example. You are not going to find very many anti-abortionists willing to deny a dying mother to an abortion, if it and additional medical treatment would statisticly prolong her life for 12 to 18 months. This is true, even where the fetus is statisticly more viable.
Many other anti-abortionists grant exceptions for rape and incest. In short, our culture over all, with a large exception, does not recognize a fetus as a full humanbeing, and definitely not an individual holding individual rights.
While rights may come out of nature, their are no rights in nature. Legal rights are the product of our culture.
Actually if you read some of my other posts, you'll see I'm one of the few mocking the sheep who think that everytime a train derails or a bridge collapses or an industrial accident occurs it's the work of terrorists and OBL. I was making light of the fact that this administration seems to be wanting to cause people to code-brown in their pants over vague warnings. I should have made that more clear to you.
President Bushes support among all American's, remains at historically high levels.
Look at his father's support after Desert Storm. Look at the '92 election. Look at Clinton's approval ratings all throughout the scandals (which is pretty much his entire eight years in the WH). You can buy into the approval ratings all you want, but study them a little more closely and you'll realize that if they meant anything, Bush41 would have had two terms.
All in all, you don't know what you're talking about. The US and Saudi Arabia, have had a good relationship for 80 years, that has been beneficial to both countries. We get cheap oil, they get big bucks.
You questioned if I was a liberal disruptor, well I'm thinking you are now. I have never seen such a blindly made statement. Are you telling me that it's not fishy that the majority of hijackers were Saudis, that OBL is Saudi, that his money is Saudi, and that the Saudis are not paying families of the suicide bombers, and that the Saudis haven't joined OPEC in trying to screw us over at times, and that the Saudis demand our servicewomen (you know, the ones helping to protect Saudi Arabia) cover their entire bodies and not be allowed to drive???
I see this discussion going no further. Your a Bush-Bot and a Saudi supporter, and nothing will change that. I question a government that ignore's a countries links to terrorism, I question a government that doesn't seem to worried about the Constitution, and putting tools in place that, once a liberal is in the WH again, will be used against normal Americans. I question because I am capable of thinking for myself and don't need to hear directions from the the party and it's leaders telling me what to think.
No, we didn't "reject that construction." We amended the Constitution. Huge difference!
We amended the Constitution with the 13th amendment, that prohibited involuntary servitude. That meant that blacks could no longer be owned.
And we amended the Constitution with the 14th amendment, that prohibited the states from denying equal protection under the law to any "person." (Which the 13th amendment "turned" blacks into, because they could no longer be owned.)
There has been no comparable amendment to "turn" the unborn into "persons" in the eyes of the Constitution. Therefore, they have no rights...even a right to life...unless granted to them by the "several states."
Being skeptical is good, but you have a propensity for pessimistic thinking, that is beyond the norm. More like paranoia. Your doom and gloom attitude, serves no good purpose. I take everything in life, at face value and use basic common sense and a rational approach to reach my conclusions. I'm not hearing much rational argument from you.
You can theorize all you want. The fact is you made a multitude of untruthful and downright stupid remarks. You said, the Bush adminsitration is overlooking and ignoring the involvment of Saudi Arabian nationals in the events of 9-11, that Saudi's have given monetary support, to the families of suicide bombers, that OBL is a Saudi himself and that OPEC is an international oil cartel, whose business it is to make money. Truth is, Bush and his people haven't ignored or overlooked any of these facts. At the same time, you've completely overlooked, the lust certain American's have for illicit drugs and their willingness to pay for these substances with monsy, that is possibly funding, state sponsored terrorism. Wake up!
The fact that Bush41 screwed up and Clinton left office with his tail between his legs, doesn't mean that will be the fate of our current President. Quite the opposite. To even mention such a hypothetical occurance, shows how much hate, you have for President Bush and how little you care about America's future. The man's been in office for 16 months, yet you've already concluded his Presidency is a failure, based on your convoluted and myopic thinking. WOW!
I see this discussion going no further. Your a Bush-Bot and a Saudi supporter...
I agree. You're Bush bashing, along with unpatriotic comments and whiny rhetoric is sickening. If you really consider yourself an American, start acting like one. Otherwise, stuff it, bucko.
Well, if you can quit contradicting yourself (you said I made a multitude of untruthful/stupid remarks and then you go on to say they are facts) then we can talk. Bush has overlooked those facts. He is not pressing the Saudis on why so many roads lead back to Saudi Arabia. There's all this talk about leveling Iraq, when we don't even have anything to link them to 9/11 (I believe even the Czechs are saying the meetings didn't take place) and meanwhile we've got all of these Saudi nations and Saudi money wrapped around terrorism and Bush ignores it!!! It boggles the mind!
To even mention such a hypothetical occurance, shows how much hate, you have for President Bush and how little you care about America's future. The man's been in office for 16 months, yet you've already concluded his Presidency is a failure, based on your convoluted and myopic thinking. WOW!
I don't hate him at all, I voted for him in three elections. I have a problem with his actions and the things he is doing that will affect our future, I'm not even talking about him growing the size of the federal government or going against campaign promises (which we all ripped Clinton on, but apparently you can't if it's a Republican)
You see, I care about the future (call me paranoid, that's fine) - things like the PATRIOT Act, CFR, etc. that with the wrong administration can and probably will be abused. I care about the Constitution. Anytime anybody starts playing games with it, all in the name of "protecting" us, well I have a big problem.
I wish I could trust the federal government as much as you do, but I don't. Eight years of Clinton taught me that, and Bush at times is acting no different.
When you think about it, those of us who voted for Bush have a big-time right to criticize him when he wonders off the path. He's supposed to be our guy. Up until the past year or so, I was a registered Republican all my life, voted Republican in every election. I was once like you. But I started seeing things that didn't quite add up, and hearing things that just didn't sound right. As it stands - both parties sound identical in many many areas. I see no point in being a part of either if they are just going to mimic each other depending on what the polls say.
More nonsense from you? Libertarians like you dole out rights like the liberals dole out welfare.
The right to life is geographically dependent according to you and Harry. At 6:00 am with the little 'persons" head in the birth canal, the baby is a non person and fair game for the suction machine. At 6:01 the baby is delivered and now has rights. What nonsense.
Rights can neither be granted nor taken away by majority vote. Thats what makes them rights.
I understand that its not simple but never the less it is visiting the sins of the father on the son and you become inconsistent by arguing that an innocent life can be taken absent informed consent.
I'm not contradicting myself and you know it. You made several accusatory statements about Bush ignoring and overlooking certain factual events. That simply isn't true. But we'll move on.
It boggles the mind!
I have no idea, exactly what pressures our government has brought to bear on Saudi Arabia, because of events on 9-11. I have NO love for the religion of Islam, nor any kinship with the Arab world. In fact, I think they're a bunch of barbarians. I would venture to guess, another occurance similiar to 9-11 and all hell WILL break lose. Its the job of the Arab/Muslim world, to control and police their own people. If they can't handle the job, others will step in and make it happen. For right now, diplomacy and not overreacting is the way to go. America is at war with international terrorism. It's obvious, you consider the Saudi government, to be directly supporting terrorism, at all levels. The Bush administration disagrees with you and since I trust Bush and company, I'll side with them.
Since you've offered no substantive alternatives for the US to undertake at this time, my question to you is, exactly what do you except, President Bush to do with Saudi Arabia? Stop buying Saudi oil? Go on world-wide TV and renounce Saudi Arabia? Demand compensation for 9-11? Demand the Saudi's commit hari-kari? Just what do you want? Should America go to war with the Saudi's, which really means, going to war with the entire Arab-Muslim world?
If you truly voted for Bush three times, how the hell can you give up on him, after a mere 16 months in office? It makes no sense to me, at all. That's irrational behavior? I don't agree with everything that Bush has done since he took office. I didn't support the education bill, the farm bill and signing CFR legislation. But Bush has done a lot of good, for America in his short time in office. I offered just a few of the many, excellent decisions Bush has made and can list many more. Remember the Reagan statement I mentioned in an ealier reply to you.
"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..."
What's the alternative in 2004? Browne, Hagelin, Philips, may be Keyes or Buchanan again? Perhaps Hillary Rotten, Ralph Nadar, or Algore?
Conservatives have to take a stand, but switching sides or joining a fringe third party, isn't the answer. Like Reagan, I'd rather fight from within and get most of what I want, then be on the sidelines, with no influence whatsoever. When you're on the sidelines, all you can do is throw stink bombs and waste your vote at election time.
Hey, Reagan Man! We call that "throwin' rocks from the penalty box" where I'm from.
Well said!
I made that exact same point in a class in college on human sexuality (everyone deserves one gut class). The minister who was teaching that day and was very pro abortion seemed a bit uncomfortable with my point. His response was that a mother doing an abortion at that point was probably disturbed. I then said well then, why indulge the disturbance? At that point, the minister chose to move the discussion along, and away from my line of inquiry. I really can't blame him. Drawing the line at birth never had much appeal to me.
You really ought to try thinking before you post. Maybe you wouldn't sound so foolish.
Look, RM, this is at least the second time in this thread you have posted something that makes you look like a fool. Really, you ought to just sit back and lurk. Obviously, you can't think well enough to contribute sensible posts.
In my book, on most issues, libertarians aren't reasonable people. They are extremists.
In the last general election for president, the Libertarian Party candidate, Harry Browne, received 375,024 votes. That was .367% of the total votes cast. I call that a fringe political party. The party platform speaks for itself. Extremist by all measure.
I expect him to do more than kiss their a$$e$, that's what I expect. I don't expect him or any of his staff to stand beside the Saudis and talk about their great friendship and how they are allies in the war on terrorism. To quote you from an earlier post a few days ago: " The US and Saudi Arabia, have had a good relationship for 80 years, that has been beneficial to both countries. We get cheap oil, they get big bucks. Are you going to be saying the same thing if, God forbid, suicide bombers show up in America and the Saudis are paying their familes, just as they are with the Israelis? We do not have a good relationship, they are using us. I don't how to make it any more clear to you. There are so many links between them and 9/11, and between them and the suicide bombers. Bush and Co. talk about Iraq or try and link your local junkies to OBL/9/11. You have bought the spin they put out there. You seem like a patriot, I wish you could see through the spin and see the Saudis for what they are.
If you truly voted for Bush three times, how the hell can you give up on him, after a mere 16 months in office?
When I voted for him, I thought I was voting for somebody who would reduce federal spending, reduce the size of the federal government, veto CFR, would care about our civil liberties, would do something meaningful about illegal immigration, would do something meaningful about education, who cared about family farmers and not corporate farmers, etc. When it became clear to me that all of the above was not GWB, then I chose to go elsewhere.
If enough of us go elsewhere, which considering it's happened twice in the past three elections is a very real possibility, and the GOP is booted out. Perhaps the GOP will look at their roots and realize why they lost in '92 and why they lost in '04.
For me to do exactly as you say, to jump in line and cheer the GOP on (because we want to work from within) means that the GOP is rewarded for their moves to the left. I'm not going to sell my principles out. I expect my political party to do exactly as they say, not hand the liberals everything they want on a gold-plated dish. It's called tough love. Rewarding the GOP for their moves to the left by continuing to vote/support them lets them know it's okay. You want to keep on patting them on the back, that's your right.
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.