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.
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...
You have a very short memory. In my last post to you I said:
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.
You're obviously not paying attention. I can't be anymore specific or precise in explaining my position to you. I haven't bought into any spin. If anything, the US and the Saudi's are using each other, its called oil for bucks. A simple business concept. Do I trust the Saudi's? Hell NO! But in international dipolmacy, you keep your friends close and your enemies even closer.
When I voted for him...
You have disagreements with Bush and so do I. The difference is, you want to cut and run, I'd rather stay and fight. The Founding Fathers, never cut and run. Reagan never cut and run. When the going gets tough, the tough get going. I never quit a good fight in my life. You want to vote for a candidate that has no chance of winning. Makes no snese, whatsoever. Its clear, you don't understand American politics. You go against all rational and logical political strategies. Instead you seem to get overly emotional and embrace ideological absolutism. Such reactionary politics, is doomed to failure.
Now, is there anything new and fresh you want to say?
The point of my post was that our law--THE Law, the Constitution of the United States--doesn't recognize the unborn as being "persons"...exactly as slaves were not recognized as "persons" until the 13th amendment. Therefore, the unborn have no more Constitutional rights than monkeys. The only LEGITIMATE way to grant Constitutional rights to the unborn is to pass a Constitutional amendment...exactly as the 13th (and 14th) Amendments changed the Constitution to recognize rights for the former without-rights slaves.
Of course, within The Law (the Constitution) individual states can do anything up to complete criminalization of all forms of abortion, just as slavery was illegal within some states, prior to the 13th amendment.
Not "nonsense." It's THE LAW (the Constitution). If you don't like The Law (the Constitution) have the decency to advocate changing it, rather than applauding its violation.
That's exactly why you ARE truly illiterate! Or at least you can't read phrases that REFUTE your position!
You apparently THE VERY NEXT PHRASE:
...so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose."
So once again, either you can't read it (you're illiterate) or you're a damn liar. I think you're a damn liar...because you seem to have had no trouble reading and SELECTIVELY "quoting" the first part of the sentence.
It might...if even 10% of elected Republicans cared about individual liberty or limited government. But since the number is much more like 1% (versus 100% of Libertarians) it probably makes more sense to work within the Libertarian Party.
The textbook definition of a libertarian, specifically states:
a person who upholds the principles of absolute and unrestricted liberty.
I still see no difference between the two terms, in regards to politics and philosophy. And all your personal insults, will not change that fact. The two definitions are synonymous. They are alike in significance.
Relax and get over it already! LMAO
I love the Constitutuion, its you and those holding your views that I can't stand. A person is defined as a living human by any and all reference books. That certainly describes babies in the womb and yet you won't advocate for them because you are too busy yapping at the moon about the right to use and abuse dope, maintain a nuclear arsenal in your basement and the right of all and any to cross our borders freely so that Harry may once again blame Americans and America when some of them kill us.
But the fundamental and unalienable right to life? Nah, we gotta have an amendment. You're a joke Bahner.
Are you serious? I assume you're a libertarian and you're telling me that unalienable rights can be legislated against? Wake up. There is a reason they are called rights. Can the surrounding culture make it illegal for you to live past age 26? Can the surrounding culture limit your travel to your own property absent due process? Can the surrounding culture assign you duties to perform in the service of the culture?
The problem is, I understand it all to clear, and was blindly being led around until I came to that understanding.
You see, the GOP has had plenty of times over the past 30, 40 years, when it was in control of the White House, or Congress, or the Supreme Court (well the SC doesn't really count in this matter) to do all of the things you or I would like them to do.
The GOP has had ample opportunities over and over and over to try and govern more closely along the lines of the Constitution, to wean people (and corporations) off of welfare, to setup a better tax collection system (or perhaps get rid of it), to trim the size of the federal government, to give us back more control, more freeoms, more rights, more privacy, to make this a Nation of the people, by the people, for the people.
But they didn't. Time after time the GOP had the power for real change. But they didn't. But it didn't matter because they had people like you and me making excuses for them, saying they had to compromise, or the timing wasn't right, or it was an election year.
You keep fighting the fight by compromising more and more with the liberals. I'm not. I've got the guts to try something new for a change. You can say I'm going to fail from the start. That's fine, I stood up for what I believed and didn't cave in and compromise. I can more than live with myself for that. You may consider compromising on things you really believe in to be some kind of victory in the fight, but if it's a victory, it's a hollow victory.
I see no point in discussing this any further - you keep right on compromising and calling it "staying and fighting" I'll do my own fighting with a different party. It maybe an underdog party, but I don't mind "losing" elections as long as my conscience is clear.
That's simply not true and you know it too.
For the last 20 years, we've basically had political gridlock in Wash-DC. In the last forty years, Republicans have controlled the full Congress during two very short periods. 1952-1954 and 1995 to 2001. In the years of the mid-1990's, Republicans were beginning to make some significant changes, but with a Democrat President and without a substantial majority in both chambers of Congress, it was impossible for Republicans, to do what they really wanted to do. Newt Gingrich and the Contract with America, led to some bold legislative accomplishments. Those days are over. Now with Republicans in control of the House only and with very slim margins to boot, it's back to political gridlock.
I don't advocate employing compromise at every turn. It should be used sparingly, if at all, but compromise does remain an important political tool.
I also believe it takes more guts to stay and fight, then to cut and run.
>>>... I don't mind "losing" elections as long as my conscience is clear.
Well, that's the BIG difference between us. I want to see as much political change brought about, as is humanly possible, but losing elections will not accomplish anything. As far as my conscience goes, I don't lose any sleep at night. I suspect you do.
Seems to be a bit of a reach, IMO. "small clump of cells" is a strawman.
The surrounding culture, or better, the best organized political class of the day, can always and frequently do pass laws that conflict with or violate ideal rights. So while unlikely at this moment in the U.S, legislatures could pass laws mandating euthanasia at some age, authorize police confinement of individuals to their home without due process, or draft individuals to whatever tasks deemed in service of the greater good. No law of physics prevents this from happening.
Perhaps you object to the use of the word "legal" in describing such violations of ideal rights, and would accept some other word such as "statutory".
Unalienable rights are granted by an authority a bit higher than the legislature. You cannot "legislate" rights away. You can violate a citizens rights but you are certainly not doing it legally or morally and hopefully there will always be enough citizens cognizant of that fact. I know my grandchildren will be.
The only thing farther away from neos than paleos and totalitarian types are go all the way libertarian types. I move to strike the first bit of your sentence. It was quite sloppy and wrong, and I take exception to it. Trust me, this is one area where I think I know what I am talking about.
Considering all of the hullabaloo over non-aggression one gets from the "l"'s.... I would think so. D&X, Saline, and scissors are pretty aggressive moves, IMO.
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.