For those who might be confused about libertarianism

[Liberty1911]

There's certainly plenty of wrinkles to discuss, but that is true of any discussion of ethics.

Where does abortion fall in the NAP philosophy?

 

[hornadylnl]

Where does abortion fall in the NAP philosophy?

I'm personally against abortion and I feel that it's murder. I personally believe that life begins at conception and it's my belief that "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" applies to the unborn as well. Unfortunately, I feel that it's a political battle that will never be resolved. Neither side will ever agree on a moment in which life begins, be it conception, first, second, or third trimester, or the last vestige of the baby leaves the birth canal.

I choose for myself to not put any of my seed into a situation where abortion is a possibility. That's what I can control. My real moral dilemma is to what level of force to give to the government to preserve the right to life of the unborn. Do we keep abortion legal on the one extreme end to murdering abortion providers on the other, or do we fall somewhere in between? First and foremost, I need to be responsible for myself in that regard so as to not create a situation where my unborn child can be aborted. To the relief of many here, that problem is rectified for me. I'm shooting blanks.

 

[arthrimus]

Where does abortion fall in the NAP philosophy?

Far be it from us to decide the moment at which life begins. Life at conception is the safest place to stand on the issue, given the fact that "life" seems to be a somewhat abstract concept to most. I think it's pretty obvious looking at it from a cause and effect standpoint that life begins when an egg is fertilized. Before the egg is fertilized there is no way for a human life to develop from it, and after the egg is fertilized, barring complications, there is no way that human life can't develop from it. Thus life must begin at conception, as it is the moment that sets in motion the process that ultimately yields a human person. As such the destruction of that life is murder. Since the victim of said murder cannot retaliate, someone else, in this case law and law enforcement, must act in their stead. That's as clean as I can slice this issue.

 

[Liberty1911]

Far be it from us to decide at what moment life begins. Life at conception is the safest place to stand on the issue, given the fact that "life" seems to be a somewhat abstract concept to most. I think it's pretty obvious looking at it from a cause and effect standpoint that life begins when an egg is fertilized. As such the destruction of that life is murder. That's as clean as I can slice this issue.

The Libertarian Party platform supports abortion however.

 

[steveh_131]

The Libertarian Party platform supports abortion however.

As with any question of ethics, there will be disagreements and gray areas.

 

[arthrimus]

The Libertarian Party platform supports abortion however.

I do not conform to the libritarian party's stance on this issue. I don't know what logic is used by the party leadership to arrive at that conclusion, but it's not my logic and I will not accept it just because they do.

I do not define myself by a party, but I would vote for a Libritarian with true convictions any day of the week. It is with Libritarians that I find maximum common ground, but that does not make me one of them.

 

[mydoghasfleas]

The Libertarian Party platform supports abortion however.

And that is what I see as the problem with any party system.

 

[Liberty1911]

As with any question of ethics, there will be disagreements and gray areas.

By my reckoning though, it's a question of rights, not ethics.

People either have a right to life or they don't. It doesn't matter how small, dependent, or vulnerable they may be.

 

[hornadylnl]

By my reckoning though, it's a question of rights, not ethics.

People either have a right to life or they don't. It doesn't matter how small, dependent, or vulnerable they may be.

And you have those who argue that abortion is a state issue not a federal one. Again, I don't know the answer to the abortion issue. I believe the unborn have a right to life. But to what ends do we uphold that right? Do we force women to take weekly exams to ensure they're giving proper prenatal care? Ensure they're not engaging in behaviors destructive to their unborn child?

Intentionally engaging in behavior that causes a miscarriage has the same motive as going to the back alley abortion clinic to get rotor rootered. How do you enforce both murders equally? How do you do so without infringing on the rights of mothers to be who don't want an abortion?

Again, I don't know the answers.

 

[arthrimus]

And you have those who argue that abortion is a state issue not a federal one. Again, I don't know the answer to the abortion issue. I believe the unborn have a right to life. But to what ends do we uphold that right? Do we force women to take weekly exams to ensure they're giving proper prenatal care? Ensure they're not engaging in behaviors destructive to their unborn child?

Intentionally engaging in behavior that causes a miscarriage has the same motive as going to the back alley abortion clinic to get rotor rootered. How do you enforce both murders equally? How do you do so without infringing on the rights of mothers to be who don't want an abortion?

Again, I don't know the answers.

That's far too intrusive. It should be like any other crime. No preemptive action should be taken. If it is discovered by someone that a mother is intentionally engaging in behavior that is destructive to the life of her child then she should be charged as such. If it is never discovered then she has only her guilt to punish her. Not all crimes are known, and to intrude so blatantly on someone's privacy in the name of preventing crimes is simply not the way.

 

[hornadylnl]

That's far too intrusive. It should be like any other crime. No preemptive action should be taken. If it is discovered by someone that a mother is intentionally engaging in behavior that is destructive to the life of her child then she should be charged as such. If it is never discovered then she has only her guilt to punish her. Not all crimes are known, and to intrude so blatantly on someone's privacy in the name of preventing crimes is simply not the way.

You and I agree. But there are those on the pro life side that want that extreme. So we're right back to my original question. How do we preserve the unborns' right to life without infringing on the rights of the living and where do we draw the line?

I have the control to make that choice myself and I can participate in organizations like Nesting Doves who provide for those thinking of having an abortion. Organizations like that are doing God's work. But I'm reluctant to grant government the power to control it.

 

[level.eleven]

The biggest proponent of NAP, Rothbard, considers the unborn child a parasite. It has no rights over its host.

For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto - Murray N. Rothbard

Chapter 6.

Honestly, you guys have hacked away at NAP so much it is hardly recognizable.

 

[Liberty1911]

That's far too intrusive. It should be like any other crime. No preemptive action should be taken. If it is discovered by someone that a mother is intentionally engaging in behavior that is destructive to the life of her child then she should be charged as such. If it is never discovered then she has only her guilt to punish her. Not all crimes are known, and to intrude so blatantly on someone's privacy in the name of preventing crimes is simply not the way.

Well said. That would be my take on it also.

 

[hornadylnl]

Well said. That would be my take on it also.

Now if we can just get the other 320,000,000 people to agree with us, we can put the abortion issue to rest.

 

[arthrimus]

The biggest proponent of NAP, Rothbard, considers the unborn child a parasite. It has no rights over its host.

For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto - Murray N. Rothbard

Chapter 6.

Honestly, you guys have hacked away at NAP so much it is hardly recognizable.

That was a good read, and while I agree with many of Mr. Rothbard's ideas, he seem to have missed an obvious direct comparison that refutes his logic. The man hanging from a flagpole who jumps into a window rather than fall to his death. He is infringing on the property rights of the person who owns the house attached to the window in order to preserve his right to life. It would be hard to argue that the temporary violation of property rights was as severe as the eternal violation of the right to life that the ground would have dispensed. The man evading death is a "parasite" to the window that offers him the chance to not die. It's the exact same scenario as pregnancy, and should be treated as such.

Perhaps Mr. Rothbard believes that the man should fall to his death too, but that's far too black and white for me.

 

[steveh_131]

By my reckoning though, it's a question of rights, not ethics.

People either have a right to life or they don't. It doesn't matter how small, dependent, or vulnerable they may be.

Agreed. Unfortunately the rights of two individuals collide, in the instance of a pregnancy. Hence the gray area.

I would have to agree with Athrimus' take on it.

The biggest proponent of NAP, Rothbard, considers the unborn child a parasite. It has no rights over its host.

For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto - Murray N. Rothbard

Chapter 6.

Honestly, you guys have hacked away at NAP so much it is hardly recognizable.

I get what you're doing. Someone has taken a stand and announced what they believe. It's easy to make it seem like you're poking all these holes in it, but what you're actually doing is sniping at 3 or 4 issues, ignoring all of the responses, sniping at a few more, ignoring those responses and then declaring it a failed paradigm.

Anyone could do this with any philosophy. Life is not black and white. Ethics is not a simple subject. It takes time and thought to decide what you believe. I believe that the best political system is one that relies, as much as possible, on the non-aggression principle. Like I said before, it is at the core of our justice system and the core of the way we treat each other. It is the core of liberty. Is it perfect? I'm not certain. Maybe I'm just not smart enough to apply it perfectly in every circumstance. Or maybe life is just too darned complicated.

So, I'll ask you again. What's your philosophy? What is the ideal basis for a political system?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Does anybody know what channel the Weather Channel in Hell is on? There's way too much agreeing going on in this political discussion sub forum.

 

[hornadylnl]

Does anybody know what channel the Weather Channel in Hell is on? There's way too much agreeing going on in this political discussion sub forum.

Did I create any straw men today?

 

[IndyDave1776]

I would like to know why the abortion issue never gets thoroughly or honestly addressed. There is far more to it that the false dichotomy of a woman's rights vs. the rights of the unborn child.

1. The beginning of life. If you believe an unborn child to be a distinct, living, individual person, you cannot support abortion under any circumstances. This includes making an exception for rape since this would be analogous to a prosecutor filing charges against me today for something my dad did.

2. Equality of the parents. Assuming that the child was conceived under mutually consensual circumstances, both parents are equally responsible. Why is it that the pro-abortion people consider it right and proper for a woman to have an abortion at will without the consent of the child's father, but if she chooses to give birth, the man doesn't have any choice in that either and is expected to pay regularly scheduled invoices for the next 18-22 years? Shouldn't a man have enough of a right to his own life to disown the situation with equal lack of accountability with the woman (i.e., leaving her to choose to abort or be on her own with it)? After all, it works the other way. It hardly seems equal that one person should be able to control the life or death of a child and the next 20 or so years of someone else's life, yet neither of those being controlled by the one woman have any say in their own destiny. I people want equality, let them have equality, not a selective equality in areas they want to be equal but still have unequal privileges in ares where they want that. In the end it seems that rights only count if the person in question is a woman, a minority, or another 'preferred' group. Equality either does nor does not exist. The notion that some can be 'more equal' than others is comical in its proper context but in the reality on the street is a mockery of the concept of equality.

3. One of the principal arguments made by the amnesty and open borders crowd is that we have reached the point at which our population is not sustaining itself. Abortion is a significant issue in this problem. So are laws that make it financially difficult especially through taxation for excessive government for those who actually bother to follow the law, but I digress.

4. Given that abortion is most frequently championed by leftists/collectivists, where is the outrage over women who abort cheating society out of the next Einstein, Curie, etc. Perhaps that woman exiting the clinic just killed the brilliant individual who would have cured AIDS. Maybe the casualty would have been the political leader that would have restored some sanity to government? The world will never know.

 

[hornadylnl]

I would like to know why the abortion issue never gets thoroughly or honestly addressed. There is far more to it that the false dichotomy of a woman's rights vs. the rights of the unborn child.

1. The beginning of life. If you believe an unborn child to be a distinct, living, individual person, you cannot support abortion under any circumstances. This includes making an exception for rape since this would be analogous to a prosecutor filing charges against me today for something my dad did.

2. Equality of the parents. Assuming that the child was conceived under mutually consensual circumstances, both parents are equally responsible. Why is it that the pro-abortion people consider it right and proper for a woman to have an abortion at will without the consent of the child's father, but if she chooses to give birth, the man doesn't have any choice in that either and is expected to pay regularly scheduled invoices for the next 18-22 years? Shouldn't a man have enough of a right to his own life to disown the situation with equal lack of accountability with the woman (i.e., leaving her to choose to abort or be on her own with it)? After all, it works the other way. It hardly seems equal that one person should be able to control the life or death of a child and the next 20 or so years of someone else's life, yet neither of those being controlled by the one woman have any say in their own destiny. I people want equality, let them have equality, not a selective equality in areas they want to be equal but still have unequal privileges in ares where they want that. In the end it seems that rights only count if the person in question is a woman, a minority, or another 'preferred' group. Equality either does nor does not exist. The notion that some can be 'more equal' than others is comical in its proper context but in the reality on the street is a mockery of the concept of equality.

3. One of the principal arguments made by the amnesty and open borders crowd is that we have reached the point at which our population is not sustaining itself. Abortion is a significant issue in this problem. So are laws that make it financially difficult especially through taxation for excessive government for those who actually bother to follow the law, but I digress.

4. Given that abortion is most frequently championed by leftists/collectivists, where is the outrage over women who abort cheating society out of the next Einstein, Curie, etc. Perhaps that woman exiting the clinic just killed the brilliant individual who would have cured AIDS. Maybe the casualty would have been the political leader that would have restored some sanity to government? The world will never know.

1. Can one be opposed to abortion without wanting to grant the government carte blanche authority to ensure that it doesn't happen?