For those who might be confused about libertarianism

[Lex Concord]

I thought the posters in this thread might be interested...

Libertarianism and Abortion by Laurence M. Vance

 

[IndyDave1776]

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

Would you do the same for murder? If you honestly believe that we are discussing an individual human life, there is absolutely no difference between the two acts. If we allow two sets of rules, perhaps it should be legal to kill your children at any time until they become self-sufficient.

 

[steveh_131]

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

This is really the crux of the issue. Whether or not I believe it to be right or wrong isn't really relevant. The issue is whether or not I should be initiating force (through the government) to control someone else's behavior in this matter.

 

[arthrimus]

Would you do the same for murder? If you honestly believe that we are discussing an individual human life, there is absolutely no difference between the two acts. If we allow two sets of rules, perhaps it should be legal to kill your children at any time until they become self-sufficient.

Bingo!

That's what I'm talking about. Based on the logic I outlined in earlier posts, a fetus is human life, and abortion is murder. We are not talking about two issues here, we are talking about one, MURDER. Murder is murder, it doesn't matter who is being murdered, the response is the same.

This is really the crux of the issue. Whether or not I believe it to be right or wrong isn't really relevant. The issue is whether or not I should be initiating force (through the government) to control someone else's behavior in this matter.

Who is initiating force? The government is retaliating in the stead of the deceased. That is not aggression.

 

[steveh_131]

Who is initiating force? The government is retaliating in the stead of the deceased. That is not aggression.

Could one make the case that the child is initiating force by residing in the mother's body?

What if the mother simply removed the child, without actively killing it, and it died on its own? Is that murder?

Let me be clear, I think I mostly agree with you. I'm simply discussing the issues, because they are not really black and white to me.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Could one make the case that the child is initiating force by residing in the mother's body?

What if the mother simply removed the child, without actively killing it, and it died on its own? Is that murder?

Let me be clear, I think I mostly agree with you. I'm simply discussing the issues, because they are not really black and white to me.

I don't see how. The child is the innocent result of actions not his/her own.

 

[arthrimus]

Could one make the case that the child is initiating force by residing in the mother's body?

What if the mother simply removed the child, without actively killing it, and it died on its own? Is that murder?

Let me be clear, I think I mostly agree with you. I'm simply discussing the issues, because they are not really black and white to me.

No, because the child has literally no control over it's conception.

To the second question, it would likely depend on the circumstances but it would at least be manslaughter. If the intent was to kill the child then putting it in an environment where it literally cannot survive is killing it with a different tool.

 

[hornadylnl]

Would you do the same for murder? If you honestly believe that we are discussing an individual human life, there is absolutely no difference between the two acts. If we allow two sets of rules, perhaps it should be legal to kill your children at any time until they become self-sufficient.

Again, what's the agreed upon moment of life? Conception, exiting the canal or somewhere in between? You and I agree it's murder. I think abortion should be illegal. But to what end do you want the government to enforce the ban? Should all women who miscarry be arrested on suspicion of murder? Should all pregnant women have to submit to a state prenatal curriculum to ensure the best outcome of the baby? Smoking, drinking, and doing drugs have harmful affects on unborn babies. Should we test all expecting mothers for these things?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

No, because the child has literally no control over it's conception.

To the second question, it would likely depend on the circumstances but it would at least be manslaughter. If the intent was to kill the child then putting it in an environment where it cannot survive is killing it with a different tool.

Wouldn't this be analogous to taking an innocent person, against his will, from his home and his own means of support and dropping him on a deserted island?

They might live, they might even prosper. But if that island is inhospitable and/or foreign to that person's skills and abilities and he dies...who's to blame for the person's demise?

 

[hornadylnl]

My other issue regarding abortion is those who absolutely want to ban it but want zero to do with the baby once born. They want to prevent a woman who has no means to care for a baby from having an abortion and call her a whore when she goes on welfare. They don't want to pay for a foster system that shuffles these kids around like cattle.

I think those who oppose abortion would have a much better affect at saving the unborn if they focused their time, money and energies into organizations like the subject of this article. Nesting Doves continues its work » Local News » Kokomo Tribune; Kokomo, Indiana

 

[steveh_131]

Should all pregnant women have to submit to a state prenatal curriculum to ensure the best outcome of the baby? Smoking, drinking, and doing drugs have harmful affects on unborn babies. Should we test all expecting mothers for these things?

This is where it really gets tricky. Every choice the mother makes has an effect of some sort on the child. Where do we draw the line of government control over these choices?

 

[hornadylnl]

This is where it really gets tricky. Every choice the mother makes has an effect of some sort on the child. Where do we draw the line of government control over these choices?

That's as easy as the when does life begin question.

 

[steveh_131]

That's as easy as the when does life begin question.

TELL ME THE ANSWER. I MUST KNOW

 

[hornadylnl]

TELL ME THE ANSWER. I MUST KNOW

I could sooner give you the winning lotto numbers or tell you what women want.

 

[IndyDave1776]

While we can dance around the subject indefinitely, the problem I see is that so many people will say that they consider abortion to be wrong by virtue of being the murder of a human life, but will allow a woman to choose one way or other. Those same people stand firmly behind laws against murder. Anyone who would consider abortion the killing of a human life, support laws against murder, yet allow abortion is either ethically inept or else is a liar. If you do not consider an unborn child to represent a human life you have no such quandary, but to condone what you believe to be murder out of political convenience simply cannot be reconciled with any pretense of intellectual honesty.

 

[steveh_131]

If you do not consider an unborn child to represent a human life you have no such quandary, but to condone what you believe to be murder out of political convenience simply cannot be reconciled with any pretense of intellectual honesty.

Let's be careful when using the word 'condone'.

There is a big difference between condoning an activity and being against a law banning it.

 

[hornadylnl]

IIRC, there is a law at the federal or many states level that grants immunity to those who abandon a baby at a hospital, fire station, etc. There are those who think these mothers should be prosecuted for it. The end result is that the mother will dump the baby in a dumpster instead of giving it a chance at life.

We like to rail against the left for passing laws based on good intentions with zero thought given to the unintended consequences. I don't think giving the government a nuclear weapon to end abortion is the best answer. How many women having abortions do so with the mindset of it being just like going to get a mani/pedi? How many women have abortions because they get kicked out by their parents for getting pregnant or see no possible way that they could care for their baby? How many have the means to support themselves for the next 9 months while they wait for birth and give it up for adoption? How many babies have organizations like Nesting Doves saved by providing for the women before and after birth?

We could solve the abortion issue once and for all if we just Norplant all women until the state decides we are fit and have the means to care for a child. Or figure out how to get people to quit having irresponsible sex.

 

[Liberty1911]

TELL ME THE ANSWER. I MUST KNOW

No one really disputes when life begins, except people who are being disingenuous for political reasons.

Life begins at conception. It's not possible for life to "begin" at any other point in the pregnancy.

Now, what some people may really mean is: when is the fetus sentient? when is it a "person"? That's a different question altogether, with no easy answer. This is where I think people become confused and the issue seems gray to them. However, it's completely irrelevant.

We have a Right to Life. Any arbitrary definition of "personhood" is nothing more than an attempt to mitigate that right. It is no less a human right no matter how small, dependent, vulnerable, or void of understanding they are.

Also, this is our first and most important right. All other rights flow from this one. Anyone who cares about human rights should have no equivocation on this issue. Abortion is the denial of the Right to Life of another human being. It is black and white.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Let's be careful when using the word 'condone'.

There is a big difference between condoning an activity and being against a law banning it.

At that point (i.e., accepting that abortion is in fact the murder of a separate and distinct human being) you must favor outlawing all forms of murder including abortion, legalizing all forms of murder, or you are being dishonest. No way out of this one.

 

[steveh_131]

Also, this is our first and most important right. All other rights flow from this one. Anyone who cares about human rights should have no equivocation on this issue. Abortion is the denial of the Right to Life of another human being. It is black and white.

Not sure I agree about the 'right to life'. I don't think that this is a good way to justify government intervention, because it opens the door to things like food stamps and universal health care. This is exactly why the non-aggression principle is a better standard. You don't have the right to enough food to sustain your life. You DO have the right to use your time and energy to earn money to purchase food.

At that point (i.e., accepting that abortion is in fact the murder of a separate and distinct human being) you must favor outlawing all forms of murder including abortion, legalizing all forms of murder, or you are being dishonest. No way out of this one.

Not true. My moral code dictates that both acts are wrong. My political code and my moral code are separate and distinct.

My political code dictates that I should only intervene if it is an initiation of force. Unfortunately, in this case, an act of God has created a situation where two people are initiating force against one another. The mother created a life by force, and the baby is residing inside her by force.

So the question is not whether I think it is right or wrong. The question is whether I think that I should intervene by force. In the case of murder, the answer is simple. In the case of abortion, it is not. So I must also weigh the efficacy of my intervention, among other factors.