Discussion in 'Politics' started by Lightfiend, Jun 18, 2010.
EXCERPT: (please read article for complete argument)
And the abortion debate continues...
A strict liberatrian view on abortion follows most other libertarian traits. It is basically pro choice, but would view some limitations as acceptable. Those such as allowing parental consent laws, and no public funding. The issue you often see is that a portion of the libertarian movement is also devoutly religous, and thier religous views move thier political views away from strict libertariansim.
Before this debate gets heavier my own views on abortion lean towards not wanting to ban it, but I agree with parental consent laws and no public funding of non medical abortions. All the waiting period/sonogram are just efforts to move toward a ban.
To me an abortion for reasons of "not wanting another kid" is an elective cosmetic procedure, i.e. pay for it yourself.
You would think the "strict" narco libertarians would say that killing another person is a violation of their right to privacy, etc etc and would be against it.
But that neglects the essential narcissistic and hedonistic nature of narco libertarians: If it is a bother to me I don't want it.
So it is no surprise that along with opposing things like jury duty and the draft they also oppose rules against killing children.
I can see a libertarian being anti-choice (without compromising libertarian principles) if he believes that personhood, or life if you prefer, begins at conception. In that case I would think that he would support an affirmation of that principle added to the Constitution.
anti choice huh? I guess that makes you anti life then?
That varies on where you believe that life begins. This always comes back to that point. Most people do not believe that life begins at conception. That is a rather simplistic view of human life. I would contend that life does not begin with conception but the formation of a working mind. That puts it sometime in the second trimester. All political views should recognize that there is life before birth and after conception, the real question is where to put that life. It really does not have a libertarian, conservative or liberal side.
The Libertarian Case Against Abortion
One popular misconception is that libertarianism as a political principle supports choice on abortion. And major elements within the libertarian movement (the Libertarian Party, for example) take abortion-choice stands. Nonetheless, libertarianism's basic principle is that each of us has the obligation not to aggress against (violate the rights of) anyone else -- for any reason (personal, social, or political), however worthy. That is a clearly pro-life principle. Recognizing that, and seeing the abortion-choice drift within the libertarian movement, Libertarians for Life was founded in 1976 to show why abortion is a wrong under justice, not a right.
We see our mission as presenting the pro-life case to libertarians and the libertarian case to pro-lifers. Among supporters of LFL, some of us are members of the Libertarian Party, some are not. Some are religious, some are not. (Doris Gordon, our Founder and Coordinator, is a Jewish atheist.) Our reasoning is expressly scientific and philosophical rather than either pragmatic or religious, or merely political or emotional.
To explain and defend our case, LFL argues that:
1. Human offspring are human beings, persons from conception, whether that takes place as natural or artificial fertilization, by cloning, or by any other means.
2. Abortion is homicide -- the killing of one person by another.
3. One's right to control one's own body does not allow violating the obligation not to aggress. There is never a right to kill an innocent person. Prenatally, we are all innocent persons.
4. A prenatal child has the right to be in the mother's body. Parents have no right to evict their children from the crib or from the womb and let them die. Instead both parents, the father as well as the mother, owe them support and protection from harm.
5. No government, nor any individual, has a just power to legally "de-person" any one of us, born or preborn.
6. The proper purpose of the law is to side with the innocent, not against them.
link: Libertarians for Life Homepage
I agree with much of what the blogger said.
I am strongly anti-abortion, which goes against my nature to reduce the size and control of the government. I do view the life of the fetus as being of value and that is why I cannot simply throw up my hands and give up and say that the choice belongs to the woman and the government should mind its own business.
I am certain that most pro-choice people dislike abortion as much as I do. Most of us are people with good hearts and would rather this not be an issue. That does not change the fact, as I see it, that the embryo/fetus or even annoying clump of cells that some want to call it, is still a human being and in my point of view needs to be protected.
Banning abortions is not going to stop abortion and the point about the black market doing so would cause is absolutely correct. That is why overturning Roe won't work and could in fact prove to be much worse in the long run.
That article was well written and worth the read.
That kind of statement never helps to change minds.
NYC and I rarely if ever agree on anything, but I highly doubt he is anti-life. The phrase may sound good or witty, but it defeats the purpose of bringing about debate on the issue.
Separate names with a comma.